Council Resolutions 1999 - 2019

20191219-1

Consent agenda

• Motion to adopt the GNSO Council response to the GAC Communique.
• Confirmation of Anne Aikman-Scalese as one of the GNSO appointees to the CCWG Auction Proceeds (no motion required)

Adoption of the GNSO Council Review of ICANN66 GAC Communiqué for submission to the ICANN Board

Whereas,

1. The Governmental Advisory Committee advises the ICANN Board on issues of public policy, and especially where there may be an interaction between ICANN's activities or policies and national laws or international agreements. It usually does so as part of a Communiqué, which is published towards the end of every ICANN meeting.
2. The GNSO is responsible for developing and recommending to the ICANN Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains.
3. The GNSO Council has expressed a desire to provide feedback to the ICANN Board on issues in the GAC Communiqué as these relate to generic top-level domains to inform the ICANN Board as well as the broader community of past, present or future gTLD policy activities that may directly or indirectly relate to advice provided by the GAC.
4. The GNSO Council hopes that the input provided through its review of the GAC Communiqué will further enhance the co-ordination and promote the sharing of information on gTLD related policy activities between the GAC, Board and the GNSO.

Resolved,

1. The GNSO Council adopts the GNSO Council Review of the Montréal GAC Communiqué (see https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/review-gac-communique-09dec19-en.pdf) and requests that the GNSO Council Chair communicate the GNSO Council Review of the Montréal GAC Communiqué to the ICANN Board.
2. The GNSO Council requests that the GNSO Chair also informs the GAC Chair of the communication between the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board.

Vote Results

20191219-2

Consent agenda

• Motion for the confirmation of GNSO representative to the Empowered Community Administration

Motion - Confirmation of GNSO Representative to the Empowered Community Administration

Whereas,

1. The GNSO Council confirmed in November 2019 that the GNSO Chair (currently Keith Drazek) will represent the GNSO as the Decisional Participant on the Empowered Community (EC) Administration on an interim basis.
2. The GNSO Council leadership team subsequently met to agree who from the Council leadership should perform the role of GNSO representative to the Empowered Community Administration and communicated this decision to the Council mailing list on 9 December 2019.

Resolved,

1. The GNSO Council hereby confirms that Keith Drazek, GNSO Chair will represent the GNSO as the Decisional Participant on the Empowered Community Administration until the end of his term at ICANN69.
2. The GNSO representative shall act solely as directed by the GNSO Council in accordance with the ICANN Bylaws and other related GNSO Operating Procedures.
3. The GNSO Council requests the GNSO Secretariat to communicate this decision to the ICANN Secretary which will serve as the required written certification from the GNSO Chair designating the individual who shall represent the Decisional Participant on the EC Administration

Vote results

20191219-3

Motion - EPDP Phase 1 GNSO Council Supplemental Recommendation

Whereas,

1. On 17 May 2018, the ICANN Board adopted the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data (Temporary Specification) pursuant to the procedures in the Registry Agreement and Registrar Accreditation Agreement concerning the establishment of temporary policies;
2. Following the adoption of the Temporary Specification, and per the procedure for Temporary Policies as outlined in the Registry Agreement and Registrar Accreditation Agreement, aConsensus Policy development process as set forth in ICANN's Bylaws needs to be initiated immediately and completed within a one-year time period from the effective date (25 May 2018) of the Temporary Specification;
3. The Generic NamesSupporting Organization (GNSO) Council approved the Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP) Initiation Request (https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/temp-spec-gtld-rd-epdp-initiation-request-19jul18-en.pdf) and the EPDP Team Charter (https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/temp-spec-gtld-rd-epdp-19jul18-en.pdf) on 19 July 2018;
4. The EPDP followed the prescribed EPDP procedures as stated in the Bylaws and delivered its Phase 1 Final Report on 20 February 2019;
5. The EPDP Team reached consensus on all but two Recommendations in relation to the issues outlined in the Charter;
6. TheGNSO Council reviewed and discussed the Recommendations of the EPDP Team and approved all Recommendations on 4 March 2019 by a GNSO Supermajority vote (see https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20190304-1);
7. The ICANN Board did not adopt Recommendation 1, Purpose 2, and Recommendation 12, with respect to the option to delete data in the Organization field and provided its rationale in the Board resolution (see https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2019-05-15-en#1.b) as well as a formal Board Statement incorporating the rationale for discussion, as specified in Annex A-1, Section 6 of the ICANNBylaws (see https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/chalaby-to-drazek-15may19-en.pdf);
8. The ICANN Bylaws foresee that in case of non-adoption, "the Council shall review the Board Statement for discussion with the Board as soon as feasible after the Council's receipt of the Board Statement". The GNSO Council discussed this topic during its Council meetings on 28 May 2019, 26 June 2019, 18 July 2019, 22 August 2019, 24 October 2019 and 6 November 2019, with the ICANN Board during its joint sessions at ICANN65 and ICANN66, as well as in an exchange of letters (see https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/gnso-council-to-icann-board-09sep19-en.pdf and https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/chalaby-to-drazek-14oct19-en.pdf);
9. The GNSO Council also solicited and considered the input from the EPDP Team (see https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/2019-May/001941.html, https://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/karklins-to-drazek-09jun19-en.pdf and https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/2019-October/002737.html).

Resolved,

1. The GNSO Council has concluded that concerning Recommendation 1, Purpose 2, this is firmly within the scope of the EPDP Team to address as part of its phase 2 deliberations as the original language was already flagged as a placeholder pending further consideration during phase 2. As such, the Council will not take further action in the context of Annex A-1 Section 6 of the ICANN Bylaws and accept the Board's non-adoption
2. In relation to Recommendation 12, with respect to the option to delete data in the Organization field, the GNSO Council adopts the following Supplemental Recommendation reaffirming the part of the original Recommendation #12 and the Implementation Advice which stated that: "b) If the registrant declines, or does not respond to the query, the Registrar may redact the Organization field, or delete the field contents." (emphasis added) but hereby providing additional implementation guidance: similar to what was recommended in Recommendation 29 in the context of the deletion of administrative contact, prior to eliminating Organization Contact fields, all Registrars MUST ensure that each registration contains Registered Name Holder contact information.
3. The GNSO Council Chair is requested to communicate this Supplemental Recommendation to the ICANN Board.

Vote results

20191127-1

Motion to Support the Approval Action pertaining to the Fundamental Bylaws Amendment regarding the IANA Naming Function Review Team Composition

Whereas:

1. Due to changing composition of the ccNSO in the years since the IANA Stewardship Transition, the ccNSO Council had difficulty locating a non-ccNSO ccTLD representative to the IANA Naming Function Review Team (IFR Team) as required by Section 18.7(b) of the ICANN Bylaws. As a result, this significantly delayed the completion of composition of the IFR Team, and this same difficulty is anticipated to arise for future IANA Naming Function Reviews.
2. On 12 April 2019 the ccNSO Council requested the ICANN Board to initiate an amendment to the ICANN Bylaws to remedy this situation, and proposed language for such amendment. Per ICANN Board request, the proposed amendment to Section 18.7 of the ICANN Bylaws was posted for public comment from 10 June – 9 August 2019. Six comments were received, and no commenters were opposed to the amendment.
3. On 8 September 2019, the ICANN Board approved the amendment to the Fundamental Bylaws at Article 18, Section 18.7 regarding IANA Naming Function Review Team composition.
4. The amended Bylaws at Article 18, Section 18.7 reads the following: "(a) Three representatives who are associated with ccTLD managers, appointed by the ccNSO Council. Representatives need not be associated with a ccNSO member. The ccNSO Council should use an inclusive process, which is open to all ccTLD managers, independent of their membership to the ccNSO. It is strongly recommended that the ccNSO Council reaches out to all ccTLD managers directly and or through regional ccTLD organizations (i.e., AfTLD, APTLD, LACTLD, and CENTR) in seeking volunteers." The other portions of Section 18.7 are renumbered as a result of this modification. The full redline of the Board approved changes to Section 18.7 is available here.
5. Per Annex D, Section 1.3(c) of the ICANN Bylaws, the Approval Action Community Forum pertaining to the Fundamental Bylaws amendment regarding the IANA Naming Function Review Team Composition convened, at the request of the Empowered Community, during ICANN's 66th public meeting on Sunday, 3 November at 8:00-9:00 am EST.
6. The Approval Action Community Forum Period pertaining to the Fundamental Bylaws amendment regarding the IANA Naming Function Review Team Composition has expired on 7 November 2019 at 11:59 pm EST.
7. Per Annex D, Section 1.4(a) of the ICANN Bylaws, at any time or date prior to 11:59 p.m. PST on Thursday 28 November 2019, with respect to the Fundamental Bylaws amendment regarding the IANA Naming Function Review Team Composition, each Decisional Participant shall inform the EC Administration in writing as to whether such Decisional Participant (i) supports such Approval Action, (ii) objects to such Approval Action or (iii) has determined to abstain from the matter (which shall not count as supporting or objecting to such Approval Action), and each Decisional Participant shall forward such notice to the Secretary for ICANN to promptly post on the Website.
8. From 07 November 2019 to 19 November 2019, the GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies had the opportunity to provide feedback, opinions or comments on the merits of the Approval Action prior to the GNSO Council vote to decide its support, objection to, or abstention from the matter.
9. Per Section 11.3(j)(iv) of the ICANN Bylaws, amendments to Fundamental Bylaws requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority.
10. Per Section 11.3(i) of the ICANN Bylaws, GNSO Supermajority means: (A) two-thirds (2/3) of the Council members of each House, or (B) three-fourths (3/4) of the Council members of one House and a majority of the Council members of the other House.

Resolved:

1. The GNSO Council supports the Approval Action pertaining to the Fundamental Bylaws amendment regarding the IANA Naming Function Review Team Composition that was approved by the ICANN Board.
2. The GNSO Council requests the GNSO Representative on the EC Administration to promptly inform the EC Administration, the other Decisional Participants, and the ICANN Corporate Secretary about the GNSO Council's decision with respect to the Approval Action.

Vote results

20191106-1

Consent Agenda

Reappointment of GNSO Council 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 initially piloted in FY15 and F16, and subsequently confirmed by the GNSO Council as a permanent role at the start of FY17.
2. The GNSO Council appointed Julf Helsingius to the role of GNSO Liaison to the Governmental Advisory Committee on 24 October 2018, until the end of the ICANN AGM 2019.
3. The GNSO Council has an obligation to review the role annually and reconfirm the appointment unless the review indicates otherwise and/or the Liaison has indicated that he/she is no longer available to continue in this role, in which case a new selection process will take place.
4. The GNSO Council leadership has met with Julf Helsingius to discuss his experience and to confirm that he is willing to continue in this role.
5. The GNSO Council has reviewed the annual report prepared by the GNSO Liaison to the GAC (see https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/gac-liaison-annual-02oct19-en.pdf).

Resolved:

1. The GNSO Council hereby reappoints Julf Helsingius to the role of GNSO Liaison to the Governmental Advisory Committee until the end of the ICANN AGM 2020.
2. The GNSO Council leadership team will inform the GAC leadership team accordingly, and will co-ordinate with Julf Helsingius as well as the GAC leadership team and GAC Secretariat on next steps and the continued successful implementation of this role.

Vote results

20191106-2

Consent agenda

Approval of new IANA Naming Function SLA: Publication of LGRs

Whereas,

1. The Customer Standing Committee (CSC) and Public Technical Identifiers (PTI) recently agreed on a procedure to amend SLAs (see: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-naming-function-sla-amendment-process-28mar19-en.pdf).
2. Recently, the CSC and PTI have agreed to establish a set of new SLAs for the publication of the Internationalized Domain Name (IDN) tables and Label Generation Rulesets (LGRs) in the IDN Practices Repository (see https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/new-slas-publication-lgr-idn-change-analysis-24oct19-en.pdf for the SLA change request: new SLA for Publication of LGRs).
3. The GNSO Council was notified on 18 October 2019 (see https://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/new-slas-publication-lgr-idn-change-analysis-24oct19-en.pdf) that this change request is now ready for approval by the ccNSO and GNSO Councils, which is required before implementation will start.
4. The GNSO Council has reviewed the proposed SLA change request and discussed the proposed SLA change with the ccNSO Council during its joint session at ICANN66.

Resolved,

1. The GNSO Council approves the SLA change request: new SLA for publication of LGRs (https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/new-slas-publication-lgr-idn-change-analysis-24oct19-en.pdf) and will inform the ccNSO accordingly.
2. The GNSO Chair will work on a joint communication with the ccNSO Council to inform the CSC that the SLA change request: new SLA for publication of LGRs has been approved and should now be implemented.

Vote results

20191106-3

MOTION TO APPROVE GUIDELINES & MOTION TEMPLATES FOR GNSO ROLE IN THE EMPOWERED COMMUNITY

WHEREAS:

1. On 27 May 2016 the ICANN Board adopted a set of new ICANN Bylaws, as revised on 26 May 2016, that aimed to reflect changes needed to implement the IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal and such adoption is contingent on the proposed transition away of remaining United States Government oversight of ICANN.
2. Per the motion adopted on 30 June 2016, the GNSO sought volunteers for a Bylaws Implementation Drafting Team to provide the GNSO Council with recommendations for any necessary updates to the GNSO Operating Procedures, or possibly the Bylaws as they relate to the GNSO, arising as a result of the revised ICANN Bylaws that were adopted in May 2016.
3. In addition, the GNSO Council requested that the Drafting Team should determine what (if any) existing GNSO processes can be used to address any new or additional obligation, and if there are none, whether an existing process can be modified or if a new process needs to be created.
4. Following the adoption by the GNSO Council of the revised GNSO Operating Procedures resulting from the Drafting Team's recommendations, as well as the proposed modifications to the ICANN Bylaws adopted by the ICANN Board of Directors on 13 May 2018, staff sought guidance from the GNSO Council as to how to proceed with the next steps relating to proposed steps to be taken to ensure preparedness as well as facilitate the ability for the GNSO Council to act in relation to the new roles and responsibilities outlined in the post-transition Bylaws.
5. At ICANN63 in October 2018 the GNSO Council agreed that a Call for Volunteers should be issued to reconstitute the Drafting Team to develop guidance and principles for the GNSO to complete a particular action(s) that fall within the GNSO's existing processes and procedures, but where additional details and steps are deemed to be helpful, relating to participation of the GNSO within the Empowered Community.
6. In January 2019, the Drafting Team was established to develop guidelines, including any recommendations for changes to GNSO Operating Procedures if applicable, that clarify additional details or steps related to a particular action to be completed by the GNSO that falls within its existing process or procedure. These guidelines are meant to help the GNSO effectively participate as a Decision Participant in the Empowered Community in accordance with the post-transition ICANN Bylaws.

7. For consideration by the GNSO Council at its meetings on 24 October 2019 and 06 November 2019, the Drafting Team provided the following guidelines and motion templates to ensure preparedness as well as facilitate the ability for the GNSO Council to act in relation to the new roles and responsibilities outlined in the post-transition Bylaws:

   Approval Action Community Forum & Decision Whether to Approve an Approval Action

   Petition Process for Specific Actions & Rejection Action Community Forum

   Nominating Committee Director Removal Process
   SO/AC Director Removal Process
   Board Recall Process
   Independent Review Process (IRP) for Covered ICANN Actions & Community IRP

   Guidelines for GNSO-ccNSO Joint Consultation on Initiation of a Special IFR

   Section 18.12 Special IANA Function Reviews (IFRs) - Guideline for GNSO Internal Review Process

8. The guidelines and motion templates fall within the GNSO's existing processes and procedures, and thus do not require any changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures or its Annexes.

RESOLVED:

1. The GNSO Council adopts the guidelines and motion templates to ensure preparedness as well as facilitate the ability for the GNSO Council to act in relation to the new roles and responsibilities outlined in the post-transition ICANN Bylaws.
2. The GNSO Council recognizes that as a consequence of the review by ICANN Legal, non-substantive technical updates or corrections may be provided for the guidelines and motion templates after adoption.
3. The GNSO Council instructs ICANN staff to post the guidelines and motion templates on the GNSO's website effective immediately upon adoption after the technical update has been completed.
4. The GNSO Council requests that after an action of the GNSO as a Decisional Participant has been completed, the GNSO Council shall review the respective guidelines and motion templates relating to that action, or on an annual basis if no action is initiated for all guidelines and motions.

Vote results

20191024-1

Consent agenda

MOTION TO APPROVE PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO GNSO OPERATING PROCEDURES RELATING TO ELECTION OF BOARD SEAT NO. 14

Made by Rafik Dammak

Seconded by Michele Neylon

WHEREAS:

1. The ICANN Bylaws, Section 11.3(f) specify that the Non-Contracted Parties House (NCPH) shall select a nominee to fill Board Seat #14.
2. During the 2018 NCPH Intersessional Meeting in Los Angeles, NCPH delegates agreed to develop a list of intra-House processes for the selection of a representative to fill Board Seat #14, to be jointly approved by the CSG and NCSG.
3. Based on the NCPH's mandate as described in the ICANN Bylaws, and the requirement under the GNSO Operating Procedures that these procedures be included as a documented Annex, draft procedures were developed by the delegates and shared with their respective communities, for vetting and internal feedback, prior to formal adoption by the CSG and NCSG.
4. As required by the ICANN Bylaws, a public comment forum on the proposed modifications was opened on 03 June 2019 and closed on 24 June 2019 with a summary report published on 08 July 2019 that noted that the two (2) comments received both supported the adoption of the NCPH's proposed election procedures.
5. As there was support in the public comment forum for the proposal modifications, the NCPH has submitted them to the GNSO Council for consideration and approval.

RESOLVED:

1. The GNSO Council adopts the modifications to the GNSO Operating Procedures relating to the NCPH's proposed election procedures for Board seat #14.
2. The GNSO Council instructs ICANN staff to post the new version of the GNSO Operating Procedures, effective immediately upon adoption.

Vote results

20191014-1

Approval of the 2019 slate of Members and Liaisons on the Customer Standing Committee (CSC)

Submitted by Keith Drazek

Seconded by Rafik Dammak

Approval of the Members and Liaisons of the Customer Standing Committee (CSC)

Whereas,

1. The GNSO Council was notified [https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2019-October/023093.html] on 2 October 2019 by ICANN Org that the ccNSO and RySG have appointed Alejandra Reynoso and Dmitry Burkov to serve as members of the CSC for the period 2019-2021; the ALAC has re-appointed Holly Raiche to continue service as a liaison to the CSC through 2019-2021; and the GNSO has re-appointed James Gannon to serve as a liaison to the CSC for the period 2019-2021;
2. In accordance with Section 17.2.d of the ICANN Bylaws, "... the ccNSO and GNSO shall approve each annual slate of members and liaisons being recommended for a new term";
3. The CSC Charter provides that "… while it will not be the role of the ccNSO and GNSO to question the validity of any recommended appointments to the CSC they will take into account the overall composition of the proposed CSC in terms of geographic diversity and skill sets"; and
4. The GNSO Council has reviewed the list of CSC members and liaisons.

Resolved,

1. The GNSO Council approves the full slate of members and liaisons:

   Members:

   Alejandra Reynoso (LAC)
   Appointing Organization: ccNSO
   Term: 2019 - 2021

   Brett Carr (Temporary vice-Chair) (EU)
   Appointing Organization: ccNSO
   Expected Term: 2018 - 2020

   Dmitry Burkov (EU)
   Appointing Organization: RySG
   Term: 2019 - 2021

   Gaurav Vedi (NA)
   Appointing Organization: RySG
   Expected Term: 2018 - 2020

    

   Liaisons:

   Lars-Johan Liman, (Chair)
   Appointing Organization: RSSAC
   Expected Term: 2018 - 2020

   Nigel CassimIre,
   Appointing Organization: GAC
   Expected Term: 2019 - 2020

   Holly Raiche, re-appointed
   Appointing Organization: ALAC
   Term: 2019 - 2021

   James Gannon, re-appointed
   Appointing Organization: GNSO (Non-Registry)
   Term: 2019 - 2021

   Naela Sarras
   Appointing Organization: PTI
   Term: no term limit

   SSAC has declined to appoint a liaison as of the 01 October 2019 slate. (see also: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/creamer-to-drazek-01oct19-en.pdf)

2. The GNSO Council requests that the GNSO Secretariat notify ICANN Org no later than 30 October 2019 that the GNSO has approved the full list of CSC liaisons and members.

Vote results

20190718-1

Consent Agenda

Adoption of the GNSO Council Review of GAC Communiqué for submission to the ICANN Board

Whereas,

1. The Governmental Advisory Committee advises the ICANN Board on issues of public policy, and especially where there may be an interaction between ICANN's activities or policies and national laws or international agreements. It usually does so as part of a Communiqué, which is published towards the end of every ICANN meeting.
2. The GNSO is responsible for developing and recommending to the ICANN Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains.
3. The GNSO Council has expressed a desire to provide feedback to the ICANN Board on issues in the GAC Communiqué as these relate to generic top-level domains to inform the ICANN Board as well as the broader community of past, present or future gTLD policy activities that may directly or indirectly relate to advice provided by the GAC.
4. The GNSO Council hopes that the input provided through its review of the GAC Communiqué will further enhance the co-ordination and promote the sharing of information on gTLD related policy activities between the GAC, Board and the GNSO.

Resolved,

1. The GNSO Council adopts the GNSO Council Review of the Marrakech GAC Communiqué (see [https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/review-gac-communique-18jul19-en.pdf) and requests that the GNSO Council Chair communicate the GNSO Council Review of the Marrakech GAC Communiqué to the ICANN Board.
2. The GNSO Council requests that the GNSO Chair also informs the GAC Chair of the communication between the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board.

Vote results

20190516-1

Consent Agenda

• Confirmation of Julf Helsingius to serve on the CCWG on New gTLD Auction Proceeds, replacing Stephanie Perrin
• Confirmation of the Recommendations Report to the ICANN Board regarding adoption of recommendations 1-4 contained in the Final Report from the IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms PDP (https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/council-recommendations-pdp-igo-ingo-crp-access-final-16may19-en.pdf)

Vote results

20190418-1

Consent Agenda

• Motion to adopt the GNSO Council response to the GAC Communique
• Confirmation of the Recommendations Report to the ICANN Board regarding adoption of the Final Report from the Expedited PDP on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data PDP WG, Phase 1.
• Approval of the suggested amendments to the GNSO's Fellowship Selection criteria. (see https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/fellowship-application-criteria-13apr19-en.pdf)

Motion vote: Adoption of the GNSO Council Review of GAC Communiqué for submission to the ICANN Board

Whereas,

1. The Governmental Advisory Committee advises the ICANN Board on issues of public policy, and especially where there may be an interaction between ICANN's activities or policies and national laws or international agreements. It usually does so as part of a Communiqué, which is published towards the end of every ICANN meeting.
2. The GNSO is responsible for developing and recommending to the ICANN Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains.
3. The GNSO Council has expressed a desire to provide feedback to the ICANN Board on issues in the GAC Communiqué as these relate to generic top-level domains to inform the ICANN Board as well as the broader community of past, present or future gTLD policy activities that may directly or indirectly relate to advice provided by the GAC.
4. The GNSO Council hopes that the input provided through its review of the GAC Communiqué will further enhance the co-ordination and promote the sharing of information on gTLD related policy activities between the GAC, Board and the GNSO.

Resolved,

1. The GNSO Council adopts the GNSO Council Review of the Kobe GAC Communiqué (see https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/review-gac-communique-18apr19-en.pdf) and requests that the GNSO Council Chair communicate the GNSO Council Review of the Kobe GAC Communiqué to the ICANN Board.
2. The GNSO Council requests that the GNSO Chair also informs the GAC Chair of the communication between the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board.

Vote results

20190418-2

Council vote: Approval of the appointment of Janis Karklins as Chair for the Expedited Policy Development Process Team on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data

Specification for gTLD Registration Data. (see: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2019-April/022561.html). Note: Removed from the Consent Agenda (by Councilor request).

Vote results

20190418-3

Motion vote: Approval of the Final Report From the GNSO PDP Working Group on the IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms

WHEREAS:

1. On 9 July 2018, the Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group on International Governmental Organizations (IGO) and International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGO) Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms submitted its Final Report to the GNSO Council. The Final Report contains five policy recommendations, namely:

   Recommendation 1(a): For INGOs (including the Red Cross movement and the International Olympic Committee), no substantive changes to the UDRP and URS are to be made, and no specific new dispute resolution procedures are to be created.

   Recommendation 1(b): For IGOs, no specific new dispute resolution procedures are to be created.

   Recommendation 2: The Working Group notes that an IGO may seek to demonstrate that it has the requisite standing to file a complaint under the UDRP or URS by showing that it has complied with the requisite communication and notification procedure in accordance with Article 6ter of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property. An IGO may consider this to be an option where it does not have a registered trademark or service mark in its name and/or acronym but believes it has certain unregistered trademark or service mark rights for which it must adduce factual evidence to show that it nevertheless has substantive legal rights in the name and/or acronym in question.

   In this regard, the Working Group recommends that specific Policy Guidance on this topic be issued by ICANN to clarify the following points: (a) this alternative mechanism for standing is not needed in a situation where an IGO already holds trademark or service mark rights in its name and/or acronym, as the IGO would in such a case proceed in the same way as a nonIGO trademark owner; (b) whether or not compliance with Article 6ter will be considered determinative of standing is a decision to be made by the UDRP or URS panelist(s) based on the facts of each case; and (c) the possibility that an IGO may seek to rely on its compliance with Article 6ter to demonstrate standing should not modify or affect any of the existing grounds which UDRP and/or URS panelists have previously found sufficient for IGO standing (e.g. based on statutes and treaties).

   Recommendation 3: ICANN shall create and issue Policy Guidance: (a) outlining the various procedural filing options available to IGOs, e.g. they have the ability to elect to have a complaint filed under the UDRP and/or URS on their behalf by an assignee, agent or licensee; and (b) advising IGOs and INGOs to, in the first instance and prior to filing a UDRP or URS complaint, contact the registrar of record to address the harms for which they are seeking redress. In addition, ICANN shall ensure that this Policy Guidance document is brought to the notice of the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) for its and its members' and observers' information, and published along with the procedures and rules applicable to the UDRP and URS on the ICANN website

   Recommendation 4: Notwithstanding GAC advice concerning access to curative rights processes for IGOs as well as the Charter language requiring the Working Group to consider "the need to address the issue of cost to IGOs and INGOs to use curative processes", there was no support within the Working Group for a recommendation to provide subsidies to any party to use the UDRP or URS. Nevertheless, the Working Group recognizes that it has no authority to obligate the expenditure of ICANN funds, and it understands, further, that the feasibility of providing IGOs with access to the UDRP and URS at no or nominal cost to the IGOs is a question that must be addressed directly through discussions between the ICANN Board with the GAC and IGOs. The Working Group also notes that many Working Group members believe that a respondent should also be eligible to receive financial support for its defense in a case where ICANN has subsidized the complainant.

   Recommendation 5: Where a losing registrant challenges the initial UDRP/URS decision by filing suit in a national court of mutual jurisdiction and the IGO that succeeded in its initial UDRP/URS complaint also succeeds in asserting jurisdictional immunity in that court, the decision rendered against the registrant in the predecessor UDRP or URS shall be set aside (i.e. invalidated).

2. On 19 July 2018, the GNSO Council acknowledged receipt of the PDP Final Report, noted that, "[i]n view of the need to consider the topic of curative rights protections for IGOs in the broader context of appropriate overall scope of protection for all IGO identifiers (including IGO acronyms), the GNSO Council intends to review this Final Report … with a view toward developing a possible path forward that will also facilitate the resolution of the outstanding inconsistencies between GAC advice and prior GNSO policy recommendations on the overall scope of IGO protections", and confirmed its "intention to act on the recommendations that have been developed by the Working Group at the earliest opportunity following its review and deliberations on these topics";
3. The GNSO Council has discussed the PDP Final Report on various occasions, including at a webinar conducted on 9 October 2018 and during the GNSO Council's meetings in August 2018, October 2018, November 2018, December 2018 and January 2019;
4. As part of these discussions, the GNSO Council also reviewed the procedural options currently available to it under the GNSO's operating rules and procedures (see, e.g.: https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/igo-ingo-crp-procedural-options-council-29nov18-en.pdf and https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2018-December/022153.html);
5. At the ICANN63 Public Meeting held in Barcelona, Spain, the GNSO Council agreed to withdraw a motion to vote on the PDP Final Report submitted for the Council's October 2018 meeting, in view of a number of concerns about the report that had been raised by several Councilors and stakeholder groups;
6. On 21 October 2018, the Chair of the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) sent a letter to the GNSO Council leadership requesting an opportunity for the GAC to engage with the GNSO Council "as a matter of urgency; and [asking] that the GNSO Council gives serious consideration to the option of deferring its decision on the named PDP final recommendations until a dialogue between GAC and GNSO Council has been conducted";
7. On 14 January 2019, the GNSO Council leadership responded to the GAC Chair's 21 October 2018 letter, welcoming the GAC's wish to engage in an "open and constructive dialogue";
8. At the ICANN64 Public Meeting held in Kobe, Japan, the GNSO Council leadership described the procedural options that the Council is considering and sought the GAC's feedback on the GAC's willingness to participate in a targeted effort focusing on the issue of curative rights for IGOs and possibly drawing on the community's recent experiences with the Expedited PDP on the Temporary Specification and Work Track 5 of the GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP;
9. The GAC's Kobe Communique noted the GAC's "fruitful exchanges with the GNSO Council regarding the possibility of restarting the PDP on curative protections, under conditions amenable to all interested parties, including IGOs and interested GAC members, with a view to achieving mutually acceptable results [with] a timeline with a targeted date associated with such a course of action"; and
10. As a result of the numerous discussions that have taken place since the submission of the PDP Final Report, the GNSO Council believes it has thoroughly considered all the available options and now wishes to proceed in the manner specified below.

RESOLVED:

1. The GNSO Council approves, and recommends that the ICANN Board adopt, Recommendations 1, 2, 3 & 4 of the PDP Final Report. The GNSO Council directs ICANN staff to prepare a Recommendations Report for delivery to the ICANN Board in accordance with the process outlined in the ICANN Bylaws.
2. The GNSO Council does not approve Recommendation 5 of the PDP Final Report and directs the Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDs (RPM) PDP to consider, as part of its Phase 2 work, whether an appropriate policy solution can be developed that is generally consistent with Recommendations 1, 2, 3 & 4 of the PDP Final Report and:
    
   
   1. accounts for the possibility that an IGO may enjoy jurisdictional immunity in certain circumstances;
   2. does not affect the right and ability of registrants to file judicial proceedings in a court of competent jurisdiction;
   3. preserves registrants' rights to judicial review of an initial UDRP or URS decision; and
   4. recognizes that the existence and scope of IGO jurisdictional immunity in any particular situation is a legal issue to be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction.
3. The GNSO Council intends to amend the charter for the RPM PDP Working Group to reflect this new instruction accordingly.
4. The GNSO Council affirms that it will take into account its approval of Recommendations 1, 2, 3 & 4 in considering the recommendations it receives from the RMP PDP Working Group.
5. The GNSO Council thanks all the members of the IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms PDP for their hard work in completing this PDP.

Vote results

20190313-1

Consent agenda

• Reappointment of Becky Burr to seat 13 on the ICANN Board. The CPH has reappointed Becky Burr for Seat 13 on the ICANN Board of Directors. This agenda item is intended to acknowledge the selection and confirm that the notification process as outlined in Section 7.25 of the ICANN Bylaws will be completed subsequently.
• Adoption of the CSC Effectiveness Review Team Final Report

Approval of the final report of the Customer Standing Committee (CSC) Effectiveness Review

WHEREAS,

1. The Customer Standing Committee (CSC) was established as one of the post IANA Transition entities and conducted its first meeting on 6 October 2016.
2. The ICANN Bylaws, Section 17.3 (b) states, "The effectiveness of the CSC shall be reviewed two years after the first meeting of the CSC; and then every three years thereafter. The method of review will be determined by the ccNSO and GNSO and the findings of the review will be published on the Website."
3. On 27 September 2018, the GNSO Council approved the process for the Customer Standing Committee (CSC) Effectiveness Review and appointed GNSO representatives (motion 20180927-1) https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201809
4. On 16 January 19, the Initial Report for the CSC Effectiveness Review prepared by the CSC Effectiveness Review Team was published https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/csc-effectiveness-initial-16jan19-en.pdf
5. The public comment on the Initial Report on CSC Effectiveness opened from 16 Jan 2019 to 25 Feb 2019 and comments were received https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-csc-effectiveness-initial-16jan19/
6. On 05 March 2019, the final of the report of the Customer Standing Committee Effectiveness Review was published at https://community.icann.org/x/VQpIBg, as a revision of the initial report in light of the comments received.

Resolved,

1. The GNSO Council adopts the final report of the Customer Standing Committee Effectiveness Review https://community.icann.org/x/VQpIBg
2. If ccNSO Council also adopts the Report and supports finding and recommendations contained in it:
   1. The review process is closed and CSC Effectiveness Review team is dissolved
   2. In accordance with terms of CSC Effectiveness Review Template, the Chair of GNSO Council and the Chair of ccNSO Council are requested to recommend report to IANA Naming Function Review Team (IFRT) as soon as that is established.
   3. The GNSO Council instructs the GNSO Secretariat to share the results of this motion with the CSC.
3. The GNSO Council expresses its sincere appreciation to the members of the CSC Effectiveness Review Team, the liaison, expert advisors and support staff who contributed to the review.

Vote results

Resolution GNSO Council meeting 04 March 2019

20190304-1

Adoption of the Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP) on the Temporary Specification Final Report and Recommendations

Submitted by Rafik Dammak

Seconded by Keith Drazek

WHEREAS

1. On 17 May 2018, the ICANN Board adopted the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data pursuant to the procedures in the Registry Agreement and Registrar Accreditation Agreement concerning the establishment of temporary policies.
2. Following the adoption of the Temporary Specification, and per the procedure for Temporary Policies as outlined in the Registry Agreement and Registrar Accreditation Agreement, a Consensus Policy development process as set forth in ICANN's Bylaws needs to be initiated immediately and completed within a one-year time period from the implementation effective date (25 May 2018) of the Temporary Specification.
3. The GNSO Council has had a number of discussions about next steps to clarify issues around scope, timing and expectations, including a meeting between the GNSO Stakeholder Group and Constituency Chairs on 21 May 2018, the Council meeting on 24 May 2018, a meeting between the ICANN Board and the GNSO Council on 5 June 2018 and an extraordinary GNSO Council meeting on 12 June 2018.
4. Subsequently, the GNSO Council agreed to form a drafting team, consisting of Council leadership and interested Council members, to develop the EPDP Initiation Request and EPDP Team Charter. The drafting team submitted the proposed EPDP Initiation Request and EPDP Team Charter to the GNSO Council on 19 July 2018.
5. The GNSO Council approved the EPDP Initiation Request [https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/temp-spec-gtld-rd-epdp-initiation-request-19jul18-en.pdf) and the EPDP Team Charter (https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/temp-spec-gtld-rd-epdp-19jul18-en.pdf) on 19 July 2018;
6. The EPDP Team was formed and held its first meeting on 1 August 2018, followed by the publication of the Charter-required "Triage" Report on 15 September 2018 and its Initial Report on 21 November;
7. In its deliberations, the EPDP Team developed a recommendation for the transition between the lapse of the Temporary Specification and the completion of implementation work on the Policy Recommendations now submitted for approval.
8. Due to the unique circumstances concerning the deadline for implementation, and in order to minimize the transition period, the EPDP Leadership and Team informally recommends that discussion around implementation deliverables be initiated immediately. This preliminary work will inform the deliberations of the formal Implementation Recommendation Team upon Board approval of the Policy Recommendations.
9. The EPDP has followed the prescribed EPDP steps as stated in the Bylaws, including the publication of an Initial Report on 21 November (see https://www.icann.org/public-comments/epdp-gtld-registration-data-specs-initial-2018-11-21-en) and resulting in a Final Report delivered on 20 February 2019;
10. The EPDP Team has reached full consensus / consensus on the recommendations contained in the Final Report apart from two recommendations (#2 and #16);
11. The GNSO Council has reviewed and discussed these recommendations.

RESOLVED

1. The GNSO Council recommends to the ICANN Board of Directors the adoption of EPDP on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data policy recommendations as detailed in section 5 of the Final Report (https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/epdp-gtld-registration-data-specs-final-20feb19-en.pdf);
2. Noting the unique circumstances and external deadlines associated with the Temporary Specification and the work of this EPDP, the GNSO Council supports the EPDP Team's recommendation to informally convene the Implementation Review Team now to allow additional time for the necessary planning to take place before ICANN Board consideration of this Final Report. The IRT would be formally convened upon Board approval. As such, the GNSO Council directs ICANN Org to informally convene the Implementation Review team as soon as possible. The Implementation Review Team will be tasked with assisting ICANN org in developing the implementation details for the EPDP recommendations, evaluating the proposed implementation of the recommendations as approved by the Board, and working with ICANN staff to ensure that the resultant implementation conforms to the intent of the approved recommendations. The Implementation Review Team shall operate in accordance with the Implementation Review Team Principles and Guidance approved by the GNSO Council in June 2015.
3. The GNSO Council hereby indicates its non-objection, as required per the EPDP Team Charter, for the EPDP Team to commence work on a System for Standardized Access to Non-Public Registration Data as well as other topics identified in Phase 2 of the Charter. The Council does request that the EPDP Team, as a first step, develops its work plan for phase 2 and, furthermore, identifies whether the GNSO Council should consider any updates to the EPDP Team Charter to facilitate the EPDP Team's work.
4. The GNSO Council extends its sincere appreciation to the Chair, Vice Chair, members, alternates and support staff of the EPDP Team for their tireless efforts to complete Phase 1 in the timeline available.

Vote Results

20190124-1

CONSENT AGENDA

Motion: Confirmation of Jonathan Frost as one of the GNSO appointees to the CCWG Auction Proceeds

Vote results

20181220-1

Adoption of the GNSO Review of GAC Communiqué for submission to the ICANN Board - deferred from the November 2018 meeting

Submitted by Pam Little, seconded by Rafik Dammak

Whereas,

1. The Governmental Advisory Committee advises the ICANN Board on issues of public policy, and especially where there may be an interaction between ICANN's activities or policies and national laws or international agreements. It usually does so as part of a Communiqué, which is published towards the end of every ICANN meeting.
2. The GNSO is responsible for developing and recommending to the ICANN Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains.
3. The GNSO has expressed a desire to provide feedback to the ICANN Board on issues in the GAC Communiqué as these relate to generic top-level domains to inform the ICANN Board as well as the broader community of past, present or future gTLD policy activities that may directly or indirectly relate to advice provided by the GAC.
4. The GNSO hopes that the input provided through its review of the GAC Communiqué will further enhance the co-ordination and promote the sharing of information on gTLD related policy activities between the GAC, Board and the GNSO.

Resolved,

1. The GNSO Council adopts the GNSO Review of the Barcelona GAC Communiqué (see https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/review-gac-communique-13dec18-en.pdf) and requests that the GNSO Council Chair communicate the GNSO Review of the Barcelona GAC Communiqué to the ICANN Board.
2. The GNSO Council requests that the GNSO Chair also informs the GAC Chair of the communication between the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board.

Vote result

20181220-2

Nomination of a Mentor for the ICANN Fellowship Program

Submitted by: Erika Mann

Seconded by: Maxim Alzoba

Whereas,

1. On 16 October 2018, the ICANN Fellowship Program invited ICANN's Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees to nominate one individual each (total of 7) to serve on the capacity of Fellowship Program mentor for the 2019 calendar year (see https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2018-10-16-en).
2. On 20 November 2018, the GNSO launched an Expression of Interest (EOI) process to solicit volunteers for the GNSO-nominated mentor position (see https://gnso.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-20nov18-en.htm).
3. The GNSO Council tasked the GNSO Standing Selection Committee (SSC) with reviewing applications and recommending one individual for the GNSO to nominate.
4. The SSC reviewed the applications received, taking into account the criteria outlined in the EOI announcement.
5. The SSC submitted its full consensus recommendation to the GNSO Council on 19 December 2018.
6. The GNSO Council considered the recommendations of the SSC.

Resolved,

1. The GNSO nominates Andrew Mack to serve as a ICANN Fellowship Program mentor for a period of one year.
2. The GNSO Council instructs the GNSO Secretariat to communicate resolved #1 to staff supporting the ICANN Fellowship Program.
3. The GNSO Council instructs the GNSO Secretariat to inform the nominated candidate that he or she has been selected.
4. The GNSO Council requests the GNSO Secretariat to send a response to those applicants who were not nominated, thanking them for their interest and encouraging them to apply for future opportunities as they arise.

Vote result

20181129-1

CONSENT AGENDA - Confirmation of GNSO Representative to the Empowered Community Administration

Submitted by Pam Little

Seconded by Rafik Dammak

Whereas,

1. The GNSO Council confirmed in October 2018 that the GNSO Chair (currently Keith Drazek) will represent the GNSO as the Decisional Participant on the Empowered Community (EC) Administration on an interim basis.
2. The GNSO Council leadership team subsequently met to agree who from the Council leadership should perform the role of GNSO representative to the Empowered Community Administration and communicated this decision to the Council mailing list on 19 November 2018.

Resolved,

1. The GNSO Council hereby confirms that Keith Drazek, GNSO Chair will represent the GNSO as the Decisional Participant on the Empowered Community Administration until the end of his term at ICANN66.
2. The GNSO representative shall act solely as directed by the GNSO Council in accordance with the ICANN Bylaws and other related GNSO Operating Procedures.
3. The GNSO Council requests the GNSO Secretariat to communicate this decision to the ICANN Secretary which will serve as the required written certification from the GNSO Chair designating the individual who shall represent the Decisional Participant on the EC Administration.

Vote results

20181129-2

Motion - Adoption of the GNSO Review of GAC Communiqué for submission to the ICANN Board - deferred to December 2018 meeting

Submitted by Pam Little

Seconded by

Whereas,

1. The Governmental Advisory Committee advises the ICANN Board on issues of public policy, and especially where there may be an interaction between ICANN's activities or policies and national laws or international agreements. It usually does so as part of a Communiqué, which is published towards the end of every ICANN meeting.
2. The GNSO is responsible for developing and recommending to the ICANN Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains.
3. The GNSO has expressed a desire to provide feedback to the ICANN Board on issues in the GAC Communiqué as these relate to generic top-level domains to inform the ICANN Board as well as the broader community of past, present or future gTLD policy activities that may directly or indirectly relate to advice provided by the GAC.
4. The GNSO hopes that the input provided through its review of the GAC Communiqué will further enhance the co-ordination and promote the sharing of information on gTLD related policy activities between the GAC, Board and the GNSO.

Resolved,

1. The GNSO Council adopts the GNSO Review of the Barcelona GAC Communiqué (see https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-gac-communique-19nov18-en.pdf) and requests that the GNSO Council Chair communicate the GNSO Review of the Barcelona GAC Communiqué to the ICANN Board.
2. The GNSO Council requests that the GNSO Chair also informs the GAC Chair of the communication between the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board.

