[council] GNSO Council Resolutions 24 June 2015

[Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Councillors,

Please find the resolutions passed at the GNSO Council meeting today, Wednesday 
24 June 2015.


  1.  Extension of the term of GNSO Liaison to the Governmental Advisory 
Committee

 Whereas:

  1.  As part of the discussions within ICANN between the GNSO and GAC, on how 
to facilitate early engagement of the GAC in GNSO policy development 
activities, the option of appointing a GNSO liaison to the GAC was proposed as 
one of the mechanisms to explore and implemented as a one-year pilot program in 
FY15 on the recommendation of the GAC-GNSO Consultation Group.
  2.  The GAC and GNSO Council agreed that additional time was needed to fully 
evaluate this pilot program and as such requested, and received, support for 
continuing the pilot program in FY16.
  3.  Mason Cole has been fulfilling the role of GNSO Liaison to the GAC and 
has indicated that he is willing to continue in this role for FY16.
  4.  This mechanism will be evaluated at the end of FY16, by both the GNSO 
Council and the GAC, to determine whether or not to continue in either in the 
same form or with possible adjustments based on the feedback received.

Resolved:

  1.  The GNSO Council hereby extends the term of Mason Cole to the role of 
GNSO Liaison to the Governmental Advisory Committee until 30 June 2016.
  2.  The GNSO Council Leadership Team will co-ordinate with Mason Cole as well 
as the GAC-GNSO Consultation Group on the continued implementation of this role.

2. Adoption of the GNSO Policy and Implementation Working Group Final Report 
and Recommendations

Whereas:

  1.  On 17 July 2013, the GNSO Council approved the charter for a GNSO non-PDP 
Policy and Implementation Working Group 
(http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201307) tasked to provide the 
GNSO Council with a set of recommendations on:
     *   A set of principles that would underpin any GNSO policy and 
implementation related discussions, taking into account existing GNSO Operating 
Procedures.
     *   A process for developing gTLD policy, perhaps in the form of "Policy 
Guidance", including criteria for when it would be appropriate to use such a 
process (for developing policy other than "Consensus Policy") instead of a GNSO 
Policy Development Process.
     *   A framework for implementation related discussions associated with 
GNSO Policy Recommendations.
     *   Criteria to be used to determine when an action should be addressed by 
a policy process and when it should be considered implementation.
     *   Further guidance on how GNSO Implementation Review Teams, as defined 
in the PDP Manual, are expected to function and operate.
  2.  The GNSO Policy and Implementation Working Group published its Initial 
Recommendations Report for public comment on 19 January 2015 (see 
https://www.icann.org/public-comments/policy-implementation-2015-01-19-en).
  3.  The GNSO Policy and Implementation Working Group reviewed the input 
received (see public comment review 
tool<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/43985289/Public%20comment%20review%20tool%20-%20FINAL%2013%20May%202015.doc?version=1&modificationDate=1432671718000&api=v2>)
 and updated the report accordingly.
  4.  The Final Recommendations Report (see 
http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/policy-implementation-recommendations-01jun15-en.pdf),
 which contains a number of recommendations that will require changes to the 
ICANN Bylaws, has obtained the full consensus support of the GNSO Policy and 
Implementation Working Group. The Final Recommendations Report was submitted to 
the GNSO Council for its consideration on 2 June 2015.

