[council] Resolution on .wine//vin/GAC Communique from new gTLD program committee meeting on 4 April 2014

[Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-04apr14-en.htm

1.  Main Agenda:

Meeting on 3 April 2014 at 22:00 UTC continued to 4 April 2014 at 21:00 UTC. 
The following resolutions were adopted on 4 April 2014:

a.    Applications for .vin and .wine/ GAC Communiqué - Singapore


Whereas, on 9 September 2013, in a letter to the ICANN Board, the Governmental 
Advisory Committee (GAC) advised the Board that the GAC had finalized its 
consideration of the strings .WINE and .VIN, that there was no GAC consensus 
advice on additional safeguards for .WINE and .VIN, and that the applications 
for .WINE and .VIN should proceed through the normal evaluation process.

Whereas, on 20 November 2013, the GAC issued its Buenos Aires Communiqué, 
wherein it suggested that the Board may wish to seek a clear understanding of 
the legally complex and politically sensitive background on its advice 
regarding .WINE and .VIN in order to consider the appropriate next steps of 
delegating the two strings.

Whereas, the NGPC asked staff to commission an independent legal analysis 
("Independent Legal Analysis") of the legally complex and politically sensitive 
background on the GAC's advice regarding .WINE and .VIN.

Whereas, on 22 March 2014, in Resolution 2014.03.22.NG01, the NGPC "accept[ed] 
the GAC advice identified in the GAC Register of Advice as 2013-09-09-wine and 
vin, and direct[ed] the President and CEO, or his designee, that the 
applications for .WINE and .VIN should proceed through the normal evaluation 
process."

Whereas, as noted in the Rationale of Resolution 2014.03.22.NG01, the NGPC 
considered the Independent Legal Analysis as part of its deliberations on the 
GAC's advice, which is published at 
http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/analysis-wine-vin-22mar14-en.pdf 
[PDF, 771 KB].

Whereas, on 27 March 2014, in the Singapore Communiqué, the GAC noted that 
"there appears to be at least one process violation and procedural error, 
including in relation to ByLaws Article XI-A, Section 1 subsection 6"  in the 
ICANN Board's final deliberation of Resolution 2014.03.22.NG01 and advised that 
the ICANN Board reconsider the matter before delegating these strings.

Whereas, in the Singapore Communiqué, the GAC further advised that "concerned 
GAC members believe the applicants and interested parties should be encouraged 
to continue their negotiations with a view to reach an agreement on the matter."

Whereas, the NGPC has reviewed and considered the matter set forth in the 
Singapore Communiqué, specifically the issue raised by the GAC relating to its 
suggestion of a possible process violation or procedural error under ICANN 
Bylaws Article XI-A, Section 1, subsection 6.

Whereas, the NGPC recognizes that some GAC members remain concerned about the 
.WINE and .VIN applications, and the NGPC recognizes that this is a matter of 
great importance to these GAC members, as well as to the interested applicants 
for these top level domains.

Resolved (2014.04.04.NG01), the NGPC accepts the GAC advice identified in the 
Singapore Communiqué as it relates to the applications for .WINE and .VIN.

Resolved (2014.04.04.NG02), upon having considered the matter set forth in the 
GAC Singapore Communiqué suggesting that there may have been a process 
violation or procedural error, the NGPC concludes that there has been no 
process violation or procedural error under the Bylaws.

Resolved (2014.04.04.NG03), the NGPC directs the President and CEO, or his 
designee, to not commence the contracting process for the applications for 
.WINE and .VIN for 60 days from the date of publication of these resolutions in 
order to provide additional time for the relevant impacted parties to 
negotiate, which they are encouraged to do.

Resolved (2014.04.04.NG04), the NGPC recommends that the full Board consider 
the larger implications of legally complex and politically sensitive issues 
such as those raised by GAC members, including whether ICANN is the proper 
venue in which to resolve these issues, or whether there are venues or forums 
better suited to address concerns such as those raised by GAC members in 
relation to the .WINE and .VIN applications.