Vote results

20181126-1

Revised Nomination of GNSO Candidates for the Third Review of ICANN Accountability and Transparency (ATRT3)

Submitted by: Rafik Dammak

Seconded: Pam Little

Whereas,

1. On 31 January 2017, ICANN launched a call for volunteers seeking individuals interested in serving as a volunteer Review Team member on the ATRT3 (see https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2017-01-31-en).
2. Under the new Bylaws, each SO/AC participating in the Specific Review may nominate up to 7 members to the Review Team, for consideration by the SO/AC leadership, for a review team of no more than 21 members, plus an ICANN Board member (designated by the ICANN Board). Any SO/AC nominating up to 3 individuals are entitled to have those nominees selected as members to the review team, so long as the nominees meet the applicable criteria for service on the team.
3. The GNSO Council tasked the GNSO Standing Selection Committee (SSC) to carry out the review and selection of GNSO endorsed candidates for the ATRT3 for Council consideration.
4. The SSC conducted a selection process and submitted its full consensus recommendations to the GNSO Council on 13 September 2017 (http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2017-September/020381.html).
5. The GNSO Council approved the recommendations of the SSC on 20 September 2017 (https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20170920-3).
6. The ATRT3 was originally planned to begin shortly after the selection process was complete, but the start of the review was delayed until January 2019. As a result of this delay, two of the GNSO's primary candidates and one of the GNSO's additional candidates now require replacement.
7. The GNSO opened an Expression of Interest in October 2018 (https://gnso.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11oct18-en.htm) to solicit additional volunteers to serve as GNSO endorsed candidates.
8. The GNSO Council asked the SSC to evaluate responses to the EOI and make an updated recommendation on the list of GNSO endorsed candidates.
9. The SSC reviewed the updated list of candidates (see https://community.icann.org/display/GSSC/ATRT3+-2018) taking into account the existing GNSO endorsed candidates, the criteria outlined in the call for volunteers, as well as the desire to ensure a RT that is balanced for diversity and expertise. The SSC submitted its full consensus recommendations to the GNSO Council on 13 November 2018 which confirmed the list of the 7 recommended candidates as well as the expectation that, at a minimum, the primary 3 candidates would be guaranteed a seat for the ATRT3.
10. The GNSO Council considered the recommendations of the SSC.

Resolved,

1. The GNSO Council nominates the following three primary candidates, in no particular order: Wolfgang Kleinwächter, (NCSG) [existing nomination], Patrick Kane (RySG) [replacement nomination], and Osvaldo Novoa (ISPCP) [replacement nomination]. Furthermore, the GNSO nominates: Michael Karanicolas (NCSG) [existing nomination], Adetola Sogbesan (BC) [existing nomination], Erica Varlese (RySG) [existing nomination], and Jacques Blanc (RrSG) [replacement nomination] to be considered for inclusion in the ATRT3 by the SO-AC Chairs should additional places be available that need to be filled. If it is necessary to select among the four additional nominees, the specific skills of each candidate and diversity considerations should be taken into account to ensure overall balance in the RT's composition. GNSO suggests that BC and RrSG candidates in the secondary list be prioritized first in order to distribute representation further across the GNSO.
2. The GNSO Council instructs the GNSO Secretariat to communicate resolved #1 to the staff supporting the ATRT3.
3. The GNSO Council instructs the GNSO Secretariat to inform the applicants that have received endorsement that the GNSO Council expects that, if selected for the ATRT3, the applicant will represent the views of the entire GNSO community in their work on the ATRT3, and provide regular feedback as a group on the discussions taking place in the ATRT3, as well as the positions being taken by GNSO Review Team members.
4. The GNSO Council requests the GNSO Secretariat to send a response to those applicants who did not receive endorsement for this Review Team, thanking them for their interest. The response should also encourage them to follow the ATRT3 work, and participate in Public Comments and community discussions and to apply for future opportunities within the GNSO Community as they arise.

Vote results

20181024-1

Consent Agenda: Motion: Reappointment of GNSO Council Liaison to the Governmental Advisory Committee

Submitted by Donna Austin

Seconded by Michele Neylon

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 initially piloted in FY15 and F16, and subsequently confirmed by the GNSO Council as a permanent role at the start of FY17.
2. The GNSO Council appointed Julf Helsingius to the role of GNSO Liaison to the Governmental Advisory Committee on 1 November 2017, until the end of the ICANN AGM 2018.
3. The GNSO Council has an obligation to review the role annually and reconfirm the appointment unless the review indicates otherwise and/or the Liaison has indicated that he/she is no longer available to continue in this role, in which case a new selection process will take place.
4. The GNSO Council leadership has met with Julf Helsingius to discuss his experience and to confirm that he is willing to continue in this role.
5. The GNSO Council has reviewed the annual report prepared by the GNSO Liaison to the GAC.

Resolved:

1. The GNSO Council hereby reappoints Julf Helsingius to the role of GNSO Liaison to the Governmental Advisory Committee until the end of the ICANN AGM 2019.
2. The GNSO Council leadership team will inform the GAC leadership team accordingly, and will co-ordinate with Julf Helsingius as well as the GAC leadership team and GAC Secretariat on next steps and the continued successful implementation of this role.

Vote results

20181024-2

Motion to adopt the charter for the GNSO Standing Committee on Budget and Operations (SCBO) on a permanent basis

Submitted by: Ayden Férdeline

Seconded by: Rafik Dammak

Whereas,

1. In 2017 the GNSO Council expressed its desire to establish the GNSO Standing Committee on Budget and Operations (SCBO) to assist with the development of GNSO Council comments that relate to ICANN's Budgetary and Finance matters;
2. On 21 December 2017, the GNSO Council adopted the formation of the SCBO and its interim charter;
3. In late 2017 and early 2018, GNSO Council members as well as subject matter experts from GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies joined the SCBO;
4. In FY18, the SCBO developed four public comments (IANA-PTI FY19 Budget, ICANN's Reserve Fund Target Level, ICANN's Draft FY19 Budget and Operating Plan, and ICANN Reserve Fund: Proposed Replenishment Strategy) on behalf of the GNSO Council that were later accepted and posted to ICANN's public forum; and
5. On 17 September 2018, the SCBO delivered an After-Action Report on the SCBO experiences and lessons learned wherein the report suggested that the SCBO charter did not warrant any changes and that the SCBO become a permanent Standing Committee of the GNSO Council.

Resolved,

1. The GNSO Council adopts the GNSO Standing Committee on Budget and Operations (SCBO) charter on a permanent basis (see: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/draft-icann-budget-operations-charter-21dec17-en.pdf);
2. The GNSO Council thanks the Council members and subject matter experts for their contributions through the FY19 budget planning cycle;
3. The GNSO Council will appoint the incoming Council Chair as the Council liaison to the SCBO and add Council Vice-Chairs as observers;
4. The GNSO Council instructs the GNSO Secretariat to launch a fresh call for volunteers per the membership criteria outlined in the SCBO Charter as soon as possible; and
5. The GNSO Council tasks the SCBO to carry out the review and comment formulation for future ICANN fiscal-year draft budget planning cycles and to submit its proposed recommendations to the GNSO Council with sufficient time for its consideration.

Vote results

20181024-3

Motion to recommend the implementation of certain improvements to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of the GNSO Policy Development Process (PDP 3.0)

Submitted by Rafik Dammak

Seconded by Heather Forrest

Whereas,

1. In January 2018, the GNSO Council held an inaugural three-day Strategic Planning Session during which it, amongst other activities, reviewed the workload for the year ahead and identified potential milestones, noting that the current average timeline for delivery of an Initial Report has increased at least 2-4 times compared to previous PDPs.
2. The GNSO Council began identify challenges being encountered in PDPs, informed by a staff discussion paper on optimizing increased engagement and participation while ensuring efficient and effective policy development.
3. In order to engage the broader GNSO community in this discussion, the GNSO Council organized a collaborative session involving the members of the current PDP Leadership Teams as well as the broader community to summarize key points from the Strategic Planning Session, elaborate on the challenges that PDPs presently face and identified, and begin to brainstorm possible solutions.
4. As a result of these discussions, staff was tasked to publish a discussion paper that synthesizes the challenges that were identified as part of these discussions as well as possible improvements — both immediate and longer term — that the Council and PDP Working Groups could consider implementing to enhance efficiency and effectiveness of GNSO policy development activities. This discussion paper was published on 8 May 2018 (see https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/pdp-discussion-paper-11may18-en.pdf).
5. GNSO Stakeholder Groups, Constituencies as well as other SO/ACs were invited to provide their input and feedback on the discussion paper. A summary report of the feedback received was shared with the Council on 10 September 2018 (see https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/pdp-summary-feedback-10sep18-en.pdf) followed by a dedicated webinar on 11 September 2018 to further review and discuss the input received (see https://participate.icann.org/p1s5rcio69b/).
6. Based on the input received as well as the subsequent webinar, Council leadership developed a proposed GNSO PDP 3.0 Final Report and Recommendations for Council consideration (see (https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/pdp-increase-effectiveness-efficiency-23oct18-en.pdf).
7. The GNSO Council and broader community reviewed and discussed the GNSO PDP 3.0 Final Report and Recommendations during the GNSO Weekend Session at ICANN63 (Oct 2018).

Resolved,

1. The GNSO Council hereby adopts the GNSO PDP 3.0 Final Report and Recommendations and instructs GNSO Support Staff to work with the incoming Council leadership on the roll out of the Implementation Plan.
2. The GNSO Council requests the incoming 2018/19 Council leadership to report on a quarterly basis on the status of implementation.
3. The GNSO Council thanks all those that have contributed to the discussions on GNSO PDP 3.0 as well as the proposed improvements to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of the GNSO PDP.

Vote results

20181024-4

Motion to terminate the Next-Generation gTLD Registration Directory Service (RDS) to replace WHOIS Policy Development Process

Submitted by Stephanie Perrin

Seconded by Darcy Southwell

Whereas,

1. Following submission of the WHOIS Policy Review Team's Final Report, the ICANN Board passed a resolution on 8 November, 2012, launching an Expert Working Group on gTLD Registration Directory Services (EWG) to (1) help redefine the purpose of gTLD registration data and consider how to safeguard the data, and (2) propose a model for gTLD registration directory services to address accuracy, privacy, and access issues.
2. Upon publication of the EWG's Final Report in June, 2014, an informal group of Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Councilors and ICANN Board members collaborated to propose a Process Framework for structuring a GNSO Policy Development Process (PDP) to successfully address these challenging issues.
3. On 26 May, 2015, the ICANN Board adopted that Process Framework and reaffirmed its 2012 request for a Board-initiated PDP to define the purpose of collecting, maintaining and providing access to gTLD registration data, and to consider safeguards for protecting data, using the recommendations in the EWG's Final Report as an input to, and, if appropriate, as the foundation for a new gTLD policy.
4. On 19 November 2015, the GNSO Council adopted the charter for the next-generation gTLD Registration Directory Service (RDS) to replace WHOIS Policy Development Process Working group.
5. Following ICANN61 (March 2018), the RDS PDP Leadership decided to put on hold WG meetings indefinitely. This decision was made in light of the uncertain status of GDPR-related work and the possible duplication of efforts as a result of the adoption by the ICANN Board of the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data.
6. Following the initiation by the GNSO Council of the Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP) on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration data, the RDS PDP on 17 July 2018, the GNSO Council Liaison to the RDS PDP WG, Stephanie Perrin, submitted, at the request of the RDS PDP WG, the required Termination Summary [https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/next-gen-rds-12oct18-en.pdf] to recommend to the GNSO Council that the RDS PDP WG be terminated as per section 15 of the PDP Manual.
7. The GNSO Council has reviewed the Termination Summary.

Resolved,

1. The GNSO Council hereby terminates the next-generation gTLD Registration Directory Service (RDS) to replace WHOIS Policy Development Process.
2. The GNSO Chair will share the Termination Summary as well as the Council decision with the ICANN Board for its information.
3. The GNSO Secretariat will inform the RDS PDP WG of this decision.
4. The GNSO Council expresses its sincere appreciation to the members of the RDS PDP Working Group, leadership team and ICANN support staff for all its work and efforts.

Vote results

20180927-1

Consent Agenda: Approval of the process for the Customer Standing Committee (CSC) Effectiveness Review and appointment of GNSO representatives

Whereas,

1. The Customer Standing Committee (CSC) was established as one of the post IANA Transition entities and conducted its first meeting on 6 October 2016.
2. The ICANN Bylaws, Section 17.3 (b) states, "The effectiveness of the CSC shall be reviewed two years after the first meeting of the CSC; and then every three years thereafter. The method of review will be determined by the ccNSO and GNSO and the findings of the review will be published on the Website."
3. On 27 June 2018, in the process of adopting the amended CSC Charter as required by the ICANN Bylaws, Section 17.3 (c), the Council resolved that it, "… notes the recommendation in the Final Report that the ccNSO and GNSO Councils conduct an analysis of the requirements of the IANA Naming Function Review and the CSC Effectiveness Review with a view to creating synergies and avoiding overlap, and has appointed two Councilors to conduct the recommended analysis in cooperation with two representatives from the ccNSO."
4. Donna Austin and Philippe Fouquart, as the two appointed GNSO Councilors, and Debbie Monahan and Martin Boyle from the ccNSO, have met and discussed the requirements of the IANA Naming Function Review and the CSC Effectiveness Review and explored a number of options for addressing any potential or perceived overlap.
5. These discussions have concluded that the most practical and efficient path forward is for the ccNSO and GNSO to each appoint two members to conduct the CSC Effectiveness Review that will consider the effectiveness of the CSC in performing its responsibilities as outlined in the CSC Charter and that the findings of the Review, as adopted by both the GNSO and ccNSO Councils, will become an input to the IANA Naming Function Review.
6. This is on the basis that the recently concluded CSC Charter Review established that the CSC is working well and is non-controversial; the Final Report of the CSC Charter Review provides a good platform from which to conduct an effectiveness Review; and that the primary purpose of the IANA Naming Function Review is to review the performance of PTI in performing the IANA Function and therefore is not likely to spend too much time reviewing the effectiveness of the CSC.

Resolved,

1. The GNSO Council approves the method of review as suggested;
2. The GNSO Council appoints Donna Austin and Philippe Fouquart as the GNSO Council representatives of the CSC Effectiveness Review; and
3. The GNSO Council requests that the GNSO Secretariat notify ICANN Org no later than 30 September that the GNSO has approved of the method of review and GNSO representatives for CSC Effectiveness Review.

Approval of the Members and Liaisons of the Customer Standing Committee (CSC)

Whereas,

1. The inaugural slate of the CSC was confirmed by the GNSO Council on 9 August 2016;
2. The initial term of some of the inaugural CSC members and liaisons is due to expire on 6 October 2018;
3. The GNSO Council was notified on 7 September 2018 by ICANN Org that the ccNSO and RySG have appointed Brett Carr and Gaurav Vedi respectively to serve as members of the CSC for the period 1 October 2018 to 30 September 2020; the RSSAC has re-appointed Lars-Johan Liman to continue service as a liaison to the CSC through 30 September 2020; and the GAC has appointed Nigel Cassimire to serve as a liaisons to the CSC for the period 1 October 2018 to 30 September 2020;
4. In accordance with Section 17.2.d of the ICANN Bylaws, "... the ccNSO and GNSO shall approve each annual slate of members and liaisons being recommended for a new term";
5. The CSC Charter provides that "… while it will not be the role of the ccNSO and GNSO to question the validity of any recommended appointments to the CSC they will take into account the overall composition of the proposed CSC in terms of geographic diversity and skill sets"; and
6. The GNSO Council has reviewed the list of CSC members and liaisons.

Resolved,

1. The GNSO Council approves the full slate of members and liaisons:

   Members:

   Byron Holland (Chair). Appointing Organization: ccNSO. Term: 2016 – 2019

   Brett Carr. New appointment Appointing Organization: ccNSO. Expected Term: 01 October 2018 to 30 September 2020

   Elaine Pruis. Appointing Organization: RySG. Term: 2016 – 2019

   Gaurav Vedi, new appointment. Appointing Organization: RySG. Expected Term: 01 October 2018 to 30 September 2020

   Liaisons:

   Lars-Johan Liman, re-appointment. Appointing Organization: RSSAC. Expected Term: 01 October 2018 to 30 September 2020

   Nigel Cassimire, new appointment. Appointing Organization: GAC. Expected Term: 01 October 2018 to 30 September 2020

   Jeff Bedser. Appointing Organization: SSAC. Term: 2016 -2019

   Mohamed El Bashir. Appointing Organization: ALAC. Term: 2016 - 2019

   James Gannon. Appointing Organization: GNSO (Non-Registry). Term: 2016 -2019

   Naela Sarras. Appointing Organization: PTI. Term: no term limit

   (see also: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/nguyen-to-forest-sataki-07sep18-en.pdf.)

2. The GNSO Council requests that the GNSO Secretariat notify ICANN Org no later than 30 September that the GNSO has approved the full list of CSC liaisons and members.

Vote results

20180927-2

GNSO Council consideration of CCWG-Accountability WS2 Final Report and Recommendations

Submitted by Heather Forrest

Seconded by Darcy Southwell

Whereas,

1. The GNSO Council, together with other ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees, chartered the Cross-Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) on 13 November 2014 'to deliver proposals that would enhance ICANN's accountability towards all stakeholders'.
2. The GNSO Council approved the CCWG-Accountability Supplemental Final Proposal on Work Stream 1 Recommendations on 9 March 2016, which included recommendation #12: Committing to Further Accountability Work in Work Stream 2 (WS2).
3. The GNSO Council approved on 18 May 2017 the extension of WS2 for one year to the end of June 2018.
4. The CCWG-Accountability published its WS2 Final Report for public comment on 30 March 2018 (see https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-acct-ws2-final-2018-03-30-en ).
5. Several GNSO Stakeholder Groups (SGs) and/or Constituencies (Cs) submitted their input on WS2 Final Report (see https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-ccwg-acct-ws2-final-30mar18/2018q2/date.html).
6. The CCWG-Accountability reviewed all the input received and submitted its WS2 Final Report Recommendations to the Chartering Organizations on 9 July 2018 (see https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2018-July/014458.html) for their consideration.
7. The GNSO Council has reviewed and discussed the CCWG-Accountability WS2 Final Report and Recommendations.

Resolved,

1. The GNSO Council adopts the CCWG-Accountability WS2 Final Report and Recommendations (see https://community.icann.org/display/WEIA?preview=/59640761/88575033/FULLWS2REPORTWITHANNEXES.pdfw)
2. The GNSO Council instructs the GNSO Secretariat to share the results of this motion with the Chairs of the CCWG-Accountability as soon as possible.
3. The GNSO Council expresses its sincere appreciation to the CCWG-Accountability, the GNSO members and participants in that effort, and especially the GNSO-appointed Chair, Thomas Rickert, for all their hard work in achieving the delivery of the WS2 Final Report and Recommendations.

Vote results

20180927-3

Approval of the Final Recommendations from the Reconvened Working Group on Red Cross Names –(deferred to September Council meeting from Council meeting held on August 2018)

Submitted by Heather Forrest

Seconded by Donna Austin

Whereas:

1. In November 2013, the Working Group for the Protection of International Governmental Organizations (IGO) and International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGO) in All gTLDs completed a Policy Development Process (PDP) and submitted its Final Report to the GNSO Council (https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-10nov13-en.pdf, including Minority Statements: https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-minority-positions-10nov13- en.pdf);
2. On 20 November 2013, the GNSO Council approved all the consensus recommendations in the PDP Final Report (http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20131120-2);
3. On 30 April 2014, the ICANN Board approved those of the GNSO's consensus recommendations that were consistent with advice received from the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) on the topic of IGO and INGO protections (which approval, in relation to the Red Cross, was limited to withholding from registration at both the top and second levels the specific terms designated as so-called "Scope 1" identifiers by the PDP Working Group (i.e., "Red Cross", "Red Crescent", "Red Crystal" and "Red Lion & Sun" in all six official languages of the United Nations)) and requested additional time to consider those remaining consensus PDP recommendations that were not consistent with GAC advice (http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-30apr14-en.htm#2.a);
4. In March 2017, representatives of the GAC and GNSO held a discussion at the ICANN58 Public Meeting in Copenhagen, facilitated by former ICANN Board member Dr. Bruce Tonkin, to discuss a possible path forward for reconciling GAC advice and GNSO policy on the topic of protection at the second level of the domain name system for IGO acronyms and the remaining names and acronyms associated with the Red Cross (being those designated by the IGO-INGO PDP Working Group as "Scope 2" identifiers);
5. Following the March 2017 facilitated discussion, the ICANN Board passed a resolution requesting that the GNSO Council consider initiating the Policy Amendment Process documented in the GNSO PDP Manual in respect of certain of the so-called "Scope 2" identifiers for the Red Cross, i.e., the full names of the National Societies recognized within the International Red Cross and Red Crescent movement, and the full names of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, the International Committee of the Red Cross, and the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (in the six official languages of the United Nations) (https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2017-03-16-en#2.e.i);
6. In May 2017, the GNSO Council passed a resolution noting that the March 2017 facilitated discussions had highlighted a set of exceptional circumstances (in the availability of a finite list of names and documented evidence of the legal basis for their protection) constituting a justifiable basis for the Council's taking the extraordinary step of reconvening the original IGO-INGO PDP Working Group pursuant to Section 16 of the GNSO PDP Manual for the specific purpose of considering possible modifications to its previous consensus policy recommendations concerning and limited to the so-called "Scope 2" Red Cross full names noted by the Board, and including a defined, finite list of variants of those names, and with acronyms and any other names not falling within the scope of this reconvened effort (https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20170503-071);
7. The Reconvened PDP Working Group held its first meeting on 14 June 2017, and has since worked diligently to develop a set of recommendations that were published for public comment on 21 June 2018 (https://www.icann.org/public-comments/red-cross-protection-initial-2018-06-21-en); and
8. Following the close of the public comment period on 31 July 2018, the Reconvened PDP Working Group reviewed the comments that were received and completed its Final Report and finite List of names, which it submitted to the GNSO Council for its consideration on 6 August 2018 (https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo/red-cross-protection-policy-amend-process-final-06aug18-en.pdf)( https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo/red-cross-identifiers-proposed-reservation-06aug18-en.pdf).

Resolved:

1. The GNSO Council has reviewed the Final Report and approves all of the consensus recommendations made by the Reconvened PDP Working Group;
2. The GNSO Council thanks the Reconvened PDP Working Group for its diligence and its successful work in attaining consensus on all recommendations;
3. The GNSO Council thanks the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement for its efforts in providing the documentation and information needed to justify and underpin the consensus recommendations; and
4. The GNSO Council directs ICANN staff to prepare a Recommendations Report for delivery to the ICANN Board in accordance with the process outlined in the ICANN Bylaws.

Vote results

20180816-1

Approved - Consent Agenda: Adoption of the GNSO Council Review of GAC Communiqué for submission to the ICANN Board

Made by Martin Silva Valent

Seconded by Michele Neylon

Whereas,

1. The Governmental Advisory Committee advises the ICANN Board on issues of public policy, and especially where there may be an interaction between ICANN's activities or policies and national laws or international agreements. It usually does so as part of a Communiqué, which is published towards the end of every ICANN meeting.
2. The GNSO is responsible for developing and recommending to the ICANN Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains.
3. The GNSO has expressed a desire to provide feedback to the ICANN Board on issues in the GAC Communiqué as these relate to generic top-level domains to inform the ICANN Board as well as the broader community of past, present or future gTLD policy activities that may directly or indirectly relate to advice provided by the GAC.
4. The GNSO Council hopes that the input provided through its review of the GAC Communiqué will further enhance the co-ordination and promote the sharing of information on gTLD related policy activities between the GAC, Board and the GNSO.

Resolved,

1. The GNSO Council adopts the GNSO Council Review of the Panama GAC Communiqué (see https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/review-gac-communique-25jul18-en.pdf) and requests that the GNSO Council Chair communicate the GNSO Review of the Panama GAC Communiqué to the ICANN Board.
2. The GNSO Council requests that the GNSO Chair also informs the GAC Chair of the communication between the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board.

Vote results

20180816-2

Deferred - MOTION TO APPROVE THE FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE RECONVENED WORKING GROUP ON RED CROSS NAMES - DEFERRED TO Council meeting in Septembere 2018

Proposed by: Heather Forrest

Seconded by:

Whereas:

In November 2013, the Working Group for the Protection of International Governmental Organizations (IGO) and International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGO) in All gTLDs completed a Policy Development Process (PDP) and submitted its Final Report to the GNSO Council (https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-10nov13-en.pdf, including Minority Statements: https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-minority-positions-10nov13- en.pdf);

1. On 20 November 2013, the GNSO Council approved all the consensus recommendations in the PDP Final Report (http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20131120-2);
2. On 30 April 2014, the ICANN Board approved those of the GNSO's consensus recommendations that were consistent with advice received from the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) on the topic of IGO and INGO protections (which approval, in relation to the Red Cross, was limited to withholding from registration at both the top and second levels the specific terms designated as so-called "Scope 1" identifiers by the PDP Working Group (i.e., "Red Cross", "Red Crescent", "Red Crystal" and "Red Lion & Sun" in all six official languages of the United Nations)) and requested additional time to consider those remaining consensus PDP recommendations that were not consistent with GAC advice (http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-30apr14-en.htm#2.a);
3. In March 2017, representatives of the GAC and GNSO held a discussion at the ICANN58 Public Meeting in Copenhagen, facilitated by former ICANN Board member Dr. Bruce Tonkin, to discuss a possible path forward for reconciling GAC advice and GNSO policy on the topic of protection at the second level of the domain name system for IGO acronyms and the remaining names and acronyms associated with the Red Cross (being those designated by the IGO-INGO PDP Working Group as "Scope 2" identifiers);
4. Following the March 2017 facilitated discussion, the ICANN Board passed a resolution requesting that the GNSO Council consider initiating the Policy Amendment Process documented in the GNSO PDP Manual in respect of certain of the so-called "Scope 2" identifiers for the Red Cross, i.e., the full names of the National Societies recognized within the International Red Cross and Red Crescent movement, and the full names of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, the International Committee of the Red Cross, and the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (in the six official languages of the United Nations) (https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2017-03-16- en#2.e.i);
5. In May 2017, the GNSO Council passed a resolution noting that the March 2017 facilitated discussions had highlighted a set of exceptional circumstances (in the availability of a finite list of names and documented evidence of the legal basis for their protection) constituting a justifiable basis for the Council's taking the extraordinary step of reconvening the original IGO-INGO PDP Working Group pursuant to Section 16 of the GNSO PDP Manual for the specific purpose of considering possible modifications to its previous consensus policy recommendations concerning and limited to the so-called "Scope 2" Red Cross full names noted by the Board, and including a defined, finite list of variants of those names, and with acronyms and any other names not falling within the scope of this reconvened effort (https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20170503-071);
6. The Reconvened PDP Working Group held its first meeting on 14 June 2017, and has since worked diligently to develop a set of recommendations that were published for public comment on 21 June 2018 (https://www.icann.org/public-comments/red-cross-protection-initial-2018-06-21-en); and
7. Following the close of the public comment period on 31 July 2018, the Reconvened PDP Working Group reviewed the comments that were received and completed its Final Report and finite List of names, which it submitted to the GNSO Council for its consideration on 6 August 2018 (https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo/red-cross-protection-policy-amend-process-final-06aug18-en.pdf)( https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo/red-cross-identifiers-proposed-reservation-06aug18-en.pdf).

Resolved:

1. The GNSO Council has reviewed the Final Report and approves all of the consensus recommendations made by the Reconvened PDP Working Group;
2. The GNSO Council thanks the Reconvened PDP Working Group for its diligence and its successful work in attaining consensus on all recommendations;
3. The GNSO Council thanks the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement for its efforts in providing the documentation and information needed to justify and underpin the consensus recommendations; and
4. The GNSO Council directs ICANN staff to prepare a Recommendations Report for delivery to the ICANN Board in accordance with the process outlined in the ICANN Bylaws.

Vote results

20180816-3

Approved - MOTION IN RELATION TO THE ADOPTION OF THE GNSO REVIEW WORKING GROUP IMPLEMENTATION FINAL REPORT

Made by: Rafik Dammak
Seconded by: Donna Austin

Whereas:

1. The second independent review of the GNSO commenced in 2014.
2. The Final Report of the independent examiner was published on 15 September 2015 (see https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gnso-review-final-15sep15-en.pdf) and contained 36 recommendations in the areas of: participation & representation, continuous development, transparency and alignment with ICANN's future.
3. The GNSO Council adopted the GNSO Review Recommendations Feasibility and Prioritization analysis (see:http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-feasibility-prioritization-25feb16-en.pdf) on 14 April 2016 with the modification of Recommendation 21, that the council recommends staff working with the GNSO to institute methods of information sharing of highly relevant research related to gTLDs to help the GNSO community members increase their knowledge base (low priority).
4. On 25 June 2016, the ICANN Board accepted the Final Report from the independent examiner, taking into account the GNSO Working Party's Feasibility and Prioritization Analysis of the GNSO Review Recommendations, adopted with modifications by the GNSO Council, the Board adopts thirty-four (34) recommendations of the Final Report (i.e. all recommendations excluding recommendations 23 and 32).
5. Furthermore, the Board requested that the GNSO Council convene a group that oversees the implementation of Board-accepted recommendations. An implementation plan, containing a realistic timeline for the implementation, definition of desired outcomes and a way to measure current state as well as progress toward the desired outcome, shall be submitted to the Board as soon as possible, but no later than six (6) months after the adoption of this resolution.
6. The GNSO Council requested that ICANN policy staff prepare a discussion paper that outlines the possible options for dealing with the implementation of the GNSO Review recommendations following adoption by the ICANN Board taking into account the past implementation of the GNSO Review as well as existing mechanisms such as the SCI, the GNSO Review Working Party and other applicable best practices and lessons learned from past reviews. This discussion paper was submitted to the GNSO Council on 20 June 2016 (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-implementation-recommendations-discussion-paper-20jun16-en.pdf).
7. The GNSO Council reviewed and discussed next steps during the ICANN meeting in Helsinki where it was proposed to repurpose the SCI as a Working Group to develop the requested implementation plan as outlined in the staff discussion paper.
8. The GNSO Council adopted the Charter of the GNSO Review Working Group during its meeting on 21 July 2016.
9. This Working Group was tasked to develop an implementation plan for the GNSO Review recommendations which were adopted by the ICANN Board on 25 June 2016.
10. The implementation plan was adopted by the GNSO Council on 15 December 2016.
11. On 03 February 2017 the ICANN Organizational Effectiveness Committee (OEC) of the Board of Directors adopted the plan.
12. Following approval of the implementation plan by the ICANN Board of Directors, the GNSO Review Working Group executed the implementation of the recommendations as specified in the implementation plan, and provided the GNSO Council with regular status updates (at a minimum prior to every ICANN meeting) on the status of implementation, including an overview for which recommendations implementation was considered complete.
13. On 26 July 2018 the GNSO Review Working Group submitted to the GNSO Council for consideration the GNSO2 Review Implementation Final Report indicating that the Working Group had agreed by full consensus that all GNSO Review recommendations have been implemented as of 21 June 2018.

Resolved,

1. The GNSO Council adopts the GNSO2 Review Implementation Final Report.
2. The GNSO Council directs staff to submit the GNSO2 Review Implementation Final Report to the OEC of the ICANN Board of Directors for its consideration.
3. The GNSO Council thanks the GNSO Review Working Group members for their diligence and dedication in the successful execution of the implementation of the GNSO review recommendations.
4. The GNSO Council shall decide to disband the GNSO Review Working Group after the Implementation Final Report has been approved by the ICANN Board of Directors.

Vote results

20180719-1

Approved MOTION IN RELATION TO COUNCIL ACTION ON THE FINAL REPORT FROM THE IGO-INGO ACCESS TO CURATIVE RIGHTS MECHANISMS POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS WORKING GROUP

Submitted by Susan Kawaguchi

Seconded by Michele Neylon

Whereas:

1. In November 2013, as a result of its adoption of consensus recommendations from the Working Group that had concluded work on a Policy Development Process (PDP) concerning the Protection of International Organization Identifiers in All gTLDs (IGO-INGO PDP WG), the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on the topic of amending the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) and the Uniform Rapid Suspension procedure (URS) to enable International Governmental Organizations (IGOs) and International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGOs) to access and use these curative rights protection mechanisms;
2. On 5 June 2014, following its review of the Final Issue Report published by ICANN staff on the Access by IGOs and INGOs to the Curative Rights Protections of the UDRP and URS (http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/igo-ingo-crp-final-25may14-en.pdf), the GNSO Council initiated this PDP to evaluate: (i) whether the UDRP and/or URS should be amended (to enable their access and use by IGOs and INGOs whose identifiers had been recommended for protection by the IGO-INGO PDP WG) and if so, in what way; or (ii) whether a separate narrowly-tailored procedure modeled on these curative rights protection measures to apply only to protected IGO and INGO identifiers should be developed;
3. In initiating this PDP, the GNSO Council had requested that the PDP Working Group be convened as soon as possible in order to fulfill the requirements of this PDP in an expedited manner (https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20140605-2);
4. On 25 June 2014, the GNSO Council adopted the PDP Working Group Charter (https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20140625-1), which was subsequently amended in April 2015 following initial work by the PDP Working Group on the scope of the list of IGOs and INGOs to be considered in this PDP (https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20150416-3);
5. Between October 2015 and June 2016, the PDP Working Group consulted with an external legal expert to determine the applicability and scope of the doctrine of IGO jurisdictional immunity in relation to its Charter, and in October 2016 the PDP Working Group considered the proposal that had been forwarded by the ICANN Board as a result of work by the "IGO Small Group" comprising Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC), IGO and ICANN Board representatives;
6. In January 2017, the PDP Working Group published its Initial Report for public comment, which included several preliminary recommendations and two possible policy options on the remaining issue of IGO jurisdictional immunity. The GAC, 21 IGOs and a number of GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies submitted comments on the Initial Report, which were reviewed by the PDP Working Group and which included feedback on the policy options for handling the issue of IGO jurisdictional immunity (https://www.icann.org/public-comments/igo-ingo-crp-access-initial-2017-01-20-en);
7. Since October 2012, the GAC has issued advice on the topic of IGO identifier protections, including specific advice concerning what in the GAC's view could constitute appropriate curative rights protections for IGOs as objectively different rights-holders (see, e.g. https://gac.icann.org/contentMigrated/icann57-hyderabad-communique). The GAC has also expressed concern over the possibility that this PDP Working Group's final recommendations may differ from GAC advice on the topic (see, e.g. https://gac.icann.org/contentMigrated/icann60-abu-dhabi-communique);
8. Since October 2017, the PDP Working Group has been focused on developing agreed policy recommendations that it believes can balance the needs and concerns of IGOs with the rights of registrants;
9. On 9 July 2018, the PDP Working Group submitted its Final Report to the GNSO Council (https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/igo-ingo-crp-access-final-17jul18-en.pdf), which contains five consensus recommendations and in which several Working Group members had indicated their intentions to file minority statements documenting their disagreement either with one or more of the final recommendations or other parts of the Final Report;
10. The GNSO Council notes that several inconsistencies between GAC advice and consensus recommendations from the IGO-INGO PDP WG have yet to be reconciled, including on the topic of appropriate protections for IGO acronyms (both preventative and curative). The GNSO Council notes that until these issues are resolved, IGO acronyms remain reserved on an interim basis at the second level of the domain name system for those gTLDs delegated under the 2012 New gTLD Program round.

Resolved:

1. The GNSO Council thanks the Working Group for its hard work and acknowledges receipt of the Final Report.
2. In view of the need to consider the topic of curative rights protections for IGOs in the broader context of appropriate overall scope of protection for all IGO identifiers (including IGO acronyms), the GNSO Council intends to review this Final Report from the IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Mechanisms PDP Working Group between now and its August 2018 meeting, with a view toward developing a possible path forward that will also facilitate the resolution of the outstanding inconsistencies between GAC advice and prior GNSO policy recommendations on the overall scope of IGO protections. The GNSO Council confirms its intention to act on the recommendations that have been developed by the Working Group at the earliest opportunity following its review and deliberations on these topics.
3. To this end, ICANN staff is directed to inform the ICANN Board and the GAC that the IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Mechanisms PDP Working Group has completed its work and forward a copy of the Final Report to them.

Vote results

20180719-2

Approved to initiate Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP) on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data and adoption of the EPDP Team Charter - Submitted for GNSO Council meeting on 27 June 2018, deferred.

Submitted by Heather Forrest

Seconded by Michele Neylon

WHEREAS,

1. On 17 May 2018, the ICANN Board adopted the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data pursuant to the procedures in the Registry Agreement and Registrar Accreditation Agreement concerning the establishment of temporary policies.
2. Following the adoption of the Temporary Specification, and per the procedure for Temporary Policies as outlined in the Registry Agreement and Registrar Accreditation Agreement, a Consensus Policy development process as set forth in ICANN's Bylaws needs to be initiated immediately and completed within a one-year time period from the implementation effective date (25 May 2018) of the Temporary Specification
3. The GNSO Council has had a number of discussions about next steps to clarify issues around scope, timing and expectations, including on 21 May 2018 that included the GNSO Stakeholder Group and Constituency Chairs, during the Council meeting on 24 May 2018, a meeting between the ICANN Board and the GNSO Council on 5 June 2018 and an extraordinary GNSO Council meeting on 12 June 2018.
4. Subsequently, the GNSO Council agreed to form a drafting team, consisting of Council leadership and interested Council members, to develop the EPDP Initiation Request and EPDP Team Charter. The drafting team submitted the proposed EPDP Initiation Request and EPDP Team Charter to the GNSO Council on 19 July 2018.
5. The GNSO Council has reviewed and discussed the EPDP Initiation Request as well as the Charter for the EPDP Team.
6. The GNSO Council advised on 12 July 2018 the GNSO Stakeholder Groups, ICANN Supporting Organizations, and Advisory Committees to select EPDP Team members, with a closing date of 20 July 2018.

RESOLVED,

1. The GNSO Council hereby approves the EPDP Initiation Request [https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/temp-spec-gtld-rd-epdp-initiation-request-19jul18-en.pdf] and as such initiates the EPDP.
2. The GNSO Council approves the EPDP Team Charter [https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/temp-spec-gtld-rd-epdp-19jul18-en.pdf] and appoints Rafik Dammak as the GNSO Council liaison to the EPDP Team on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data;
3. The GNSO Council hereby appoints Kurt Pritz as the Chair of the EPDP Team.
4. The GNSO Council directs staff to communicate the results of this motion to the GNSO SG/Cs as well as ICANN SO/ACs and to make arrangements for the EPDP Team to commence its deliberations as soon as feasible.

Vote results

20180627-1

Approval the Customer Standing Committee Amended Charter

Submitted by Donna Austin

Seconded by Heather Forrest

Whereas:

1. The Customer Standing Committee (CSC) was established as one of the post IANA Transition entities and conducted its first meeting on 6 October 2016.
2. The ICANN Bylaws, Section 17.3 (c) and the CSC Charter required the ccNSO and RySG to conduct a review of the CSC Charter one year after the first meeting of the CSC.
3. In May 2017, a drafting team appointed by the ccNSO and RySG developed a Terms of Reference for the Charter Review, which was subsequently adopted by the ccNSO and RySG in July 2017.
4. The ccNSO and RySG appointed members to form the Charter Review Team from their respective SO and SG to conduct a review of the CSC Charter in accordance with the Terms of Reference.
5. The Charter Review Team conducted a series of consultations with the CSC, the direct customers of the IANA naming function, the independent PTI Directors, and the community at large and published an Initial Report of their findings and an Amended CSC Charter for public comment on 11 April 2018 until 1 June 2018.
6. The GNSO Council discussed the Initial Report during their meeting of 24 May 2018, and submitted comments on the Initial Report as part of the public comment process.
7. The public comment period resulted in a number of comments that were considered and addressed by the Charter Review Team in their Final Report and Amended Charter.
8. The GNSO Council, along with the ccNSO Council, is required to ratify any recommended changes to the CSC Charter.
9. The ccNSO and GNSO Councils discussed the Charter Review process during their most recent face-to-face meeting in San Juan, on 12 March 2018, and are expected to discuss the Final Review and Amended Charter at the forthcoming ICANN meeting in Panama, on 27 June 2018.

Resolved:

1. The GNSO Council approves the changes made to the CSC Charter as a result of the Charter Review Process, and will inform the ccNSO Council accordingly.
2. The GNSO Council will work on a joint communication with the ccNSO Council to inform the CSC that the Amended Charter has been ratified and should now be put into place.
3. The GNSO Council also notes the recommendation in the Final Report that the ccNSO and GNSO Councils conduct an analysis of the requirements of the IANA Naming Function Review and the CSC Effectiveness Review with a view to creating synergies and avoiding overlap, and has appointed two Councilors to conduct the recommended analysis in cooperation with two representatives from the ccNSO.
4. The GNSO Council thanks the CSC Review Team for their efforts in undertaking the Review.

Vote results

20180627-2

Completion of the Final Report of the IGO/INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms PDP (Curative Rights PDP)

Submitted by Heather Forrest

Seconded by Michele Neylon

Whereas,

1. The origin of the IGO/INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms Policy Development Process (Curative Rights PDP) traces back to a consensus recommendation from a previous PDP, the Protection of IGO and INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs PDP (IGO/INGO Protection PDP). The IGO/INGO Protection PDP considered whether and how the names and acronyms of international governmental organizations (IGOs) and international non-governmental organizations (INGOs) should be protected at the top and second levels of the domain name system (DNS). This earlier PDP resulted in a number of recommendations that were inconsistent with GAC advice on this topic. On 30 April 2014, the ICANN Board approved the PDP recommendations that were consistent with GAC advice, so that the GAC, GNSO and the affected community groups could continue to work on reconciling the remaining inconsistencies.
2. A faciliated dialogue between the GAC and GNSO took place at ICANN58 in March 2017. Based on these discussions, in May 2017, the GNSO Council agreed to initiate a new PDP to revisit the IGO/INGO Protection PDP's recommendation concerning certain Red Cross names.
3. On 5 June 2014, the Council of the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) chartered the Curative Rights PDP. This new PDP was initiated to evaluate (i) whether the UDRP and/or URS should be amended to enable their access and use by IGOs and INGOs whose identifiers had been recommended for protection by the IGO-INGO Protection PDP and if so, in what way; or (ii) whether a separate narrowly-tailored procedure modeled on these curative rights protection measures to apply only to protected IGO and INGO identifiers should be developed.
4. The Curative Rights PDP Working Group commenced its work in August 2014 and issued its Initial Report for public comments in January 2017, with the public comment period closing on 30 March 2017. Following its analysis of the input received, the Curative Rights PDP Working Group came to agreement on modifying one of its initial recommendations by ICANN59 in June 2017.
5. Since June 2017, the Curative Rights PDP WG has been engaged in trying to reach consensus on one remaining issue concerning IGO jurisdictional immunity. In December 2017, a Working Group member filed an appeal pursuant to Section 3.7 of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines (the Guidelines) to challenge the mechanisms the Co-Chairs proposed be used to determine consensus in relation to this remaining issue. An attempt to resolve the member's concerns with the PDP Co-Chairs took place in January 2018 in accordance with the Guidelines. Following unsuccessful resolution with the Co-Chairs, the matter was raised with the GNSO Council Chair as prescribed by Section 3.7. Discussions between the GNSO Council Chair, the GNSO Council liaison, the appellants and the PDP Co-Chairs culminated in a proposal for the GNSO Council Liaison to meet with and gather inputs from WG members at and after ICANN61 to assist in the consensus-building process by providing WG members with an opportunity to express their views on the WG's draft recommendations. A summary report of those meetings was prepared and shared with the Working Group in April 2018 in resolution of the Section 3.7 appeal, and the GNSO Council liaison offered to continue to support the WG in developing its Final Report. As of 16 June 2018, the Working Group is continuing to work toward a Final Report.
6. In January 2018, the GNSO Council held a Strategic Planning Session at which the Council agreed that, to ensure effective allocation of resources and improve management of the community's workload, a timely resolution of policy development processes should be a priority.
7. At its May 2018 meeting, the GNSO Council liaison informed the Council that the Curative Rights PDP would aim to wind up its work by June 2018.
8. As the scope of the Curative Rights PDP includes consideration of the applicability and usability of existing second level dispute resolution processes (i.e. curative mechanisms) in relation to IGO/INGO names and acronyms, its outcome is likely to affect the full scope of the final protections that are ultimately decided upon for IGO acronyms, and thus the differences that remain between GAC advice and conclusions of the earlier IGO/INGO Protection PDP. Given the length of time that has elapsed since the Board first placed IGO acronyms on a temporary reserved list and the possibility of additional conflict between GAC advice and GNSO policy on the topic of IGO protections, the GNSO Council believes it is imperative that the Curative Rights PDP is concluded in a timely and effective manner.
9. On 10 June 2018, a new Section 3.7 appeal was made under the GNSO Working Group Guidelines challenging the involvement of the PDP Chair (the other Co-Chair having resigned in May), the GNSO Council liaison and policy staff in developing the PDP's Final Report. This new appeal is currently proceeding through the recommended steps in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines. The appellant has expressed willingness for the substantive work of the PDP to continue towards resolution of the Final Report while the appeal process progresses.
10. Following consultation with the Working Group Chair, GNSO Council Liaison, and GNSO Council leadership team, and notwithstanding the most recent appeal, the GNSO Chair proposed on 13 June 2018 that the target date for completing and submitting the Curative Rights PDP Final Report to the GNSO Council be revised to July 2018 to provide the Working Group with additional time necessary to complete its work and finalize the Final Report.