Resolved:
1.     The GNSO Council adopts the GNSO Input Process as outlined in Annex C of 
the Final Recommendations Report and instructs ICANN staff to post the new 
version of the GNSO Operating Procedures, effective immediately upon adoption.
2.     The GNSO Council recommends that the ICANN Board of Directors adopt the 
new GNSO Processes as reflected in the Annexes D and E for the GNSO Guidance 
Process and Annexes F and G for the GNSO Expedited Policy Development Process 
as outlined in the Policy & Implementation Final Recommendations Report (see 
http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/policy-implementation-recommendations-01jun15-en.pdf).
3.     The GNSO Council recommends that the GNSO Guidance Process and GNSO 
Expedited Policy Development Process shall be available for use by the GNSO 
Council following adoption of any necessary changes to the ICANN Bylaws by the 
ICANN Board. The GNSO Input Process, which does not require any Bylaw changes, 
will be available for use upon adoption by the GNSO Council.
4.     The GNSO Council adopts the recommendation to add a provision to the 
GNSO Operating Procedures that clarifies that parallel efforts on 
similar/identical topics should be avoided as outlined in recommendation #3 of 
the Final Recommendations Report. The GNSO Council instructs ICANN staff to 
post the new version of the GNSO Operating Procedures immediately upon adoption 
by the ICANN Board of the GNSO Guidance Process and GNSO Expedited Policy 
Development Process per resolved clause 3.
5.     The GNSO Council adopts the 'Policy & Implementation Principles / 
Requirements' as outlined in section 4 of the Final Recommendations Report and 
recommends that the ICANN Board of Directors also (a) adopts these principles / 
requirements and (b) instructs ICANN staff to follow these accordingly to help 
guide any future GNSO policy and implementation related work.
6.     The GNSO Council adopts recommendation #4 of the Final Recommendations 
Report to modify the PDP Manual to require the creation of an Implementation 
Review Team following the adoption of the PDP recommendations by the ICANN 
Board, and instructs ICANN staff to post the new version of the GNSO Operating 
Procedures immediately upon adoption.
7.     The GNSO Council adopts the 'Implementation Review Team Principles & 
Guidelines' as outlined in Annex L of the Final Recommendations Report and 
recommends that (a) the ICANN Board of Directors also adopts these principles & 
guidelines and (b) instructs ICANN staff to follow these accordingly to guide 
GNSO policy related implementation efforts.
8.     The GNSO Council thanks the Policy & Implementation Working Group for 
its efforts and recommends that the working group is formally closed upon 
adoption by the ICANN Board of these recommendations while still allowing the 
working group to provide input to the GNSO Council and implementation staff 
should any questions or issues arise before or after that time.
9.     The GNSO Council recommends that a review of these recommendations is 
carried out at the latest five years following their implementation to assess 
whether the recommendations have achieved what they set out to do and/or 
whether any further enhancements or changes are needed.



 3.  Adoption of the GNSO Translation and Transliteration of Contact 
Information PDP Working Group Final Report and Recommendations

Whereas

1.     On 13 June 2013, the GNSO Council launched a Policy Development Process 
(PDP) on Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information 
[http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201306] addressing the following 
two Charter questions:

a)     Whether it is desirable to translate contact information to a single 
common language or transliterate contact information to a single common script.

b)     Who should decide who should bear the burden translating contact 
information to a single common language or transliterating contact information 
to a single common script.

2.     This PDP has followed the prescribed PDP steps as stated in the Bylaws, 
resulting in a Final Report delivered on 12 June 2015;

3.     The Translation and Transliteration PDP has reached consensus on one 
recommendation and full consensus on the six remaining recommendations in 
relation to the two issues outlined above;

4.     The GNSO Council has reviewed and discussed these recommendations.

Resolved,

1.     The GNSO Council recommends to the ICANN Board of Directors the adoption 
of the recommendations (#1 through #7) as detailed in the Translation and 
Transliteration of Contact Information Final 
Report<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/53779599/Final%20Report%20Final%20%2528with%20links%20working%2529.pdf>.

       2.  On 21 June, the Translation and Transliteration PDP Working Group 
Working Group notified the Council of a clerical error in the text of 
Recommendation #4 of the Final Report, which has been edited as follows: "The 
Working Group recommends that, regardless of the language(s)/script(s) used, it 
is assured that the data fields are consistent to standards in the Registrar 
Accreditation Agreement (RAA), relevant Consensus Policy, Additional Whois 
Information Policy (AWIP) and any other applicable polices. Entered contact 
information data are [verified] validated, in accordance with the 
aforementioned Policies and Agreements and the language/script used must be 
easily identifiable." The Recommendation with the corrected text has reached 
full consensus in the Working Group because the correction is needed to reflect 
the substance of Working Group's deliberations documented in the Final Report. 
The corrected Final Report has been posted to the GNSO Council and posted to 
the GNSO Website: 
http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/transliteration-contact