Resolved,

1. The GNSO Council acknowledges the effort of the Curative Rights PDP Working Group since ICANN60 to reach consensus on its final recommendations, and requests that the Final Report be submitted in time to meet the July 2018 GNSO Council meeting document deadline. The GNSO Council directs ICANN staff to inform the Working Group that, in line with the Council's priority to ensure responsible allocation of resources and timely management of the PDP, the GNSO Council expects to consider this matter at its July 2018 meeting.
2. The GNSO Council acknowledges and appreciates the effort of Susan Kawaguchi in the role of GNSO Council Liaison to assist in resolving the Section 3.7 appeals and to facilitate the group's efforts to achieve the milestone of a Final Report in a timely manner.

Vote results

20180524-1

Consent Agenda

Approval of the appointment of Brian Beckham as an additional co-chair for the Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDs Policy Development Process Working Group, to join current co-chairs Phil Corwin and Kathy Kleiman, along with Council liaison Paul McGrady.

Vote results

20180524-2

Adoption of Revised Charter for the GNSO Standing Selection Committee Following the SSC Charter Review Requested by the GNSO Council - DEFERRED from Council meeting in April 2018

Submitted by: Rafik Dammak

Seconded by: Heather Forrest

WHEREAS,

1. On 15 March 2017, the GNSO Council adopted on an interim basis a Charter for the GNSO Standing Selection Committee, which is tasked to "1) where applicable, prepare and issue calls for applications related to the selection or nomination of candidates for ICANN structures such as ICANN review teams as well as structures related to the Empowered Community, 2) review and evaluate all relevant applicants/candidates, 3) rank candidates and make selection/appointment recommendations for review and approval by Council and 4) communicate selections to all interested parties."
2. The resolution adopting the Charter on an interim basis states, "Following the completion of two selection processes, the GNSO Council requests the SSC to report back to the GNSO Council with its assessment of whether the charter provides sufficient guidance and flexibility to carry out its work, and/or whether any modifications should be considered. Acknowledging that this is a work in progress, the GNSO Council will review this assessment as well as whether any modifications should be considered, as well as any inconsistencies that may need to be addressed as a result of the finalization of the work of the Bylaws Drafting Team."
3. Whereas, the SSC has successfully completed selections for the following: GNSO Representative on the Empowered Community Administration, replacement candidate for the Second Security and Stability Review Team (SSR2-RT) in 2017, candidates for the Third Review of ICANN Accountability and Transparency (ATRT3), GNSO Liaison to the GAC, and replacement candidate for the Second Security and Stability Review Team (SSR2-RT) in 2018.
4. The SSC has completed a review of its Charter (see working document here) and proposed revisions to the Charter.
5. The GNSO Council has reviewed these proposed changes and agreed that these revisions are appropriate, noting that the revised Charter states that the GNSO Council may initiate future Charter reviews at the request of the SSC or at the Council's own discretion.

RESOLVED,

1. The GNSO Council adopts the revised Charter of the SSC.
2. The GNSO Council reconfirms Susan Kawaguchi as Chair and Maxim Alzoba as Vice-Chair of the SSC.
3. The GNSO Council notes that the term of an SSC member, as defined in the revised Charter, is one year beginning and ending at the Annual General Meeting, with the possibility to renew for a second term. The GNSO Council considers the period between the adoption of the interim Charter on 15 March 2017 to the 2017 Annual General meeting to be a "ramp up" period for the SSC, with the first term of SSC members beginning at the 2017 Annual General Meeting.
4. The GNSO Council requests that the SO/AC Support Team sends the updated Charter to the Stakeholder Groups/Constituencies and Nominating Committee appointees on the GNSO Council and reminds SG/Cs/NomCom appointees that they should reconfirm their SSC representatives within three weeks following the 2018 Annual General Meeting.
5. The GNSO Council leadership team will confirm at its earliest convenience whether the GNSO Chair or one of the GNSO Council Vice-Chairs will serve as an ex-officio member of the SSC.
6. The GNSO Council thanks the SSC for its review of the Charter and looks forward to continuing to work with the SSC on future selection processes.

Vote results

20180426-1

Consent agenda

Adoption of the GNSO Review of GAC Communiqué for submission to the ICANN Board

Whereas,

1. The Governmental Advisory Committee advises the ICANN Board on issues of public policy, and especially where there may be an interaction between ICANN's activities or policies and national laws or international agreements. It usually does so as part of a Communiqué, which is published towards the end of every ICANN meeting.
2. The GNSO is responsible for developing and recommending to the ICANN Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains.
3. The GNSO has expressed a desire to provide feedback to the ICANN Board on issues in the GAC Communiqué as these relate to generic top-level domains to inform the ICANN Board as well as the broader community of past, present or future gTLD policy activities that may directly or indirectly relate to advice provided by the GAC.
4. The GNSO hopes that the input provided through its review of the GAC Communiqué will further enhance the co-ordination and promote the sharing of information on gTLD related policy activities between the GAC, Board and the GNSO.

Resolved,

1. The GNSO Council adopts the GNSO Review of the San Juan GAC Communiqué (see https://gac.icann.org/contentMigrated/icann61-gac-communique) and requests that the GNSO Council Chair communicate the GNSO Review of the San Juan GAC Communiqué to the ICANN Board.
2. The GNSO Council requests that the GNSO Chair also informs the GAC Chair of the communication between the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board.

The GNSO Council agrees that ICANN org should continue to treat the Community gTLD Change Request process as a matter of implementation.

Vote results

20180426-2

In Memory of Stéphane Van Gelder - motion updated with friendly amendments proposed by Rafik Dammak & Donna Austin

Submitted by: Rafik Dammak

Seconded by: the GNSO Council

Whereas:

1. Stéphane Van Gelder first entered the domain name business in the late 1990s when he founded Indom, a registrar in France, which later become part of the GroupNBT based in the United Kingdom. It was while Stéphane was General manager of INDOM that he was elected to the GNSO Council by the Registrar Stakeholder Group.
2. Stéphane served on the GNSO Council from 2008 through 2012, as an elected representative of the Registrars Constituency.
3. Stéphane served as Vice Chair of the GNSO Council in 2010 and was elected and served two consecutive terms as Chair of the GNSO Council in 2011 and 2012.
4. As Chair of the GNSO Council, Stéphane was an impartial and neutral facilitator on all issues. For Stéphane, remaining neutral was key to ensuring collective dialogue.

5. Stéphane made significant contributions to ICANN and was a strong and respected community leader. During his tenure as GNSO Chair, Stéphane oversaw and shepherded the:

   a. completion of an extensive update of the GNSO's operating procedures;

   b. establishment of the DNS Security & Stability Analysis working group jointly with the ALAC, ccNSO and NRO;

   c. completion of the Fast Flux, Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery and Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part B Policy Development Processes (PDPs) and the joint ccNSO-GNSO Internationalized Domain Name working group;

   d. launch of the IRTP Part C, Thick WHOIS and Locking of Domain Names subject to Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy Proceedings PDPs; and (e) continuing work on WHOIS studies, registration abuse policies, and multiple other GNSO projects.

   e. the completion of the Applicant Guidebook for the 2012 New gTLD Program and the launch of the Program.

   f. Stéphane was a well-respected and much liked member of not only the GNSO, but of the broader ICANN Community. He was admired for his passion, his fairness, his ability to find the best in people and his true gift for uniting people.

   g. Stéphane's passing is a great loss to the many people in the ICANN community that had the pleasure to work and interact with him, and for his many friends at ICANN the loss is significant.

Resolved:

1. The GNSO Council wishes to recognize the significant contribution Stéphane made to the GNSO Council during his tenure and his notable achievements during this time.
2. Stéphane's genuine passion, energy and commitment to the Internet and all that it brought to the world was second to none and we will miss him dearly.
3. On behalf of the current and previous GNSO Councils, we offer our deepest and heartfelt sympathies to his family and friends at this most difficult time.

Vote results

20180222-1

Amended motion – Adoption of the charter for the ICANN Procedure For Handling WHOIS Conflicts with Privacy Law Implementation Advisory Group (WHOIS Procedure IAG).

Submitted by: Donna Austin

Seconded by: Heather Forrest

Whereas,

1. In November 2005, the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) concluded a policy development process (PDP) on Whois conflicts with privacy law, which recommended the creation of a procedure to address conflicts between a contracted party's Whois obligations and local/national privacy laws or regulations.
2. The ICANN Board of Directors adopted the recommendations in May 2006 and the final procedure was made effective in January 2008.
3. 3. As noted in the GNSO Operating Procedures, "Periodic assessment of PDP recommendations and policies is an important tool to guard against unexpected results or inefficient processes arising from GNSO policies". As called for in Step 6 of the ICANN Procedure For Handling WHOIS Conflicts with Privacy Law, "ICANN will review the effectiveness of the process annually".
4. Following a a review of the procedure in May 2014 and the submission of the Final Report of the Implementation Advisory Group (IAG) in May 2016, the GNSO Council concluded that the proposed modification to the procedure with the alternative trigger as outlined in Appendix I of the IAG Final Report conforms to the intent of the original policy recommendations and confirmed its non-objection to the modification being implemented by Global Domains Division staff.
5. In conjunction, the GNSO Council requested that ICANN staff, based on their experience of administering the modification, assess the practicality and feasibility of this new trigger in comparison to the existing trigger as well as the other triggers discussed in the IAG Final Report, and report back accordingly to the GNSO Council.
6. Review of the WHOIS Procedure commenced on 3 May 2017 by publishing for public comment a paper outlining the new Alternative Trigger and soliciting public feedback on its implementation.
7. On 1 August 2017, Akram Atallah, President, ICANN Global Domains Division, wrote to the GNSO Council to provide an update on the comments received and outlining possible next steps for the GNSO Council to consider.
8. The GNSO Council reviewed the available materials, including the GDD's possible next steps, and agreed to form a drafting team to develop a charter for a new implementation advisory group to review the public comments in order to assess whether modifications to the Revised ICANN Procedure for Handling WHOIS Conflicts with Privacy Law are necessary and to make recommendations to the GNSO Council accordingly.
9. The drafting team submitted the proposed charter for the ICANN Procedure For Handling WHOIS Conflicts with Privacy Law Implementation Advisory Group (WHOIS Procedure IAG) to the GNSO Council on 20 January 2018, and a later edited version on 23 January 2018.
10. The GNSO Council has reviewed and discussed the proposed charter.

Resolved,

1. The GNSO Council adopts the proposed charter for the ICANN Procedure For Handling WHOIS Conflicts with Privacy Law Implementation Advisory Group (WHOIS Procedure IAG).
2. The GNSO Council appoints Keith Drazek as the GNSO Council Liaison to the Implementation Advisory Group. Until such time the IAG has appointed a Chair, the GNSO Council Liaison will serve as the interim Chair.
3. The GNSO Council request staff to circulate the call for volunteers on or after June 1, 2018 to the GNSO Stakeholder Groups with the request for each Stakeholder Group to appoint up to 3 members to the IAG. Further, staff are requested to circulate through the normal communication channels a call to the wider ICANN community for volunteers for interested participants and observers to join the IAG.
4. The GNSO Council thanks the drafting team for its efforts.

vote results

20180222-2

Nomination of GNSO Replacement Candidate for Second Security, Stability, and Resiliency of the DNS (SSR2) Review Team

Submitted by Susan Kawaguchi

Seconded by Rafik Dammak

WHEREAS,

1. On 19 January 2017, the GNSO Council nominated (see https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201701) the following candidates to serve on the SSR2-RT (in alphabetical order): James Gannon, Denise Michel, and Emily Taylor as its primary three candidates for the SSR2-RT, noting that these candidates under the new ICANN Bylaws are entitled to be selected. Furthermore, the GNSO nominated (in alphabetical order): Howard Eland, Scott McCormick, Rao Naveed bin Rais, and Norm Ritchie to be considered for inclusion in the SSR2-RT by the SO-AC Chairs should additional places be available.
2. On 14 February 2017, ICANN announced the selection of the 16-member team (see https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2017-02-14-en), which included the three primary candidates nominated by the GNSO Council.
3. Following the resignation of Emily Taylor on 16 July 2017 (see http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ssr2-review/2017-July/000468.html), the GNSO Council tasked the GNSO Standing Selection Committee (SSC) with recommending a candidate for this vacancy. The SSC recommended Norm Ritchie, who was subsequently nominated by the GNSO Council on 24 August 2017 (see https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201708).
4. On 8 December 2017, James Gannon submitted his resignation to the SSR2-RT (see: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ssr2-review/2017-December/000920.html)
5. The GNSO Council asked the SSC to consider an analysis of the skills that existing SSR2-RT members possess (see https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/79433986/SSR2%20Skills%20Matrix%20for%20SO%20%26%20AC%20Chairs.xlsx?version=1&modificationDate=1518099841494&api=v2) in order to identify if one of the candidates might have specific skills that are currently underrepresented in the Review Team. The GNSO Council further tasked the GNSO Standing Selection Committee (SSC) with recommending a replacement candidate, taking into account the analysis of existing and needed skills on the Review Team, the criteria outlined in the call for volunteers, as well as the desire to ensure a RT that is balanced for diversity and expertise (https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2016-06-30-en).
6. Out of the three candidates that were nominated in the initial selection process for consideration, beyond those that were entitled to be selected, the following two expressed that they were still interested in serving on the SSR2-RT: Scott McCormick and Rao Naveed bin Rais.
7. The SSC submitted its recommendation to the GNSO Council on 12 February 2018.
8. The GNSO Council considered the recommendation of the SSC.

Resolved,

1. The GNSO Council nominates Rao Naveed bin Rais to replace James Gannon on the SSR2-RT.
2. The GNSO Council instructs the GNSO Secretariat to communicate resolved #1 to the staff supporting the SSR2-RT as soon as possible.
3. The GNSO Council instructs the GNSO Secretariat to inform the selected applicant that he has been chosen and that the GNSO Council expects that the applicant will represent the views of the entire GNSO community in his work on the SSR2-RT, and provide regular feedback as a group on the discussions taking place in the SSR2-RT, as well as the positions being taken by GNSO Review Team Members.
4. The GNSO Council asks the GNSO Secretariat to send a response to the applicant who was not selected, thanking him for his continued interest. The response should also encourage him to follow the SSR2-RT work, and participate in Public Comments and community discussions.
5. If the Council is in a position to nominate an additional candidate for the SSR2-RT in the future, the Council will consider Scott McCormick as a first choice for this position, following the SSC's recommendation that he is also a strong and qualified candidate.

vote results

20180130-1

Adoption of Revised GNSO Operating Procedures and Proposed Modifications of the ICANN Bylaws consistent with the recommendations of the Bylaws Drafting Team.
Submitted by: Rafik Dammak
Seconded by: Darcy Southwell

WHEREAS:

1. On 30 June 2016, the GNSO Council approved the creation of a Drafting Team (DT) that was to work with ICANN staff to "fully identify all the new or additional rights and responsibilities that the GNSO has under the revised Bylaws, including but not limited to participation of the GNSO within the Empowered Community, and to develop new or modified structures and procedures (as necessary) to fully implement these new or additional rights and responsibilities";
2. In creating the DT, the GNSO Council requested that the DT provide the GNSO Council with an implementation plan "which will have the consensus of the Drafting Team, including any recommendations for needed further changes to ICANN Bylaws and/or GNSO Operating Procedures to enable effective GNSO participation in ICANN activities under the revised ICANN Bylaws, not later than 30 September 2016";
3. The DT submitted its Final Report to the GNSO Council on 12 October 2016 (https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/bylaws-drafting-team-final-report-12oct16-en.pdf);
4. On 1 December 2016, the GNSO Council accepted the recommendations in the DT's Final Report and directed ICANN Policy Staff to draft proposed language for any necessary modifications or additions to the GNSO Operating Procedures and, if applicable, those parts of the ICANN Bylaws pertaining to the GNSO. The GNSO Council also requested that ICANN Legal evaluate whether the proposed modifications were consistent with the post-transition Bylaws and report their findings to the GNSO Council;
5. Staff worked with the Bylaws DT to address any open issues, inconsistencies identified and confirm assumptions. As a result, the staff report on how each recommendation was addressed as well as proposed changes to GNSO Operating Procedures & ICANN Bylaws were published for public comment on 19 June 2017 (see https://www.icann.org/public-comments/gnso-op-procedures-2017-06-19-en);
6. The public comment period closed on 10 August 2017, with the report of public comments published on 1 September 2017 (see https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-gnso-op-procedures-31aug17-en.pdf).
7. The GNSO Council reviewed and discussed the proposed changes as well as comments received during subsequent meetings in September and October and during the GNSO Council Strategic Planning Session (29-31 January 2018).
8. As resolved previously, the GNSO Council intends to subject the adoption of the proposed modifications to existing procedures and/or ICANN Bylaws to a GNSO Supermajority vote.

RESOLVED:

1. The GNSO Council adopts the proposed modifications to the GNSO Operating Procedures (see https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/proposed-revisions-gnso-op-procedures-redline-19jun17-en.pdf), including the two minor updates as suggested by staff in the report of public comments in response to input received from the Registrar Stakeholder Group and Intellectual Property Constituency.
2. The GNSO Council instructs ICANN staff to post the new version of the GNSO Operating Procedures, effective immediately upon adoption.
3. The GNSO Council recommends that the ICANN Board of Directors adopt the proposed changes to section 11.3.i of the ICANN Bylaws to reflect new GNSO voting thresholds which are different from the current threshold of a simple majority vote of each House (see https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/proposed-revisions-bylaws-article-11-gnso-redline-19jun17-en.pdf). Until such time as the ICANN Board adopts the proposed changes to section 11.3.1 of the ICANN Bylaws, the existing voting thresholds will remain applicable to any GNSO Council decision.

Vote results

20171221-1

Motion to adopt the charter for the GNSO Standing Committee on Budget and Operations (SCBO) on an interim basis

Submitted by Michele Neylon

Seconded by Rafik Dammak

Whereas,

1. The GNSO Council expressed the desire to establish a GNSO Standing Committee to assist with the development of GNSO Council comments to be submitted to comment forums as it relates to ICANN's Budgetary and Finance matters
2. On an informal trial basis, a small team of Council members developed two proposed public comments (IANA-PTI FY19 Budget & ICANN's Reserve Fund Target Level) on behalf of the GNSO Council that were later accepted and posted to ICANN's public forum
3. The small team reviewed and further refined a draft charter for the proposed standing committee (see: https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-icann-budget-operations-charter-11dec17-en.pdf)

4. The Council reviewed the charter and agreed that as this is a new entity and approach, it would be desirable to test the process and criteria outlined in the charter to assess whether it is fit-for-purpose. To that end, it is proposed that:

   a. The charter be adopted on an interim basis,

   b. SCBO be formed in accordance with the charter,

   c. SCBO to apply the charter for at least the FY19 Draft ICANN Budget & Operating Planning cycle,

   d. SCBO to conduct a review of the comment formulation process and suggest changes the Charter, if appropriate, and report back to the GNSO Council accordingly

   e. The GNSO Council to confirm the GNSO SCBO Charter as is, or, as modified based on the review.

Resolved,

1. The GNSO Council adopts the GNSO Standing Committee on Budget & Operations (SCBO) Charter on an interim basis (see: https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-icann-budget-operations-charter-11dec17-en.pdf) and instructs the GNSO Secretariat to launch a call for volunteers per the membership criteria outlined in the SCBO Charter as soon as possible.
2. The GNSO Council appoints Heather Forrest as the Council liaison to the SCBO. Until such time the SCBO has selected its Chair(s), the liaison will serve as the interim chair.
3. The GNSO Council tasks the SCBO to carry out the review and comment formulation for the ICANN FY19 Draft Budget planning cycle and to submit its proposed recommendations to the GNSO Council with sufficient time for consideration.
4. Following the completion of the ICANN FY19 Draft Budget planning cycle, the GNSO Council requests the SCBO to report back to the GNSO Council with its assessment of whether the charter provides sufficient guidance and flexibility to carry out its work, and/or whether any modifications should be considered. Acknowledging that this is a work in progress, the GNSO Council will review this assessment as well as whether any modifications should be considered.
5. The GNSO Council thanks the small group of volunteers, Erika Mann, Ayden Ferdeline, Philippe Fouqart, Michele Neylon, Martin Silva Valent, and the GNSO Council leadership team, for its work on the charter.

Vote results

20171130-1

Adoption of the GNSO Review of GAC Communiqué for submission to the ICANN Board

Submitted by Donna Austin

Seconded by Rafik Dammak

Whereas:

1. The Governmental Advisory Committee advises the ICANN Board on issues of public policy, and especially where there may be an interaction between ICANN's activities or policies and national laws or international agreements. It usually does so as part of a Communiqué, which is published towards the end of every ICANN meeting.
2. The GNSO is responsible for developing and recommending to the ICANN Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains.
3. The GNSO has expressed a desire to provide feedback to the ICANN Board on issues in the GAC Communiqué as these relate to generic top-level domains to inform the ICANN Board as well as the broader community of past, present or future gTLD policy activities that may directly or indirectly relate to advice provided by the GAC.
4. The GNSO hopes that the input provided through its review of the GAC Communiqué will further enhance the co-ordination and promote the sharing of information on gTLD related policy activities between the GAC, Board and the GNSO.

Resolved:

1. The GNSO Council adopts the GNSO Review of the Abu Dhabi GAC Communiqué (see https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-gac-communique-30nov17-en.pdf) and requests that the GNSO Council Chair communicate the GNSO Review of the Abu Dhabi GAC Communiqué to the ICANN Board.
2. The GNSO Council requests that the GNSO Chair also informs the GAC Chair of the communication between the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board.

Vote results

20171130-2

Motion to Refer IRTP Part C Privacy / Proxy Registrations Implementation Issues to PPSAI IRT

Submitted by Darcy Southwell

Seconded by Donna Austin

1. The Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council sent a letter (see https://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/bladel-to-crocker-01dec16-en.pdf) to the ICANN Board on 1 December 2016 regarding implementation concerns with the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy ("Transfer Policy") – Part C for privacy/proxy registrations. Specifically, the concerns relate to whether the addition/removal of a privacy/proxy service potentially triggers the 60-day inter-registrar transfer lock described in the updated Transfer Policy. The policy recommendations were silent with respect to the addition/removal of privacy/proxy services, and at the time the policy was implemented, the current issue and potential harms described by the GNSO Council were not brought to ICANN org's attention.
2. In this letter, the GNSO Council requested the Board to instruct ICANN Org to work with the Registrar Stakeholder Group and other interested parties to evaluate alternatives for the implementation concerns related to Transfer Policy Part C.
3. On 16 March 2017, the Board instructed the ICANN President and CEO, or his designee(s), to work with the Registrar Stakeholder Group and other interested parties to evaluate alternatives for the implementation concerns related to Transfer Policy Part C and to report back to the GNSO Council with the results of the discussion." During this time, enforcement of the policy related to this specific issue has been deferred.
4. The Registrar Stakeholder Group discussed this issue and reached out to other interested parties to evaluate alternatives for the implementation concerns related to IRTP Part C and recommended that this issue is further evaluated by the Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues Implementation Review Team (PPSAI IRT) as this group is best placed to determine if/how implementation of IRTP Part C for privacy / proxy registrations can be carried out.

Resolved:

1. The GNSO Council directs the PPSAI IRT to consider the issue of privacy/proxy registrations and IRTP Part C as outlined in the annex to the GNSO Council letter (see https://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/bladel-to-crocker-01dec16-en.pdf) and to put forward recommendations for implementation that are consistent with the IRTP Part C policy recommendations as well as the PPSAI policy recommendations.
2. The GNSO Council requests that this work be undertaken only after the upcoming PPSAI IRT comment period, and that if it appears as though it will cause any significant or unreasonable delay in implementation of privacy/proxy service accreditation implementation, that the GNSO Council Liaison must alert the Council.
3. The GNSO Council encourages registrars and other impacted parties to join the PPSAI IRT to collaborate in these discussions.
4. The GNSO Council requests the GNSO Council Liaison to the PPSAI IRT (in consultation with ICANN org and the IRT) provides regular updates on the timeline for incorporating the issue of privacy/proxy registrations and the Transfer Policy into the work of the PPSAI implementation plan. Where issues emerge during implementation that may require possible policy discussion, the Council requests GNSO Council Liaison to the PPSAI IRT to escalate these issues using the designated procedure outlined in the Final Recommendations Report on Policy & Implementation.
5. The GNSO Council requests the GNSO Council Liaison to the PPSAI IRT to communicate this decision to the PPSAI IRT as soon as possible.

Vote results

20171130-3

Motion – Confirmation of GNSO Representative to the Empowered Community Administration

Submitted by: Donna Austin

Seconded by: Rafik Dammak

Whereas,

1. The GNSO Council adopted the proposed process and criteria for the selection of the GNSO representative to the Empowered Community Administration during its meeting on 28 June 2017 (see https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201706).
2. Per that process, the GNSO Council confirmed on 9 November 2017 that the GNSO Chair (currently Heather Forrest) will represent the GNSO as the Decisional Participant on the Empowered Community Administration on an interim basis.
3. Per that process, the GNSO Council leadership team subsequently met to agree who from the Council leadership should perform the role of GNSO representative to the Empowered Community Administration and communicated this decision to the Council during its call on 30 November 2017.

Resolved:

1. The GNSO Council hereby confirms Heather Forrest will represent the GNSO as the Decisional Participant on the Empowered Community Administration until the end of the ICANN Annual General Meeting (ICANN63).
2. The GNSO representative shall act solely as directed by the GNSO Council in accordance with the ICANN Bylaws and other related GNSO Operating Procedures.
3. The GNSO Council requests the GNSO Secretariat to communicate this decision to the ICANN Secretary which will serve as the required written certification from the GNSO Chair designating the individual who shall represent the Decisional Participant on the EC Administration.

Vote results

20171101-1

Appointment of a GNSO Liaison to the Governmental Advisory Committee

Submitted by Susan Kawaguchi

Seconded by James Bladel

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, a GNSO liaison to the GAC was piloted during FY15 and FY16.
2. Based on the review of the GAC-GNSO Consultation Group (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-liaison-gac-pilot-29feb16-en.pdf) and discussions between the GAC and GNSO during their joint session at the ICANN meeting in Marrakesh, the GNSO Council confirmed on 14 April 2016 role and process for a GNSO Liaison to the Governmental Advisory Committee as a permanent feature (see https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/request-liaison-gac-30mar16-en.pdf).
3. The GNSO Council delegated the responsibility of the application, review and selection process to the GNSO Standing Selection Committee (SSC).
4. Following a call for candidates three applications were received all of which were evaluated by the SSC based on the criteria outlined in the call for candidates.
5. Full consensus was achieved by the SSC for selecting Julf Helsingius as the preferred candidate. The SSC subsequently recommended to the GNSO Council that Julf Helsingius be appointed to the role of GNSO Liaison to the GAC.

Resolved:

1. The GNSO Council hereby appoints Julf Helsingius to the role of GNSO Liaison to the Governmental Advisory Committee until the end of the ICANN AGM 2018.
2. The GNSO Council will review the role and is expected to annually reconfirm the appointment, unless the review indicates otherwise and/or the Liaison has indicated that he/she is no longer available to continue in this role in which case a new selection process will take place and/or the review indicates.
3. The GNSO Council Leadership Team will co-ordinate with Julf Helsingius as well as the GAC Leadership Team and GAC Secretariat on next steps and the successful implementation of this role.
4. The GNSO Council and the SSC thank all the candidates for their interest and would like to express its appreciation for the highly qualified applications received.
5. The GNSO Council thanks Carlos Raul Guttierez for his service as the GNSO Council Liaison to the GAC.

Vote results

20171020-1

Consent agenda

Approval of the appointment of Cheryl Langdon-Orr as an additional co-chair for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process Working Group, to join current co-chairs Jeff Neuman and Avri Doria, along with Council liaison Paul McGrady. Further, the Council recognizes that Avri's tenure as a co-chair of this WG will end when she is seated on the ICANN Board at ICANN60. To that extent, the Council wishes to thank Avri for her service to the WG and wish her well in her role on the ICANN Board.

Vote results

20170920-1

GNSO Council Approval of Data Collection Request from RPM Review PDP Working Group

Submitted by Heather Forrest

Seconded by James Bladel, Wolf-Ulrich Knoben

WHEREAS:

1. In October 2015, the GNSO Council adopted all the consensus recommendations from the Data & Metrics for Policy Making (DMPM) Working Group and instructed ICANN staff to commence implementation of the recommendations (https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20151021-1);
2. The Metrics Request Decision Tree and Working Group Metrics Request Form developed by the DMPM Working Group were consequently incorporated into the GNSO's Working Group Guidelines (https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-01sep16-en.pdf);
3. The Working Group chartered by the GNSO Council to conduct the Policy Development Process (PDP) to review all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in All gTLDs has, after extensive deliberations, developed a list of data collection tasks that it believes are critical in order for it to fulfill its Charter (https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/rpm-charter-15mar16-en.pdf);
4. As part of its chartered tasks, the PDP Working Group was urged to bear in mind that a fundamental underlying objective of its work is to "create a framework for consistent and uniform reviews of these [RPMs] in the future";
5. The Competition, Consumer Protection and Consumer Trust (CCT) Review Team convened under the ICANN Bylaws has noted the lack of, and need for, data in order to evaluate the effectiveness of the various RPMs that were created for ICANN's 2012 New gTLD Program round (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cct-rt-draft-report-07mar17-en.pdf), and
6. The PDP Working Group has developed and submitted a DMPM data request form, as required by the GNSO's Working Group Guidelines, to the GNSO Council for its approval on 16 September 2017 (https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/rpm-sunrise-trademark-claims-07sep17-en.pdf)

RESOLVED:

1. The GNSO Council approves the DMPM request as submitted by the Review of All RPMs in All gTLDs PDP Working Group.
2. The GNSO Council instructs the leadership of the RPM PDP to work with ICANN staff and any outside experts to structure the data request in such a way that the value and relevance of the data is maximised.
3. The GNSO Council directs ICANN policy staff to forward the DMPM request to the appropriate department of ICANN Organization for the requisite budget and resource approvals, with a further request that the matter be considered and approved in as timely a fashion as practicable.
4. The GNSO Council requests a follow up report from the Review of All RPMs in All gTLDs PDP Working Group on the progress and outcomes of its DMPM request in time for the GNSO Council's meeting scheduled for 21 December 2017, and a regular written report thereafter, at intervals of not less frequently than monthly, followed by a detailed status report on the Working Group's view of the utility of the data collection exercise on the progress and timeline of Phase One of the PDP by ICANN61.

Vote results – friendly amendment

Vote results – original request

20170920-2

GNSO Adoption of the Final Report of the Cross-Community Working Group Framework for the Use of Country and Territory names as TLDs

Submitted by: Heather Forrest

Seconded by: James Bladel

Whereas

1. The GNSO and ccNSO chartered the Cross-community Working Group Framework for the Use of Country and Territory names as TLDs (CWG UCTN) in March, 2014 (https://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/unct-framework-charter-27mar14-en.pdf). The formation of a cross-community working group to evaluate the feasibility of developing an overarching framework on the use of country and territory names as TLDs was the principal recommendation of a preceding ccNSO Study Group (Final Report of 8 September 2013: https://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/unct-final-08sep12-en.pdf).
2. The CWG UCTN published an Interim Paper dated 9 February 2017 (https://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/ccwg-ctn-interim-paper-09feb17-en.pdf) setting out the history and context of ICANN policy-making on country and territory names, and proposing four recommendations, with Recommendation 3 articulated in three alternatives. A public comment period on the Interim Paper was held from 24 February 2017 to 21 April 2017, with comments summarised in a report dated 3 May 2017 (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-cwg-uctn-interim-paper-03may17-en.pdf).

3. In addition to comments submitted by individual GNSO stakeholders, the GNSO Registry Stakeholder Group, Business Constituency and Intellectual Property Constituency submitted comments supporting Recommendations 1, 2 and 4, as follows:

   1. Close this CWG in accordance with and as foreseen in the charter.

   2. Recommend that the ICANN community consolidate all policy efforts relating to geographic names (as that term has traditionally very broadly been defined in the ICANN environment to this point) to enable in-depth analyses and discussions on all aspects related to all geographic-related names. This is the only way, in our view, to determine whether a harmonized framework is truly achievable.

   4. Recommend that future policy development work must facilitate an all-inclusive dialogue to ensure that all members of the community have the opportunity to participate. Again, we believe that this is the only way to determine whether a harmonized framework is truly achievable.

4. Notably, no objections were raised in any submission during the public comment period to the above Recommendations 1, 2 and 4.
5. A range of support was expressed for each of the alternative wordings of Recommendation 3, with all GNSO commenters expressing support for Alternative A, as follows:
   Alternative A
   Future work should take place with the authority of a policy development process under ICANN's Bylaws, with a clearly drafted Charter or scope of work that sets out how conclusions and recommendations will inform that policy development process. This addresses a key deficiency of this CWG, as it has not been made clear how the group's work can or will be incorporated in policy-making pursuant to ICANN's Bylaws.
6. On 24 June 2015, the GNSO adopted the Resolution on the Request for a Preliminary Issue Report on New gTLDs Subsequent Rounds. (https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201506) The Preliminary Issue Report, which identified the "requirements around geographic names" as meriting discussion, was adopted by the GNSO Council on 17 December 2015 (https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201512). The Preliminary Issue Report notably recommended that: "A potential PDP-WG on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures could consider collaborating with other parts of the ICANN community, such as the GAC or ccNSO in particular, in determining if strings described above should be allowed and if so, what requirements would be needed to govern that process. The PDP-WG should also consider the work of the Cross-Community Working Group on Use of Country/Territory Names as TLDs before reaching any conclusions." (Preliminary Issue Report at page 59, https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/subsequent-procedures-prelim-issue-31aug15-en.pdf)
7. The GNSO Policy Development Process on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures ("Subsequent Procedures PDP") was chartered on 21 January 2016 to, inter alia: "Review whether geographic names requirements are appropriate." (https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/subsequent-procedures-charter-21jan16-en.pdf) This issue formed part of Work Track 2, covering legal issues.
8. Following two cross-community sessions led by the leadership of the Subsequent Procedures PDP WG at ICANN59 in Johannesburg on the topic of the use of geographic names, the formation of a new Work Track 5 was proposed to better facilitate broad community participation in the discussion of policy on geographic name use.

Resolved,

1. The GNSO Council adopts Recommendations 1, 2 and 4 of the Final Report of the Cross-Community Working Group Framework for the Use of Country and Territory names as TLDs.
2. The GNSO Council adopts the underlying objective of Recommendation 3, and in particular supports Recommendation 3 Alternative A, recognizing that the use of geographic names as gTLDs is clearly within the GNSO's mandate as per ICANN's Bylaws, and also recognizing that this is a matter of interest for the ICANN community as a whole.
3. The GNSO Council instructs the leadership of the Subsequent Procedures PDP to consider the Final Report of the Cross-Community Working Group Framework for the Use of Country and Territory names as TLDs, and to ensure continued collaboration with other parts of the ICANN community in addressing issues relating to the use of geographic names.
4. The GNSO Council recognizes the significant contribution of the CWG UCTN to the ongoing development of policy on the use of geographic names in the DNS, and thanks the members of the CWG UCTN for their Final Report, which clearly documents the history and context of policy-making in relation to geographic names.
5. The GNSO Council instructs the GNSO Secretariat to communicate these resolutions to the ccNSO Council, as co-chartering organization of the CWG UCTN, as soon as possible.

Vote results

20170920-3

Nomination of GNSO Candidates for the Third Review of ICANN Accountability and Transparency (ATRT3)

Submitted by: Susan Kawaguchi

Seconded: James Bladel

Whereas,

1. On 31 January 2017, ICANN launched a call for volunteers seeking individuals interested in serving as a volunteer Review Team member on the ATRT3 (see https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2017-01-31-en).
2. Under the new Bylaws, each SO/AC participating in the Specific Review may nominate up to 7 members to the Review Team, for consideration by the SO/AC leadership, for a review team of no more than 21 members, plus an ICANN Board member (designated by the ICANN Board). Any SO/AC nominating up to 3 individuals are entitled to have those nominees selected as members to the review team, so long as the nominees meet the applicable criteria for service on the team.
3. The GNSO Council tasked the GNSO Standing Selection Committee (SSC) to carry out the review and selection of GNSO endorsed candidates for the ATRT3 for Council consideration.
4. The SSC reviewed the candidates that requested GNSO endorsement (see https://community.icann.org/display/GSSC/ATRT3) taking into account the criteria outlined in the call for volunteers as well as the desire to ensure a RT that is balanced for diversity and expertise. The SSC submitted its full consensus recommendations to the GNSO Council on 13 September 2017 (http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2017-September/020381.html) which confirmed the ranking of the 1-7 candidates as well as the expectation that, at a minimum, the 1-3 candidates would be considered primary candidates with a guaranteed seat for the ATRT3.
5. The GNSO Council considered the recommendations of the SSC.

Resolved,

1. The GNSO Council nominates, ranked in order: Brian Cute (RySG), Wolfgang Kleinwächter (NCSG), Stéphane Van Gelder (RySG) as its primary three candidates for the ATRT3. Furthermore, the GNSO nominates, in ranked order: Tatiana Tropina (NCSG), Michael Karanicolas (NCSG), Adetola Sogbesan (BC), Erica Varlese (RySG) to be considered for inclusion in the ATRT3 by the SO-AC Chairs should additional places be available that need to be filled.
2. The GNSO Council acknowledges concerns raised by the SSC about the general lack of diversity (gender, geographic) in the pool of candidates for Review Teams, and will encourage SG/Cs to widely publicize calls for volunteers and make efforts to promote sufficient diversity in the pool of applicants for future application processes.
3. The GNSO Council instructs the GNSO Secretariat to communicate resolved #1 to the staff supporting the ATRT3.
4. The GNSO Council instructs the GNSO Secretariat to inform the applicants that have received endorsement that the GNSO Council expects that, if selected for the ATRT3, the applicant will represent the views of the entire GNSO community in their work on the ATRT3, and provide regular feedback as a group on the discussions taking place in the ATRT3, as well as the positions being taken by GNSO Review Team members.
5. The GNSO Council requests staff supporting the ATRT3 and application process to send a response to those applicants who did not receive endorsement for this Review Team, thanking them for their interest. The response should also encourage them to follow the ATRT3 work, and participate in Public Comments and community discussions and to apply for future opportunities within the GNSO Community as they arise.

Vote results

20170824-1

Motion expressing support for continued ICANN community engagement in Internet Governance activities appropriate to ICANN's mission, withdrawal as a Chartering Organization from the CCWG-IG and request for a proposal for a new structure for GNSO Council consideration by ICANN61)

Submitted by Keith Drazek

Seconded by James Bladel

WHEREAS:

1. The GNSO Council adopted the charter for a Cross Community Working Group to discuss Internet governance (CCWG-IG) issues affecting ICANN and make recommendations to the chartering organizations on these issues on 15 October 2014, and as such became a Chartering Organization.
2. The GNSO Council adopted the "Uniform Framework of Principles and Recommendations for Cross Community Working Groups" (CCWG Framework) in October 2016. The CCWG Framework details the lifecycle of a CCWG including initiation, operation, decision-making, and closure, and the GNSO Council has observed that the CCWG-IG, whose formation predated the adoption of the CCWG Framework, does not follow this lifecycle or some of the principles outlined in the CCWG Framework.
3. The GNSO Council recognizes the importance of a continued discussion of the topic of Internet governance within an ICANN context, and the continued participation by the GNSO in this discussion.
4. The GNSO Council has shared its concerns with the ccNSO Council and representatives of other SO/ACs on the current scope of the CCWG-IG and the appropriate vehicle through which ICANN SO/ACs may continue to participate in Internet governance discussions within the ICANN context.
5. During its meeting on 7 November 2016, the GNSO Council confirmed it would continue to participate as a Chartering Organization for the CCWG-IG. However, this participation was conditioned upon a comprehensive review of the CCWG-IG Charter by the CCWG-IG, in accordance with the CCWG Framework, including the possibility that another vehicle may be more suitable for cross community discussions on the topic of Internet governance (http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/uniform-framework-principles-recommendations-16sep16-en.pdf).
6. On 11 March 2017, the CCWG-IG submitted a revised charter to the GNSO Council (https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2017-March/019819.html) for its consideration.
7. The GNSO Council reviewed the charter and discussed it during a number of meetings as well as in its meetings with the ccNSO Council. These discussions highlighted remaining concerns over the group's compliance with the CCWG Framework as well as its accountability vis-a-vis the Chartering Organizations.
8. During ICANN 59 in Johannesburg, the CCWG-IG held a face-to-face meeting that included members of the ICANN Board's Internet Governance Committee. There was discussion about the future of the group, challenges with the ongoing nature of Internet Governance, and the constraints imposed by the community-developed requirements for CCWG structures. Members from multiple SOs and ACs recognized the challenges and generally agreed that a CCWG is not a required vehicle for the important and legitimate work of the group, provided the group is able to continue its engagement with adequate ICANN support and resources and there is no gap between the retirement of the CCWG-IG and the establishment of its successor.

Resolved,

1. The GNSO Council expresses its gratitude to the CCWG-IG for its work in ensuring that discussions on Internet governance take place within the ICANN context.
2. The GNSO Council emphasizes that it fully recognizes the importance of the continued involvement of the ICANN community in Internet governance-related activities that are appropriate to ICANN's mission.
3. The GNSO Council requests that members of the CCWG-IG and others interested parties come together to explore a framework / model that more fully addresses the concerns that have been expressed by the GNSO Council, and submit this framework / model to the GNSO Council for its consideration at the Council meeting mid-way between ICANN 60 and ICANN 61 (e.g. February GNSO Council meeting).
4. To facilitate the work as requested under Resolved clause #3, allowing for a reasonable time to coordinate with other SOs and ACs to develop a new structure, and to ensure there is no gap between the retirement of the CCWG-IG and the establishment of its successor group, the GNSO Council shall withdraw as a Chartering Organization from the CCWG-IG effective at the conclusion of ICANN 61 in San Juan, expecting that a replacement structure will be ready for approval by the Council at that time.
5. The GNSO Council emphasizes that its planned withdrawal as a Chartering Organization from the CCWG-IG reflects solely the Council's conclusion that, based on the reports it has received from the CCWG-IG, a CCWG is not an appropriate vehicle for the CCWG-IG's work, and the GNSO Council's decision on this narrow point is not intended to prevent any GNSO community members who have been participating in the CCWG-IG from continuing to participate in the group's activities should they decide to do so.
6. The GNSO Council requests that the GNSO Secretariat communicate this decision to the CCWG-IG and the other Chartering Organizations

Vote results

20170824-2

Nomination of GNSO Replacement Candidate for Second Security, Stability, and Resiliency of the DNS (SSR2) Review Team

Submitted by Julf Helsingius

Seconded by James Bladel

WHEREAS,

1. On 19 January 2017, the GNSO Council nominated (see https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201701) the following candidates to serve on the SSR2-RT (in alphabetical order): James Gannon, Denise Michel, and Emily Taylor as its primary three candidates for the SSR2-RT, noting that these candidates under the new ICANN Bylaws are entitled to be selected. Furthermore, the GNSO nominated (in alphabetical order): Howard Eland, Scott McCormick, Rao Naveed bin Rais, and Norm Ritchie to be considered for inclusion in the SSR2-RT by the SO-AC Chairs should additional places be available.
2. On 14 February 2017, ICANN announced the selection of the 16-member team (see https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2017-02-14-en), which included the three primary candidates nominated by the GNSO Council.
3. On 16 July 2017, Emily Taylor submitted her resignation to the SSR2-RT (see http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ssr2-review/2017-July/000468.html).
4. The GNSO Council tasked the GNSO Standing Selection Committee (SSC) with recommending a replacement candidate, taking into account the criteria outlined in the call for volunteers as well as the desire to ensure a RT that is balanced for diversity and expertise (https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2016-06-30-en).
5. Out of the four candidates that were nominated in the initial selection process for consideration, beyond those that were entitled to be selected, the following three expressed that they were still interested in serving on the SSR2-RT: Scott McCormick, Rao Naveed bin Rais, and Norm Ritchie.
6. The SSC submitted its recommendation to the GNSO Council on 18 August 2017.
7. The GNSO Council considered the recommendation of the SSC.

Resolved,

1. The GNSO Council nominates Norm Ritchie to replace Emily Taylor on the SSR2-RT.
2. The GNSO Council instructs the GNSO Secretariat to communicate resolved #1 to the staff supporting the SSR2-RT as soon as possible.
3. The GNSO Council instructs the GNSO Secretariat to inform the selected applicant that he has been chosen and that the GNSO Council expects that the applicant will represent the views of the entire GNSO community in his work on the SSR2-RT, and provide regular feedback as a group on the discussions taking place in the SSR2-RT, as well as the positions being taken by GNSO Review Team Members.
4. The GNSO Council asks the GNSO Secretariat to send a response to those applicants who were not selected, thanking them for their continued interest. The response should also encourage them to follow the SSR2-RT work, and participate in Public Comments and community discussions

Vote results

20170804-1

Adoption of the GNSO Review of GAC Communiqué for submission to the ICANN Board - (Submitted for 13 July 2017 GNSO Council meeting, deferred to electronic ballot)

Submitted by James Bladel
Seconded by Donna Austin

Whereas,

1. The Governmental Advisory Committee advises the ICANN Board on issues of public policy, and especially where there may be an interaction between ICANN's activities or policies and national laws or international agreements. It usually does so as part of a Communiqué, which is published towards the end of every ICANN meeting.
2. The GNSO is responsible for developing and recommending to the ICANN Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains.
3. The GNSO has expressed a desire to provide feedback to the ICANN Board on issues in the GAC Communiqué as these relate to generic top-level domains to inform the ICANN Board as well as the broader community of past, present or future gTLD policy activities that may directly or indirectly relate to advice provided by the GAC.
4. The GNSO hopes that the input provided through its review of the GAC Communiqué will further enhance the co-ordination and promote the sharing of information on gTLD related policy activities between the GAC, Board and the GNSO.

Resolved,

1. The GNSO Council adopts the GNSO Review of Johannesburg GAC Communiqué (see https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/review-icann59-gac-communique-28jul17-en.pdf) and requests that the GNSO Council Chair communicate the GNSO Review of the Johannesburg GAC Communiqué to the ICANN Board.
2. The GNSO Council requests that the GNSO Council Chair also informs the GAC Chair of the communication between the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board.

Vote results

20170713-1

Consent agenda

Motion – Confirmation of GNSO Representative to the Empowered Community Administration
Submitted by Consent Agenda (Donna Austin)

Whereas,

1. The GNSO Council confirmed in September 2016 that the GNSO Chair (currently James Bladel) will represent the GNSO as the Decisional Participant on the Empowered Community Administration on an interim basis and subsequently requested the GNSO Standing Selection Committee (SSC) to develop the criteria and the process for the selection of the GNSO Representative to the Empowered Community Administration for GNSO Council consideration by its June 2017 meeting.
2. The GNSO Council adopted the proposed process and criteria for the selection of the GNSO representative to the Empowered Community Administration during its meeting on 28 June 2017.
3. The GNSO Council leadership team subsequently met to agree who from the Council leadership should perform the role of GNSO representative to the Empowered Community Administration and communicated this decision to the Council mailing list on 3 July 2017.

Resolved,

Vote results

1. The GNSO Council hereby confirms that James Bladel, GNSO Chair will represent the GNSO as the Decisional Participant on the Empowered Community Administration on until the end of his term at ICANN60.
2. The GNSO representative shall act solely as directed by the GNSO Council in accordance with the ICANN Bylaws and other related GNSO Operating Procedures.
3. The GNSO Council requests the GNSO Secretariat to communicate this decision to the ICANN Secretary which will serve as the required written certification from the GNSO Chair designating the individual who shall represent the Decisional Participant on the EC Administration.

20170713-2

MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF THE FUNDAMENTAL BYLAW AMENDMENT TO TRANSFER RESPONSIBILITY FOR RECONSIDERATION REQUESTS TO A NEW BOARD COMMITTEE

Submitted by James Bladel
Seconded by Donna Austin

WHEREAS, on 1 October 2016 the revised ICANN Bylaws went into effect, creating a new Empowered Community mechanism by which ICANN's Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees can organize under California law to legally enforce the community powers described in the Bylaws (https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en)

WHEREAS, one of these new community powers is the right to approve amendments to ICANN's Fundamental Bylaws;

WHEREAS, on 23 May 2017 and as required under the ICANN Bylaws, the ICANN Secretary notified the Empowered Community that on 18 May 2017 the ICANN Board had approved an amendment to Section 4.2 of the ICANN Bylaws, which is one of ICANN's Fundamental Bylaws (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/jeffrey-to-eca-23may17-en.pdf);

WHEREAS the Secretary's Notice thereby triggered the Empowered Community Approval Action Process that is documented in Article 1, Annex D of the ICANN Bylaws (https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#annexD)

WHEREAS, on 24 May 2017 and pursuant to Section 1.3(a) of Article 1, Annex D, the Empowered Community Administration requested that ICANN convene a Community Forum during which the five Decisional Participants that comprise the Empowered Community as well as interested participants can discuss the proposed Fundamental Bylaw amendment (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/deerhake-to-jeffrey-24mar17-en.pdf);

WHEREAS, the Community Forum was held on 27 June 2017 during the ICANN59 Public Meeting in Johannesburg, South Africa (http://sched.co/B3ou); and

WHEREAS, during the Approval Action Decision Period that follows immediately on the expiration of the Community Forum Period on 29 June 2017, each of the five Decisional Participants in the Empowered Community (including the GNSO) have twenty-one (21) days (ending at 06.59 UTC on 21 July 2017) to decide whether to support or object to the Fundamental Bylaw amendment, or abstain from the matter;

RESOLVED:

1. The GNSO Council votes to approve the amendment to Section 4.2 of the ICANN Bylaws, being an amendment to an ICANN Fundamental Bylaw, as detailed in the Board resolution of 18 May 2017 (https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2017-05-18-en#1.c).
2. The GNSO Council directs the GNSO Secretariat to forward this resolution to the Empowered Community Administration before the expiration of the Approval Action Decision Period, as required under Section 1.4, Article 1, Annex D of the ICANN Bylaws.
3. The GNSO Council directs James Bladel, the GNSO's interim representative to the Empowered Community Administration, to coordinate with the other four Decisional Participant representatives to ensure that the Empowered Community Administration observes and completes the appropriate process outlined in Section 1.4(b) and (c), Annex D.

Vote results

20170628-1

Consent agenda

Confirmation of leadership for the GNSO Standing Selection Committee (SSC)

On 15 March 2017, the GNSO Council adopted the charter for the GNSO Standing Selection Committee (SSC), which was established on an interim basis to, upon request from the GNSO Council, select candidates for ICANN structures, such as review teams and related to the Empowered Community. The SSC has selected Susan Kawaguchi as its Chair and Johan Helsingius and Maxim Alzoba as Vice-Chairs. Here, the Council will confirm this leadership structure.

Vote results

20170628-2

Confirmation of process and criteria for selection of GNSO representative to the Empowered Community Administration

Submitted by Julf Helsingius & Susan Kawaguchi
Seconded by James Bladel

WHEREAS,

1. As stated in Section 1.1(a) of Article 6 of the new ICANN Bylaws, concerning the composition and organization of the Empowered Community (EC), "The Empowered Community ("EC") shall be a nonprofit association formed under the laws of the State of California consisting of the ASO, the ccNSO, the GNSO, the ALAC and the GAC (each a "Decisional Participant" or "associate," and collectively, the "Decisional Participants")."

2. The sole purpose of the EC is to exercise its rights and perform its obligations under ICANN's Articles of Incorporation and the ICANN Bylaws, and the EC shall have no other powers or rights except as expressly provided in the ICANN Bylaws. The EC may only act as provided in these Bylaws. Any act of the EC that is not in accordance with these Bylaws shall not be effective.

3. As outlined in section 6.3 of the new ICANN Bylaws, the GNSO, as a Decisional Participant, shall act through its respective chair or such other person as may be designated by the GNSO (collectively, such persons from all communities are the "EC Administration"). Each Decisional Participant shall deliver annually a written certification from its chair or co-chairs to the ICANN Secretary designating the individual who shall represent the Decisional Participant on the EC Administration.

4. The GNSO Council confirmed in September 2016 that the GNSO Chair (currently James Bladel) will represent the GNSO as the Decisional Participant on the Empowered Community Administration on an interim basis and subsequently requested the GNSO Standing Selection Committee (SSC) to 'develop the criteria and the process for the selection of the GNSO Representative to the Empowered Community for GNSO Council consideration by its June 2017 meeting'.

5. As part of its deliberations, the SSC obtained further information on the role and time commitment expected for the GNSO representative of the EC Admin and submitted its unanimous recommendations to the GNSO Council on 17 June 2017.

6. The GNSO Council has reviewed this recommendation.

RESOLVED,

1. The GNSO Council hereby confirms that one member of the GNSO leadership team (GNSO Chair and Council Vice-Chairs) will be tasked to serve as the GNSO Representative to the Empowered Community Administration. This confirmation will be according to the following steps:

a) GNSO Chair election takes place at ICANN Annual Meeting

b) Noting that the Vice-Chair cannot be from the same Stakeholder Group as the Chair, Vice-Chairs may be confirmed prior to the Chair Election only if there is a single Chair candidate or all Chair candidates are from the SG. Otherwise, confirmation of Vice-Chairs may happen after the Chair election.

c) GNSO Chair is confirmed by the GNSO Council upon election as the interim representative to the EC Admin, until such time as the GNSO leadership team has had an opportunity to meet and decide who is taking on this role. In case the GNSO Council fails to select a Chair, the existing representative to the EC Admin will remain in that role until such time as a Chair has been elected.

d) As soon as possible upon confirmation of the GNSO leadership team, the GNSO leadership team will meet to decide who is to be designated as GNSO Representative to the EC Admin. Following this determination, this decision is to be confirmed by the GNSO Council as part of the agenda. The decision on the designation of the permanent representative to the EC Admin is then communicated to the ICANN Secretary and EC Admin.

e) Should at any point during the term of the Chair and/or Vice-Chairs there be a change (for example, a resignation or a change in circumstances which may mean the representative is no longer able to perform in this role), the leadership team will communicate this to the GNSO Council as soon as possible together with the name of the individual on the leadership team who will take on this role so that a new designation can be made.

f) As part of the designation, it will be made clear that in case of absence or conflict, another member of the leadership team may step in to substitute for the representative on the EC Admin.

2. The GNSO Council confirms that this process will take effect immediately and requests the current GNSO Leadership Team discuss and agree at the latest in time for the next GNSO Council meeting who will serve as the GNSO representative to the EC Admin. Until that time, the GNSO Chair will continue to serve as the interim representative to the EC Admin.

3. The GNSO Council requests that this process is included in the GNSO Operating Procedures at the next opportunity for revision.

4. The GNSO Council thanks the SSC for its work and recommendations.

Vote results

20170518-1

Consent agenda

Acknowledgment of the Selection of Matthew Shears for Seat 14 on the ICANN Board.

The NCPH has selected Matthew Shears to succeed Markus Kummer for Seat 14 on the ICANN Board of Directors. As required by Section 7.2 of the ICANN Bylaws, on 5 May 2017, the GNSO Council Chair has informed the Empowered Community Administration, the ICANN Secretary, and the Decisional Participants of Matthew's selection (see https://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/bladel-to-empowered-community-administration-05may17-en.pdf). This agenda item is intended to acknowledge the selection and confirm that the notification process was completed.

GNSO validation of the CCWG-Accountability-WS2 request for extension of mandate and funding for FY18

Following the request from the CCWG-Accountability Chairs (see https://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/ccwg-accountability-to-chartering-organizations-27apr17-en.pdf), a motion (see https://community.icann.org/x/eQLfAw) was submitted for the GNSO to validate the extension of mandate and funding for FY18 to allow the CCWG-Accountability-WS2 to complete its work.

Vote results

20170518-2

Adoption of the GNSO Review of GAC Communiqué for submission to the ICANN Board
Submitted by James Bladel
Seconded by Michele Neylon

Whereas,

1. The Governmental Advisory Committee advises the ICANN Board on issues of public policy, and especially where there may be an interaction between ICANN's activities or policies and national laws or international agreements. It usually does so as part of a Communiqué, which is published towards the end of every ICANN meeting.
2. The GNSO is responsible for developing and recommending to the ICANN Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains.
3. The GNSO has expressed a desire to provide feedback to the ICANN Board on issues in the GAC Communiqué as these relate to generic top-level domains to inform the ICANN Board as well as the broader community of past, present or future gTLD policy activities that may directly or indirectly relate to advice provided by the GAC.
4. The GNSO hopes that the input provided through its review of the GAC Communiqué will further enhance the co-ordination and promote the sharing of information on gTLD related policy activities between the GAC, Board and the GNSO.

Resolved,

1. The GNSO Council adopts the GNSO Review of the Copenhagen GAC Communiqué (see https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-gac-communique-25apr17-en.pdf) and requests that the GNSO Council Chair communicate the GNSO Review of the Copenhagen GAC Communiqué to the ICANN Board.
2. The GNSO Council requests that the GNSO Council Chair also informs the GAC Chair of the communication between the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board.

Vote results

20170503-071

Initiation of Policy Amendment Process on Specific Red Cross and Red Crescent Names

WHEREAS, in November 2013, the GNSO completed a Policy Development Process (PDP) which resulted in a number of consensus recommendations for protecting the identifiers of International Governmental Organizations and International Non-Governmental Organizations, including the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement (Movement), at the top and second level in all generic top-level domains (gTLDs) (PDP Working Group Final Report: https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-10nov13-en.pdf, with Minority Statements: https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-minority-positions-10nov13-en.pdf);

WHEREAS, the GNSO Council approved all the PDP consensus recommendations on 20 November 2013 (http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20131120-2) and, following a mandatory public comment period on the final PDP recommendations, sent its Recommendations Report to the ICANN Board on 23 January 2014 (https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/council-board-igo-ingo-23jan14-en.pdf);

WHEREAS, on 30 April 2014 the Board adopted those of the GNSO's PDP recommendations that were consistent with GAC advice on the topic, which in relation to the Movement were for the terms "Red Cross", "Red Crescent", "Red Crystal", and "Red Lion & Sun" (referred to as "Scope 1 Identifiers" by the PDP Working Group) to be reserved at the top and second levels, with an Exception Procedure to be designed for the affected organization (http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-30apr14-en.htm#2.a);

WHEREAS, between June 2014 and January 2015 the Board and the GNSO Council engaged in discussions of the remaining inconsistencies between GAC advice and GNSO policy, which in relation to the Movement concerned the names of the then-189 National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, and the names and acronyms of the International Committee of the Red Cross and International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (referred to as "Scope 2 Identifiers" by the PDP Working Group);

WHEREAS, at ICANN57 in November 2016 the Board proposed that the GAC and the GNSO engage in a facilitated, good faith discussion to attempt to resolve the remaining inconsistencies between GAC public policy advice and GNSO consensus policy recommendations regarding the "Scope 2 Identifiers" of the Movement;

WHEREAS, representatives from the GAC and the GNSO engaged in such a facilitated, good faith discussion at ICANN58 in March 2017 during which the following matters were noted:

(1) The public policy considerations associated with protecting the Movement's identifiers in the domain name system (DNS);

(2) The GAC's rationale for seeking permanent protection for the terms most closely associated with the Movement and its respective components is grounded in the protections of the designations "Red Cross", "Red Crescent", "Red Lion and Sun", and "Red Crystal" under international treaty law and under multiple national laws;

(3) The list of names of the Red Cross and Red Crescent National Societies is a finite, limited list of specific names of the National Societies recognized within the Movement (http://www.ifrc.org/Docs/ExcelExport/NS_Directory.pdf );

(4) There are no other legitimate uses for these terms; and

(5) The GAC had provided clarification following the completion of the GNSO PDP, via its March 2014 Singapore Communique, on the finite scope of the specific list of Movement names for which permanent protections were being requested (https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/28278854/Final%20Communique%20-%20Singapore%202014.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1397225538000&api=v2);

WHEREAS, following the GAC-GNSO discussion, the Board passed a resolution on 16 March 2017 requesting that the GNSO initiate its process for Amendments or Modifications of Approved Policies, as described in Section 16 of the GNSO PDP Manual (https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-2-pdp-manual-01sep16-en.pdf), to consider amending the GNSO's approved policy concerning the specific names of the Red Cross and Red Crescent National Societies and the specific names International Committee of the Red Cross and International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (collectively, Recommendation 5 in Section 3.1 of the PDP Working Group Final Report): and

WHEREAS, the GNSO Council agrees that the aforementioned set of exceptional circumstances provides a justifiable basis for the Council to take this extraordinary step to reconsider the policy recommendation and that this is not to be viewed as the Council's consent to reopen PDP recommendations in all cases where GNSO-developed policy is in discord with GAC advice:

RESOLVED,

1.The GNSO Council hereby initiates the process described in Section 16 of the GNSO PDP Manual; accordingly, the GNSO Council requests that the PDP Working Group be reconvened for the purpose of consultation by the GNSO Council on the following proposed amendment to Recommendation 5 in Section 3.1 of the PDP Working Group Final Report:

(a) The full names of the now-190 Red Cross National Societies and the full names of the International Committee of the Red Cross and International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies are to be placed into Specification 5 of the Base gTLD Registry Agreement, with an exception procedure to be created for cases where the relevant Red Cross Red Crescent Movement organization wishes to apply for their protected string at the second level;

(b) In placing the specified identifiers into Specification 5 of the Registry Agreement, this should apply to an exact match of the full name of the relevant National Society recognized within the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement (in English and the official languages of its state of origin), the full names of the International Committee of the Red Cross and of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (in the six official United Nations languages) and a defined limited set of variations of these names; and

(c) In considering the proposed amendment, account is to be duly taken of the matters noted during the GAC-GNSO facilitated discussion at ICANN58 as well as of the GAC's public policy advice to reserve the finite list of names of the Red Cross and Red Crescent National Societies, as recognized within the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, in all gTLDs.

2. In accordance with Section 16 of the PDP Manual, the GNSO Council directs ICANN staff to post the recommendations of the reconvened PDP Working Group, and its proposed amendment(s) to Recommendation 5, if any, for public comment for a period of 30 days following the conclusion of the PDP WG.

3. In accordance with Section 16 of the PDP Manual, the GNSO Council intends to put the proposed amendment to a vote following consultation with the PDP Working Group and the conclusion of the requisite public comment period. The GNSO Council notes that approval of the proposed amendment requires a Supermajority Vote of both Houses in favour of the amendment.

4. The Council thanks all of those who participated in the talks at ICANN58 in Copenhagen, and in particular Bruce Tonkin for moderating the discussion.

Vote results

20170420-1

Consent agenda

3.1 – Confirming of Council liaison appointments

At the Council's Wrap Up Session at ICANN58 in Copenhagen in March 2017, it was noted that several Cross Community Working Groups, GNSO Working Groups and Implementation Review Teams no longer had Council liaisons, due either to a Councilor's resignation or the ending of a Councilor's term on the Council. In response to a Call for Volunteers, the following Councilors volunteered to serve as Council liaisons to the respective groups noted against their names:

Thick WHOIS Implementation Review Team (IRT): Susan Kawaguchi
Translation & Transliteration of gTLD Registration Data IRT: Rubens Kuhl
GNSO Rights & Obligations under the Revised ICANN Bylaws Drafting Team: Ed Morris
Cross Community Working Group on Internet Governance: Julf Helsingius

Vote results[gnso.icann.org]

20170420-2

Main agenda

Adoption of the GNSO Council Comment on FY18 Budget and Operating Plan

Submitted by: James Bladel
Seconded: Michele Neylon, Donna Austin

Whereas,
1. Following initial community review, a revised proposed Budget and Operating Plan for FY2018 was published for public comments on 13 March 2017 (https://www.icann.org/public-comments/fy18-budget-2017-03-08-en[icann.org]).

2. At its Wrap Up Session at ICANN58 in Copenhagen, the GNSO Council agreed to form a small team of volunteers to draft comments on the revised Budget for Council consideration (https://www.icann.org/public-comments/fy18-budget-2017-03-08-en[icann.org]).

3. At the Council's request, ICANN's Finance Team conducted a webinar on 4 April 2017 covering those aspects of the proposed Budget of interest to the GNSO community (https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/presentation-gnso-update-04apr17-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org]).

4. A draft of the proposed Council comments was circulated to the GNSO Council on 10 April (see https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2017-April/019868.html).

5. The GNSO is a Decisional Participant within the new Empowered Community, and the GNSO Council recognizes (a) that the Empowered Community's powers as contained in the revised ICANN Bylaws includes the ability to veto budgets adopted by the ICANN Board; and (b) the importance of fully understanding the funding and expenses of ICANN's operations.

Resolved,

1. The GNSO Council approves the FY18 Draft Budget comments prepared on behalf of the GNSO Council (https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-comments-plan-budget-20apr17-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org]), and instructs ICANN staff to formally submit the approved comment to the Public Comment Forum.

2. The GNSO Council thanks the volunteers who prepared the comments and ICANN staff who provided invaluable assistance to the volunteers in the drafting of the comments.

Vote results[gnso.icann.org]

20170420-3

Main agenda

Nomination of GNSO Candidates for the Registration Directory Service (formerly WHOIS) Review Team

Submitted by: Johan Helsingius (revised version sent in on 19th April 2017)
Seconded: James Bladel, Michele Neylon

Whereas,

1. On 22 February 2017, ICANN launched a call for volunteers seeking individuals interested in serving as a Volunteer Review Team Member on the RDS-RT (see https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2017-02-22-en[icann.org]).

2. Under the new Bylaws, each SO/AC participating in the Specific Review may nominate up to 7 members to the review team, for consideration by the SO/AC leadership, for a review team of no more than 21 members. Any SO/AC nominating up to 3 individuals are entitled to have those nominees selected as members to the review team, so long as the nominees meet the applicable criteria for service on the team.

3. The GNSO Council tasked the GNSO Standing Selection Committee (SSC) 'to carry out the review and selection of GNSO endorsed candidates for the Registration Directory Service Review Team for Council consideration at the latest by its 20 April 2017 meeting'.

4. The SSC reviewed the candidates that requested GNSO endorsement (see https://community.icann.org/x/gYfDAw[community.icann.org]) taking into account the criteria outlined in the call for volunteers as well as the desire to ensure a RT that is balanced for diversity and expertise. The SSC submitted its full consensus recommendations to the GNSO Council on 19 April 2017 which confirmed the ranking of the 1-7 candidates as well as the expectation that, at a minimum, the 1-4 candidates would be considered primary candidates with a guaranteed seat for the RDS-RT, instead of only 1-3, recognizing the importance and relevance of the topics under consideration for the GNSO community as well as noting that a number of SO/ACs will not be making nominations for this specific review team .

5. The GNSO Council considered the recommendations of the SSC.

Resolved,

1. The GNSO Council nominates, ranked in order: Susan Kawaguchi, Erika Mann Stephanie Perrin and Volker Greimann as its primary four candidates for the RDS-RT. Furthermore, the GNSO nominates, in ranked order: Marc Anderson, Stefania Milan and Timothy Chen to be considered for inclusion in the RDS-RT by the SO-AC Chairs should additional places be available.

2. The GNSO Council expects the GNSO Chair to communicate to the SO-AC Chairs the importance of considering the four candidates as primary as well as respecting the ranking of the additional candidates in the discussion with the other SO-AC Chairs concerning potential additions to the RDS-RT, unless for reasons of diversity/skills it becomes necessary to deviate from the indicated ranking. In such a case, the GNSO Chair is expected to communicate the rationale for such a deviation back to the GNSO Council.

3. The GNSO Council instructs the GNSO Secretariat to communicate resolved #1 to the staff supporting the RDS-RT.

4. The GNSO Council instructs the GNSO Secretariat to inform the applicants that have received endorsement that the GNSO Council expects that, if selected for the RDS-RT, the applicant will represent the views of the entire GNSO community in their work on the RDS-RT, and provide regular feedback as a group on the discussions taking place in the RDS-RT, as well as the positions being taken by GNSO Review Team Members.

5. The GNSO Council requests staff supporting the RDS-RT and application process to send a response to those applicants who did not receive endorsement (if any) for this RDS-RT, thanking them for their interest. The response should also encourage them to follow the RDS RT work, and participate in Public Comments and community discussions and to apply for future opportunities within the GNSO Community as they arise.

Vote results[gnso.icann.org]

20170315-1

Consent agenda: Confirmation of GNSO Co-Chair for the Cross Community Working Group on New gTLD Auction Proceeds

Motion as passed:
In November 2016, the GNSO Council had approved the Charter for the new Cross Community Working Group (CCWG) on New gTLD Auction Proceeds and appointed Jonathan Robinson as the GNSO co-chair to the group in December 2016 (https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20161215-1). On 9 February 2017, Jonathan Robinson informed the CCWG and the Council that he will be stepping down as GNSO co-chair, and requested that the Council appoint a successor as soon as is reasonably possible (http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-auctionproceeds/2017-February/000080.html). As directed by the Council following its meeting on 16 February, staff issued a Call for Volunteers on 1 March (https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2017-March/019785.html). Councilor Erika Mann responded to the Call and volunteered her services (https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2017-March/019786.html)
The Council approved Erika Mann's candidacy for appointment as the new GNSO co-chair to this CCWG.

Voting results

20170315-2

Main agenda: Preliminary Adoption of GNSO Standing Selection Committee (SSC) Charter

Proposed: James Bladel
Seconded: Susan Kawaguchi, Ed Morris

Whereas,

1. The GNSO Council expressed the desire to establish a GNSO Standing Selection Committee to assist with the selection of GNSO representatives to future Review Teams, including for the various reviews mandated by the ICANN Bylaws, and other ICANN structures for which the GNSO will need to appoint, nominate or endorse candidates
2. A small team of Council members developed a set of criteria intended to serve as the basis for a uniform process that would be used by the GNSO Standing Selection Committee to make future selections as required
3. These criteria have been captured in GNSO Standing Selection Committee (SSC) Charter (see https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-standing-selection-committee-15mar17-en.pdf)
4. The Council reviewed the charter and agreed that as this is a new entity and approach, it would be desirable to test the process and criteria outlined in the charter to assess whether it is fit-for-purpose. To that end, it is proposed that:
   1. the charter be adopted on an interim basis,
   2. SSC be formed in accordance with the charter,
   3. SSC to apply the charter for a minimum carry out 2 selection / nomination processes,
   4. SSC to conduct a review of the selection / nomination process and suggest changes to the Charter if appropriate,
   5. Confirm the GNSO SSC Charter as is, or, as modified based on the review.

Resolved,

1. The GNSO Council adopts the GNSO Standing Selection Committee (SSC) Charter on an interim basis (see https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/draft-standing-selection-committee-15mar17-en.pdf)and instructs the GNSO Secretariat to launch a call for volunteers per the membership criteria outlined in the SSC Charter as soon as possible with a view to having each member identified by their appointing SG/C by 27 March 2017 and the establishment of the SSC no later than 31 March 2017.
2. The GNSO Council tasks the SSC to carry out the review and selection of GNSO endorsed candidates for the Registration Directory Service Review Team for Council consideration at the latest by its 20 April 2017 meeting.
3. The GNSO Council tasks the SSC to develop the criteria and the process for the selection of the GNSO Representative to the Empowered Community for GNSO Council consideration by its June 2017 meeting, and following the approval by the GNSO Council, carry out the selection process.
4. Following the completion of two selection processes, the GNSO Council requests the SSC to report back to the GNSO Council with its assessment of whether the charter provides sufficient guidance and flexibility to carry out its work, and/or whether any modifications should be considered. Acknowledging that this is a work in progress, the GNSO Council will review this assessment as well as whether any modifications should be considered, as well as any inconsistencies that may need to be addressed as a result of the finalization of the work of the Bylaws Drafting Team.
5. The GNSO Council thanks the small group of volunteers, Susan Kawaguchi, Ed Morris, Valerie Tan and the GNSO Council leadership team, for its work on the charter.

Voting results

Statement Adopted by the GNSO Council: Glen de Saint Géry

Proposed: James Bladel
Seconded: All members of the GNSO Council

Whereas,

Glen de Saint Géry has been involved in the ICANN world before there was an ICANN, and before anybody really understood what ICANN was.
Whereas Glen was instrumental in the development of the practices and procedures that have supported the operation and administration of the GNSO since its inception as the DNSO, and which have been adopted beyond the GNSO to support other ICANN supporting organisations and advisory committees.
Whereas Glen has been responsible for developing and mentoring not only ICANN staff performing support roles for the GNSO, but also incoming Councilors.
Whereas Glen has survived seven GNSO Chairs and too many GNSO Councilors to count.
Whereas Glen is the living embodiment of ICANN's core values of openness, transparency and fairness, having performed her duties without prejudice and with diplomacy, style, grace, humour and warmth that is second to none.

Resolved

The GNSO Council, from the bottom of our hearts, and on behalf of all of the GNSO Councils that have come before us, sincerely thank Glen for her dedication, warmth and love in supporting the GNSO and the work that we do on behalf of the global internet community.

In recognition of the significant contribution Glen has made to ICANN over the past 14 years, the GNSO Council recognizes that for the purposes of ICANN58 Copenhagen, the GNSO be known as the Glen de Saint Géry Names Supporting Organization

20170216-1

Main agenda

Confirmation that modification to procedure that implements the Whois conflicts with privacy law policy recommendation is consistent with the intent of the policy recommendation

Whereas,

1. In November 2005, the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) concluded a policy development process (PDP) on Whois conflicts with privacy law, which recommended the creation of a procedure to address conflicts between a contracted party's Whois obligations and local/national privacy laws or regulations.
2. The ICANN Board of Directors adopted the recommendations in May 2006 and the final procedure was made effective in January 2008.
3. As noted in the GNSO Operating Procedures, "Periodic assessment of PDP recommendations and policies is an important tool to guard against unexpected results or inefficient processes arising from GNSO policies". As called for in Step 6 of the ICANN Procedure For Handling WHOIS Conflicts with Privacy Law[icann.org], "ICANN will review the effectiveness of the process annually".
4. ICANN launched a review of the procedure in May 2014. Following a Call for Volunteers addressed to all interested parties, an Implementation Advisory Group (IAG) was formed to review the implementation of the policy recommendations and began its work in January 2015. The IAG devoted most of its time discussing whether additional triggers to invoke the procedure should be incorporated and if so how to ensure that they remain consistent with the existing policy.
5. On 26 May 2016, the IAG submitted its final report and recommendation to the GNSO Council.
6. In its final report, the IAG recommends a modification to the existing Whois Conflicts Procedure. The modification would allow a party to trigger the procedure by obtaining a written statement from the government agency charged with enforcing its data privacy laws indicating that a particular Whois obligation conflicts with national law and then submitting that statement to ICANN, in addition to the existing trigger.

Resolved,

1. The GNSO Council has reviewed the IAG Final Report (http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/iag-review-whois-conflicts-procedure-23may16-en.pdf) and concludes that the proposed modification to the procedure conforms to the intent of the original policy recommendations and as such the GNSO Council confirms its non-objection to the modification being implemented by Global Domains Division Staff as outlined in Appendix I (http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/iag-review-whois-conflicts-procedure-appendix-1-23may16-en.pdf) as soon as practically feasible.
2. The GNSO Council recommends that as soon as the modification has been implemented all affected parties are informed accordingly.
3. Furthermore, the GNSO Council requests that ICANN staff, based on their experience of administering the modification, assess the practicality and feasibility of this new trigger in comparison to the existing trigger as well as the other triggers discussed in the IAG Final Report and reports back accordingly to the GNSO Council.
4. This assessment will inform the next periodic review of the effectiveness of the process, as directed by the policy, which will commence no later than 1 October 2017. The GNSO requests ICANN staff to report within 45 days on a projected timeline for this review and the assessment described in (3), and a draft charter for this working group.
5. The GNSO Council thanks the IAG for its work and takes note of the minority views included in the Final Report. The GNSO Council requests that these are shared with the Next-Generation Registration Directory Services PDP Working Group as the broader WHOIS issues raised in these views are expected to be dealt with in that PDP.

Voting results

20170119-1

Main Agenda

Nomination of GNSO Candidates for Second Security, Stability, and Resiliency of the DNS (SSR2) Review Team

Whereas,

1. On 30 June 2016, ICANN launched a call for volunteers seeking individuals interested in serving as a Volunteer Review Team Member on the SSR2-RT (see https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2016-06-30-en[icann.org]).
2. Under the new Bylaws, each SO/AC participating in the Specific Review may nominate up to 7 members to the review team, for consideration by the SO/AC leadership, for a review team of no more than 21 members. Any SO/AC nominating up to 3 individuals are entitled to have those nominees selected as members to the review team, so long as the nominees meet the applicable criteria for service on the team.
3. The GNSO Council formed a small team to review the candidates that requested GNSO endorsement (see https://community.icann.org/x/xRqsAw[community.icann.org]) taking into account the criteria outlined in the call for volunteers as well as the desire to ensure a RT that is balanced for diversity and expertise. The small team submitted its findings to the GNSO Council on [date].
4. The GNSO Council considered the findings of the small team.

Resolved,

1. The GNSO Council nominates (in alphabetical order): James Gannon, Denise Michel, Emily Taylor as its primary three candidates for the SSR2-RT, noting that these candidates under the new ICANN Bylaws are entitled to be selected. Furthermore, the GNSO nominates (in alphabetical order): Howard Eland, Scott McCormick, Rao Naveed bin Rais, Norm Ritchie to be considered for inclusion in the SSR2-RT by the SO-AC Chairs should additional places be available.
2. Noting the lack of diversity (gender, geographic) of the applicants, the GNSO Council encourages Staff to explore ways to encourage gender and geographic diversity in applications for future review teams.
3. The GNSO Council instructs the GNSO Secretariat to communicate resolved #1 and #2 to the staff supporting the SSR2-RT.
4. The GNSO Council instructs the GNSO Secretariat to inform the applicants that have received endorsement that the GNSO Council expects that, if selected for the SSR2-RT, the applicant will represent the views of the entire GNSO community in their work on the SSR2-RT, and provide regular feedback as a group on the discussions taking place in the SSR2-RT, as well as the positions being taken by GNSO Review Team Members.
5. The GNSO Council requests staff supporting the SSR2-RT and application process to send a response to those applicants who did not receive endorsement (if any), thanking them for their interest. The response should also encourage them to follow the SSR2-RT work, and participate in Public Comments and community discussions.

Voting results

20161215-1

Consent agenda

Appointment of GNSO Members and GNSO Co-Chair to the New Cross Community Working Group for New gTLD Auction Proceeds

Whereas,

1. The GNSO Council adopted the charter for the CCWG new gTLD Auction Proceeds during its meeting on 7 November 2016;
2. As a Chartering Organization, the GNSO can appoint a minimum of 2 and a maximum of 5 Members to the CCWG. Members are expected to serve as a liaison between their respective Chartering Organization and the CCWG. Members must, if and when necessary, ensure that the Chartering Organizations are kept up to date on the progress and deliberations of the CCWG as well as sharing any input from the Chartering Organization with the CCWG.
3. The Charter specifies that a chair may be appointed by each Chartering Organizations. Chartering Organizations that do decide to appoint a chair should make reasonable efforts that the proposed chair / co-chair has the necessary experience to manage an effort of this nature by, for example, having actively participated as a member in at least one CCWG or ICANN Working Group throughout its lifecycle in order to have relevant or related experience of the different tasks that come with chairing a CCWG. Prior leadership experience (chair / co-chair / vice-chair) is desirable.
4. The GNSO Council notes that that best efforts have been to ensure that GNSO appointed members:
   • Have sufficient and appropriate motivation (and ideally expertise) to participate in the substance of the work of the CCWG. Appropriate experience could, for example, include experience with allocation and final disbursement of funds;
   • Commit to actively participate in the activities of the CCWG on an on-going and long-term basis;
   • Solicit and communicate (where appropriate) the views and concerns of individuals in the organization that appoints them;
   • Commit to abide to the charter when participating in the CCWG;
   • Understand the needs of the Internet communities that ICANN serves (standards, domains and numbers);
   • Understand the broader ecosystem (the Internet Community) in which ICANN operates and the needs of those working on other aspects of the Internet industry, including those not yet connected.

Resolved

1. The GNSO Council appoints Jonathan Robinson as the GNSO Appointed Co-Chair and Member to the CCWG – Auction Proceeds.
2. The GNSO Council confirms Tony Harris, Jon Nevett, Eliot Noss and Stephanie Perrin as GNSO appointed members to the CCWG-Auction Proceeds.
3. The GNSO Council requests the GNSO Appointed Co-Chair and the GNSO appointed members to ensure that the GNSO community is kept up to date on the progress of the deliberations as well as making sure that input from the GNSO community is sought on a regular basis.
4. The GNSO Council encourages other interested in this topic to join this effort as a participant or observer.

Voting results

20161215-2

Adoption of the GNSO Review of GAC Communiqué from Hyderabad for submission to the ICANN Board

Whereas,

1. The Governmental Advisory Committee advises the ICANN Board on issues of public policy, and especially where there may be an interaction between ICANN's activities or policies and national laws or international agreements. It usually does so as part of a Communiqué, which is published towards the end of every ICANN meeting.
2. The GNSO is responsible for developing and recommending to the ICANN Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains.
3. The GNSO has expressed a desire to provide feedback to the ICANN Board on issues in the GAC Communiqué as these relate to generic top-level domains to inform the ICANN Board as well as the broader community of past, present or future gTLD policy activities that may directly or indirectly relate to advice provided by the GAC.
4. The GNSO hopes that the input provided through its review of the GAC Communiqué will further enhance the co-ordination and promote the sharing of information on gTLD related policy activities between the GAC, Board and the GNSO.

Resolved,

1. The GNSO Council adopts the GNSO Review of the Hyderabad GAC Communiqué https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-gac-communique-15dec16-en.pdf and requests that the GNSO Council Chair communicate the GNSO Review of the Hyderabad GAC Communiqué to the ICANN Board..
2. Following the communication to the ICANN Board, the GNSO Council requests that the GNSO Council Chair informs the GAC Chair as well as the GAC-GNSO Consultation Group of the communication between the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board.

Voting results

20161215-3

Adoption of GNSO Review Working Group Implementation Plan

WHEREAS,

1. The second independent review of the GNSO commenced in 2014.
2. The Final Report of the independent examiner was published on 15 September 2015 (see https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gnso-review-final-15sep15-en.pdf) and contained 36 recommendations in the areas of: participation & representation, continuous development, transparency and alignment with ICANN's future.
3. The GNSO Council adopted the GNSO Review Recommendations Feasibility and Prioritization analysis (see: http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-feasibility-prioritization-25feb16-en.pdf) on 14 April 2016 with the modification of Recommendation 21, that the council recommends staff working with the GNSO to institute methods of information sharing of highly relevant research related to gTLDs to help the GNSO community members increase their knowledge base (low priority).
4. On 25 June, the ICANN Board accepted the Final Report from the independent examiner, taking into account the GNSO Working Party's Feasibility and Prioritization Analysis of the GNSO Review Recommendations, adopted with modifications by the GNSO Council, the Board adopts thirty-four (34) recommendations of the Final Report (i.e. all recommendations excluding recommendations 23 and 32).
5. Furthermore, the Board requested that the GNSO Council convene a group that oversees the implementation of Board-accepted recommendations. An implementation plan, containing a realistic timeline for the implementation, definition of desired outcomes and a way to measure current state as well as progress toward the desired outcome, shall be submitted to the Board as soon as possible, but no later than six (6) months after the adoption of this resolution.
6. The GNSO Council requested that ICANN policy staff prepare a discussion paper that outlines the possible options for dealing with the implementation of the GNSO Review recommendations following adoption by the ICANN Board taking into account the past implementation of the GNSO Review as well as existing mechanisms such as the SCI, the GNSO Review Working Party and other applicable best practices and lessons learned from past reviews. This discussion paper was submitted to the GNSO Council on 20 June 2016 (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-implementation-recommendations-discussion-paper-20jun16-en.pdf).
7. The GNSO Council reviewed and discussed next steps during the ICANN meeting in Helsinki where it was proposed to repurpose the SCI as a Working Group to develop the requested implementation plan as outlined in the staff discussion paper.
8. On 21 July 2016 the GNSO Council approved a motion to adopt the charter for the GNSO Review Working Group and directed the Working Group to submit the proposed implementation plan to the GNSO Council for approval at the latest by the ICANN57.

RESOLVED

1. The GNSO Council adopts the implementation plan.
2. The GNSO Council directs staff to submit the implementation plan to the ICANN Board for its consideration.
3. Following approval of the implementation plan by the ICANN Board of Directors, the GNSO Council directs the GNSO Review Working Group to execute and oversee the implementation of the recommendations as specified in the implementation plan, and to provide the GNSO Council with regular status updates (at a minimum prior to every ICANN meeting) on the status of implementation, including an overview for which recommendations implementation is considered complete. As part of this status update, the GNSO Review Working Group should also identify any questions and/or concerns that may have arisen during the implementation that would require further guidance.

Voting results

20161201-1

Main Agenda

Acceptance of the Report from the GNSO Bylaws Implementation Drafting Team and next steps

WHEREAS:

1. On 30 June 2016 the GNSO Council approved the creation of a Drafting Team (DT) that was to work with ICANN staff to "fully identify all the new or additional rights and responsibilities that the GNSO has under the revised Bylaws, including but not limited to participation of the GNSO within the Empowered Community, and to develop new or modified structures and procedures (as necessary) to fully implement these new or additional rights and responsibilities";
2. In creating the DT, the GNSO Council requested that the DT provide the GNSO Council with an implementation plan "which will have the consensus of the Drafting Team, including any recommendations for needed further changes to ICANN Bylaws and/or GNSO Operating Procedures to enable effective GNSO participation in ICANN activities under the revised ICANN Bylaws, not later than 30 September 2016";
3. During the course of the DT's work, differing views were expressed on the role of the GNSO Council in the Empowered Community, leading to the production of a Final Report, which included a minority report on the role of the GNSO Council; and
4. The DT submitted its Final Report to the GNSO Council on 12 October 2016 (https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/bylaws-drafting-team-final-report-12oct16-en.pdf). The GNSO Council has reviewed the DT's report.

RESOLVED:

1. The GNSO Council accepts the recommendations in the DT's Final Report as submitted.
2. The GNSO Council directs ICANN Policy Staff to draft proposed language for any necessary modifications or additions to the GNSO Operating Procedures and, if applicable, those parts of the ICANN Bylaws pertaining to the GNSO. The GNSO Council requests that ICANN Legal evaluate whether the proposed modifications are consistent with the post-transition Bylaws and report their findings to the GNSO Council.
3. The GNSO Council requests that members of the DT make themselves available for consultation by ICANN Policy Staff as needed.
4. The GNSO Council directs ICANN Policy Staff to post the DT Final Report, including the minority report, and all proposed modifications or new procedures for public comment for no less than 40 days. The GNSO Council expects that any comments received will be given meaningful consideration.
5. As resolved previously, the GNSO Council intends to subject the adoption of the proposed modifications to existing procedures and/or ICANN Bylaws to a GNSO Supermajority vote. 6. The GNSO Council thanks the DT for its collaborative effort, especially in view the limited time frame available to the DT.