 3.   The GNSO Council shall convene a Translation and Transliteration of 
Contact information Implementation Review Team to assist ICANN Staff in 
developing the implementation details for the new policy should it be approved 
by the ICANN Board. The Implementation Review Team will be tasked with 
evaluating the proposed implementation of the policy recommendations as 
approved by the Board and is expected to work with ICANN Staff to ensure that 
the resultant implementation fulfills the intentions of the approved policies. 
If the Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information Review Team 
identifies any potential modifications to the policy or new policy 
recommendations, the Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information 
Implementation Review Team shall refer these to the GNSO Council for its 
consideration and follow-up, as appropriate. Following adoption by the ICANN 
Board of the recommendations, the GNSO Secretariat is authorized to issue a 
call for volunteers for a Translation and Transliteration of Contact 
Information Implementation Review Team to the members of Translation and 
Transliteration of Contact Information PDP Working Group.

       4. Request for a Preliminary Issue Report on New gTLDs Subsequent Rounds



    Whereas,

1. In 2005, this Council of the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) 
began a policy development process to consider the introduction of new gTLDs, 
which resulted in the creation of certain policy recommendations for the launch 
of a new gTLD application process; and,



2. In September 2007, this Council adopted the policy recommendations from the 
GNSO policy development process and forwarded them to the ICANN Board of 
Directors; and,



3. The Final Report stated that " This policy development process has been 
designed to produce a systemised and ongoing mechanism for applicants to 
propose new top-level domains."



4. In June 2008, the ICANN Board adopted the GNSO's policy recommendations for 
the introduction of new gTLDs and directed staff to develop an implementation 
plan for a new gTLD introduction process; and



5. In June 2011, the ICANN Board approved an Application Guidebook ("AGB") for 
new gTLDs and authorized the launch of the New gTLD Program; and,



6. In June 2012, the first round application submission period closed; and,



7. In June 2014, this Council created the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures 
Discussion Group (DG) to discuss experiences gained and lessons learned from 
the 2012 New gTLD round and identify subjects for future issue reports, that 
may lead to changes or adjustments for subsequent procedures; and,



8. In August 2014, the DG began deliberations, focusing primarily on the 
identification of issues that members experienced in the 2012 New gTLD round; 
and,



9. In November 2014, the ICANN Board provided initial input on areas for 
possible policy work in Annex A related to a resolution on Planning for Future 
gTLD Application Rounds.



10. The DG developed a matrix which attempts to associate identified issues 
with a corresponding principle, policy recommendation or implementation 
guidance from the 2007 Final Report on New Generic Top-Level Domains, or to 
note that the issue may warrant new policy work. Furthermore, the DG developed 
a draft PDP WG charter that identifies subjects, divided into provisional 
groupings, for further analysis in a potential Issue Report and potential PDP; 
and,



11. The DG recommends that its set of deliverables serve as the basis for 
analysis in a single Issue Report.



Now therefore, it is resolved:



1. The GNSO Council requests a single Issue Report that will analyze subjects 
that may lead to changes or adjustments for subsequent New gTLD Procedures. The 
Preliminary Issue Report should at a minimum consider:

*  The subjects that the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Discussion Group 
identified in its deliverables (i.e., issues matrix and draft charter);

*  Global Domains Division Staff input to the deliberations of the DG, and;

*  The ICANN Board Resolution Annex A regarding Initial Input on Areas for 
Possible Policy work.

           5. Adopted the Final Transition Proposal of the Cross Community 
Working Group on Naming-Related Functions  (CWG-Stewardship)


Whereas;