Voting Results

20161107-1

Consent Agenda

Adoption of the GAC-GNSO Consultation Group on GAC Early Engagement in GNSO Policy Development Processes Final Status Report & Recommendations

WHEREAS:

1. In March 2014 the GNSO and GAC formed a joint consultation group (CG) to explore mechanisms to facilitate GAC early engagement in GNSO Policy Development Processes.
2. As per its charter, the CG's deliberations have focused on two tracks, namely 1) a mechanism for day-to-day ongoing cooperation and 2) a mechanism for GAC early engagement in the GNSO PDP (see https://community.icann.org/display/gnsogcgogeeipdp/3.+Charter).
3. A number of recommendations, such as the Quick Look Mechanism and the GNSO Liaison to the GAC have already been piloted and subsequently implemented.
4. Following ICANN56, the CG reviewed the charter and noted a number of outstanding items that it considered, factoring in the input received as part of the survey amongst the GAC and GNSO to obtain input on the experiences to date with the Quick Look Mechanism as well as additional suggestions and ideas for opportunities for early engagement in the other phases of the PDP (see https://www.surveymonkey.com/results/SM-6ZLVM39T/).
5. As a result of this review, the CG submitted its Final Status Update and Proposed Recommendations to the GNSO and GAC on 10 October 2016 (see https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/gac-status-report-rec-10oct16-en.pdf).
6. The GNSO Council reviewed the Final Status Update and Proposed Recommendations and discussed it with the GAC during its joint session at ICANN57.

RESOLVED:

1. The GNSO Council adopts the Final Status Update and Proposed Recommendations (see https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/gac-status-report-rec-10oct16-en.pdf).
2. The GNSO Council instructs staff to work with the GNSO Council, the GAC Leadership team as well as the GNSO Liaison to the GAC on the implementation of these recommendations. An implementation status update is expected to be provided in time for the next joint GNSO-GAC meeting.
3. The GNSO Council thanks the members of the Consultation Group for all their efforts and considers the work of the CG hereby complete.
4. The GNSO Council requests that the GNSO Secretariat informs the GAC Secretariat of this decision.

Voting results

20161107-2

Consent Agenda

Approval of the appointment of Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez 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, a GNSO liaison to the GAC was piloted during FY15 and FY16.
2. Based on the review of the GAC-GNSO Consultation Group (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-liaison-gac-pilot-29feb16-en.pdf) and discussions between the GAC and GNSO during their joint session at the ICANN meeting in Marrakesh, the GNSO Council confirmed on 14 April 2016 role and process for a GNSO Liaison to the Governmental Advisory Committee as a permanent feature (see https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/request-liaison-gac-30mar16-en.pdf).
3. Following a call for candidates (https://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg19176.html) three applications were received all of which were evaluated by the GNSO Council Leadership based on the criteria outlined in the call for candidates.
4. Carlos Gutiérrez was unanimously recommended by the GNSO Council Leadership as the preferred candidate.

RESOLVED:

1. The GNSO Council hereby appoints Carlos Gutiérrez to the role of GNSO Liaison to the Governmental Advisory Committee until the end of the ICANN AGM 2017.
2. The GNSO Council will review the role and is expected to annually reconfirm the appointment, unless the review indicates otherwise and/or the Liaison has indicated that he/she is no longer available to continue in this role in which case a new selection process will take place and/or the review indicates.
3. The GNSO Council Leadership Team will co-ordinate with Carlos Gutiérrez as well as the GAC Leadership Team and GAC Secretariat on next steps and the successful implementation of this role.
4. The GNSO Council thanks all who expressed an interest in this role, and noting that all candidates met or exceeded the published requirements for the position.

Voting results

20161107-3

Main Agenda

Conditional participation of the GNSO as a Chartering Organization for the Cross Community Working Group to discuss Internet governance (CWG-IG) issues affecting ICANN

WHEREAS:

1. The GNSO Council adopted the charter for a Cross Community Working Group to discuss Internet governance (CWG-IG) issues affecting ICANN and make recommendations to the chartering organization on these issues on 15 October 2014, and as such became a Chartering Organization.
2. The Charter foresees that "At each ICANN Annual General Meeting, starting 2014, the Charter and deliverables of the WG shall be reviewed by the participating SO's and AC's to determine whether the WG should continue, or, close and be dissolved. Consistent with ICANN community practices, the WG will continue if at least two of the participating SO's or AC's extend the Charter of the WG and notify the other participating SO's and AC's accordingly one month after the annual review date".
3. The CWG-IG provided its first written status update on 23 June 2016 (see https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/ccwg-internet-governance-23jun16-en.pdf [gnso.icann.org]).
4. The GNSO Council recently adopted the "Uniform Framework of Principles and Recommendations for Cross Community Working Groups" (CWG Framework) which details the lifecycle of a CCWG including initiation, formation, operation, decision-making, adoption of Final Report by Chartering Organizations and closure of CCWG, and post-closure of CCWG.
5. The GNSO Council has observed that the CWG-IG does not follow this lifecycle, nor has it established or adopted an initial work plan and associated schedule as foreseen in its Charter.
6. The GNSO Council recognizes the importance of a continued dialogue and discussion in relation to the topic of Internet Governance within an ICANN context.
7. The GNSO Council has shared its concerns with the ccNSO Council and representatives of other SO/ACs on the subject of this CWG and its future.

RESOLVED:

1. The GNSO Council will continue to participate as a Chartering Organization for the CWG-IG. However, this participation is conditioned upon a comprehensive review of the CWG-IG Charter by the CWG-IG, in accordance with the CWG Framework (http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/uniform-framework-principles-recommendations-16sep16-en.pdf)[gnso.icann.org]. In particular, the GNSO Council expects future work to be subject to a clear work plan, with regular updates and clear deliverables.
2. The GNSO Council expects that the CWG-IG will present by ICANN58 a report on its findings, which may include a revised charter or a recommendation to reconstitute the group under a new structure.
3. Following the submission of the CWG-IG report, the GNSO Council will consider the recommendations and decide whether or not it will continue as a Chartering Organization.
4. The GNSO Secretariat will communicate this decision to the CWG-IG Chairs as well as the other Chartering Organizations.

Voting results

20161107-4

Main Agenda

Adoption of the Charter for a Cross-Community Working Group on new gTLD Auction Proceeds

WHEREAS:

1. Following a number of sessions on the topic of new gTLD Auction proceeds during the ICANN53 in Buenos Aires (see https://buenosaires53.icann.org/en/schedule/mon-soac-high-interest [buenosaires53.icann.org] and https://buenosaires53.icann.org/en/schedule/wed-cwg-new-gtld-auction [buenosaires53.icann.org]), a discussion paper was published in September 2015 to solicit further community input on this topic as well as the proposal to proceed with a CCWG on this topic.
2. As the feedback received on the discussion paper confirmed the support for moving forward with a CCWG, James Bladel, GNSO Chair, reached out to all the ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees to ask for volunteers to participate in a drafting team to develop a charter for a CCWG on this topic. All ICANN SO/ACs, apart from the ccNSO, responded to this request and put forward volunteers to participate in the drafting team.
3. The GNSO Council appointed Jonathan Robinson to chair the Drafting Team ('DT'), which commenced its deliberations on Tuesday 23 February 2016.
4. The DT published a draft charter for community discussion in advance of ICANN 56 which was discussed during the cross-community session held at ICANN56. Following ICANN56, the DT reviewed all the input received and updated the proposed charter accordingly. On 13 September, this proposed charter was shared with all ICANN SO/ACs with the request to review it and identify any pertinent issues that would prevent adoption of the charter, if any.
5. Subsequently, a webinar was held on 13 October to allow for some additional time and information to undertake this review (see https://community.icann.org/x/gh_4Aw [community.icann.org]).
6. As no pertinent issues were raised, the DT submitted the proposed CCWG charter (see https://community.icann.org/x/mRuOAw [community.icann.org]) for consideration to all ICANN SO/ACs on 17 October 2016.

RESOLVED:

1. The GNSO Council approves the Charter.
2. Each GNSO Stakeholder Group will identify one member for the CCWG by 5 December 2016 taking into account the charter requirement that best efforts should be made to ensure that members:
    
   
   1. Have sufficient and appropriate motivation (and ideally expertise) to participate in the substance of the work of the CCWG. Appropriate experience could, for example, include experience with allocation and final disbursement of funds;
   2. Commit to actively participate in the activities of the CCWG on an on-going and long-term basis;
   3. Solicit and communicate (where appropriate) the views and concerns of individuals in the organization that appoints them;
   4. Commit to abide to the charter when participating in the CCWG;
   5. Understand the needs of the Internet communities that ICANN serves (standards, domains and numbers);
   6. Understand the broader ecosystem (the Internet Community) in which ICANN operates and the needs of those working on other aspects of the Internet industry, including those not yet connected.
3. The GNSO Council expects to select a GNSO Co-Chair for the CCWG from the slate of GNSO appointed members to the CCWG during its meeting on 15 December 2016.
4. Furthermore, in addition to a Statement of Interest, all members and participants will be required to provide a declaration on intention to apply for (or in any way support the application for) new gTLD Auction Proceeds, either as an individual or through the entity you are representing or employed by or are otherwise funded by or affiliated with or support/endorse. It will be mandatory to report any changes in relation to these intentions throughout the CCWG life-cycle.
5. The GNSO will collaborate with the other SOs and ACs to issue a call for participants and observers to join the CCWG, each in accordance with its own rules.
6. The GNSO Council thanks the members of the Auction Proceeds Drafting Team for their contributions developing this Draft Charter.

Voting results

20161013-1

Approval of the Final Framework for Future Cross Community Working Groups

Whereas:

1. In March 2012 the GNSO Council approved a set of initial draft principles relating to the formation and operation of cross community working groups (CCWGs) and directed ICANN staff to solicit feedback on the principles from the other ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees (SO/ACs);
2. In June 2013 the ccNSO provided detailed feedback suggesting further clarifications and possible additions to the initial draft principles;
3. In October 2013 the GNSO Council approved the formation of a Drafting Team to develop a Charter for a new CCWG to take forward and synthesize the initial work of the GNSO and the ccNSO feedback, and develop a final framework of operating principles that can function effectively across all SO/ACs relating to the formation, operation, decision making and termination of future CWGs (the "Final Framework of Operating Principles for Future CCWGs");
4. The ccNSO Council and GNSO Council approved the Charter for the new CCWG to develop the Final Framework for Future CCWGs in March 2014;
5. The CCWG published a proposed initial Framework for public comment in February 2016;
6. Following review of public comments received and further community deliberations at ICANN56 in June 2016, the CCWG completed its proposed Final Framework and submitted it to the ccNSO and GNSO Councils on 19 September 2016

RESOLVED:

1. The GNSO Council approves the Final Framework of Operating Principles for Future CCWGs.
2. The GNSO Council thanks the CCWG for its work on developing and finalizing the Final Framework.
3. The GNSO Council directs ICANN staff, upon the ccNSO Council's adoption of the Final Framework, to inform all SO/ACs of the two Councils' adoption of the Final Framework, and recommends that the principles and recommendations contained in the Final Framework be consulted by the ICANN community in considering the creation of all future CCWGs.

Voting Results

20160929-1

GNSO Validation of the CCWG-Accountability Budget Request

WHEREAS,

1. Per its Charter, the Project Cost Support Team (PCST) has supported the CCWG-Accountability in developing a draft budget and cost-control processes for the CCWG-Accountability activities for FY17, and has also developed a historical analysis of all the transition costs to date (see https://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/pdfuYOMKUK7ig.pdf).
2. The CCWG-Accountability FY17 budget was presented at its plenary meeting of June 21st and approved for transmission to the Chartering Organizations for validation as per the process agreed with the PCST. This request for validation was received on 23 June.
3. Following review and discussion during ICANN56, the GNSO Council requested a webinar on this topic which was held on 23 August (see transcript at https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-ccwg-accountability-webinar-23aug16-en.pdf, recording at http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ccwg-accountability-webinar-23aug16-en.mp3 and AC recording at https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p8fu99qpt7d/).
4. The GNSO Council notes that many members of the GNSO community have expressed the view that the projected budget does not likely support revisiting the topic of the jurisdiction of ICANN's organization in that such exploration would likely require substantial independent legal advice on alternative jurisdictions and their potential impact on the text and structure of ICANN's Bylaws.
5. The GNSO Council has discussed and reviewed all the relevant materials.

RESOLVED,

1. The GNSO Council hereby accepts the proposed CCWG-Accountability FY17 budget, as well as the cost-control processes presented in conjunction with the CCWG budget, expects the working groups to be restrained and judicious in their use of outside legal assistance, and believes that the Legal Committee should exercise reasonable and effective controls in evaluating requests for outside legal assistance and should approve them only when deemed essential to assist a working group to fully and objectively understand and develop a particular course of action for which the group has reached a substantial degree of consensus and requires legal advice on its risks and feasibility.
2. The GNSO Council expects to receive regular updates on actual expenditures as tracked against this adopted budget, and reserves the right to provide further input on the budget allocation in relation to the CCWG-Accountability related activities.
3. The GNSO Council expects ICANN staff, including its office of General Counsel, to provide the assistance requested by the CCWG and its working groups in an expeditious, comprehensive, and unbiased manner.
4. The GNSO Council expects the CCWG-Accountability and staff to work within the constraints of this approved budget, and that excess costs or requests for additional funding beyond said budget should be recommended by the Legal Committee only when deemed essential to completion of the CCWG's work and objectives.
5. It is the position of the GNSO Council that revisiting the jurisdiction or organization of the ICANN legal entity, as established by CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 1, would not likely be supported by this projected budget and, further, that such inquiry should not be undertaken at this time because the new accountability measures are all premised and dependent on California jurisdiction for their effective operation, and any near-term changes in organizational jurisdiction could be extremely destabilizing for ICANN and its community.
6. The GNSO Council requests the GNSO Secretariat to communicate this resolution to the CCWG-Accountability Chairs, and to the office of the ICANN CFO.

Voting Results

20160929-2

Interim appointment of the GNSO Representative on the Empowered Community Administration

WHEREAS,

1. As stated in Section 1.1(a) of Article 6 of the new ICANN Bylaws, concerning the composition and organization of the Empowered Community (EC), "The Empowered Community ("EC") shall be a nonprofit association formed under the laws of the State of California consisting of the ASO, the ccNSO, the GNSO, the ALAC and the GAC (each a "Decisional Participant" or "associate," and collectively, the "Decisional Participants")."
2. The sole purpose of the EC is to exercise its rights and perform its obligations under ICANN's Articles of Incorporation and the ICANN Bylaws, and the EC shall have no other powers or rights except as expressly provided in the ICANN Bylaws. The EC may only act as provided in these Bylaws. Any act of the EC that is not in accordance with these Bylaws shall not be effective.
3. As outlined in section 6.3 of the new ICANN Bylaws, the GNSO, as a Decisional Participant, shall act through its respective chair or such other person as may be designated by the GNSO (collectively, such persons from all communities are the "EC Administration"). Each Decisional Participant shall deliver annually a written certification from its chair or co-chairs to the ICANN Secretary designating the individual who shall represent the Decisional Participant on the EC Administration.
4. The GNSO created a Drafting Team (DT) on 30 June 2016 to identify the GNSO's new rights and obligations, and work with ICANN staff to prepare an implementation plan to address any needed changes by 30 September (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions - 201606).

RESOLVED,

1. The GNSO Council hereby confirms that the GNSO Chair (currently James Bladel) will represent the GNSO as the Decisional Participant on the Empowered Community Administration on an interim basis.
2. The GNSO representative shall act solely as directed by the GNSO Council in accordance with the ICANN Bylaws and other related GNSO Operating Procedures.
3. Within three months after the completion of the work of the GNSO Rights & Obligations under Revised ICANN Bylaws Drafting Team and adoption of its recommendations by the GNSO Council, the GNSO is expected to finalize its decision on the appointment of the person designated to represent the GNSO as the Decisional Participant on the Empowered Community Administration and will communicate this accordingly to the ICANN Secretary.
4. The GNSO Council requests the GNSO Secretariat to communicate this decision to the ICANN Secretary which will serve as the required written certification from the GNSO Chair designating the individual who shall represent the Decisional Participant on the EC Administration.

Voting Results

20160901-1

Consent Agenda: Confirmation of the dates for selection of GAC-GNSO liaison (motion passed on 30 June 2016) based on updated ICANN57 meeting dates:
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+30+June+2016

Motion as passed, with dates to be updated highlighted as indicated below:

Resolved:

The GNSO Council hereby confirms the extension of the term of the current GNSO Liaison to the GAC, Mason Cole, until the end of the ICANN AGM in Hyderabad. The GNSO Council instructs the GNSO Secretariat to inform the GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies of the extended selection timeline (Nominations Accepted for Candidates - 1 OCT 2016; Council Chairs consider candidates and notify first choice - 20 OCT; Chairs submit motion to Council by 28 OCTOBER for consideration during Council meeting on 7 NOVEMBER; GAC Leadership notified of new Liaison by 9 NOV. Voting results

20160901-2

Approval of the proposed modifications to GNSO Operating procedures relating to Elections and Motions.

WHEREAS:

1. On 05 March 2015 the SCI submitted to the GNSO Council a Review Request concerning the fact that there are currently no formal procedures on (i) whether, how and by whom a properly submitted motion is to be seconded, and (ii) treatment of proposed amendments to such motions as either "friendly" or "unfriendly".
2. At its meeting on 19 March 2015 the GNSO Council asked that the SCI codify the existing customary practices of the GNSO Council and consider new processes to govern the seconding of motions and amendments to motions.
3. In a motion approved on 19 November 2015 the GNSO Council requested the SCI: (1) To review Sections 2.2(b), (f) and (g) of the GNSO Operating Procedures with respect to clarifying: (i) the eligibility of incoming Council members to run for the position of GNSO Chair; (ii) the start and end dates and the duration of the Chair and Vice-Chair terms in accordance with the ICANN Bylaws; and (iii) the timing of publication of the election results; and (2) To recommend a general time table for election of the GNSO Council Chair to be approved by the GNSO Council and added to the GNSO Operating Procedures.
4. After extensive consideration the SCI reached Full Consensus on modifications to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures relating to motions and the Chair/Vice-Chair elections.
5. As required by the ICANN Bylaws, a public comment forum on the proposed modifications was opened on 05 July 2016 and closed on 14 August 2016 during which two comments were received that supported the proposed modifications.
6. On its meeting on 16 July 2016, the GNSO Council adopted the charter of the GNSO Review Working Group, and instructed the SCI to disband following the completion of the two tasks now before the Council.

RESOLVED:

1. The GNSO Council adopts the modifications to the GNSO Operating Procedures relating to motions and the Chair/Vice-Chair elections.
2. The GNSO Council instructs ICANN staff to post the new version of the GNSO Operating Procedures, effective immediately upon adoption.
3. The GNSO Council thanks both present and former members of the SCI, as well as Policy Staff and the GNSO Secretariat supporting them for the work they have done on behalf of the GNSO over the years since the SCI's formation. Voting Results

20160809-1

Approval of the Liaisons and Members of the Customer Standing Committee (CSC)

Voting Results

WHEREAS:

1. The package of proposals that was developed by the community in relation to the IANA Stewardship Transition called for the creation of a new structure, the Customer Standing Committee (CSC), to provide operational oversight of the performance of the IANA naming function, a role currently performed by the United States government through the National Telecommunications and Information Authority (NTIA).
2. On 02 June 2016, the GNSO Council confirmed a Selection Committee to evaluate the candidates for the GNSO CSC liaison. The GNSO Council approved James Gannon as the CSC Liaison.
3. The GNSO Council provided to ICANN the liaison name along with his Expression of Interest by the deadline of 22 July 2016.
4. The GNSO Council requested that the Selection Committee shall engage, if requested, with the ccNSO Selection Committee to evaluate the full slate of CSC members and liaisons.
5. The GNSO and ccNSO CSC Selection Committees met on 02 August to consider the CSC liaisons and members.
6. The GNSO and ccNSO CSC Selection Committees sent to the ccNSO and GNSO Councils their recommended list of CSC liaisons and members.

RESOLVED:

1. The GNSO Council has reviewed the list of CSC liaisons and members and approves the full list.
2. The GNSO Council requests that the GNSO Secretariat notify ICANN no later than 10 August that the GNSO has approved the full list of CSC liaisons and members.

20160809-2

Adoption of the GNSO Review of GAC communiqué for submission to the ICANN Board

Voting results

WHEREAS:

1. The Governmental Advisory Committee advises the ICANN Board on issues of public policy, and especially where there may be an interaction between ICANN's activities or policies and national laws or international agreements. It usually does so as part of a Communiqué, which is published towards the end of every ICANN meeting.
2. The GNSO is responsible for developing and recommending to the ICANN Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains (gTLDs).
3. The GNSO has expressed a desire to provide feedback to the ICANN Board on issues in the GAC Communiqué as these relate to generic top-level domains, to inform the ICANN Board as well as the broader community of past, present or future gTLD policy activities that may directly or indirectly relate to advice provided by the GAC.
4. The GNSO Council developed a template to facilitate this process, which was completed following the publication of the GAC's Helsinki Communiqué by a volunteer and shared with the GNSO Council for its review.
5. The GNSO hopes that the input provided through its review of the GAC Communiqué will further enhance co-ordination and promote the sharing of information on gTLD related policy activities between the GAC, Board and the GNSO.

RESOLVED:

1. The GNSO Council adopts the GNSO Review of the Helsinki GAC Communiqué (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-gac-communique-27jul16-en.pdf [PDF, 178 KB]) and requests that the GNSO Council Chair communicate the GNSO Review of the Helsinki GAC Communiqué to the ICANN Board.
2. Following the communication to the ICANN Board, the GNSO Council requests that the GNSO Council Chair informs the GAC Chair as well as the GAC-GNSO Consultation Group of the communication between the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board.

20160721-1

Approval of the GNSO primary and secondary Liaisons to the Customer Standing Committee

Voting Results

WHEREAS:

1. On 14 March 2014, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) of the United States Department of Commerce announced its intention to transition key Internet domain name functions to the global multi-stakeholder community and, as the first step, asked to convene global stakeholders to develop a proposal to transition the current role played by NTIA in the coordination of the Internet's domain name system;
2. The IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) was formed, comprising 30 individuals selected by 13 communities of both direct and indirect stakeholders, to coordinate and develop a unified proposal to be transmitted to the NTIA based on proposals developed by the Internet domain names community (through the CWG-Stewardship, the Internet numbering resources community (through the CRISP Team, and the Internet Protocol parameters community (through the IANAPLAN Working Group;
3. The IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal, combining the community proposal coordinated by the ICG and enhancements to ICANN's accountability identified by the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability), was transmitted to NTIA by the ICANN Board in March 2016;
4. The package of proposals that was developed by the community in relation to the IANA Stewardship Transition called for the creation of a new structure, the Customer Standing Committee (CSC) to provide operational oversight of the performance of the IANA naming function, a role currently performed by the United States government through the National Telecommunications and Information Authority (NTIA).
5. On 1 June 2016, ICANN sent a request to the ICANN Supporting Organizations (SOs), Advisory Committees (ACs) and Registry Stakeholder Group (RySG) to initiate their respective organization's processes and appoint candidates to serve as members and liaisons on the CSC.
6. As an ICANN Supporting Organization, the GNSO may appoint a liaison to the CSC, in addition to the two gTLD registry operator members to be selected by the RySG.
7. For the liaison, the GNSO may select a primary and a secondary candidate that meet the qualification requirements in the expression of interest, and are geographically diverse.
8. Liaison candidates are to be confirmed by 22 July 2016, and the final slate of CSC members and liaisons as determined by the ccNSO and GNSO Councils will be sent to ICANN not later than 10 August 2016.
9. On 02 June 2016, the GNSO Council confirmed a Selection Committee to evaluate the candidates for primary and secondary GNSO liaisons.
10. On 20 June 2016, the Selection Committee sent reminders to the GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies requesting Expressions of Interest from candidates to be submitted by 15 July 2016.
11. The Selection Committee has completed its evaluation of the GNSO liaison candidate and submitted the application and the following candidate for GNSO Council consideration: James Gannon.

RESOLVED:

1. The GNSO Council has reviewed the application and the candidate provided by the Selection Committee and approves James Gannon as the Liaison.
2. The GNSO Council requests that the GNSO Secretariat shall provide to ICANN the liaison name along with his Expression of Interest by the deadline of 22 July 2016.
3. The GNSO Council requests that the Selection Committee shall engage, if requested, with the ccNSO Selection Committee to evaluate the full slate of CSC members and liaisons.
4. The GNSO Council will consider the full slate of CSC members and liaisons either at a GNSO Council meeting, or a vote outside of a meeting, on 09 August 2016.

20160721-2

The adoption of the GNSO Review Working Group Charter

Voting results

WHEREAS:

1. The second independent review of the GNSO commenced in 2014.
2. The Final Report of the independent examiner was published on 15 September 2015 (see https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gnso-review-final-15sep15-en.pdf) and contained 36 recommendations in the areas of: participation & representation, continuous development, transparency and alignment with ICANN's future.
3. The GNSO Council adopted the GNSO Review Recommendations Feasibility and Prioritization analysis (see:http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-feasibility-prioritization-25feb16-en.pdf) on 14 April 2016 with the modification of Recommendation 21, that the council recommends staff working with the GNSO to institute methods of information sharing of highly relevant research related to gTLDs to help the GNSO community members increase their knowledge base (low priority).
4. On 25 June, the ICANN Board accepted the Final Report from the independent examiner, taking into account the GNSO Working Party's Feasibility and Prioritization Analysis of the GNSO Review Recommendations, adopted with modifications by the GNSO Council, the Board adopts thirty-four (34) recommendations of the Final Report (i.e. all recommendations excluding recommendations 23 and 32).
5. Furthermore, the Board requested that the GNSO Council convene a group that oversees the implementation of Board-accepted recommendations. An implementation plan, containing a realistic timeline for the implementation, definition of desired outcomes and a way to measure current state as well as progress toward the desired outcome, shall be submitted to the Board as soon as possible, but no later than six (6) months after the adoption of this resolution.
6. The GNSO Council requested that ICANN policy staff prepare a discussion paper that outlines the possible options for dealing with the implementation of the GNSO Review recommendations following adoption by the ICANN Board taking into account the past implementation of the GNSO Review as well as existing mechanisms such as the SCI, the GNSO Review Working Party and other applicable best practices and lessons learned from past reviews. This discussion paper was submitted to the GNSO Council on 20 June 2016 (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-implementation-recommendations-discussion-paper-20jun16-en.pdf).
7. The GNSO Council reviewed and discussed next steps during the ICANN meeting in Helsinki where it was proposed to repurpose the SCI as a Working Group to develop the requested implementation plan as outlined in the staff discussion paper.
8. A proposed charter for a GNSO Review Working Group was submitted to the GNSO Council for consideration http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/gnso-review-charter-11jul16-en.pdf

RESOLVED:

1. The GNSO Council adopts the charter for the GNSO Review Working Group.
2. The GNSO Council directs the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI), to complete the two tasks assigned to it by the GNSO Council and submit the proposed revisions for approval at the GNSO Council meeting by 01 September 2016. Upon completion of these tasks, any new requests will revert to the GNSO Review Working Group for consideration. Following the completion of these two tasks, the SCI will be disbanded as its work will have been superseded by the GNSO Review Working Group.
3. The GNSO Council requests ICANN staff to issue a call for volunteers, both to solicit Stakeholder Group and Constituency appointed members and alternates as well as participants from the GNSO and broader community.
4. The GNSO Council directs the GNSO Review Working Group to submit the proposed implementation plan to the GNSO Council for approval at the latest by the ICANN57.

20160630-1

Approval to Permanently Integrate Successful PDP Improvements into the GNSO Policy Development Process

Voting Results

Whereas,

1. Starting in 2013, the Council, in collaboration with ICANN Staff, gathered a number of ideas and suggestions to be explored to improve and streamline the existing Policy Development Process. These ideas and suggestions were translated into 10 PDP Improvements (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/pdp-improvements-table-16jan14-en.pdf).
2. Many of these improvements were also closely aligned with the recommendations of the ATRT2 in relation to the GNSO PDP.
3. Staff was tasked to explore and implement next steps for each item, including in pilot format. Since then, Staff has been providing regular status updates to the GNSO Council in conjunction with ICANN meetings.
4. Staff provided a final status update http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/memo-pdp-improvements-09jun16-en.pdf on 9 June 2016. This final status update included proposed next steps on how to transform some of the GNSO Improvements that have been determined successful into permanent features of the PDP and close out this project until such time the Council identifies new improvements that are deemed worth exploring and/or revamps some of the improvements that were not deemed suitable for implementation at this stage.
5. The GNSO Council has reviewed and discussed the final status update (http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/memo-pdp-improvements-09jun16-en.pdf).

Resolved,

1. The GNSO Council adopts the final status update and considers the GNSO PDP Improvements Project hereby complete.
2. The GNSO Council directs staff to move ahead with the identified next steps including: integrating the inclusion of the proposed PDP Charter as part of the Preliminary Issue Report; development of draft guidelines for the use and application for face-to-face facilitated PDP WG meetings for Council review and adoption, and; developing a survey to assess the familiarity that the community has with the different newcomer and training tools as well as their perceived usefulness.

20160630-2

Creation of a drafting team to further develop recommendations to implement the GNSO's new roles and obligations under the revised ICANN Bylaws – 29 June 2016

Voting results

WHEREAS:

1. On 27 May 2016 the ICANN Board adopted a set of new ICANN Bylaws, as revised on 26 May 2016, that aim to reflect changes needed to implement the IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal and such adoption is contingent on the proposed transition away of remaining United States Government oversight of ICANN; and
2. The GNSO Council is aware that changes that may need to be made to the GNSO's current Operating Procedures and related mechanisms and to the ICANN Bylaws in order to give effect to new roles and obligations of the GNSO under the new Bylaws, such as those in this table (http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/revised-bylaws-notes-comments-procedures-14jun16-en.pdf), including but not limited to the GNSO's participation in the Empowered Community;

RESOLVED:

1. The GNSO Council requests ICANN staff to issue a call for volunteers for a Drafting Team that will work with ICANN staff to fully identify all the new or additional rights and responsibilities that the GNSO has under the revised Bylaws, including but not limited to participation of the GNSO within the Empowered Community, and to develop new or modified structures and procedures (as necessary) to fully implement these new or additional rights and responsibilities.
2. Volunteers for the Drafting Team will be identified by GNSO Council members. Volunteers should express interests and can demonstrate reasonable knowledge of or experience with the process of revising the ICANN Bylaws or GNSO Operating Procedures. The Drafting Team shall reflect the current composition of the GNSO and as such, the GNSO Council may review the number of volunteers identified by the GNSO Council members. GNSO Councilors are requested to identify volunteers by letter to the GNSO Council Chair by 22 July 2016.
3. The Drafting Team shall provide the GNSO Council with an implementation plan, which will have the consensus of the Drafting Team, including any recommendations for needed further changes to ICANN Bylaws and/or GNSO Operating Procedures to enable effective GNSO participation in ICANN activities under the revised ICANN Bylaws, not later than 30 September 2016.
4. As part of the process of its consideration of the implementation plan, intended to be approved by a GNSO supermajority vote, the Council may further request that the Drafting Team work with ICANN staff to develop new, or propose modifications to existing, procedures and structures to implement the revised Bylaws for the GNSO. The GNSO Council intends to adopt any such new, or proposed modifications to existing procedures and structures to implement the revised Bylaws for the GNSO by a GNSO supermajority vote.

20160630-3

Extension of the term of the current GNSO Liaison to the GAC and confirmation of the extended timeline for the selection process for the next GNSO liaison to the GAC.

Voting Results

Whereas:

1. The GNSO Council adopted the "Request for Candidates - GNSO Liaison to the GAC" which includes the proposed call for volunteers, application and evaluation process (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/request-liaison-gac-30mar16-en.pdf during its meeting on 14 April 2016.
2. The subsequent call for volunteers resulted in the decision to extend the selection process.
3. The GNSO Leadership team shared with the Council its assessment concerning the misalignment of the current deadline and the fact that the terms of possible candidates (e.g. former Council members) end at the ICANN AGM and as a result proposed to extend the selection timeline as follows: Nominations Accepted for Candidates - 1 OCT 2016; Council Chairs consider candidates and notify first choice - 20 OCT; Chairs submit motion to Council by 29 OCT for consideration during Council meeting on 8 NOV; GAC Leadership notified of new Liaison by 9 NOV.
4. The current GNSO Liaison to the GAC has agreed to extend his term until the ICANN AGM in Hyderabad.
5. The GNSO Council leadership expects that appointments of this nature will continue to be necessary in the future, and these selections would benefit from a uniform selection process.
   Additionally, the Council notes the upcoming implementation work associated with the post-transition bylaws will include work on drafting a uniform selection process, and this could be expanded to cover additional roles.

Resolved:

1. The GNSO Council hereby confirms the extension of the term of the current GNSO Liaison to the GAC, Mason Cole, until the end of the ICANN AGM in Hyderabad.
2. The GNSO Council instructs the GNSO Secretariat to inform the GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies of the extended selection timeline (Nominations Accepted for Candidates - 1 OCT 2016; Council Chairs consider candidates and notify first choice - 20 OCT; Chairs submit motion to Council by 29 OCT for consideration during Council meeting on 8 NOV; GAC Leadership notified of new Liaison by 9 NOV).
3. The Council instructs Staff to include consideration of a uniform selection process as part of the work associated with implementing the post-transition bylaws

20160512-1

Consent agenda

Council confirmation of Kathy Kleiman, Philip Corwin and J. Scott Evans as co-chairs for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group.

Voting results

20160414-1a

In accordance with Section 3.3.2 of the GNSO Operating Procedures, the Council first voted unanimously to consider the following motion, to approve the proposed Approach for Implementing Recommendations from the GNSO Review that was submitted after the general 10-day deadline, prior to moving to a vote on the motion itself.

Voting results

20160414-1

Adoption of the GNSO Review Working Party's feasibility and prioritization analysis of the GNSO Review Recommendations

Whereas,

1. The GNSO Review Working Party was formed to serve as a liaison between the GNSO, the independent examiner and the ICANN Board's Organizational Effectiveness Committee.
2. Each GNSO Stakeholder Group and Constituency appointed representatives to serve on the Working Party.
3. The GNSO Review Working Party provided input on the review criteria, 360 assessment and served as a conduit for input from GNSO Stakeholder Groups, Constituencies as well as the GNSO Council.
4. The GNSO Review Working Party offered guidance to the independent examiner to ensure the draft report accurately reflects the GNSO structure, scope and dynamics.
5. The Final Report of the independent examiner was published on 15 September 2015 (see https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/gnso-review-final-15sep15-en.pdf) and contained 36 recommendations in the areas of: participation & representation, continuous development, transparency and alignment with ICANN's future.
6. The GNSO Review Working Party reviewed the recommendations and conducted a feasibility and prioritization analysis (see: http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-feasibility-prioritization-25feb16-en.pdf), which it submitted to the GNSO Council on 28 February 2016.
7. The GNSO Council reviewed the feasibility and prioritization analysis provided by the GNSO Review Working Party.

Resolved,

1. The GNSO Council adopts the GNSO Review Recommendations Feasibility and Prioritization analysis (see:http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-feasibility-prioritization-25feb16-en.pdf) with the modification of Recommendation 21, that the council recommends staff working with the GNSO to institute methods of information sharing of highly relevant research related to gTLDs to help the GNSO community members increase their knowledge base (low priority).
2. The GNSO Council instructs the GNSO Secretariat, on behalf of the GNSO Council and Chair, to communicate the GNSO Review Recommendations Feasibility and Prioritization analysis to the ICANN Board's Organizational Effectiveness Committee (OEC) and communicate that the GNSO Council expects that the ICANN Board and the OEC will factor in the GNSO Review Recommendations Feasibility and Prioritization analysis as part of its consideration of the GNSO Review Recommendations.
3. The GNSO Council requests that ICANN policy staff prepare a discussion paper that outlines the possible options for dealing with the implementation of the GNSO Review recommendations following adoption by the ICANN Board taking into account the past implementation of the GNSO Review as well as existing mechanisms such as the SCI, the GNSO Review Working Party and other applicable best practices and lessons learned from past reviews.
4. The GNSO Council thanks the GNSO Review Working Party for its work and hopes its members will continue their contributions as part of the implementation phase.

Voting results

20160414-2

Confirmation of the role and process for a 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. The GAC-GNSO Consultation Group reviewed the pilot project (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-liaison-gac-pilot-29feb16-en.pdf) and has recommended to the GAC and GNSO that 'the GNSO Liaison to the GAC, in conjunction with the other improvements recommended by the GAC-GNSO Consultation Group, has positively contributed to the GAC engagement with the GNSO, and recommends that the GNSO Liaison to the GAC is transformed from a pilot project to a permanent role'.
4. The GAC and GNSO discussed the review of the pilot project during their joint session at the ICANN meeting in Marrakesh.
5. The GNSO Council reviewed the 'Request for Candidates – GNSO Liaison to the GAC' which includes the proposed call for volunteers, application and evaluation process (see:http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/request-liaison-gac-30mar16-en.pdf.

Resolved:

1. The GNSO Council hereby confirms that the GNSO Liaison to the GAC is to become a permanent role at the start of FY17 (1 July 2016) and adopts the 'Request for Candidates – GNSO Liaison to the GAC' as the requirements, process and procedures for this role (see: http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/request-liaison-gac-30mar16-en.pdf).
2. The GNSO Council instructs the GNSO Secretariat to distribute the request for candidates to the GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies in accordance with the timeline outlined in the 'Request for Candidates – GNSO Liaison to the GAC'.
3. The Council thanks Mason Cole who has been fulfilling this role for the last two years and looks forward to working with him during the remainder of his term.

Voting results

20160414-3

Adoption of the GNSO Review of GAC Communiqué for submission to the ICANN Board

Whereas:

1. The Governmental Advisory Committee advises the ICANN Board on issues of public policy, and especially where there may be an interaction between ICANN's activities or policies and national laws or international agreements. It usually does so as part of a Communiqué, which is published towards the end of every ICANN meeting.
2. The GNSO is responsible for developing and recommending to the ICANN Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains.
3. The GNSO has expressed a desire to provide feedback to the ICANN Board on issues in the GAC Communiqué as these relate to generic top-level domains to inform the ICANN Board as well as the broader community of past, present or future gTLD policy activities that may directly or indirectly relate to advice provided by the GAC.
4. The GNSO Council developed a template to facilitate this process, which was completed following the publication of the Marrakesh GAC Communiqué by a volunteer and shared with the GNSO Council for its review.
5. The GNSO hopes that the input provided through its review of the GAC Communiqué will further enhance the co-ordination and promote the sharing of information on gTLD related policy activities between the GAC, Board and the GNSO.

Resolved,

1. The GNSO Council adopts the GNSO Review of the Marrakesh GAC Communiqué (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-gac-communique-11mar16-en.pdf) and requests that the GNSO Council Chair communicate the GNSO Review of the Marrakesh GAC Communiqué to the ICANN Board.
2. Following the communication to the ICANN Board, the GNSO Council requests that the GNSO Council Chair informs the GAC Chair as well as the GAC-GNSO Consultation Group of the communication between the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board.

Voting results

20160309-1

Consent agenda

Approval of the appointment of co-chairs for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process Working Group (co-chairs: Stephen Coates, Avri Doria, Jeff Neuman; Council liaison: Paul McGrady)

Voting results

20160309-2

Approval of the Charter for the Working Group to conduct a Policy Development Process (PDP) on a Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in All Generic Top-Level Domains (gTLDs)

Voting Results

WHEREAS

1. On 18 February 2016, the GNSO Council resolved to initiate a two-phased GNSO Policy Development Process (PDP) to review all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all Generic Top-Level Domains (gTLDs);
2. The GNSO Council has reviewed the Draft Working Group Charter that was included in Annex A to the Final Issue Report, as delivered to the GNSO Council on 11 January 2015;
3. The GNSO Council decided to form a sub group of Councilors to consider all options available for conducting the PDP;
4. The Council sub group considered all the alternatives suggested during the public comment period to the Preliminary Issue Report for this PDP; and
5. The GNSO Council has reviewed the sub group's conclusions with respect to possible amendments to the proposed Working Group Charter

RESOLVED:

1. The GNSO Council approves the amended Charter and appoints Phil Corwin as the GNSO Council liaison to the PDP Working Group for the Review of All RPMs in All gTLDs.
2. The GNSO Council directs ICANN staff to issue a call for volunteers for the PDP Working Group after the approval of this motion. The call for volunteers should be circulated as widely as possible in order to ensure broad representation and participation in the Working Group and initiated no later than 21 Days after the approval.
3. Until such time as the PDP Working Group selects a chair(s) for the Working Group and that chair(s) is confirmed by the GNSO Council, the GNSO Council liaison to the Working Group shall serve as the interim chair.
4. The GNSO Council directs, consistent with the Charter, that a liaison between this PDP Working Group and that for the PDP on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures be appointed as soon as both PDP Working Groups are convened, in order to assure consistent communication and coordination between the two Working Groups, including ensuring that any issues identified by either Working Group relating to existing or potential RPMs that are not covered by the scope of the respective Charters are referred to the appropriate Working Group by the GNSO Council in a timely manner.

20160309-3

CCWG-Accountability Supplemental Final Proposal on Work Stream 1 Recommendations

Voting Results

Whereas,

1. The GNSO Council, together with other ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees, chartered the Cross-Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) on 13 November 2014 'to deliver proposals that would enhance ICANN's accountability towards all stakeholders.
2. The CCWG-Accountability published its third draft proposal for public comment on 30 November 2015 (see https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-2015-11-30-en).
3. All GNSO Stakeholder Groups (SGs) and/or Constituencies (Cs) submitted their input on the third draft proposal and its 12 recommendations.
4. The GNSO Council submitted input on the third draft proposal on 22 January 2016 (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/gnso-council-to-ccwg-accountability-22jan16-en.pdf).
5. The CCWG-Accountability reviewed all the input received and submitted its Supplemental Final Proposal on Work Stream 1 Recommendations to the Chartering Organizations on 23 February 2016 (see https://www.icann.org/news/blog/ccwg-accountability-delivers-report-to-chartering-organization) for their consideration.
6. The GNSO Council has confirmed with the leadership of the CWG to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions (CWG-Stewardship) that conditions identified in its approval of its Final Report have been met (include link)
7. The Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies of the GNSO have considered the Supplemental Final Proposal on Work Stream 1, and the GNSO Council has discussed these positions at the ICANN 55 meeting in Marrakesh, Morocco.

Resolved,

1. The GNSO Council adopts the CCWG-Accountability Supplemental Final Proposal on Work Stream 1 Recommendations (see https://community.icann.org/x/8w2AAw) and more specifically the following recommendations:
    
   
   1. Recommendation #1: Establishing an Empowered Community for Enforcing Community Powers
   2. Recommendation #2: Empowering the Community through Consensus: Engagement, Escalation, and Enforcement
   3. Recommendation #3: Standard Bylaws, Fundamental Bylaws and Articles of Incorporation
   4. Recommendation #4: Ensuring Community Involvement in ICANN Decision-making: Seven New Community Powers
   5. Recommendation #5: Changing Aspects of ICANN's Mission, Commitments, and Core Values
   6. Recommendation #6: Reaffirming ICANN's Commitment to Respect Internationally Recognized Human Rights as it Carries out its Mission
   7. Recommendation #7: Strengthening ICANN's Independent Review Process
   8. Recommendation #8: Improving ICANN's Request for Reconsideration Process
   9. Recommendation #9: Incorporating the Affirmation of Commitments in ICANN's Bylaws
   10. Recommendation #10: Enhancing the Accountability of Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees
   11. Recommendation #11: Board Obligations with Regard to Governmental Advisory Committee Advice (Stress Test 18)
   12. Recommendation #12: Committing to Further Accountability Work in Work Stream 2
2. The GNSO Council instructs the GNSO Secretariat to share the results of this motion with the Chairs of the CCWG-Accountability as soon as possible.
3. The GNSO Council wants to express its sincere appreciation to the CCWG-Accountability, the GNSO members and participants in that effort, and especially the GNSO appointed Chair, Thomas Rickert, for all their hard work and delivery of Supplemental Final Proposal on Work Stream 1 Recommendations.

20160218-1

Consent agenda

Recommendations Report to the ICANN Board regarding adoption of the Final Report from the Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group.

20160218-2

Consent agenda

Appointment of the Chair and Vice-Chairs for the Next-Generation Registration Directory Services PDP Working Group; Stephanie Perrin to replace Susan Kawaguchi as Council liaison to the Working Group.

20160218-3

Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) on a Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in All Generic Top-Level Domains (gTLDs)

Voting results

WHEREAS

1. In December 2011 the GNSO Council had requested that an Issue Report on the current state of all rights protection mechanisms (RPMs) implemented for both existing and new gTLDs, including but not limited to the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), be delivered to the GNSO Council no later than eighteen (18) months following the delegation of the first gTLD in ICANN's New gTLD Program;
2. In January 2014 the GNSO Council agreed to extend the timeline for delivery of the Issue Report by six (6) months;
3. ICANN staff published the Preliminary Issue Report on a Policy Development Process to Review All RPMs in All gTLDs for public comment on 9 October 2015, with the public comment forum closing on 30 November 2015;
4. ICANN staff have reviewed the public comments received, published a Report of Public Comments on 10 December 2015 and updated the Issue Report accordingly;
5. The Final Issue Report on a Policy Development Process to Review All RPMs in All gTLDs was delivered to the GNSO Council on 11 January 2016 (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/rpm-final-issue-11jan16-en.pdf);
6. The Final Issue Report includes a recommendation that the GNSO Council proceed with a two-phased Policy Development Process (PDP) that will first review the RPMs that were developed for the New gTLD Program, followed by a subsequent second phase that will review the UDRP, with the overall goal of developing a uniform and consistent framework for any future review of RPMs; and
7. The General Counsel of ICANN has indicated that the topics recommended for review are properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process and the GNSO.

RESOLVED:

1. The GNSO Council hereby initiates a two-phased PDP to review all RPMs in all gTLDs, to review and determine whether modifications to the existing RPMs (including but not limited to the UDRP) are needed and, if so, what they should be. The outcome of the PDP may lead to (i) amendments or replacement of existing policies, principles or procedures; (ii) the development of new or additional policy recommendations; and/or (iii) the creation of new implementation guidance to supplement existing policies or procedures.
2. The GNSO Council requests that the PDP Working Group be convened as soon as possible after the adoption of the PDP Working Group Charter in order to fulfill the requirements of this PDP.

20160121-1

Adoption of the Final Report of the Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Issues (PPSAI) Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group

Voting results

WHEREAS:

1. On 31 October 2013, the GNSO Council chartered a Working Group for a Policy Development Process (PDP) on Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Issues (PPSAI) [see http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201310] and tasked the Working Group to develop policy recommendations to guide ICANN's implementation of an accreditation program for privacy and proxy service providers;
2. This PDP has followed the prescribed PDP steps as stated in the Bylaws, resulting in a Final Report delivered to the GNSO Council on 7 December 2015 (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/raa/ppsai-final-07dec15-en.pdf);
3. The PPSAI PDP Working Group has reached Full Consensus (as described in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines) on all the recommendations in the Final Report; and
4. The GNSO Council has reviewed and discussed these recommendations.

RESOLVED:

1. The GNSO Council adopts, and recommends that the ICANN Board of Directors adopt, all the PPSAI PDP Working Group's final recommendations in the Final Report (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/raa/ppsai-final-07dec15-en.pdf).
2. Should the PDP recommendations be adopted by the ICANN Board, the GNSO Council directs ICANN staff to convene a Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Implementation Review Team. The Implementation Review Team will be tasked with assisting ICANN staff in developing the implementation details for the PDP recommendations, evaluating the proposed implementation of the recommendations as approved by the Board, and working with ICANN staff to ensure that the resultant implementation conforms to the intent of the approved recommendations. The Implementation Review Team shall operate in accordance with the Implementation Review Team Principles and Guidance approved by the GNSO Council in June 2015.
3. The GNSO Council requests that, following the adoption by the ICANN Board of the PDP recommendations, ICANN staff issue a call for volunteers for the Implementation Review Team, to be circulated at a minimum to the members of PPSAI PDP Working Group.

20160121-2

Approval of the charter for the policy development process (PDP) working group on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures

Voting results

WHEREAS:

1. The GNSO Council has resolved http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201512 to undertake a GNSO policy development process (PDP) to consider and analyze issues discussed in the Final Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures to determine whether changes or adjustments to the existing policy recommendations in the Final Report on the Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains are needed; and,
2. The GNSO Council has reviewed the draft Working Group Charter embedded in Annex A to the Final Issue Report which was delivered to the GNSO Council on 4 December 2015 and agreed to amend the draft charter to address concerns of potential overlap or duplication with an anticipated PDP on Rights Protection Mechanisms. The final version is available here: http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/new-gtld-subsequent-procedures-charter-12jan16-en.pdf

RESOLVED:

1. The GNSO Council approves the Charter and appoints Paul McGrady as the GNSO Council liaison to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group (WG);
2. The GNSO Council directs ICANN staff to issue a call for volunteers for the PDP WG no later than seven days after the approval of this motion; and
3. Until such time as the WG selects a chair for the WG and that chair is confirmed by the GNSO Council, the GNSO Council liaison to the WG shall serve as the interim chair.
4. Issues relating to RPMs not addressed by the anticipated RPM PDP shall be addressed by this PDP.

20151217-1

Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures

WHEREAS:

1. In June 2015 the GNSO Council had requested an Issue Report on the topic of analyzing a set of subjects that may lead to changes or adjustments for subsequent New gTLD Procedures;
2. The GNSO Council's request for an Issue Report followed the work completed by the Discussion Group on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures, which was requested by the GNSO Council in June 2014;
3. ICANN staff published the Preliminary Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures in a public comment forum that opened on 31 August 2015, and closed on 30 October 2015;
4. The amended closing date for the public comment forum was the result of a GNSO Council request in September 2015;
5. ICANN staff have reviewed the public comments received, published a Report of Public Comments and updated the Issue Report accordingly;
6. The Final Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures was published on 4 December 2015 at http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/subsequent-procedures-final-issue-04dec15-en.pdf; and,
7. The Final Issue Report recommends that the GNSO Council proceed with a Policy Development Process (PDP) in order to consider the issues discussed in the report, and the General Counsel of ICANN has indicated the topic is properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process and within the scope of the GNSO.

RESOLVED:

1. The GNSO Council hereby initiates a PDP to consider and analyze issues discussed in the Final Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures to determine whether changes or adjustments to the existing policy recommendations in the Final Report on the Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains are needed. The outcome of the PDP may lead to (i) amending or overriding existing policy principles, recommendations, and implementation guidelines; (ii) developing new policy recommendations, and/or (iii) supplementing or developing new implementation guidance; and,
2. The GNSO Council requests that the PDP Working Group be convened as soon as possible after the adoption of the PDP-WG Charter to fulfill the requirements of this PDP.

20151217-2

Adoption of the GNSO Review of GAC Communiqué for submission to the ICANN Board

Whereas,

1. The Governmental Advisory Committee advises the ICANN Board on issues of public policy, and especially where there may be an interaction between ICANN's activities or policies and national laws or international agreements. It usually does so as part of a Communiqué, which is published towards the end of every ICANN meeting.
2. The GNSO is responsible for developing and recommending to the ICANN Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains.
3. The GNSO has expressed a desire to provide feedback to the ICANN Board on issues in the GAC Communiqué as these relate to generic top-level domains to inform the ICANN Board as well as the broader community of past, present or future gTLD policy activities that may directly or indirectly relate to advice provided by the GAC.
4. The GNSO Council developed a template to facilitate this process, which was completed following the publication of the Dublin GAC Communiqué by a volunteer and shared with the GNSO Council for its review
5. The GNSO hopes that the input provided through its review of the GAC Communiqué will further enhance the co-ordination and promote the sharing of information on gTLD related policy activities between the GAC, Board and the GNSO.

Resolved,

1. The GNSO Council adopts the GNSO Review of the Dublin GAC Communiqué and requests that the GNSO Council Chair communicate the GNSO Review of the Dublin GAC Communiqué to the ICANN Board.
2. Following the communication to the ICANN Board, the GNSO Council requests that the GNSO Council Chair informs the GAC Chair as well as the GAC-GNSO Consultation Group of the communication between the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board.

20151217-3

Endorsement of GNSO Applicants for the Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice Review (CCT)

Whereas,

1. Under the Affirmation of Commitments (AoC)https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/affirmation-of-commitments-2009-0…, ICANN launched a process to review the extent to which the introduction of gTLDs has promoted Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice (CCT Review). This AoC mandated review will also assess the effectiveness of the application and evaluation processes, as well as the safeguards put in place by ICANN to mitigate issues involved in the introduction or expansion of new gTLDs.
2. To conduct this review, a Competition, Consumer Trust, and Consumer Choice Review Team will be formed in late 201Once formed, the Review Team will independently plan its work and schedule.
3. A call for volunteers was launched on 1 October 2015 (see https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/call-volunteers-cct-rt-2015-10-01…). Those applying to serve as a volunteer member, where asked to identify the name of the Supporting Organization or Advisory Committee they wish to represent. 26 applicants identified the GNSO as the Supporting Organization they wished to represent (see https://community.icann.org/x/FoRlAw).
4. Following its meeting on 19 November 2015, the GNSO Council agreed to follow up with all 26 applicants to request additional information required to reach its decision on endorsement (see http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg17695.html).
5. The GNSO Council has reviewed the information received from the applicants requesting GNSO endorsement (see https://community.icann.org/x/FoRlAw).

Resolved,

1. The GNSO Council endorses the following applicants: Calvin Brown, Gregory DiBiase, Ben Anderson, Jeff Neuman, Jordyn Buchanan, Nacho Amadoz, Carlos Gutierrez, Jonathan Zuck, Waudo Siganga, Michael Graham, Greg Shatan, David Taylor, Stacie Walsh, Viktor Szabados, Cecilia Lee Smith, YJ Park, Jeremy Malcolm, Kinfe Michael Yilma Desta, and expects the selectors for this Review Team to weigh this endorsement as an important factor in their selection process.
2. The GNSO Council instructs the GNSO Secretariat, on behalf of the GNSO Council and Chair, to inform the CCT selectors in writing of the outcome of this process. The selectors should also be advised to consider the specific consideration to the role of the GNSO regarding the New gTLD implementation and ensure that all relevant GNSO stakeholders shall be represented on the CCT RT.
3. The GNSO Council instructs the GNSO Secretariat to inform the applicants that have received endorsement that the GNSO Council expects that, if selected for the CCT, the applicant will represent the views of the entire GNSO community in their work on the CCT, and provide regular feedback as a group on the discussions taking place in the CCT, as well as the positions being taken by GNSO Review Team Members.
4. The GNSO Council instructs the Secretariat to send a response to those applicants who did not receive endorsement (if any), thanking them for their interest. The response should also encourage them to follow the CCT RT work, and participate in Public Comments and community discussions.

20151119-1

Approval of a charter for the Next-Generation gTLD Registration Directory Service (RDS) to replace WHOIS (Next-Gen RDS) PDP WG

1. Following submission of the WHOIS Policy Review Team's Final Report, the ICANN Board passed a resolution on 8 November, 2012, launching an Expert Working Group on gTLD Registration Directory Services (EWG) to (1) help redefine the purpose of gTLD registration data and consider how to safeguard the data, and (2) propose a model for gTLD registration directory services to address accuracy, privacy, and access issues.
2. Upon publication of the EWG's Final Report in June, 2014, an informal group of Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Councilors and ICANN Board members collaborated to propose a Process Framework for structuring a GNSO Policy Development Process (PDP) to successfully address these challenging issues.
3. On 26 May, 2015, the ICANN Board adopted that Process Framework and reaffirmed its 2012 request for a Board-initiated PDP to define the purpose of collecting, maintaining and providing access to gTLD registration data, and to consider safeguards for protecting data, using the recommendations in the EWG's Final Report as an input to, and, if appropriate, as the foundation for a new gTLD policy.
4. In accordance with the PDP Rules, a new Preliminary Issue Report was published for public comment on 13 July 2015. Following review of the public comments received, the Staff Manager updated the Issue Report accordingly and included a summary of the comments received (see Annex D), which was submitted as the Final Issue Report to the GNSO Council for its consideration on 7 October 2015.
5. The GNSO Council has reviewed the issues raised in the Final Issue Report as well as the Draft Charter for a PDP Working Group that was included in the Preliminary Issue Report and updated reflecting the input received in the Final Issue Report under Annex C (pp.67-77)

RESOLVED,

1. The GNSO Council approves the Draft Charter proposed in the Final Issue Report and appoints Susan Kawaguchi as the GNSO Council liaison to the Next-Generation gTLD Registration Directory Service (RDS) to replace WHOIS (Next-Gen RDS) PDP WG;
2. The GNSO Council directs ICANN staff to issue a call for volunteers for the PDP WG after the approval of this motion. The call for volunteers should be circulated as widely as possible in order to ensure broad representation and participation in the Working Group and should be initiated no later than January 4th, 2016 and remain open until the Working Group convenes for the first time; and
3. The Working Group (WG), when convened, is instructed to reach out to all Stakeholder Groups/Constituencies (SG/C) for additional feedback on any items that they believe should be considered that may not have been specifically called out in the charter. The WG is also expected to consider input already provided by SG/Cs during the public comment period on the Preliminary Issue Report. Should the WG be of the view that after the review of this feedback changes need to be made to the charter to address these, the WG is expected to come back to the Council with proposed changes to the charter for the Council to consider.
4. Until such time as the WG selects a chair(s) for the WG and that chair(s) is confirmed by the GNSO Council, the GNSO Council liaison to the WG shall serve as the interim chair.

20151119-2

Approval of the Referral Request to the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI)

Whereas

1. The GNSO Operating Procedures in Chapter 2.2 describe the process of elections of the GNSO Chair and the GNSO Vice-Chairs
2. Following the result of the initial election round at ICANN54 in Dublin, the GNSO Council agreed on a time table for the next round for the election of the GNSO Chair 2015-2016
3. During the ICANN 54 meeting in Dublin questions were raised with regards to the election process for the GNSO Chair and Vice-Chairs, including the candidate nomination process with particular reference to the preparedness of newly-elected Council members to vote, the eligibility of newly elected Councilors to run for the GNSO Chair position, the need for the GNSO Council to specifically determine the term of the Chair and Vice-Chairs in accordance with the ICANN Bylaws, and to the overall timing of the Chair election.

Resolved

The GNSO Council requests the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI)

1. To review Sections 2.2(b), (f) and (g) of the GNSO Operating Procedures with respect to clarifying: (i) the eligibility of incoming Council members to run for the position of GNSO Chair; (ii) the start and end dates and the duration of the Chair and Vice-Chair terms in accordance with the ICANN Bylaws; and (iii) the timing of publication of the election results; and
2. To recommend a general time table for election of the GNSO Council Chair to be approved by the GNSO Council and added to the GNSO Operating Procedures.

20151021-1

Approval of a the Data & Metrics Working Group Recommendations (non-PDP)

WHEREAS

On 17 October 2012 the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on metrics and reporting (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/uofr-final-31mar13-en.pdf).

On 16 May 2013 the GNSO Council deliberated a recommendation on the Uniformity of Reporting from the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group (RAPWG) and approved a non-PDP Working Group to consider metrics and reporting:

"The GNSO Council further approves the creation of a drafting team to develop a charter for a non-PDP Working Group to consider additional methods for collecting necessary metrics and reporting from Contracted Parties and other external resources to aid the investigation." (http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20130516-1).

On 23 Jan 2014 the GNSO Council approved the charter for a Data and Metrics for Policy Making Working Group (DMPM WG) (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20140123-1).
The Data and Metrics for Policy Making WG (DMPM WG) deliberated the issues as defined in its charter and published an Initial Report for public comment on 29 July 2015 for the required 40 day period (see https://www.icann.org/public-comments/data-metrics-policy-making-2015-07-29-en).

The DMPM WG reviewed the input received (see public comment review tool) and updated its report accordingly.

On 9 October 2015 the DMPM WG submitted its Final Report to the GNSO Council.

RESOLVED,

The GNSO Council adopts all the consensus recommendations in the Final Report and instructs ICANN staff to begin implementation of the seven recommendations.

The GNSO Council thanks the DMPM WG for its efforts and recommends that the WG be formally closed as a result of the adoption by the GNSO Council of the WG's recommendations.

The WG nevertheless requests that the WG remain available to provide input to the GNSO Council and ICANN staff should any questions or issues arise in relation to implementation of its recommendations prior to the formation of an Implementation Review Team.

The GNSO Council requests ICANN staff to prepare an evaluation report for the GNSO Council shortly after the conclusion of implementation of this pilot effort.

20151021-2

Process and Participation in CCWG-Accountability

Whereas

On 13 November 2014 the GNSO approved the charter for a Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability);

On 3 August the Public Comment on the CCWG-Accountability 2ndDraft Proposal was initiated, which ended on 12 September 2015;

The CCWG-Accountability has analyzed the comments received in the review of the 2nd draft and is working toward updating its reference implementation taking into account the concerns expressed in those comments;

and The CCWG-Accountability is working in a considered and collegial manner to achieve a consensus solution to ICANN Accountability;

Acknowledging

the superb and continuing leadership of CCWG-Accountability by the team which includes the GNSO appointed co-chair Thomas Rickert, to whom we
are grateful for his time and consistent effort;

Resolved

The GNSO reiterates its support for the process that is ongoing in CCWG-Accountability,

its commitment to participating in continuing discussions with the goal of finding solutions with broad agreement for ICANN accountability in
preparation for IANA transition, and

to working through the process as agreed upon in the charter before declaring support or opposition to possible outcomes.

20150924

Consent agenda

Approval of the addition to the GNSO Operating Procedures of a proposed process for the selection of Board seat #13 by the Contracted Parties House (per current rules in the Operating Procedures concerning the selection of Board seats by each House)

Approval of the transmission of the Recommendations Report to the ICANN Board following the public comments on the Council's recommendation that the Board adopt the Final Report from the Translation and Transliteration of gTLD Data Working Group

20150924-1

Adoption of the request for an extension of the public comment period for the Preliminary Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures

Whereas,

1. In June 2015, Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council requested a Preliminary Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures, intended to analyze subjects that may lead to changes or adjustments for subsequent New gTLD procedures; and,
2. On 31 August 2015, ICANN Staff published the requested Preliminary Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures for public comment, to last for forty (40) days; and,
3. There are certain members of the GNSO and wider community that would welcome an extended public comment period to allow for adequate time to consider the substantial subjects and analysis contained within the Preliminary Issue Report.

Resolved

1. The GNSO Council requests that the public comment period for the Preliminary Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures be extended from its current forty (40) days to sixty (60) days.

20150723-1

Adoption of the GNSO Review of GAC Communiqué for submission to the ICANN Board

Whereas,

1. The Governmental Advisory Committee advises the ICANN Board on issues of public policy, and especially where there may be an interaction between ICANN's activities or policies and national laws or international agreements. It usually does so as part of a Communiqué, which is published towards the end of very ICANN meeting.
2. The GNSO is responsible for developing and recommending to the ICANN Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains.
3. The GNSO has expressed a desire to provide feedback to the ICANN Board on issues in the GAC Communiqué as these relate to generic top-level domains to inform the ICANN Board as well as the broader community of past, present or future gTLD policy activities that may directly or indirectly relate to advice provided by the GAC.
4. The GNSO Council developed a template to facilitate this process, which was completed following the publication of the Buenos Aires GAC Communiqué by a small number of volunteers and shared with the GNSO Council for its review
5. The GNSO hopes that the input provided through its review of the GAC Communiqué will further enhance the co-ordination and promote the sharing of information on gTLD related policy activities between the GAC, Board and the GNSO.

Resolved,

1. The GNSO Council adopts the GNSO Review of the Buenos Aires GAC Communiqué http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-gac-communique-08jul15-en.pdf and requests that the GNSO Council Chair communicates the GNSO Review of the Buenos Aires GAC Communiqué to the ICANN Board.
2. Following the communication to the ICANN Board, the GNSO Council requests that the GNSO Council Chair informs the GAC Chair as well as the GAC-GNSO Consultation Group of the communication between the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board.

20150624-1

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.

20150624-2

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:
   1. A set of principles that would underpin any GNSO policy and implementation related discussions, taking into account existing GNSO Operating Procedures.
   2. 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.
   3. A framework for implementation related discussions associated with GNSO Policy Recommendations.
   4. Criteria to be used to determine when an action should be addressed by a policy process and when it should be considered implementation.
   5. 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) 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.

20150624-3

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:
    
   
   1. Whether it is desirable to translate contact information to a single common language or transliterate contact information to a single common script.
   2. 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.
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.

20150624-4

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.

20150624-5

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 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 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 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:
   1. Such mechanisms will need to be approved by the GNSO Council and;
   2. Such mechanisms will need to be approved by the ICANN Board and;
   3. All required bylaws amendments will need to be adopted before the transition and;
   4. 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.

20150416-1

Consent Agenda

1. Adoption of the Standing Committee on Improvement Implementation (SCI) Review Request Concerning Seconding and Amendments

 

WHEREAS:

1. The SCI submitted to the GNSO Council on 05 March 2015 a Review Request that noted the following issue:
    
   
   1. Although there is currently a rule regarding the deadline for timely submission of motions for voting by the GNSO Council (see Section 3.3 of the Operating Procedures), there is none regarding:
       
      
      • whether, how and by whom a properly submitted motion is to be seconded, and
      • Treatment of proposed amendments to such motions as either "friendly" or "unfriendly".
   2. These have been supported by Council practice to date as opposed to operating procedural rules.

RESOLVED:

1. The GNSO Council requests that the SCI codifies the existing customary practices of the GNSO Council (as described above).
2. If the SCI believes that the current practices are inappropriate, the SCI should convey its reasons for such belief to the Council and develop new processes to govern the seconding of motions and amendments to motions.
3. The GNSO Council suggests that in carrying out this task the SCI consult past GNSO Chairs and Councilors as well as commonly accepted guides and practices (such as Robert's Rules of Order) and other ICANN bodies (such as the Board and other SO/ACs).

20150416-2

Consent Agenda

1. Adoption of the Standing Committee on Improvement Implementation (SCI) Review Request Concerning Overlap of Waiver and Resubmission

 

WHEREAS:

1. The SCI submitted to the GNSO Council on 05 March 2015 a Review Request that noted the following issue:
    
   
   1. The latest version of the Procedures incorporates approved new procedures recommended by the SCI relating to the Council's ability to:
       
      
      • waive the general rule of a 10-day deadline for the submission of motions for voting (Section 3.3.2), and
      • permit a motion that has been voted on but not adopted to be resubmitted for reconsideration (Section 4.3.3).
2. The Council's original request that the SCI consider these two situations did not explicitly ask that the SCI consider also the possible interplay between them (e.g. if a resubmitted motion is sent to the Council after the 10-day deadline applicable to the next scheduled Council meeting).
3. Although the SCI discussed this issue, it did not reach consensus on whether and how to address the potential problem.

RESOLVED:

1. The GNSO Council requests the SCI to consider whether or not there is a need to include a further rule (possibly as an additional paragraph under the new Section 3.3.2) that specifically addresses the possible interplay between the new rules applicable to waiver of the 10-day motion deadline and resubmission of a motion.

20150416-3

Amendment to the charter for the IGO-INGO access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms PDP Working Group.

WHEREAS:

1. On 5 June 2014 the GNSO Council approved the initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) to explore whether amendments to existing curative rights mechanisms (such as the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) and the Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) procedure) or the creation of a separate, narrowly tailored dispute resolution mechanism will be necessary to address the needs of International Governmental Organizations (IGO) and International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGO) in protecting their names and acronyms at the second level in generic top-level domains (gTLD);
2. On 25 June 2014 the GNSO Council chartered the IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms Working Group to begin work on the PDP;
3. The Charter for the Working Group contemplates that in relation to IGOs the Working Group is to use the IGO List provided to ICANN by the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) in March 2013, which is based on the eligibility criteria for an IGO to register a domain name in the .int gTLD, and which was the basis upon which the PDP Working Group on the Protection of International Organization Identifiers in All gTLDs made their consensus recommendations in November 2013;
4. After analyzing the historical documents, legal texts and research related to the issue of an IGO's standing to file a complaint under the UDRP and URS, the Working Group has reached a preliminary conclusion that a more appropriate basis for standing under any applicable curative rights dispute resolution process may be the legal protections for IGO names and acronyms that are conferred by Article 6ter of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property;
5. This preliminary conclusion is supported by the May 2002 recommendation of the World Intellectual Property Organization's Standing Committee for Trademarks, Industrial Designs and Geographical Indications as well as the December 2011 open letter sent to ICANN by legal counsel of twenty-eight IGOs; and
6. The Working Group has requested that the GNSO Council approve an amendment to the Working Group Charter that will include the flexibility to consider all appropriate eligibility options.

RESOLVED:

1. The GNSO Council approves the request from the Working Group to amend its Charter, as follows:

   Where, under "Mission and Scope", the current Charter reads:

   "For purposes of this PDP, the scope of IGO and INGO identifiers is to be limited to those identifiers previously listed by the GNSO's PDP WG on the Protection of International Organization Identifiers in All gTLDs as protected by their consensus recommendations (designated by that WG as Scope 1 and Scope 2 identifiers, and listed in Annex 2 of the Final Issue Report)."

   It is hereby amended to read:

   "For purposes of this PDP, the WG shall take into account any criteria for IGO or INGO protection that may be appropriate, including any that may have been developed previously, such as the list of IGO and INGO identifiers that was used by the GNSO's prior PDP WG on the Protection of International Organization Identifiers in All gTLDs as the basis for their consensus recommendations and the GAC list of IGOs as provided to ICANN in March 2013."

20150319-1

Consent agenda

Council confirmed the selection of the Privacy Proxy Services Accreditation Issues (PPSAI) Working Group for facilitated face-to-face meeting at ICANN53 in Buenos Aires

20150319-2

Motion to implement the recommendations of the GAC-GNSO Consultation Group in relation to Issue Scoping on a trial basis

1. In March 2014 the GNSO and GAC formed a joint consultation group (CG) to explore mechanisms to facilitate GAC early engagement in GNSO Policy Development Processes.
2. As per its charter, the CG's deliberations have focused on two tracks, namely 1) a mechanism for day-to-day ongoing cooperation and 2) a mechanism for GAC early engagement in the GNSO PDP
   (see https://community.icann.org/display/gnsogcgogeeipdp/3.+Charter).
3. As part of its deliberations on track 2), the CG put forward a set of preliminary recommendations concerning the issue scoping phase of the PDP which were reviewed and discussed by the GAC and the GNSO during the ICANN52 meeting in Singapore
   (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/gac-cg-issue-scoping-27jan15-en.pdf).
4. The GAC noted in its Communiqué (ICANN52), that 'The GAC met the GNSO and agreed, on a trial basis and subject to ongoing adjustments as necessary, to a mechanism proposed by the GAC-GNSO Consultation Group for early engagement at the issues scoping phase of the GNSO Policy Development Process (PDP). This includes formation of a GAC Quick-Look Mechanism Committee. The arrangements will allow for an early indication in the PDP of whether the issue has a standing GAC advice and whether it has public policy implications, and hence is of interest to the GAC. It will also enable the GNSO to factor this in and the GAC to prepare input to be provided at the relevant stages of the PDP. This would not limit the GAC's existing ability to give advice to the ICANN Board'.
5. Based on these discussions and input received, the CG recommends that the GAC and GNSO Council implement these recommendations on a trial basis, in order to assess their effectiveness in facilitating GAC early engagement in the GNSO PDP.
6. In the meantime, the CG will continue its review and deliberations on the other phases of the GNSO PDP, which may result in further proposals of additional recommendations for consideration.

RESOLVED

1. The GNSO Council agrees to jointly implement with the GAC, the preliminary recommendations by the CG concerning the issue scoping phase of the PDP as outlined here http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/gac-cg-issue-scoping-27jan15-en.pdf on a trial basis for a minimum of 3 consecutive GNSO PDP's immediately following the adoption of the motion.
2. Following the end of this trial period, the CG is expected to report back to the GAC and GNSO Council on the effectiveness of these recommendations as a result of the experiences gained during the trial period. Furthermore, the CG is expected to make a recommendation as to whether or not the preliminary recommendations concerning the issue scoping phase of the PDP should be permanently implemented, either in their current form, or with possible modifications based on the further work of the CG including experience gained during the trial.

20141113-1

Adoption of a Charter for a Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability

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. During discussions around the transition process, the community raised the broader topic of the impact of the change on ICANN's accountability given its historical contractual relationship with the United States and NTIA. Accountability in this context is defined, according to the Netmundial multistakeholder statement[1], as the existence of mechanisms for independent checks and balances as well as for review and redress.
3. The concerns raised during these discussions around the transition process indicate that the level of trust into the existing ICANN accountability mechanisms does not yet meet some stakeholder's expectations. Considering that the NTIA has stressed that itwas expecting community consensus regarding the transition, this gap between the current situation and stakeholder expectations may prevent the transition to proceed.
4. A DT was formed with participants, amongst others, from the ccNSO, GNSO, ASO and ALAC to develop a charter for a Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability.
5. The DT delivered the proposed charter for consideration to all the ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees for consideration (see: http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/enhancing-accountability-charter-03nov14-en.pdf)

Resolved,

1. The GNSO Council approves the Charter (http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/enhancing-accountability-charter-03nov14-en.pdf) and appoints Thomas Rickert as the GNSO Council liaison and GNSO co-chair to the CWG.
2. Each GNSO Stakeholder Group will identify one member for the CWG by 20 November taking into account the charter requirement that best efforts should be made to ensure that members:
   • Have sufficient expertise to participate in the applicable subject matter (see for example https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/enhancing-accountability-faqs-2014-08-22-en#12 for areas identified for expertise);
   • Commit to actively participate in the activities of the CWG on an ongoing and long-term basis; and
   • Where appropriate, solicit and communicate the views and concerns of individuals in the organization that appoints them.
3. The GNSO will collaborate with the other SOs and ACs to issue a call for participants to join the CWG, each in accordance with its own rules.

[1] http://netmundial.br/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/NETmundial-Multistakeholder-Document.pdf

20141113-2

Changes to GNSO Operating Procedures Working Group Guidelines to Address Issues relating to Waiver of Motion Deadlines, GNSO Council Voting Outside a Council Meeting Working Group Consensus Levels

WHEREAS:

1. The GNSO Council has determined that:
    
   
   1. the current GNSO Operating Procedures do not contain a specific provision on waiving the deadline to submit a motion for voting by the GNSO Council;
   2. the current GNSO Operating Procedures also do not contain a specific provision that permits the Council to vote outside a meeting; and
   3. the language relating to Consensus Levels in the current GNSO Working Group Guidelines, which form Annex I of the GNSO Operating Procedures, may require further clarification.
2. The GNSO Council requested that the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI) consider:
    
   
   1. whether there should be modifications to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures to address the issues of waiving the deadline for submission of a motion and allowing the Council to vote outside a meeting; and
   2. whether the language relating to Consensus Levels in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines requires clarification.
3. The SCI developed language to be inserted in Section 3.3 (Notice of Meetings) of the GNSO Operating Procedures that provide for a waiver of the prescribed deadline for the submission of a new motion for voting by the GNSO Council in certain circumstances provided certain specified criteria are met. This recommendation will not affect the rules regarding the resubmission of a motion approved and added to section 4.3 of the GNSO Operating Procedures in March 2014.
4. In addition, the SCI developed procedures to be added as a new Section 4.10 (Voting Outside A Meeting) to the GNSO Operating Procedures that provide for the GNSO Council to be able to vote outside a meeting in certain circumstances provided certain specified criteria are met.
5. The SCI also developed clarifying language in the form of a footnote to be added to the Consensus Levels definitions in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, pending a fuller review of all the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, which the SCI also recommends.
6. The revised GNSO Operating Procedures, including the proposed additions to the Working Group Guidelines, were put out for public comment for a period of a minimum of 21 days beginning on 17 September 2014 and ending on 08 October 2014 (see https://www.icann.org/public-comments/gnso-op-procedures-2014-09-17-en), as required by the ICANN Bylaws.
7. As there were no comments received in the public forum the SCI deemed that no further changes were necessary nor was a public comment reply period needed.

RESOLVED

1. The GNSO Council adopts the revised Operating Procedures including the new provisions concerning the waiver of deadline for motions submitted for voting by the Council and the ability of the Council to vote outside a meeting – see https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/motion-waiver-proposal-16sep14-en.pdf and https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/outside-voting-proposal-16sep14-en.pdf respectively;
2. The GNSO Council adopts the additional footnote language clarifying the Consensus Levels in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines – see https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/consensus-levels-proposal-16sep14-en.pdf
3. The GNSO Council thanks the SCI for its work on these matters and agrees to consider the SCI's request that the current language concerning Consensus Levels in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines be more fully reviewed and revised as part of a broader exercise in reviewing all the GNSO Operating Procedures, including the Working Group Guidelines; and
4. The GNSO Council instructs ICANN staff to post the new version of the GNSO Operating Procedures and GNSO Working Group Guidelines, effective immediately upon adoption.

20141015-1

Adoption of the IRTP Part D Final Report and Recommendations

Whereas

1. On 17 January 2013, the GNSO Council launched a Policy Development Process (PDP) on IRTP Part D [http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions - 201301] addressing the following six Charter questions:
    
   
   1. Whether reporting requirements for registries and dispute providers should be developed, in order to make precedent and trend information available to the community and allow reference to past cases in dispute submissions;
   2. Whether additional provisions should be included in the TDRP (Transfer Dispute Resolution Policy) on how to handle disputes when multiple transfers have occurred;
   3. Whether dispute options for registrants should be developed and implemented as part of the policy (registrants currently depend on registrars to initiate a dispute on their behalf);
   4. Whether requirements or best practices should be put into place for registrars to make information on transfer dispute resolution options available to registrant;
   5. Whether existing penalties for policy violations are sufficient or if additional provisions/penalties for specific violations should be added into the policy;
   6. Whether the universal adoption and implementation of EPP AuthInfo codes has eliminated the need of FOAs.
2. This PDP has followed the prescribed PDP steps as stated in the Bylaws, resulting in a Final Report delivered on 25 September 2014;
3. The IRTP Part D WG has reached full consensus on the 18 recommendations in relation to the six issues outlined above;
4. The GNSO Council has reviewed and discussed these recommendations.

Now therefore be it resolved,

1. The GNSO Council recommends to the ICANN Board of Directors the adoption of the IRTP Part D recommendations (#1 to #18) as detailed in the IRTP Part D Final Report [http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/transfers/irtp-d-final-25sep14-en.pdf].
2. The GNSO Council shall convene an IRTP Part D 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 fulfils the intentions of the approved policies. If the IRTP Part D Implementation Review Team identifies any potential modifications to the policy or new policy recommendations, the IRTP Part D 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 an IRTP Part D Implementation Review Team to the members of the IRTP Part D Working Group.

20141015-2

Adoption of a Charter for a Cross Community Working Group to discuss Internet governance (CWG-IG) issues affecting ICANN and make recommendations to the chartering organization on these issues

Whereas,

1. This group was initiated in December 2013 in response to a call from ICANN CEO and has been working informally since then;
2. The group has developed the charter found at http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/ccwg-ig-charter-20may14-en.pdf
3. This charter has already been approved by ALAC, ccNSO and SSAC.

Resolved:

1. The GNSO Council approves the Charter http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/ccwg-ig-charter-20may14-en.pdf
2. The RrSG, the RySG, NCSG, BC, IPC, and ISPC will each identify one member to serve on the CWG-IG by 22-October-2014 taking into account the charter requirement that best efforts should be made to ensure that members:
   • Have sufficient expertise to participate in the applicable subject matter;
   • Commit to actively participate in the activities of the CWG-IG on an ongoing and long-term basis; and
   • Where appropriate, solicit and communicate the views and concerns of individuals in the organization that appoints them.
3. The GNSO will collaborate with the other SOs and ACs to issue a call for observers to join the CWG-IG, each in accordance with its own rules.
4. As the charter calls for each of the chartering organizations to appoint a co-chair for the group, the GNSO Council appoints Rafik Dammak to serve as a member of the CWG-IG, to serve as the GNSO co-chair of the CWG-IG and to serve as GNSO Council liaison to the group.

20140904-1

Consent agenda:

1. Council approved thanking ICANN Contractual Compliance for its presentation of their three-year plan and continued collaboration with the GNSO in future policy development efforts

AND

1. Considering the issues identified in the Uniformity of Reporting Final Issue Report to have been addressed and to consider the issue closed.
2. The Council confirmed the Co-Chairs for the Working Group on Curative Rights Protections for IGO/INGOs (IGO-INGO-CRP) PDP working group, namely Philip Corwin and Petter Rindforth.

20140904-2

Council passed the resolution to appoint a 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 has been proposed as one of the mechanisms to explore.
2. As such, the GAC-GNSO Consultation Group (CG) on GAC Early Engagement in GNSO policy development activities proposed to implement this option as a one-year pilot program in FY15 (starting 1 July 2014 to 30 June 2015).
3. This mechanism will be evaluated at the end of FY 15, 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.
4. Following a call for candidates (see http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg16435.html), five applications were received all of which were evaluated by the GNSO Council Leadership based on the criteria outlined in the call for candidates.
5. Mason Cole was unanimously selected by the GNSO Council Leadership as the preferred candidate.

Resolved:

1. The GNSO Council hereby appoints Mason Cole to the role of GNSO Liaison to the Governmental Advisory Committee until 30 June 2015.
2. The GNSO Council Leadership Team will co-ordinatewith Mason Cole as well as the GAC-GNSO Consultation Group on next steps and the successful implementation of this new role.

20140904-3

Council adopted a Charter for a Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions

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 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. Following distribution of an invitation to participate, a drafting team (DT) was formed with participants from the ccNSO, GNSO, SSAC and ALAC to develop a charter for a Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions.
5. The DT delivered the proposed charter for consideration to the ccNSO, GNSO, SSACC and ALAC

Resolved,

1. The GNSO Council approves the Charter and appoints Jonathan Robinson as the GNSO Council liaison and member to the CWG.
2. Each GNSO Stakeholder Group will identify one member for the CWG by 15 September taking into account the charter requirement that best efforts should be made to ensure that members:
   • Have sufficient expertise to participate in the applicable subject matter;
   • Commit to actively participate in the activities of the CWG on an ongoing and long-term basis; and
   • Where appropriate, solicit and communicate the views and concerns of individuals in the organization that appoints them.
3. The GNSO will collaborate with the other SOs and ACs to issue a call for observers to join the CWG, each in accordance with its own rules.
4. Until the CWG selects its co-chairs for the CWG, the GNSO Council recommends that the co-chairs of the Drafting Team shall serve as the interim co-chairs of the CWG.

20140625-1

Approval of a charter for a PDP working group for IGO and INGO access to Curative Rights and Protection Mechanisms

WHEREAS:

1. The GNSO Council has resolved (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201406) to undertake a GNSO policy development process (PDP) to explore possible amendments to the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) and the Uniform Rapid Suspension procedure (URS) so as to enable International Governmental Organizations (IGOs) and International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGOs) to access and use curative rights protection mechanisms;
2. The GNSO Council has reviewed the draft Working Group Charter appended as Annex 3 to the Final Issue Report (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/igo-ingo-crp-access-charter-25may14-en.pdf) which was delivered to the GNSO Council on 25 May 2014, and the 24 June 2014 amendments proposed thereto (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/igo-ingo-crp-access-charter-24jun14-en.pdf);

RESOLVED:

1. The GNSO Council approves the Charter as amended by the 24 June 2014 proposals and appoints Petter Rindforth as the GNSO Council liaison to the IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protection PDP Working Group (WG);
2. The GNSO Council directs ICANN staff to issue a call for volunteers for the PDP WG no later than seven days after the approval of this motion; and
3. Until such time as the WG selects a chair for the WG and that chair is confirmed by the GNSO Council, the GNSO Council liaison to the WG shall serve as the interim chair.

20140625-2

New gTLDs Subsequent Rounds

1. Whereas, 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. Whereas, 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. Whereas, 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
4. Whereas, in September 2009, ICANN and the U.S. National Telecommunications Information Administration entered into an Affirmation of Commitments ("AOC") in which ICANN committed to organize a review of certain aspects of the introduction and expansion of gTLDs (AOC, at Section 9.3); and,
5. Whereas, in its April, 2011 Communique, ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee ("GAC") asked (at p.6) for a "comprehensive post-launch independent review of the [Trademark] Clearinghouse [to] be conducted one year after the launch of the 75th new gTLD in the round;" and,
6. Whereas, in June 2011, the ICANN Board approved an Application Guidebook ("AGB") for new gTLDs and authorized the launch of the New gTLD Program; and,
7. Whereas, the AGB provided that it was intended to govern "the first round of what is to be an ongoing process for the introduction of new TLDs" (Application, Module 2); and,
8. Whereas, Section 1.1.6 of the AGB ("Subsequent Application Rounds") provided that "ICANN's goal [was] to launch subsequent gTLD application rounds as quickly as possible" and promised to base the timing of subsequent rounds on "experiences gained and changes required after this round is completed" with a "goal...for the next application round to begin within one year of the close of the application submission period for the initial round.;" and
9. Whereas, the first round application submission period closed in June, 2012; and,
10. Whereas, the Council believes that it has a continuing interest and role to play in evaluating the experiences of the first round and proposing policy recommendations, if necessary, for changes to subsequent rounds;

Now therefore, it is resolved:

1. The GNSO Council creates a new Discussion Group to discuss the experiences gained by the first round of new gTLD applications and identify subjects for future issue reports, if any, that might lead to changes or adjustments for subsequent application procedures; and,
2. ICANN invites the New gTLD Program Committee of the ICANN Board to provide input into the GNSO Council discussion to identify areas that it believes may be appropriate for discussion for an evaluation of the current gTLD application round and/or for possible adjustments for subsequent application procedures; and,
3. The GNSO Council requests a status report from ICANN Staff on the current progress of (a) the New gTLD program generally; (b) ICANN's anticipated timeline and work plan for the review specified in Section 9.3 of the Affirmation of Commitments; (c) ICANN's work to date on any evaluation of the first round; (d) the work to date on the post-launch independent review of the Trademark Clearinghouse; and (e) ICANN's current projection for a timetable for subsequent rounds.

20140605-1

Motion to Close the Study Phase of GNSO Whois Policy Work

WHEREAS

1. In October 2007, the GNSO Council concluded that a comprehensive and objective understanding of key factual issues regarding the gTLD Whois system would benefit future GNSO policy development efforts (http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/).
2. In 2008, the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) provided recommendations for Whois Studies (http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karlins-to-thrush-16apr08.pdf), which were taken into account as the hypothesis for each study were developed.
3. Between 2009 and 2012 the GNSO Council had approved a number of studies on certain aspects of the Whois system, specifically, studies relating to Whois Misuse, Whois Privacy Proxy Service Abuse and Whois Registrant Identification, a Whois Privacy Proxy Relay Reveal Feasibility Survey and a Whois Service Requirements Survey;
4. All the approved studies have now been completed and the results published (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/other/whois/studies);
5. The GNSO Council has reviewed the studies and their results (see summary document at http://whois.icann.org/sites/default/files/files/executive-summary-studies-05jun14-en.pdf)
6. The GNSO Council believes that the studies and their results may be helpful with respect to ongoing policy work within the GNSO and in the ICANN community concerning improvements to and replacement of the Whois protocol and system.