  1.  The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) has 
requested that ICANN "convene a multistakeholder process to develop a plan to 
transition the U.S. government stewardship role" with regard to the IANA 
Functions and related root zone management.
  2.  On June 6 2014, ICANN proposed the creation of an IANA Stewardship 
Transition Coordination Group (ICG) "responsible for preparing a transition 
proposal reflecting the differing needs of the various affected parties of the 
IANA functions."
  3.  It was determined that the transition proposal should be developed within 
the directly affected communities (i.e. the IETF for development of standards 
for Internet Protocol Parameters; the NRO, the ASO, and the RIRs for functions 
related to the management and distribution of numbering resources; and the GNSO 
and ccNSO for functions related to the Domain Name System). These efforts would 
inform the work of the ICG, whose responsibility would be to fashion an overall 
integrated transition proposal from these autonomously developed components.
  4.  The GNSO, ccNSO, SSAC, GAC and ALAC chartered a Cross Community Working 
Group to develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related 
Functions.
  5.  On 1 December 2014, the CWG-Stewardship published its first draft 
proposal for public comment. The CWG-Stewardship reviewed the comments, then 
received and updated its proposal accordingly, resulting in a second Draft 
Proposal<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cwg-stewardship-draft-proposal-with-annexes-22apr15-en.pdf>
  which was published for public comment on 22 April 2015.
  6.  After closure of the public comment period on the second draft proposal, 
the CWG-Stewardship reviewed all comments received, and, where appropriate, 
prepared responses to the comments received and took the input as input for the 
deliberations to finalize the proposals (see 
https://community.icann.org/x/x5o0Aw).
  7.  Based on the second proposal and further discussion by the full 
CWG-Stewardship and Design Teams, taking into account the public comment 
analysis, the Final Proposal<https://community.icann.org/x/aJ00Aw> was 
developed and submitted to the chartering organizations for consideration on 11 
June 2015.
  8.  As noted in the Final Proposal, the CWG-Stewardship proposal is 
significantly dependent and expressly conditioned on the implementation of 
ICANN-level accountability mechanisms by the Cross Community Working Group on 
Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) as described below. The 
co-chairs of the CWG-Stewardship and the CCWG-Accountability have coordinated 
their efforts and the CWG-Stewardship is confident that the CCWG-Accountability 
recommendations, if implemented as envisaged, will meet the requirements that 
the CWG-Stewardship has previously communicated to the CCWG. If any element of 
these ICANN level accountability mechanisms is not implemented as contemplated 
by the CWG-Stewardship proposal, this Final Proposal will require revision.

Resolved:

  1.  The GNSO Council approves the CWG-Stewardship Final 
Proposal<https://community.icann.org/x/aJ00Aw>  and its submission to the IANA 
Stewardship Transition Coordination Group.
  2.  The GNSO Council approval is provided on the  basis that the 
CWG-Stewardship Final Proposal is conditional on the ICANN-level accountability 
mechanisms (Work Stream 1) being developed by the CCWG-Accountability and 
moreover that:
     *   Such mechanisms will need to be approved by the GNSO Council and;
     *   Such mechanisms will need to be approved by the ICANN Board and;
     *   All required bylaws amendments will need to be adopted before the 
transition and;
     *   All other required implementation will need to be completed before the 
transition or, if not implemented beforehand, that there will be irrevocable 
commitments of such implementation to be complete within a reasonable time 
period after the transition, not to exceed one year.
  3.  Following the submission of the Final Report of the CCWG-Accountability 
on Work Stream 1 and subsequent GNSO Council consideration, the GNSO Council 
will communicate the results of its deliberations on the CCWG-Accountability 
Final Proposal on Work Stream 1; including to the ICG, ICANN Board and NTIA, as 
necessary, and thereby confirm whether or not the conditionality requirements 
as set out in the CWG-Stewardship Final Proposal have been met from a GNSO 
perspective.
  4.  In the event that the CCWG-Accountability mechanisms fail to meet the 
conditions in the CWG Stewardship Final Report, the GNSO Council must formally 
reconsider any material revisions to the CWG-Stewardship Final Proposal that 
may be made as a result of such failure by the CCWG Accountability to meet the 
stated conditionality.
  5.  The GNSO Council thanks the CWG-Stewardship for all its hard work and 
recommends that the CWG-Stewardship is only formally closed upon submission by 
the ICANN Board of the final transition proposal to the NTIA, thus allowing the 
CWG-Stewardship to provide input to the ICG and/or GNSO Council should any 
questions or issues arise before that time.

Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thank you.

Kind regards,
Glen

Glen de Saint Géry
GNSO Secretariat
gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
http://gnso.icann.org<http://gnso.icann.org/>