RESOLVED,

1. The GNSO Council thanks all the research teams that performed each of the approved studies, and hereby formally closes this study phase of the GNSO's Whois policy work.
2. The GNSO Council encourages current and future community groups engaged in Whois policy work to continue to consult and review the results of the approved Whois studies, and to recommend to the GNSO Council any future policy work which may need to be done by the GNSO as a result.
3. The GNSO Council requests that the GNSO Council Chair communicates the completion of the Whois studies and their results to the GAC Chair.

20140605-2

Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) on IGO and INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms

WHEREAS:

1. In November 2013 the GNSO Council had requested an Issue Report on the topic of amending the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) and the Uniform Rapid Suspension procedure (URS) to enable International Governmental Organizations (IGOs) and International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGOs) to access and use these curative rights protection mechanisms;
2. The GNSO Council's request was the result of the GNSO Council's adoption in November 2013 of a consensus recommendation from the PDP Working Group on the Protection of International Organization Identifiers in All gTLDs (IGO-INGO PDP WG);
3. ICANN staff published the Preliminary Issue Report on the Access by IGOs and INGOs to the Curative Rights Protections of the UDRP and URS in a public comment forum that opened on 10 March 2014, and closed on 6 May 2014;
4. ICANN staff have reviewed the public comments received, published a Report of Public Comments and updated the Issue Report accordingly;
5. The Final Issue Report on the Access by IGOs and INGOs to the Curative Rights Protections of the UDRP and URS was published on 26 May 2014 (http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/igo-ingo-crp-final-25may14-en.pdf);
6. The Final Issue Report recommends that the GNSO Council proceed with a Policy Development Process (PDP) limited to consideration of the issues discussed in the report, and the General Counsel of ICANN has indicated the topic is properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process and within the scope of the GNSO.

RESOLVED:

1. The GNSO Council hereby initiates a PDP to evaluate: (i) whether the UDRP and/or URS should be amended (to enable their access and use by IGOs and INGOs whose identifiers had been recommended for protection by the IGO-INGO PDP WG) and if so, in what way; or (ii) whether a separate narrowly-tailored procedure modeled on these curative rights protection measures to apply only to protected IGO and INGO identifiers should be developed.
2. The GNSO Council requests that the PDP Working Group be convened as soon as possible to fulfill the requirements of this PDP in an expedited manner.

20140508-1

Motion in response to the NGPC's letter with respect to Specification 13

WHEREAS,

1. the NGPC has adopted a proposed Specification 13 to the Registry Agreement to reflect requests by .BRAND TLDs whilst delaying the implementation of an additional clause contained therein, which will allow a Registry Operator to designate up to three exclusive Registrars;
2. the NGPC has sent a letter to the GNSO Council Chair asking for advice as to whether the GNSO Council believes that this additional clause is inconsistent with the letter and intent of GNSO Policy Recommendation 19 on the Introduction of New Generic Top-level Domains;
3. the GNSO Council thanks the NGPC for referring the matter back to the GNSO Council;
4. the GNSO Council has discussed the matter including with the Brand Registry Group (BRG) and considered the background information provided by the BRG;
5. the GNSO Council has reached out to participants in the Policy Development Process at the time of developing the policy and the associated Board Report on the Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains (11 September 2007);
6. the Council acknowledges and understands the proposal made by .BRAND TLD operators;

It is now RESOLVED:

1. that the right to only use up to three exclusive registrars, as contained in Specification 13 is inconsistent with Recommendation 19 as (i) the language of this recommendation of the final report of the GNSO does not stipulate any exceptions from the requirements to treat registrars in a non-discriminatory fashion and (ii) the GNSO new gTLDs Committee discussed potential exceptions at the time, but did not include them in its recommendations, which is why the lack of an exception cannot be seen as an unintended omission, but a deliberate policy statement;
2. that the Council, notwithstanding resolved 1, does not object to the implementation of Specification 13 as a whole, including an additional clause which will allow a Registry Operator to designate up to three exclusive Registrars, given the specific circumstances and the fact that a public comment period on Specification 13 was conducted in 2013 without objections from the GNSO, save for that from certain registrars, which was subsequently withdrawn;
3. that the Council reserves the right to initiate a policy development process, potentially resulting in Consensus Policy affecting both existing and future TLDs, if and when the right granted to .BRAND TLDs is at risk of, or bears the risk of, being used for augmenting and / or circumventing the conditions of Specification 13 or any subsequent provisions.
4. That the Council's acceptance of a variation from original policy recommendation may not be taken as a precedent for any future decisions.

20140326-1

The Charter for a Cross Community Working Group to Develop a Finalized Framework of Operating Principles for Future Cross Community Working Groups was approved.

WHEREAS

1. In March 2012 the GNSO Council approved a set of initial draft principles relating to the formation and operation of cross community working groups (CWGs) and directed ICANN staff to solicit feedback on the principles from the other ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees (SO/ACs);
2. In June 2013 the ccNSO provided detailed feedback suggesting further clarifications and possible additions to the initial draft principles;
3. In October 2013 the GNSO Council approved the formation of a Drafting Team to develop a Charter for a new CWG to take forward and synthesize the initial work of the GNSO and the ccNSO feedback, and develop a final framework of operating principles that can function effectively across all SO/ACs relating to the formation, operation, decision making and termination of future CWGs (the "Final Framework");
4. The Drafting Team, co-chaired by the ccNSO and GNSO, has now completed its work on a proposed draft Charter for this new CWG.

RESOLVED,

1. The GNSO Council approves the Charter and appoints Avri Doria as the GNSO Council liaison to the CWG that will develop the Final Framework.
2. The GNSO will collaborate with the other SOs and ACs to issue a call for volunteers for the CWG, each in accordance with its own rules.
3. Until the CWG selects its co-chairs for the WG, the Co-Chairs of the Drafting Team shall serve as the interim co-chairs of the CWG.

20140326-2

A charter for a Cross-Community Working Group to develop a framework for the use of Country and Territory names as TLDs (UCTN WG was adopted

Whereas,

1. The ccNSO Study group on the use of Names for Country and Territory published its Final Report in September 2013 (http://ccnso.icann.org/node/42227). The first of the two recommendations of the Study Group to the ccNSO Council was to establish a cross community working group to:
   • Further review the current status of representations of country and territory names, as they exist under current ICANN policies, guidelines and procedures;
   • Provide advice regarding the feasibility of developing a consistent and uniform definitional framework that could be applicable across the respective SOs and ACs; and
   • Should such a framework be deemed feasible, provide detailed advice as to the content of the framework.
2. The ccNSO Council adopted the recommendations and, as the objective of the proposed Working Group is considered to be of common interest to the broader community, the GNSO, in addition to other Supporting Organisations (SOs), Advisory Committees (ACs) and others, was invited to participate in the working group on equal footing.
3. The ccNSO submitted a proposed charter [include link] for this Cross-Community Working Group, which the GNSO Council has reviewed and discussed.

RESOLVED,

1. The GNSO Council approves the Charter http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/unct-framework-14mar14-en.pdf ­­­­­­­­­­and appoints Gabriela Szlak and Brian Winterfeldt as the GNSO Council liaison to the Cross-Community Working Group to advice on the feasibility of a framework for the use of Country and Territory names as TLDs, and develop such a framework if deemed feasible.
2. The GNSO will collaborate with the other SOs and ACs to issue a call for volunteers for this CWG, each in accordance with its own rules

20140326-3

The Charter of the GAC-GNSO Consultation Group on GAC Early Engagement in GNSO Policy Development Process was adopted

WHEREAS

1. There is wide agreement on the need to engage the GAC early within the GNSO policy development process;
2. This issue has been identified by:
   • GAC-Board Joint Working Group (JWG)
   • Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT1)
   • Board-GAC Recommendation Implementation Working Group (BGRI-WG)
   • Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT2);
3. The GNSO Council and the GAC jointly formed a Consultation Group to begin work on this topic in November 2013;
4. The Consultation Group, co-chaired by the GAC and GNSO, has now completed its work on a proposed draft Charter for this new Consultation Group (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/gac-charter-19mar14-en.pdf).

RESOLVED,

1. The GNSO Council approves the Charter (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/gac-charter-19mar14-en.pdf) and appoints Mikey O'Connor as the GNSO Council liaison to the Consultation Group.

20140326-4

Motion to Close the Joint IDN Working Group and Next Steps for Certain IDN-related Issues

WHEREAS

1. The Joint IDN Working Group (JIG) was chartered by the ccNSO and GNSO Councils in 2009 to discuss issues of common interest between the two Supporting Organizations in relation to Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs), in particular, IDN top-level domains (TLDs). The charter was extended in 2010, after the adoption of the IDN ccTLD Fast Track Implementation Plan. ;
2. The JIG identified three issues of common interest, viz. single character IDN TLDs, IDN Variant TLDs, and Universal Acceptance of IDN TLDs;
3. On single character IDN TLDs, the JIG's Final Report recommending that these be delegated in the New gTLD Program and the IDN ccTLD Fast Track Program was approved by the ccNSO and GNSO Councils, and sent to the ICANN Board in May 2011; the JIG prepared a follow-up letter for the ccNSO and GNSO Councils, which after adoption was jointly sent to the ICANN Board in February 2012;
4. On IDN Variant TLDs, the JIG published an Initial Report in March 2011, and ICANN has launched an IDN Variant TLD Program to develop solutions to ensure a secure and stable delegation of IDN Variant TLDs;
5. On Universal Acceptance of IDN TLDs, the JIG published its Final Report in November 2013, and ICANN will be launching a project to facilitate universal acceptance of all TLDs at the ICANN meeting in Singapore;
6. In November 2013, recognizing that further work needed to be done in relation to IDNs, in particular IDN variants and universal acceptance of IDNs, the ccNSO and GNSO Councils requested that the JIG put forward suggestions on how to deal with these issues and deliver these suggestions to the Councils by the ICANN Singapore Meetings in March 2014.
7. Members of the JIG support the ICANN staff recommendations that the ccNSO and GNSO Councils should each continue to monitor ICANN's community efforts to resolve issues relating to single character IDN TLDs, IDN Variant TLDs and Universal Acceptance of All TLDs (including IDN TLDs).

RESOLVED,

1. The GNSO Council believes that in view of the ongoing community work at ICANN on these issues the JIG may now be closed, and will terminate the extension of the JIG as outlined in the charter.
2. The GNSO Council will continue to monitor the progress of the various community-based efforts to resolve the issues raised by the JIG, and will evaluate the need for any further policy work on a periodic basis; and
3. The GNSO Council thanks the JIG for all its hard work in ensuring that solutions to these important issues are developed through community-based efforts;

20140326-5

GNSO Operating Procedures to Address Resubmission of a Motion and Working Group Self Assessment

WHEREAS:

1. The GNSO Council has determined that:
    
   
   1. the current GNSO Operating Procedures do not contain a specific provision on the possibility of resubmitting a motion for voting by the GNSO Council; and
   2. the current GNSO Working Group Guidelines, which form Annex I of the GNSO Operating Procedures, do not contain a mechanism for Working Groups (WGs) to self-assess their work.
2. The GNSO Council requested that the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI) should consider whether there should be a modification to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures to address the issue of the resubmission of a motion and to develop a survey that WGs could use to perform a self-assessment once their work is complete.
3. Accordingly, the SCI developed procedures to be inserted in Section 4.3 (Motions and Votes) of the GNSO Operating Procedures that provide for the resubmission of a motion to the GNSO Council for consideration at a subsequent meeting of the Council, if three criteria are met:
    
   
   1. providing of an explanation for the resubmission;
   2. timely publication of the resubmitted motion; and

   3. seconding of the resubmitted motion by a Councilor from each of the two GNSO Houses.

      The proposed new procedures also include limitations and exceptions for the resubmission of a motion concerning the timing of its submission, disallowing any material changes to the original motion, and clarifying that a previously-submitted motion not voted upon by the GNSO Council is considered a new motion (and not resubmitted) if it is brought before the GNSO Council again.

4. In addition, the SCI developed and tested a WG self-assessment questionnaire, as a result of which the SCI is recommending that procedures for administering the self-assessment be added as a new Section 7.0 to the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, which form Annex I of the GNSO Operating Procedures.
5. The revised GNSO Operating Procedures, including the proposed additions to the Working Group Guidelines, were put out for public comment for a period of a minimum of 21 days beginning on 10 February 2014 and ending on 03 March 2014 (see http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/gnso-op-procedures-10feb14-en.htm), as required by the ICANN Bylaws.
6. As there were no comments received in the public forum the SCI deemed that no further changes were necessary nor was a public comment reply period needed.

RESOLVED

1. The GNSO Council adopts the revised Operating Procedures including the new provisions concerning the resubmission of a motion and a Working Group self-assessment - see http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/op-procedures-12mar14-en.pdf
2. The GNSO Council instructs ICANN staff to post the new version of the GNSO Operating Procedures, effective immediately upon adoption.

20140123-1

Motion to approval the Charter for the GNSO Metrics and Reporting (non-Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group (WG)

WHEREAS

1. The GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on metrics and reporting at its meeting on 17 Oct 2012 http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/uofr-final-31mar13-en.pdf
2. On 16 May 2013 the GNSO Council deliberated a recommendation on the Uniformity of Reporting from the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group (RAPWG) and approved a non-PDP Working Group to consider metrics and reporting;
3. "The GNSO Council further approves the creation of a drafting team to develop a charter for a non-PDP Working Group to consider additional methods for collecting necessary metrics and reporting from Contracted Parties and other external resources to aid the investigation."
4. Following a call for volunteers, a Drafting Team was formed and its members have developed a draft charter for consideration by the GNSO Council; http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/metrep-charter-10jan14-en.pdf
5. The GNSO Council has reviewed the draft charter submitted by the Drafting Team.

RESOLVED,

1. The GNSO Council approves the following charter for the GNSO Metrics Reporting non-PDP WG and appoints Mikey O'Connor as the GNSO Council Liaison to the GNSO Metrics Reporting non-PDP WG.
2. http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/metrep-charter-10jan14-en.pdf
3. The GNSO Council further directs that the work of the GNSO Metrics Reporting non-PDP WG be initiated as soon as possible after an adequate duration to conduct a call for volunteers has occurred.
4. Until formation of the WG, the GNSO Council Liaison shall act as interim chair.
5. The Working Group shall, to the extent that it is practical, follow the rules outlined in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-07apr11-en.pdf

20131212-1

Motion to adopt the Joint ccNSO/GNSO IDN Working Group (JIG) Final Report on Universal Acceptance of IDN TLDs

WHEREAS,

1. The JIG (Joint ccNSO/GNSO IDN Working Group) was formed by mutual charters between the ccNSO and GNSO councils, and extended (ccNSO: http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/minutes-council-23aug11-en.pdf | GNSO: http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201107) to complete its work on the 3 identified issues of common interest between the ccNSO and GNSO;
2. One of those issues concerns Universal Acceptance of IDN TLDs;
3. The JIG published its Draft Final Report on Universal Acceptance of IDN TLDs for public comment which closed on 16 August 2013, http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/idn-tld-acceptance-final-25jun13-en.htm)
4. The JIG reviewed the comments received and finalized its report accordingly.
5. The JIG submitted its Final Report to the GNSO Council on 17 November (http://buenosaires48.icann.org/en/schedule/mon-jig/presentation-jig-final-idn-tld-acceptance-15nov13-en)
6. The GNSO Council reviewed and considered the Final Report.

Resolved,

1. The GNSO Council adopts the JIG Final Report on Universal Acceptance of IDN TLDs and its recommendations and will submit it to the ICANN Board for its consideration.
2. The GNSO Council thanks the JIG for its work, with special thanks to Jothan Frakes for his contributions in proactively reaching beyond the ICANN community to address issues identified in the report.
3. The GNSO Council recognizes that further work needs to be done in relation to IDNs, in particular IDN variants and universal acceptance of IDNs and asks the JIG to put forward suggestions on how to deal with these issues and deliver these suggestions to the GNSO Council by the ICANN Singapore Meetings in March 2014.

20131212-2

Motion to adopt the Final Report of the joint DNS stability and security analysis Working Group (DSSA)

Whereas

1. The joint DNS Security and Stability Analysis working group was established by the participating Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees ALAC, ccNSO, GNSO and NRO to better understand the security and stability of the global domain name system (DNS) in 2011.
2. In October 2011 the ICANN Board of Directors established the Board DNS Risk Management Framework Working Group (DNS RMF WG), with the objective to oversee the development of a risk management framework and system for the DNS as it pertains to ICANN's role as defined in the ICANN Bylaws.
3. At the time the DSSA published its draft Report Phase 1 (August 2012), the DSSA went into hibernation to avoid overlap with the work of the Board DNS RMF and noted and informed the participating SO's and AC's that in order to reflect the changed environment and working method, the charter of the DSSA would need to be updated to reflect these changes.
4. The co-chairs of the DSSA WG have sent a letter (http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/dssa-to-so-ac-chairs-09nov13-en.pdf) to the chairs of each of the participating stakeholder organizations to submit the Final Report and the work products contained in it (available at: http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/dssa-final-08nov13-en.pdf). This letter outlines the reasons the co-chairs recommend not proceeding with phase 2.
5. The DSSA recommends the acceptance of the Final Report and further recommends that the Final Report be disseminated to registry operators and registrars for their consideration.
6. Upon adoption of the Final report of the DSSA, and notification of adoption to the co-chairs of the DSSA, the working group will be closed.

Resolved

1. The GNSO Council adopts the Report submitted by the co-chairs of the DSSA WG, as the Final Report of the DSSA WG in accordance with section 2.4 of its charter.
2. The chair of the GNSO Council is requested to inform the co-chairs of the DSSA WG of adoption of the Report by the GNSO Council.
3. The chair of GNSO Council is also requested to inform the chairs of the other participating SO's and AC's (SSAC, ALAC, ccNSO and NRO).
4. Finally, the GNSO Council thanks and congratulates all, and in particular the co-chairs of the WG:
   Olivier Crepin- LeBlond (ALAC), Joerg Schweiger (.DE, ccNSO), Mikey O'Connor (GNSO), James Galvin (SSAC) and Mark Kosters (NRO) and all volunteers and staff who helped with this effort.

20131120-1

Motion for Approval of a Charter for the Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group (WG)

WHEREAS

1. On 13 June 2013 the GNSO Council initiated a Policy Development Process (PDP) on the Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information and decided to create a PDP Working Group for the purposes of fulfilling the requirements of the PDP;
2. Following a call for volunteers, a Drafting Team was formed and its members have developed a charter for consideration by the GNSO Council;
3. The GNSO Council has reviewed the charter submitted by the Drafting Team.

RESOLVED,

1. The GSNO Council approves the charter at http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/transliteration-contact-charter-06nov13-en.pdf and appoints Ching Chiao as the GNSO Council Liaison to the Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information PDP Working Group.
2. The GNSO Council further directs that the work of the Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information PDP WG be initiated no later than 14 days after the approval of this motion. Until such time as the WG can select a chair and that chair can be confirmed by the GNSO Council, the GNSO Council Liaison shall act as interim chair.
3. The Working Group shall follow the rules outlined in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-07apr11-en.pdf

20131120-2

Motion on Recommendations for IGO-INGO Protections

WHEREAS:

1. At the ICANN meeting in Singapore on 28 June 2011, the ICANN Board passed a Resolution authorizing the President and CEO to implement the New gTLD program and directing that the Applicant Guidebook (AGB) be amended to incorporate text concerning protection of specific names requested by the International Committee of the Red Cross, the International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, and the American Red Cross (collectively, the RCRC) and the International Olympic Committee (IOC) for the top level only during the initial application round, until the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) and the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) develop policy advice based on the global public interest;
2. On 14 September 2011 the GAC sent a Proposal to the GNSO Council recommending that certain RCRC and IOC names also be protected at the second level in a number of specific languages, which proposal was intended to complement the ICANN Board's June 2011 resolution, and which acknowledged the need for further work by the GAC and the GNSO to develop permanent protections for these organizations at the top level;
3. At the ICANN meeting in Dakar in October 2011, the GNSO Council formed a Drafting Team to develop recommendations relating to both top and second level protections for RCRC and IOC names;
4. On 11 January 2012 ICANN staff published an updated AGB that prohibited the delegation of certain RCRC and IOC names at the top level during the first round of the New gTLD program;
5. On 26 March 2012 the GNSO Council adopted three of the Drafting Team's recommendations pertaining to protection of certain RCRC and IOC names at the top level;
6. On 12 April 2012 the ICANN Board, acting through its New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC), acknowledged receipt of the GNSO's recommendations but decided not to change the AGB then, giving the Rationale that the public interest would be better served at that time by maintaining the status quo of a temporary moratorium;
7. At the ICANN meeting in Prague in June 2012, the GAC Communique requested that the ICANN Board provide the GAC with "further clarification as to the status of its pending request for enhanced protections [for RCRC and IOC names] at the top and second levels";
8. On 13 September 2012 the NGPC passed a Resolution requesting that the GNSO continue its work on second level protections of RCRC and IOC names and, if this were not concluded by 31 January 2013, that the GNSO advise the ICANN Board if there was any reason not to provide second level protections for those RCRC and IOC names already protected in the AGB at the top level, in light of all gTLDs approved in this first round of the New gTLD program;
9. On 13 December 2011 legal counsel from twenty-eight International Governmental Organizations (IGOs) sent a letter to the ICANN CEO and Board Chair, requesting that their organizations' names and acronyms be excluded from third-party registration at both the top and second levels in the first round of the New gTLD program and until further policy could be developed for future rounds; in May 2012, these organizations published a Common Position Paper outlining the possible bases for their requested protections;
10. On 11 March 2012 the ICANN Board requested that the GAC and the GNSO provide it with "policy advice on the IGOs' request … [to] inform ICANN in providing a meaningful response to the IGOs";
11. On 12 April 2012 the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report as a preceding step to a possible Policy Development Process (PDP) to determine the type of international organization that should receive special protection at the top and second levels (if any), as well as the policies that should govern such protections;
12. On 1 October 2012 the Final Issue Report recommended that the GNSO initiate a PDP to determine, first, whether additional special protections were needed at the top and second levels for the names and/or acronyms of certain international organizations, namely IGOs and International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGOs) - including consideration of further protections of RCRC and IOC names - and if so, to develop policy proposals for such protections; and secondly, to include within the PDP an evaluation of whether such policies should also extend to existing gTLDs;
13. On 17 October 2012 the GNSO Council passed a Resolution launching an expedited PDP (which would become the IGO-INGO PDP) to address the issues described in the Final Issue Report;
14. On 26 November 2012 the NGPC passed a Resolution requesting that the GNSO continue its work on top and second level protections for IGOs and INGOs and, if this work were not concluded by 28 February 2013, that the GNSO advise the Board of any reason it should consider in including IGO names and acronyms that satisfy certain specific criteria on a Reserved Names List applicable to all new gTLD registries approved in the first round of the New gTLD program;
15. On 20 December 2012 the GNSO Council adopted a further set of three of the Drafting Team's recommendations pertaining to protection of certain RCRC and IOC names at the second level, pending the outcome of the recently-launched PDP, and communicated these decisions to the GAC;
16. On 28 February 2013 the GNSO Council Chair sent a letter to the NGPC Chair in response to the NGPC's November Resolution, indicating that the GNSO's PDP was addressing the issues raised by the NGPC;
17. On 22 March 2013 the GAC requested that the ICANN Board provide second level protections of names and acronyms of certain IGOs according to specific criteria;
18. On 14 June 2013 the IGO-INGO PDP Working Group published its draft Initial Report for public comment;
19. At the ICANN meeting in Durban in July 2013 the GAC through its Communique further refined its 22 March 2013 request concerning second level protection for IGO acronyms
20. On 20 September 2013 the Working Group published its draft Final Report for public comment, incorporating feedback received in response to its draft Initial Report;
21. On 10 November 2013 the Working Group published its Final Report and sent it to the GNSO Council, incorporating feedback received in response to its draft Final Report;
22. The Working Group's Final Report includes supplemental documentation in the form of Minority Statements from various Working Group members and their respective constituencies, including IGOs and INGOs who may be affected by the recommendations under consideration (http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/igo-ingo).

RESOLVED:

1. The GNSO Council thanks the Working Group for its hard work and for its thorough report, which includes multiple recommendations pertaining to the RCRC, IOC, IGOs and INGOs, and notes the inclusion of the supplemental documentation in the form of the various Minority Statements submitted;
2. The GNSO Council adopts in full the following Consensus recommendations made by the Working Group (including the definitions of Scope 1 and Scope 2 identifiers for all the various types of organizations considered) and recommends their adoption by the ICANN Board:
    
   
   1. In relation to the RCRC:
      • Top Level, Exact Match, Full Name Scope 1 identifiers of the RCRC (as defined in the Final Report to refer to designations of the RCRC emblems protected under the 1949 Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols) are to be considered "Strings Ineligible for Delegation" for future rounds of the New gTLD Program, and an exception procedure shall be designed which will allow an RCRC organization with a name protected as a "String Ineligible for Delegation" to apply for its protected string at the top level;
      • Second Level, Exact Match, Full Name Scope 1 identifiers of the RCRC (as defined in the Final Report to refer to designations of the RCRC emblems protected under the 1949 Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols) are to be withheld from registration, and an exception procedure designed that will allow an RCRC organization with a name withheld from registration to register its protected name at the second level. For the current round of New gTLDs, the names subject to this recommendation shall be placed on the Reserved Names List in Specification 5 of the New gTLD Agreement, replacing any names currently listed in Specification 5. For future rounds, the names subject to this recommendation shall be placed on the Reserved Names List associated with each new Registry Agreement.
      • Second Level, Exact Match, Full Name and Acronym Scope 2 identifiers of the RCRC (as defined in the Final Report) are to be subject to any notification services afforded to rights holders during the launch of a new gTLD. For the current round, the names and acronyms subject to this recommendation are to be added to the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH), and the related organizations permitted to participate in the 90-day claims notification process developed for the New gTLD Program.
   2. In relation to the IOC:
      • Top Level, Exact Match, Full Name Scope 1 identifiers of the IOC (as defined in the Final Report) are to be considered "Strings Ineligible for Delegation" for future rounds of the New gTLD Program, and an exception procedure shall be designed which will allow an IOC organization with a name protected as a "String Ineligible for Delegation" to apply for its protected string at the top level;
      • Second Level, Exact Match, Full Name Scope 1 identifiers of the IOC (as defined in the Final Report) are to be withheld from registration, and an exception procedure designed that will allow an IOC organization with a name withheld from registration to register its protected name at the second level. For the current round of New gTLDs, the names subject to this recommendation shall be placed on the Reserved Names List in Specification 5 of the New gTLD Registry Agreement, replacing any names currently listed in Specification 5. For future rounds, the names subject to this recommendation shall be placed on the Reserved Names List associated with each new Registry Agreement.
   3. In relation to IGOs:
      • Top Level, Exact Match, Full Name Scope 1 identifiers of the specified IGOs (as defined in the Final Report) are to be considered "Strings Ineligible for Delegation" for future rounds of the New gTLD Program, and an exception procedure shall be designed that will allow the specified IGO with a name protected as a "String Ineligible for Delegation" to apply for its protected string at the top level;
      • Second Level, Exact Match, Full Name Scope 1 identifiers of the specified IGOs (as defined in the Final Report) are to be withheld from registration, and an exception procedure designed that will allow a specified IGO with a name withheld from registration to register its protected name at the second level. For the current round of New gTLDs, the names subject to this recommendation shall be placed on the Reserved Names List in Specification 5 of the New gTLD Registry Agreement. For future rounds, the names subject to this recommendation shall be placed on the Reserved Names List associated with each new Registry Agreement.
      • To the extent that in the current round Second Level, Exact Match Scope 2 identifiers for the Acronyms of the specified IGOs (as defined in the Final Report) are to be added to the TMCH, and the related organizations permitted to participate in the 90-day claims notification process developed for the New gTLD Program, these identifiers will similarly be subject to any notification services afforded to rights holders during the launch of a new gTLD in future rounds.
   4. In relation to INGOs:
      • Top Level, Exact Match, Full Name Scope 1 identifiers of the specified INGOs (as defined in the Final Report) are to be considered "Strings Ineligible for Delegation" for future rounds of the New gTLD Program, and an exception procedure designed that will allow an INGO with a name protected as a "String Ineligible for Delegation" to apply for its protected name at the top level;
      • To the extent that Second Level, Exact Match, Full Name Scope 1 identifiers of the specified INGOs (as defined in the Final Report) are to be withheld from registration, an exception procedure shall be designed that will allow a specified INGO with a name withheld from registration to register its protected name at the second level. For the current round of New gTLDs, the names subject to this recommendation, if approved, will be placed on the Reserved Names List in Specification 5 of the New gTLD Agreement. For future rounds, the names subject to this recommendation shall be placed on the Reserved Names List associated with each new Registry Agreement.
      • Second Level, Exact Match, Full Name Scope 1 identifiers (unless otherwise protected) of protected INGOs and Scope 2 identifiers of protected INGOs (all as defined in the Final Report) are to be subject to any notification services afforded to rights holders during the launch of a new gTLD. For the current round, the names subject to this recommendation are to be added to the TMCH, and the protected organizations permitted to participate in the 90-day claims notification process developed for the New gTLD program.
3. The GNSO Council adopts the following Consensus recommendations made by the Working Group that apply to all four categories of identifiers and recommends their adoption by the ICANN Board:
   • At the Top Level, Acronyms of the RCRC, IOC, IGOs and INGOs under consideration in this PDP shall not be considered as "Strings Ineligible for Delegation"; and
   • At the Second level, Acronyms of the RCRC, IOC, IGOs and INGO under consideration in this PDP shall not be withheld from registration. For the current round of New gTLDs, the temporary protections extended to the acronyms subject to this recommendation shall be removed from the Reserved Names List in Specification 5 of the New gTLD Registry Agreement.
4. The GNSO Council notes that the Working Group recommends that the following Consensus recommendations also apply to existing gTLD registries, and accordingly the GNSO Council recommends their adoption by the ICANN Board:
   • Existing Registry Agreements shall accommodate recommended protections adopted for Exact Match, Full Name Scope 1 identifiers of the RCRC at the Second Level (Section 3.1.3 and 3.1.4 of the Working Group's Final Report);
   • Existing Registry Agreements shall accommodate recommended protections adopted for Exact Match, Full Name Scope 1 identifiers of the IOC at the Second Level (Section 3.2.3 and 3.2.4 of the Working Group's Final Report);
   • Existing Registry Agreements shall accommodate recommended protections adopted for Exact Match, Full Name Scope 1 identifiers of IGOs at the Second Level (Section 3.3.3 and 3.3.4 of the Working Group's Final Report); and
   • To the extent that Exact Match, Full Name Scope 1 identifiers of INGOs are withheld from registration at the Second Level (meaning that in the current round they are placed in Specification 5 of the New gTLD Registry Agreement), existing Registry Agreements shall accommodate recommendations adopted for an exception procedure (Section 3.4.3 of the Working Group's Final Report) that will allow an INGO with a name withheld from registration to apply for its protected name at the second level.
5. The GNSO Council requests an Issue Report (http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/issue-template-request-form-18nov13-en.pdf) on the Working Group's Consensus recommendation 3.5.3, which states: "The [Working Group] recommends that the respective policies are amended so that curative rights of the UDRP and URS can be used by those organizations that are granted protections based on their identified designations." This Issue Report is anticipated as a preceding step toward the possibility of initiating a PDP on this issue, and the Issue Report shall also address how these matters can or cannot be incorporated into the forthcoming review of the UDRP;
6. The GNSO Council shall convene an IGO-INGO Implementation Review Team to assist ICANN staff in developing the implementation details relating to the recommendations adopted herein should they be approved by the ICANN Board, including the Principles of Implementation highlighted by the Working Group in Section 3.7 of its Final Report and any Exception Procedures to be developed. The Implementation Review Team will be tasked with evaluating the proposed implementation of the policy recommendations as approved by the ICANN Board and is expected to work with ICANN staff to ensure that the resultant implementation fulfills the intentions of the approved policy recommendations. If the Implementation Review Team identifies any potential modifications to the policy recommendations or any need for new policy recommendations, the 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 an IGO-INGO Implementation Review Team to the members of the IGO-INGO PDP Working Group.

20131031-1

Adoption of the Thick Whois Policy Development Process Final Report and Recommendations

WHEREAS

1. On 14 March 2012, the GNSO Council launched a Policy Development Process (PDP) on Thick Whois to make recommendations to the GNSO Council regarding the use of thick Whois by all gTLD registries, both existing and future.

2. This PDP has followed the prescribed PDP steps as stated in the Bylaws, resulting in a Final Report delivered on 21 October 2013;

3. The Thick Whois PDP WG has reached full consensus on the recommendations contained in the report in relation to Thick Whois;

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

Now therefore be it resolved,

1. The GNSO Council recommends to the ICANN Board of Directors the adoption of Thick Whois recommendations as detailed in section 7.1 of the Final Report http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/whois/thick-final-21oct13-en.pdf

2. The GNSO Council shall convene a Thick Whois 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 policy recommendations. If the Implementation Review Team identifies any potential modifications to the policy recommendations or need for new policy recommendations, the 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 Thick Whois Implementation Review Team to the members of the Thick Whois Working Group.

20131031-2

Approval of a charter for the Standing Committee on GNSO Improvements Implementation (SCI)

WHEREAS

1. On 28 April 2011 the GNSO Council approved the charter for the Standing Committee on GNSO Improvements Implementation (SCI);

2. In 2013 the SCI determined that the Charter as originally approved no longer reflected the current role of the SCI as a standing committee, and furthermore did not contain procedures for selecting the Chair and Vice-Chair of the SCI;

3. The SCI requested guidance from the GNSO Council as to how to proceed with revisions to the Charter that would address its concerns;

4. At its meeting on 05 September 2013 the GNSO Council endorsed the SCI as a standing committee and further requested that the SCI proceed to revise the Charter as it may deem necessary, with the exception of the section on Decision Making;

5. The SCI has since revised the Charter to reflect its role as a standing committee and to include procedures to select the Chair and Vice Chair; and

The GNSO Council has reviewed the revised Charter submitted by the SCI.

RESOLVED,

1. The GNSO Council thanks the SCI for its work to date; and

2. The GSNO Council approves the revised SCI Charter at http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/improvements-implementation-charter-08oct13-en.pdf which will replace the previous charter effective immediately upon adoption of this motion

3. The GNSO Council appoints [confirm name] as the GNSO Council Liaison to the Standing Committee on GNSO Improvements Implementation.

20131031-3

Approval of a charter for the Privacy Proxy Services Accreditation PDP WG

WHEREAS

1. When initiating negotiations for the RAA in October 2011 the ICANN Board requested an Issue Report to undertake a GNSO policy development process (PDP) to address remaining items suited for a PDP;

2. In June 2013 the ICANN Board of Directors approved the new 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA);

3. In September 2013 ICANN staff published a paper confirming the Board's approval of the RAA and identifying the remaining high and medium priority issues for the GNSO PDP in light of the RAA negotiations and prior GNSO and other related community efforts as those issues concerning the accreditation of privacy and proxy services;

4. The GNSO Council has reviewed the issues raised in the ICANN staff paper as well as a draft Working Group Charter incorporating those issues and others identified by the GNSO community as suitable for further consideration by the PDP Working Group http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/raa-pp-charter-22oct13-en.pdf

RESOLVED,

1. The GNSO Council approves the Charter and appoints Maria Farrell as the GNSO Council liaison to the RAA Privacy Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working Group (WG);

2. The GNSO Council directs ICANN staff to issue a call for volunteers for the PDP WG no later than seven days after the approval of this motion; and

3. Until such time as the WG selects a chair for the WG and that chair is confirmed by the GNSO Council, the GNSO Council liaison to the WG shall serve as the interim chair.

20131010-1

Approve the WHOIS Survey Working Group (WSWG) Final report and Recommendations

WHEREAS

1. On 07 May 2009, the GNSO Council resolved that Policy Staff, with the assistance of technical staff and GNSO Council members as required, should collect and organize a comprehensive set of requirements for the Whois service policy tools;
2. On 29 July 2010, Staff published the Inventory of Whois Service Requirements – Final Report;
3. In July 2011, volunteers drafted a proposed charter for a Whois Survey "Working Group", preferring the term "Working Group" to "Drafting Team" in this case; http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/charter-wswg-06oct11-en.pdf;
4. On 30 May 2012, the WSWG published a draft of the Whois Service Requirements Survey for public comment, http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/draft-whois-requirements-survey-30may12-en.htm;
5. On 13 September 2012, the WSWG released the final Whois Service Requirements Survey to solicit input from community members on the possible technical requirements of a future Whois system, http://gnso.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-13sep12-en.htm;
6. On 13 September 2012, ICANN staff compiled and consolidated the survey results and the WSWG completed the WSWG Final Report, (http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/whois/wswg-final-21aug13-en.pdf)

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED,

1. That the GNSO Council thanks the Whois Survey Working Group (WSWG) and ICANN staff for their efforts in conducting the survey and compiling survey results of possible technical requirements of a future Whois system;
2. The GNSO Council further approves the recommendations, as defined in the Final Report (http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/whois/wswg-final-21aug13-en.pdf), to send the survey results to other applicable efforts regarding Whois and Domain Name Registration Data for their consideration.

20131010-2

Next steps in developing a framework for Cross-Community Working Groups

WHEREAS:

1. in October 2011 the GNSO Council adopted a Resolution approving the formation of a GNSO Drafting Team (DT) to develop a proposed framework under which working groups jointly chartered by other Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees (SO/ACs) along with the GNSO can effectively function and produce meaningful and timely reports and recommendations on topics that are of interest of such SO/ACs;
2. pursuant to its Charter the DT proposed a set of Draft Principles for Cross Community Working Groups (CCWGs) that were approved by the GNSO Council in March 2012;
3. the GNSO Council directed ICANN staff to forward the Draft Principles to the Chairs of the other SO/ACs for their comments on both the principles and the route forward either for the adoption of the Draft Principles or the development of a related set of principles for the operation of CCWGs
4. in June 2013 the ccNSO provided comments and suggestions regarding the Draft Principles for further consideration by the GNSO Council; and
5. in full cooperation with other SO/ACs the GNSO Council now wishes to jointly develop an updated set of principles for CCWGs taking into consideration the feedback provided by the ccNSO and in collaboration with other interested SO/ACs so as to create a framework applicable across all SO/ACs for the effective functioning of CCWGs:

RESOLVED:

1. The GNSO Council thanks the DT for its work in developing the proposed Draft Principles and the ccNSO for its very constructive feedback;
2. The GNSO Council directs ICANN staff to prepare a paper consolidating the ccNSO feedback with the Draft Principles and highlighting areas requiring additional work as well as questions for further discussion;
3. The GNSO Council intends to invite the ccNSO to provide a co-chair for, and all SO/ACs to appoint at least one representative each to, a new drafting team co-chaired by a representative from the GNSO and the ccNSO, to be tasked with creating a charter for a community working group having the responsibility of developing the updated set of principles for CCWGs;
4. The GNSO Council requests that the new drafting team be formed no later than the first GNSO Council meeting after the ICANN meeting in Buenos Aires in November; and
5. The GNSO Council hereby appoints John Berard as the GNSO co-chair of the new drafting team.

FURTHER RESOLVED:

6. The GNSO Council requests that the new drafting team utilizes the Draft Principles, the ccNSO feedback and the upcoming staff paper as the basis for its work; and

7. The GNSO Council requests that the new drafting team, subject to the further input of other interested SO/ACs, consider at a minimum the following matters in developing the set of updated principles:

• Prior experiences relating to previous and current CCWGs (including without limitation the DSSA Working Group, the Joint GAC-ccNSO IDN Working Group and the Joint ccNSO-GNSO IDN Working Group);
• The need to align the scope of CCWGs to the remit of each SO/AC and the appropriate delineation of the scope of a CCWG charter as a result;
• The type of issues or topics that might be suitable for CCWG work;
• How to deal with outputs from a CCWG and decision-making concerning such outputs, particularly in relation to matters where either an SO/AC disagrees with a CCWG or with one another on a CCWG's recommendations, and taking into account the differing rules and operating procedures within each SO/AC; and
• The closure of a CCWG and, where applicable, periodic future reviews of CCWG recommendations.

20130801-1

Council resolved to adopt the Locking of a Domain Name subject to UDRP Proceedings Policy Development Process Final Report and Recommendations

WHEREAS

1. On 15 December 2011, the GNSO Council launched a Policy Development Process (PDP) on the Locking of a Domain Name subject to UDRP Proceedings to make recommendations to the GNSO Council to address the issues identified with the locking of a domain name subject to UDRP Proceedings.

2. This PDP has followed the prescribed PDP steps as stated in the Bylaws, resulting in a Final Report delivered on 5 July 2013;

3. The Locking of a Domain Name subject to UDRP Proceedings WG has reached full consensus on the recommendations in relation to addressing the issues identified with the locking of a domain name subject to UDRP Proceedings;

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

Now therefore be it resolved,

1. The GNSO Council recommends to the ICANN Board of Directors the adoption of the Locking of a Domain Name subject to UDRP Proceedings recommendations as detailed in the Final Report http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/locking/domain-name-final-05jul13-en.pdf

2. The GNSO Council shall convene a Locking of a Domain Name subject to UDRP Proceedings 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 policy recommendations. If the Implementation Review Team identifies any potential modifications to the policy recommendations or need for new policy recommendations, the 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 Locking of a Domain Name subject to UDRP Proceedings Implementation Review Team to the members of the Locking of a Domain Name subject to UDRP Proceedings Working Group.

20130717-1

Council resolved to adopt the Charter for the Policy Implementation Working Group

WHEREAS:

1. The GNSO Council decided at its wrap-up session at the ICANN meeting in Beijing to form a drafting team to develop a charter for a Working Group to address the issues that have been raised in the context of the recent discussions on policy implementation that affect the GNSO.
2. The drafting team was formed and has now submitted a proposed charter for the Policy Implementation Working Group to the GNSO Council.

3. The GNSO Council has reviewed the proposed charter.

   http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/policy-implementation-charter-04jul13-en.pdf

RESOLVED:

1. The GSNO Council approves the charter and appoints Jeff Neuman as the GNSO Council Liaison to the Policy Implementation Working Group.

2. The GNSO Council further directs that the call for volunteers to form the Policy Implementation Working Group be initiated no later than 7 days after the approval of this motion.

   Until such time as the WG can select a chair and that chair can be confirmed by the GNSO Council, the GNSO Council Liaison shall act as interim chair.

Charter
http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/policy-implementation-charter-04jul13-en.pdf

20130613-1

Council resolved to Adopt Proposed Modification of the GNSO Operating Procedures Concerning the Deadline for the Submission of Reports and Motions

WHEREAS:

The GNSO Council has determined that the language concerning the deadline for the submission of reports and motions in the current GNSO Operating Procedures lacks clarity;

The GNSO Council proposes a modification of the GNSO Operating Procedures that reports and motions should be submitted to the GNSO Council for inclusion on the agenda as soon as possible, but no later than 23h59 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) on the day, 10 calendar days before the GNSO Council meeting;

The revised GNSO Operating Procedures, including the clarification of the deadline for the submission of reports and motions, was put out for a minimum 21-day public comment period on 02 May 2013 ending on 23 May 2013 (see http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/gnso-op-procedures-02may13-en.htm) as required by the ICANN Bylaws;

As a result of the public comment period, the GNSO Council determined that no further changes were necessary;

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED

The GNSO Council adopts the revised GNSO Operating Procedures including the clarification of the deadline for the submission of reports and / or motions (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/op-procedures-04jun13-en.pdf).

The GNSO Council instructs staff to update any other sections in the GNSO Operating Procedures that are related to the submission of reports and / or motions to ensure that these are consistent with the new provision that reports and motions should be submitted to the GNSO Council for inclusion on the agenda as soon as possible, but no later than 23h59 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) on the day, 10 calendar days before the GNSO Council meeting.

20130613-2

Council resolved to Initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP) on the Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information

Whereas

The translation and transliteration of contact information were two of several issues addressed by a cross-community working group – Internationalized Registration Data Working Group (IRD-WG) – in its Final Report;

As a result, the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on translation and transliteration of contact information at its meeting on 17 October 2012 (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/resolutions#20121017-4);

A Preliminary Issue Report on translation and transliteration of contact information was published on 08 January 2013 for public comment (see http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/transliteration-contact-08jan13-en.htm );

A Final Issue Report translation and transliteration of contact information was submitted to the GNSO Council on 21 March 2013 (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/gtlds/transliteration-contact-final-21mar13-en.pdf).

The Final Issue Report recommends that the GNSO Council should initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP) limited to the issues discussed in this report;

As recommended by the WHOIS Policy Review Team the Final Issue Report also recommends that ICANN should commission a study on the commercial feasibility of translation or transliteration systems for internationalized contact data, which is expected to help inform the PDP Working Group in its deliberations;

ICANN's General Counsel has confirmed that the topic is properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process and within the scope of the GNSO;

RESOLVED:

The GNSO initiates a PDP on the issues defined in the Final Issue Report (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/gtlds/transliteration-contact-final-21mar13-en.pdf) on the translation and transliteration of contact information;

A Working Group will be created for the purpose of fulfilling the requirements of the PDP.

The GNSO requests staff to commission a study on the commercial feasibility of translation or transliteration systems for internationalized contact data, which is expected to help inform the PDP Working Group in its deliberations.

20130516-1

Address the Final Issue Report on the Uniformity of Reporting

Whereas,

The Registration Abuse Policies Working Group (RAPWG) identified in its Final Report the 'need for more uniformity in the mechanisms to initiate, track, and analyze policy-violation reports';

The RAPWG as a result recommended in its Final Report that 'the GNSO and the larger ICANN community in general, create and support uniform reporting processes'.

The GNSO Council at its meeting on 6 October 2011 requested ICANN Compliance Department to report on existing systems to report and track violations and/or complaints; improvements / changes made since the RAPWG Report or foreseen in the near future, and: identify gaps and any improvements that might be desirable but not foreseen at this stage;

The ICANN Compliance Department provided a response to the GNSO Council on 18 March 2012 and presented it to the GNSO Council at its meeting on 12 April 2012 (see http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/contractual-compliance-report-reporting-uniformity-16mar12-en.pdf);

The GNSO Council discussed the RAPWG recommendation in light of the feedback received from the ICANN Compliance Department and RAPWG Alumni volunteered to provide some further thoughts on how the RAPWG recommendation could be implemented;

RAPWG Alumni submitted their proposed approach to the GNSO Council on 3 September 2012 (see http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg13484.html);

The GNSO Council reviewed and discussed the proposed approach at its meeting on 13 September 2012;

The GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on the current state of uniformity in the mechanisms to initiate, track, and analyze policy-violation reports.

ICANN Staff completed and released the Preliminary Issue Report on Uniformity of Reporting on 22 March 2013 for public comment. No comments were received;

ICANN Staff submitted the Final Issue Report to the GNSO Council on 2 April 2013 (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/uofr-final-31mar13-en.pdf).

The GNSO Council has reviewed the Final Issue Report and supports the staff recommendation to not initiate a Policy Development Process at this stage but to await the completion of the ICANN Contractual Compliance three-year plan.

Resolved,

The GNSO Council does not initiate a Policy Development Process at this stage but will review at the completion of the ICANN Contractual Compliance three-year plan expected for 31 December 2013 whether additional action is required;

The GNSO Council further approves the creation of a drafting team to develop a charter for a non-PDP Working Group to consider additional methods for collecting necessary metrics and reporting from Contracted Parties and other external resources to aid the investigation.

20130516-2

Adopt Revised Policy Development Process (PDP) Manual Incorporating Modifications to Include the Suspension of a Policy Development Process (PDP)

WHEREAS:

Having encountered the need to suspend a Policy Development Process (PDP) for a limited amount of time, the GNSO Council realized that currently the PDP Manual does not contain a specific provision on how to deal with such a situation;

The GNSO Council requested the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI) in April 2012 to review whether there should be a modification to the GNSO PDP Manual to address the possible suspension of a PDP following its initiation;

The SCI deliberated on provisions for suspension of a PDP and reached consensus on proposed modifications to be incorporated in Section 15 of the GNSO PDP Manual, which also is included as Annex 2 in the GNSO Council Operating Procedures;

The revised PDP manual, including the proposed provisions for suspension of a PDP, was put out for a minimum 21-day public comment period on 06 March 2013 ending on 06 April 2013 (see http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/pdp-suspension-07mar13-en.htm) as required by the ICANN Bylaws;

As a result of the public comment period, no further changes were deemed necessary by the SCI;

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED

The GNSO Council adopts the revised PDP Manual including the providing for the suspension of a PDP (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-pdp-redline-03may13-en.pdf)

The GNSO Council instructs ICANN staff to post the new version of the PDP Manual and to include it as a revised Annex 2 in the GNSO Operating Procedures, effective immediately upon adoption.

20130117-1

Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part D

Whereas

The Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) is an existing consensus policy under review by the GNSO;

The GNSO Transfers Working Group identified a number of issues in its review of the current Policy and those issues have been grouped into suggested PDPs, set A-E, as per the Council's resolution of 8 May 2008;

The GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on IRTP Part D at its meeting on 17 October 2012 (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/resolutions#20121017-4);

A Preliminary Issue Report on IRTP Part D was published on 14 November 2012 for public comment (see http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/irtp-d-prelim-issue-report-14nov12-en.htm).;

A Final Issue Report on IRTP Part D was published on 8 January 2012 (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/issue-report-irtp-d-08jan13-en.pdf)

The Final Issue Report recommends that the GNSO Council proceed with a Policy Development Process limited to consideration of the issues discussed in this report, and the General Counsel of ICANN

20130117-2

Motion for Approval of a Charter for the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part D Working Group (WG)

Whereas

On 17 January 2013 the GNSO Council initiated a Policy Development Process (PDP) on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part D and decided to create a PDP Working Group for the purposes of fulfilling the requirements of the PDP;

The GNSO Council has reviewed the charter.

RESOLVED,

The GSNO Council approves the charter and appoints [to be confirmed] as the GNSO Council Liaison to the IRTP Part D PDP Working Group.

The GNSO Council further directs that the work of the IRTP Part D WG be initiated no later then 14 days after the approval of this motion. Until such time as the WG can select a chair and that chair can be confirmed by the GNSO Council, the GNSO Council Liaison shall act as interim chair.

Charter

The Working Group shall consider the following questions as outlined in the Final Issue Report http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/issue-report-irtp-d-08jan13-en.pdf and make recommendations to the GNSO Council:

IRTP Dispute Policy Enhancements

a) Whether reporting requirements for registries and dispute providers should be developed, in order to make precedent and trend information available to the community and allow reference to past cases in dispute submissions;

b) Whether additional provisions should be included in the TDRP (Transfer Dispute Resolution Policy) on how to handle disputes when multiple transfers have occurred;

c) Whether dispute options for registrants should be developed and implemented as part of the policy (registrants currently depend on registrars to initiate a dispute on their behalf);

d) Whether requirements or best practices should be put into place for registrars to make information on transfer dispute resolution options available to registrants;

Penalties for IRTP Violations

e) Whether existing penalties for policy violations are sufficient or if additional provisions/penalties for specific violations should be added into the policy;

Need for FOAs

f) Whether the universal adoption and implementation of EPP AuthInfo codes has eliminated the need of FOAs.

The Working Group shall follow the rules outlined in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-07apr11-en.pdf.

20121220-1

Motion to recommend protections in the first round of new gTLDs for certain Red Cross / Red Crescent (RCRC) and International Olympic Committee (IOC) names:

WHEREAS: The Board Resolution 2011.06.20.01, authorized "the President and CEO to implement the new gTLD program which includes . . . incorporation of text concerning protection for specific requested Red Cross and IOC names for the top level only during the initial application round, until the GNSO and GAC develop policy advice based on the global public interest, . ." (http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-20jun11-en.htm)

The IOC/RC Drafting Team established 1 November 2011 by the GNSO Council has considered a number of different options with respect to protections of both the IOC and the RCRC terms in response to the GAC proposal to provide permanent protection for such terms including at the second level in new gTLDs;

The solution proposed by the IOC/RC Drafting Team, to initiate a PDP and to provide temporary reservation of the exact match IOC/RC names, was posted for public comment on 28 September 2012 and closed on 9 November 2012;

The GNSO has now (17 October 2012) initiated a policy development process (PDP) to evaluate possible protections for certain international organization names in all gTLDs, including, specifically, whether to recommend policies to protect IOC/RCRC names; and

Therefore, the IOC/RC Drafting Team recommends that the GNSO Council recommend to the Board that it adopt the second recommendation of the IOC/RC Drafting Team, providing for temporary reservation of the exact match IOC/RC names, prior to the delegation of the first round of new gTLDs.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That the GNSO Council adopts the IOC/RC Drafting Team's recommendation to temporarily reserve the exact match of IOC and RCRC second level domain names listed in Section 2.2.1.2.3 of the Applicant Guidebook and per the GAC recommendation of 14 September 2011 pending the outcome of the recently launched policy development process involving International Governmental and Non-governmental Organizations.

That the GNSO Council thanks the members of the IOC/RC Drafting Team for their efforts in producing these recommendations, and hereby disbands the IOC/RC Drafting Team; and

That the Chair of the GNSO Council is authorized to forward these recommendations to the ICANN Board.

20121220-2

Motion on the Adoption of a Working Group on Consumer Trust, Consumer Choice, and Competition (CTCCC)

Whereas, on 10 December 2010, the ICANN Board adopted Resolution 30 (http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-10dec10-en.htm) requesting advice from the GNSO, ccNSO, ALAC and GAC on establishing the definition, measures, and three-year targets for those measures, for competition, consumer trust and consumer choice in the context of the domain name system (DNS), such advice to be provided for discussion at the ICANN International Public meeting in San Francisco from 13-18 March 2011;

Whereas, the GNSO Council approved the Charter (http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/cci-charter-07sep11-en.pdf) for a Consumer Choice, Trust, and Competition Working Group (CTCCCWG) to produce an Advice Letter for consideration by Supporting Organizations(SOs) and Advisory Committees (ACs) to assist them in responding to the Board request for establishing the definition, measures, and three-year targets for those measures, for competition, consumer trust and consumer choice in the context of the domain name system;

Whereas, the CCI WG created a draft Advice Letter and posted it for Public Comment (http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/cctc-draft-advice-letter-23feb12-en.htm);

Whereas, the CCI WG reviewed all Public Comments and feedback from public sessions and produced a Final Advice Letter (http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/cctc/cctc-final-advice-letter-05dec12-en.pdf) for consideration by the SOs and ACs.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:

RESOLVED, the GNSO Council endorses these recommendations for establishing the definition, measures and three-year targets for those measures for competition, consumer trust and consumer choice in the context of the domain name system as described in the Final Advice Letter.

RESOLVED FURTHER, the GNSO Council approves the delivery of the Final Advice Letter to the ICANN Board.

RESOLVED FURTHER, the GNSO Council thanks the CTCCC WG members for their diligence and persistent efforts on this important topic and disbands the Working Group.

20121115-1

Consent Agenda

The Council approved that the IRTP Part C GNSO Council Recommendations Report prepared by Staff to be sent to the ICANN Board for approval.

20121115-2

Main Agenda

Motion to approve the Charter for the IGO-INGO Protection PDP Working Group

Whereas
On 17 October 2012 the GNSO Council initiated a Policy Development Process (PDP) on the protection of certain IGO and INGO names in all gTLDs, and decided to create a PDP Working Group for the purposes of fulfilling the requirements of the PDP;

Following a call for volunteers, a drafting team was formed and its members have developed a charter for consideration by the GNSO Council;

The GNSO Council has reviewed the charter submitted by the drafting team.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,

The GNSO Council approves the charter and appoints [Name] as the GNSO Council Liaison to the IGO-INGO Protection PDP Working Group.

The GNSO Council further directs that the work of IGO-INGO Protection PDP Working Group be initiated no later then 14 days after the approval of this motion. Until such time as the WG can select a chair and that chair can be confirmed by the GNSO Council, the GNSO Council Liaison shall act as interim chair.
Charter http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-charter-07nov12-en.pdf

20121017-1

Motion to Request an Issue Report on the Uniformity of Reporting

Whereas the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group (RAPWG) identified in its Final Report the 'need for more uniformity in the mechanisms to initiate, track, and analyze policy-violation reports';

Whereas the RAPWG as a result recommended in its Final Report that 'the GNSO and the larger ICANN community in general, create and support uniform reporting processes'.

Whereas the GNSO Council at its meeting on 6 October 2011 requested ICANN Compliance Department to report on existing systems to report and track violations and/or complaints; improvements / changes made since the RAPWG Report or foreseen in the near future, and: identify gaps and any improvements that might be desirable but not foreseen at this stage;

Whereas the ICANN Compliance Department provided a response to the GNSO Council on 18 March 2012 and presented it to the GNSO Council at its meeting on 12 April 2012 (see http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/contractual-compliance-report-reporting-uniformity-16mar12-en.pdf);

Whereas the GNSO Council discussed the RAPWG recommendation in light of the feedback received from the ICANN Compliance Department and Mikey O'Connor volunteered to provide some further thoughts on how the RAPWG recommendation could be implemented;

Whereas Mikey O'Connor submitted his proposed approach to the GNSO Council on 3 September 2012 (see http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg13484.html);

Whereas the GNSO Council reviewed and discussed the proposed approach at its meeting on 13 September 2012.

RESOLVED,

The GNSO Council requests an Issue Report on the current state of uniformity in the mechanisms to initiate, track, and analyze policy-violation reports. This issue report should consider the issues highlighted in:

• The RAPWG Final Report, section 9.1 (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/rap-wg-final-report-29may10-en.pdf)
• The ICANN Compliance Department Report (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/contractual-compliance-report-reporting-uniformity-16mar12-en.pdf)

Thought paper from Mikey O'Connor (http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg13484.html)

In addition to covering the required elements of an Issue Report, ICANN Staff is also explicitly requested to provide its recommendation(s) on how this issue can be further addressed outside of a PDP if recommendations in relation to this issue do not require consensus policies to implement.

20121017-2

Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process on the Protection of Certain International Organization Names in all GTLDs.

Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on the topic of whether ICANN should approve additional protections for the names of international organizations at the first and second levels in the New gTLD Program.

Whereas ICANN Staff published the Preliminary Issue Report on the Protection of International Organization Names in New gTLDs in a public comment forum that opened on 4 June, 2012, and closed on 26 July 2012;

Whereas ICANN Staff reviewed the comments received and updated the report accordingly;

Whereas the Final Issue Report on the Protection of International Organization Names in New gTLDS was published on 1 October 2012 http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/protection-igo-names-final-issue-report-01oct12-en.pdf;

Whereas, the Final Issue Report recommends that the GNSO Council proceed with a Policy Development Process limited to consideration of the issues discussed in this report, and the General Counsel of ICANN has indicated the topic is properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process and within the scope of the GNSO.

THEREFORE BE IT:

Resolved, the GNSO hereby initiates a PDP to evaluate (ii) whether there is a need for special protections at the top and second level in all gTLDs for the names of the following types of international organizations: International Governmental Organizations (IGOs) and international non-governmental organizations (INGOs) receiving protections under treaties and statutes under multiple jurisdictions, and specifically including the Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement (RCRC) and the International Olympic Committee (IOC), and (ii) if so, to develop policy recommendations for such protections.

Further resolved, that in conducting this PDP, the GNSO Council requests that the PDP Working Group be convened as soon as possible to fulfill the requirements of this PDP in an expedited manner.

20121017-3

Motion to approve the Charter for the 'thick' Whois PDP Working Group

Whereas on 14 March 2012 the GNSO Council initiated a Policy Development Process (PDP) on 'thick' Whois and decided to create a PDP Working Group for the purposes of fulfilling the requirements of the PDP (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/resolutions#201203);

Whereas, following a call for volunteers, a drafting team was formed and its members have developed a charter for consideration by the GNSO Council;

Whereas the GNSO Council has reviewed the charter submitted by the drafting team.

RESOLVED,

The GNSO Council approves the charter and appoints Volker Greimann as the GNSO Council Liaison to the 'thick' Whois PDP Working Group.

The GNSO Council further directs that the work of 'thick' Whois PDP Working Group be initiated no later then 14 days after the approval of this motion. Until such time as the WG can select a chair and that chair can be confirmed by the GNSO Council, the GNSO Council Liaison shall act as interim chair.

Charter – http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/thick-whois-charter-08oct12-en.pdf

20121017-4

Motion on the Adoption of the IRTP Part C Final Report and Recommendations

WHEREAS on 22 September 2011, the GNSO Council launched a Policy Development Process (PDP) on IRTP Part C addressing the following three charter questions:

1. "Change of Control" function, including an investigation of how this function is currently achieved, if there are any applicable models in the country-code name space that can be used as a best practice for the gTLD space, and any associated security concerns. It should also include a review of locking procedures, as described in Reasons for Denial #8 and #9, with an aim to balance legitimate transfer activity and security.
2. Whether provisions on time-limiting Form Of Authorization (FOA)s should be implemented to avoid fraudulent transfers out. For example, if a Gaining Registrar sends and receives an FOA back from a transfer contact, but the name is locked, the registrar may hold the FOA pending adjustment to the domain name status, during which time the registrant or other registration information may have changed.
3. Whether the process could be streamlined by a requirement that registries use IANA IDs for registrars rather than proprietary IDs.

WHEREAS this PDP has followed the prescribed PDP steps as stated in the Bylaws, resulting in a Final Report delivered on 9 October 2012;

WHEREAS the IRTP Part C WG has reached full consensus on the recommendations in relation to each of the three issues outlined above;

WHEREAS the GNSO Council has reviewed and discussed these recommendations.

Resolved

RESOLVED (A), the GNSO Council recommends to the ICANN Board of Directors the adoption of the IRTP Part C recommendations (#1, #2 and #3) as detailed in the IRTP Part C Final Report

http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/irtp-c-final-report-09oct12-en.pdf

RESOLVED (B), The GNSO Council shall convene an IRTP Part C 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 policy. If the IRTP Part C Implementation Review Team identifies any potential modifications to the policy or new IRTP Part C policy recommendations, the IRTP Part C 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 an IRTP Part C Implementation Review Team to the members of the IRTP Part C Working Group.

RESOLVED (C), the GNSO Council requests an Issue Report on IRTP Part D, which should include all the remaining issues identified by the original transfers WG as well as the additional issue identified by the IRTP Part C WG, namely:

• Whether reporting requirements for registries and dispute providers should be developed, in order to make precedent and trend information available to the community and allow reference to past cases in dispute submissions;
• Whether additional provisions should be included in the TDRP (Transfer Dispute Resolution Policy) on how to handle disputes when multiple transfers have occurred;
• Whether dispute options for registrants should be developed and implemented as part of the policy (registrants currently depend on registrars to initiate a dispute on their behalf);
• Whether requirements or best practices should be put into place for registrars to make information on transfer dispute resolution options available to registrant;
• Whether existing penalties for policy violations are sufficient or if additional provisions/penalties for specific violations should be added into the policy;

Whether the universal adoption and implementation of EPP AuthInfo codes has eliminated the need of FOAs.

20121017-5

GNSO Council Motion to Initiate Issues Report on Recommendation 2 of the Internationalized Registration Data Working Group (IRD-WG) Final Report

GNSO Council Motion to Initiate Issues Report on Recommendation 2 of the Internationalized Registration Data Working Group (IRD-WG) Final Report

WHEREAS, on 21 April 2009, the ICANN Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) published SAC037 "Display and usage of Internationalized Registration Data" (SAC037).

WHEREAS, on 26 June 2009 the ICANN Board approved a resolution requesting that the GNSO and SSAC, in consultation with Staff, convene an Internationalized Registration Data Working Group (IRD-WG) comprised of individuals with knowledge, expertise, and experience in these areas to study the feasibility and suitability of introducing display specifications to deal with the internationalization of registration data.

WHEREAS, on 03 October 2011 the IRD-WG published a draft Final Report in the public forum for comment.

WHEREAS, on 06 March 2012 the IRD-WG sent a Final Report that addressed issues raised in the forum to the GNSO Council and the SSAC for consideration.

WHEREAS, on 10 May 2012 the IRD-WG sent a revised Final Report that addressed changes requested by the SSAC to the GNSO Council for consideration.

WHEREAS, on 27 June 2012 the GNSO Council approved a motion to deliver the Final Report to the ICANN Board.

WHEREAS, on 13 September 2012 the GNSO Council approved a joint letter from the GNSO Council and the SSAC to the ICANN Board to deliver the Final Report.

WHEREAS the GNSO Council has reviewed the Final Report and considers that while expecting the ICANN Board to respond to the SSAC-GNSO joint letter, the Recommendation 2, translation and transliteration of contact information of IRD, of the Final Report requires timely action at the policy level which involves collaboration among domain name registrant, registrar, and registry.

RESOLVED, the GNSO approves the Final Report and requests the ICANN Staff to prepare the IRD Issues Report on translation and transliteration of contact information (IRDIR-Rec2). The Issue Report should consider 1) whether it is desirable to translate contact information to a single common language or transliterate contact information to a single common script; 2) who should bear the burden and who is in the best position to address these issues; and 3) whether to start a policy development process (PDP) to address those questions.

RESOLVED FURTHER, the ICANN Staff shall provide regular updates to the GNSO Council on relevant technical development of the IRD, including the estimated time-line or roadmap of such technical development so that the GNSO Council and the rest of the ICANN community, particularly the IDN gTLD applicant, can fully prepare for implementing the IRD features in its operation. Should there be any policy implication arising from such updates, the GNSO Council shall consider, in consultation with SSAC and technical communities, requesting one or more issue reports as appropriate to initiate separate PDP processes based on all available technical recommendations or standards.

20120913-1

Consent agenda:

Resolved sending the IRD-WG letter from GNSO Council to ICANN Board.

13 September 2012
To: ICANN Board
From: Chair of the GNSO Council and Chair of the SSAC
Via: SSAC and GNSO Liaisons to the ICANN Board

We hereby forward to you the Final Report of the Internationalized Registration Data Working Group (IRD-WG). The SSAC has approved the report. At its meeting on 27 June 2012 in Prague the GNSO Council passed a motion by which it approved the

delivery of the report to the Board. In its motion the Council also agreed to review the recommendations in the Report and to provide to the Board its advice with regard to those recommendations that may have policy implications.

As you may recall, on 26 June 2009 the ICANN Board of Directors approved a resolution (2009.06.26.18) requesting that the GNSO and the SSAC, in consultation with staff, convene an IRD-WG to study the feasibility and suitability of introducing display

specifications to deal with the internationalization of registration data. In November 2010 the IRD-WG produced an Interim Report requesting community input on several questions relating to possible models for internationalizing Domain Name Registration

Data. On 03 October the IRD-WG posted a draft Final Report in the Public Forum for comment for 45 days. After considering the comments received, the attached Final Report is the IRD-WG's response to the Board request regarding the feasibility and suitability of introducing display specifications to deal with the internationalized registration data. The Report contains the following recommendations:

1. To introduce submission and display specifications, ICANN staff should develop, in consultation with the community, a data model for domain registration data. The data model should specify the elements of the registration data, the data flow, and a formal data schema that incorporates the standards that the working group has agreed on for internationalizing various registration data elements. This data model should also include tagging information for language/scripts.
2. The GNSO Council and the SSAC should request a common Issue Report on translation and transliteration of contact information. The Issue Report should consider whether it is desirable to translate contact information to a single common language or transliterate contact information to a single common script. It should also consider who should bear the burden and who is in the best position to address these issues. The Issue Report should consider policy questions raised in the IRD-WG Final Report and should also recommend whether to start a policy development process (PDP) to address those questions.
3. ICANN staff should work with the community to identify a Domain Name Registration Data Access Protocol that meets the needs of internationalization, including 2 but not limited to the work products resulting from recommendations 1 and 2, and the requirements enumerated in the IRD-WG Final Report.
4. ICANN should take appropriate steps to require gTLD registries and registrars and persuade ccTLD registries and registrars to support the following standards:
   • Domain Names - both A-label and U-label forms during both submission and display for all domain names except nameservers; nameserver Names- require Alabel form, and optionally U-label form;
   • Telephone/fax- ITU-T E.123; Email-RFC 6531; Registration Status- Exact EPP status where applicable; Date and time - in UTC as specified in [RFC3339], with no offset from the zero meridian.

The GNSO Council and the SSAC welcome comments from the Board concerning this report.

Stéphane Van Gelder
Chair, GNSO Council
Patrik Fältström

Chair, ICANN Security and Stability Advisory Committee

20120913-2

Main agenda

Resolved to adopt the revised GNSO Operating Procedures incorporating a consent agenda provision and updated voting results table and to adopt a technical change in proxy notification

Whereas, the GNSO Council requested the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI) on 20 February to formalize the process for a consent agenda with a view to including the consent agenda in the GNSO rules and procedures;

Whereas the SCI deliberated on a process for a consent agenda and reached unanimous consensus on a proposed consent agenda provision for inclusion in the GNSO Operating Procedures;

Whereas the voting results table included in the GNSO Operating Procedures required updating following the adoption of the revised GNSO Policy Development Process;

Whereas the revised GNSO Operating Procedures, including the proposed consent agenda provision as well as the updated voting results table were put out for a minimum 21-day public comment period on 9 July 2012 (see http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/gnso-operating-procedures-2012-09jul12-en.htm) as required by the ICANN Bylaws;

Whereas as a result of the public comment period, no further changes were deemed necessary by the SCI;

Whereas the GNSO Council also requested the SCI to review the current procedures in place for proxy voting;

Whereas the SCI reviewed the current procedures in place and recommends that no changes are made to the proxy notification procedures in the GNSO Council Operating Procedures but instead requests that staff makes a technical change so that the proxy notification is sent to the GNSO Council list at the same time as it is sent to the Secretariat, which occurs when the form is submitted.

RESOLVED

The GNSO Council adopts the revised GNSO Operating Procedures including the new consent agenda provision and the updated voting results table (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/gnso-operating-procedures-redline-09jul12-en.pdf).

The GNSO Council instructs ICANN staff to post the new version of the GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP), which becomes effective immediately upon adoption.

The GNSO Council requests staff to make a technical change so that the proxy notification is sent to the GNSO Council list at the same time as it is sent to the Secretariat, which occurs when the form is submitted.

20120627-1

GNSO Council Motion to Approve Internationalized Registration Data Working Group Final Report

WHEREAS, on 21 April 2009, the ICANN Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) published SAC037 "Display and usage of Internationalized Registration Data" (SAC037).

WHEREAS, on 26 June 2009 the ICANN Board approved a resolution requesting that the GNSO and SSAC, in consultation with staff, convene an Internationalized Registration Data Working Group (IRD-WG) comprised of individuals with knowledge, expertise, and experience in these areas to study the feasibility and suitability of introducing display specifications to deal with the internationalization of Registration Data.

WHEREAS, in September 2009 the GNSO Council approved the Charter of the IRD-WG.

WHEREAS, on 15 November 2010 the IRD-WG published an Interim Report in the public forum for comment.

WHEREAS, on 03 October 2011 the IRD-WG published a draft Final Report in the public forum for comment.

WHEREAS, on 06 March 2012 the IRD-WG sent a Final Report that addressed issues raised in the forum to the GNSO Council and the SSAC for consideration

WHEREAS, on 10 May 2012 the IRD-WG sent a revised Final Report that addressed changes requested by the SSAC to the GNSO Council for consideration.

WHEREAS the GNSO Council wishes to coordinate with the SSAC to jointly deliver this report to the Board in a timely way, but recognizes that further consideration of the recommendations contained in the report, especially those that may have policy implications, is needed by the GNSO Council.

RESOLVED, the GNSO Council approves of the delivery of the revised Final Report to the ICANN Board and requests staff to prepare a joint letter from the GNSO Council and the SSAC to transmit the Report.

RESOLVED FURTHER, the GNSO Council shall review the recommendations in the Report and shall provide to the Board its advice with regard to those recommendations that may have policy implications.

RESOLVED FURTHER, the GNSO Council thanks the IRD-WG members for their diligence and persistence on this important topic and upon the agreement of the SSAC disbands the Working Group.

20120412-1

Motion to delay the 'thick' Whois Policy Development Process

Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on 'thick' Whois at its meeting on 22 September 2011 (see http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109);

Whereas a Preliminary Issue Report on 'thick' Whois was prepared by staff and posted on 21 November 2011 for public comment (see http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-21nov11-en.htm);

Whereas a Final Issue Report on 'thick' Whois was published on 2 February 2012 (see http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/final-report-thick-whois-02feb12-en.pdf);

Whereas the Final Issue Report recommends that the GNSO Council proceed with a Policy Development Process limited to consideration of the issues discussed in this report, and the General Counsel of ICANN has indicated the topic is properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process and within the scope of the GNSO;

Whereas the GNSO Council initiated a Policy Development Process at its meeting of 14 March 2012 (see http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#20120314-1);

Whereas at its wrap up session on 15 March, taking into account the current workload of the GNSO community, the GNSO Council voiced support for a delay in the start of the PDP until both ICANN staff and GNSO resources are available to deal with this.

THEREFORE BE IT:

Resolved, the next step (creating a drafting team to develop a charter) of the 'thick' Whois PDP will be delayed until the first GNSO Council meeting after 30 November 2012.

20120412-2

Motion to request an Issue Report on the protection of names and acronyms of IGOs

Whereas on September 7, 2007 the GNSO Council approved by supermajority vote a PDP on new gTLDs with a number of recommendations, none of which afforded special protection to specific applicants;

Whereas the GNSO Council passed a resolution approving new protections for the first round of the new gTLD program as recommended by the GNSO's International Olympic Committee (IOC) and Red Cross/Red Crescent (RC) Drafting Team;

Whereas this resolution indicated that further discussions were required on associated policies relating to protections for certain international organizations at the second level, if any;

Whereas comments have been received coincident with the motion that included requests from international governmental organizations requesting the same protective rights as those for the IOC/RCRC for the current and future rounds of the new gTLD program;

And whereas various possible criteria for the grant of protective rights to such organizations was suggested at the ICANN meeting in Costa Rica.

Now therefore be it resolved,

The GNSO Council requests an issue report to precede the possibility of a PDP that covers the following issues:

• Definition of the type of organizations that should receive special protection at the top and second level, if any; and
• Policies required to protect such organizations at the top and second level.

20120326-1

Motion to recommend to the Board a solution to protect certain Red Cross/Red Crescent (RCRC) and International Olympic Committee (IOC) names at the Top Level in New gTLDS

Whereas, the Board Resolution 2011.06.20.01, authorized "the President and CEO to implement the new gTLD program which includes . . . incorporation of text concerning protection for specific requested Red Cross and IOC names for the top level only during the initial application round, until the GNSO and GAC develop policy advice based on the global public interest, . . ." (http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-20jun11-en.htm)

Whereas, the IOC/RC Drafting Team established by the GNSO Council has considered a number of different options with respect to protections of both the IOC and the RCRC terms at the top level and has proposed a solution to modify the ICANN staff's implementation of the Board Resolution as reflected in the Applicant Guidebook dated January 12, 2012 (http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb);

Whereas, the IOC/RC Drafting Team has collaborated with the Government Advisory Committee (GAC) during its deliberations in an attempt to identify a solution that addresses GAC concerns;

Whereas, this proposed solution was posted for public comment on 2 March 2012 on an expedited basis as a matter of urgency in order to enable the Board to consider its adoption for the first round of new gTLD applications, which is scheduled to close on 12 April 2012;

Whereas, the GNSO is mindful that implementation of the Board's resolution is needed to be available before the end of the Application Window;

Whereas, the GNSO intends that these recommendations be solely limited to the IOC and RCRC;

Whereas, the GNSO recognizes that there might be a policy impact of the protection for the IOC/RCRC for future rounds and at the second level; and

Whereas, therefore, the IOC/RC Drafting Team recommends that the GNSO Council adopt this proposed solution as a recommendation for Board consideration and adoption at its meeting in Costa Rica for the application period for the first round of new gTLD applications'.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:

Resolved, that the GNSO Council adopts the following three recommendations of the IOC/RC Drafting Team:

Recommendation

1: Treat the terms set forth in Section 2.2.1.2.3 as "Modified Reserved Names," meaning:

a) The Modified Reserved Names are available as gTLD strings to the International Olympic Committee (hereafter the "IOC"), International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement (hereafter "RCRC") and their respective components, as applicable.

b) Applied-for gTLD strings, other than those applied for by the IOC or RCRC, are reviewed during the String Similarity review to determine whether they are similar to these Modified Reserved Names. An application for a gTLD string that is identified as confusingly similar to a Modified Reserved Name will not pass this initial review.

c) If an application fails to pass initial string similarity review:

i. And the applied-for TLD identically matches any of the Modified Reserved Names (e.g., ".Olympic" or ".RedCross"), it cannot be registered by anyone other than the IOC or the RCRC, as applicable.

ii. If the applied-for TLD is not identical to any of the Modified Reserved Names, but fails initial string similarity review with one of Modified Reserved Names, the applicant may attempt to override the string similarity failure by:

1. Seeking a letter of non-objection from the IOC or the RCRC, as applicable; or

2. If it cannot obtain a letter of non-objection, the applicant must:

a. claim to have a legitimate interest in the string, and demonstrate the basis for this claim; and

b. explain why it believes that the new TLD is not confusingly similar to one of the protected strings and makes evident that it does not refer to the IOC, RCRC or any Olympic or Red Cross Red Crescent activity.

3. A determination in favor of the applicant under the above provision (ii)(2) above would not preclude the IOC, RCRC or other interested parties from bringing a legal rights objection or otherwise contesting the determination.

4. The existence of a TLD that has received a letter of non-objection by the IOC or RCRC pursuant to (ii)(1), or has been approved pursuant to (ii)(2) shall not preclude the IOC or RCRC from obtaining one of the applicable Modified Reserved Names in any round of new gTLD applications.

Recommendation 2: Protect the IOC/RCRC Terms in as many Languages as Feasible

The GAC has proposed that the IOC and RCRC "names should be protected in multiple languages---all translations of the listed names in languages used on the Internet…The lists of protected names that the IOC and RC/RC have provided are illustrative and representative, not exhaustive." The Drafting Team recommends that at the top level for this initial round, the list of languages currently provided in Section 2.2.1.2.3 of the Applicant Guidebook are sufficient.

In addition, the Drafting Team also notes that even in the unlikely event that a third party applies for an IOC or RCRC term in a language that was not contained on the list, the IOC or RCRC, as applicable, may still file an applicable objection as set forth in the Applicant Guidebook.

Recommendation 3: Protections must be reviewed after the first round and that review should include consideration of changing the language to general requirements rather than naming specific organizations.

In its proposal, the GAC has recommended that the protections for the IOC and RCRC should not just apply during the first round of new gTLDs, but should be a permanent protection afforded for all subsequent rounds. The Drafting Team recognizes that permanently granting protection to the IOC and RCRC may have policy implications that require more work and consultation so that protections may be reviewed.

Resolved, that the GNSO submits this proposed solution for Board consideration and adoption at its next meeting as a recommended solution to implement Board Resolution 2011.06.20.01 for implementation in the first round of new gTLD applications.

20120314-1

Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) on 'thick' Whois

Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on 'thick' Whois at its meeting on 22 September 2011 (see http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109);

Whereas a Preliminary Issue Report on 'thick' Whois was posted on 21 November 2011 for public comment (see http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-21nov11-en.htm);

Whereas a Final Issue Report on 'thick' Whois was published on 2 February 2012 (see http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/final-report-thick-whois-02feb12-en.pdf);

Whereas, the Final Issue Report recommends that the GNSO Council proceed with a Policy Development Process limited to consideration of the issues discussed in this report, and the General Counsel of ICANN has indicated the topic is properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process and within the scope of the GNSO.

Whereas nothing in this motion is intended to prejudice migration to thick Whois through contractual means.

THEREFORE BE IT:

Resolved, the GNSO will initiate a PDP on the issues defined in the Final Issue Report on 'thick' Whois; (see http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/final-report-thick-whois-02feb12-en.pdf)

Resolved, a DT will be formed to create a charter for a Working Group, which will be submitted to the GNSO Council for its approval.

Resolved, following the approval of the charter, a Working Group will be created for the purpose of fulfilling the requirements of the PDP.

20120314-2

Motion to approve the Charter for the Locking of a Domain Name Subject to UDRP Proceedings PDP Working Group

Whereas on 15 December 2011 the GNSO Council initiated a Policy Development Process (PDP) on the Locking of a Domain Name Subject to UDRP Proceedings and decided to create a PDP Working Group for the purposes of fulfilling the requirements of the PDP (see http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201112);

Whereas, following a call for volunteers, a drafting team was formed and its members have developed a charter for consideration by the GNSO Council;

Whereas the GNSO Council has reviewed the charter submitted by the drafting team.

RESOLVED,

The GSNO Council approves the charter and appoints Joy Liddicoat as the GNSO Council Liaison to the Locking of a Domain Name Subject to UDRP Proceedings PDP Working Group.

The GNSO Council further directs that the work of the Locking of a Domain Name Subject to UDRP Proceedings PDP Working Group be initiated no later then 14 days after the approval of this motion. Until such time as the WG can select a chair and that chair can be confirmed by the GNSO Council, the GNSO Council Liaison shall act as interim chair.

Charter - http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/locking-domain-name-udrp-proceedings-charter-05mar12-en.pdf

20120314-3

Motion to approve Cross Community Working Group Principles

Whereas, the GNSO from time to time has participated in cross-community working groups to address issues of common interest to other ICANN supporting organizations (SO) and advisory committees (AC);

Whereas, the GNSO Council desires to develop a GNSO agreed perspective with regard to the role, function and method of conducting joint activities for future projects that respects and preserves the recognized roles and responsibilities assigned to each SO/AC under the ICANN Bylaws;

Whereas, on 06 October 2011 the GNSO Council approved a charter and the formation of a Drafting Team to define a way forward for the effective chartering, functioning, and utilization of such cross-community working groups;

Whereas, on 04 January 2012 the Drafting Team provided to the Council for consideration Draft Principles for Cross-Community Working Groups: http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/draft-principles-for-cwgs-23dec11-en.pdf

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:

Resolved, that the GNSO Council hereby approves the Draft Principles for Cross-Community Working Groups for its own guidance and requests staff to disseminate them to the Chairs of the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees asking them to provide input to the GNSO Council in 60 days on both the principles themselves and the route forward for community-wide adoption or development of a related set of principles for the operation of Cross-Community Working Groups;

Resolved further, the GNSO Council thanks the Drafting Team members for their work in developing the Draft Principles and disbands the Team.

20120216-1

Motion on the Adoption of the Staff Proposal on IRTP Part B Recommendation #8

WHEREAS on 24 June 2009, the GNSO Council launched a Policy Development Process (PDP) on IRTP Part B addressing the following five charter questions:

1. Whether a process for urgent return/resolution of a domain name should be developed, as discussed within the SSAC hijacking report (http://www.icann.org/announcements/hijacking-report-12jul05.pdf); see also (http://www.icann.org/correspondence/cole-to-tonkin-14mar05.htm);
2. Whether additional provisions on undoing inappropriate transfers are needed, especially with regard to disputes between a Registrant and Admin Contact (AC). The policy is clear that the Registrant can overrule the AC, but how this is implemented is currently at the discretion of the registrar;
3. Whether special provisions are needed for a change of registrant when it occurs near the time of a change of registrar. The policy does not currently deal with change of registrant, which often figures in hijacking cases;
4. Whether standards or best practices should be implemented regarding use of a Registrar Lock status (e.g. when it may/may not, should/should not be applied);
5. Whether, and if so, how best to clarify denial reason #7: A domain name was already in 'lock status' provided that the Registrar provides a readily accessible and reasonable means for the Registered Name Holder to remove the lock status.

WHEREAS this PDP has followed the prescribed PDP steps as stated in the Bylaws, resulting in a Final Report delivered on 30 May 2011;

WHEREAS the IRTP Part B WG has reached full consensus on the recommendations in relation to each of the five issues outlined above;

WHEREAS in relation to recommendation #8, the GNSO Council resolved at its meeting on 22 June to request 'ICANN staff to provide a proposal designed to ensure a technically feasible approach can be developed to meet this recommendation. Staff should take into account the IRTP Part B WG deliberations in relation to this issue (see IRTP Part B Final Report). (IRTP Part B Recommendation #8). The goal of these changes is to clarify why the Lock has been applied and how it can be changed. Upon review of the proposed plan, the GNSO Council will consider whether to approve the recommendation';

WHEREAS ICANN staff developed the proposal in consultation with the IRTP Part B Working Group which was put out for public comment (see http://gnso.icann.org/issues/transfers/irtp-recommendation-8-icann-staff-16feb12-en.pdf);

WHEREAS no comments were received as part of the public comment forum and the proposal was submitted to the GNSO Council;

WHEREAS on 10 January 2012, the IPC has provided its comments to ICANN staff proposal (as described in http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg12555.html);

WHEREAS ICANN staff has provided an updated proposal based on the IPC comments (as described in http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg12600.html);

WHEREAS the GNSO Council has reviewed and discussed the ICANN Staff proposal in relation to IRTP Part B recommendation #8.

RESOLVED, the GNSO Council recommends to the ICANN Board of Directors that it adopts and implements IRTP Part B recommendation #8 and the related ICANN Staff updated proposal (as described in http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/irtp-recommendation-8-proposal-26jan12-en.pdf).

20120216

Consent Agenda:

Recommendations Report on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part B (IRTP B) Recommendation 9, part 2

20120119-1

Motion on the Adoption of the Staff Proposal on IRTP Part B Recommendation #9 part 2

WHEREAS on 24 June 2009, the GNSO Council launched a Policy Development Process (PDP) on IRTP Part B addressing the following five charter questions:

• Whether a process for urgent return/resolution of a domain name should be developed, as discussed within the SSAC hijacking report?(http://www.icann.org/announcements/hijacking-report-12jul05.pdf); see also (http://www.icann.org/correspondence/cole-to-tonkin-14mar05.htm);
• Whether additional provisions on undoing inappropriate transfers are needed, especially with regard to disputes between a Registrant and Admin Contact (AC). The policy is clear that the Registrant can overrule the AC, but how this is implemented is currently at the discretion of the registrar;
• Whether special provisions are needed for a change of registrant when it occurs near the time of a change of registrar. The policy does not currently deal with change of registrant, which often figures in hijacking cases;
• Whether standards or best practices should be implemented regarding use of a Registrar Lock status (e.g. when it may/may not, should/should not be applied);?e. Whether, and if so, how best to clarify denial reason #7: A domain name was already in 'lock status' provided that the Registrar provides a readily?accessible and reasonable means for the Registered Name Holder to remove the lock status.

WHEREAS this PDP has followed the prescribed PDP steps as stated in the Bylaws, resulting in a Final Report delivered on 30 May 2011;

WHEREAS the IRTP Part B WG has reached full consensus on the recommendations in relation to each of the five issues outlined above;

WHEREAS in relation to recommendation #9 part b, the GNSO Council resolved at its meeting on 22 June to request ICANN Staff to provide a proposal for a new provision on locking / unlocking of a domain name, taking into account the IRTP Part B WG deliberations in relation to this issue (see IRTP Part B Final Report - (Recommendation #9 - part 2). Upon review of the proposal, the GNSO Council will consider whether to approve the recommendation;

WHEREAS ICANN staff developed the proposal in consultation with the IRTP Part B Working Group which was put out for public comment (see http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/irtp-b-staff-proposals-22nov11-en.htm);

WHEREAS comments were received from the Intellectual Property Constituency, and though received after the comment deadline were nonetheless considered by the GNSO Council, and the proposal was submitted to the GNSO Council;

WHEREAS the GNSO Council has reviewed and discussed the ICANN Staff proposal in relation to IRTP Part B recommendation #9 part 2.

RESOLVED, the GNSO Council recommends to the ICANN Board of Directors that it adopts and implements IRTP Part B recommendation #9 part 2 and the related ICANN Staff proposal (as described in http://gnso.icann.org/issues/transfers/irtp-b-final-report-30may11-en.pdf and http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg12545.html).