[council] GNSO Council meeting 20 November 2013 - Resolutions adpoted

[Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear All,

Ahead of the official minutes, the following resolutions were adopted at the 
GNSO Council meeting in Buenos Aires on 20 November 2013.
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

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<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-20jun11-en.htm>
 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<http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/dryden-to-van-gelder-red-cross-14sep11-en.pdf>
 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<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/ioc-rcrc> 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<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/guidebook-full-11jan12-en.pdf> 
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<http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20120326-1> 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<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-10apr12-en.htm>
 receipt of the GNSO's recommendations but decided not to change the AGB then, 
giving the 
Rationale<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/prelim-report-new-gtld-10apr12-en.htm#2.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<https://gacweb.icann.org/.../FINAL_GAC_Communique_20120628.pdf> 
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<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-13sep12-en.htm>
 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<http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/igo-counsels-to-beckstrom-et-al-13dec11-en.pdf>
 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<http://www.gtldregistries.org/sites/gtldregistries.org/files/IGO_common_position_paper_04_05_2012.pdf>
 outlining the possible bases for their requested protections;

10. On 11 March 2012 the ICANN Board 
requested<http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/crocker-beckstrom-to-dryden-van-gelder-11mar12-en>
 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<http://gnso.icann.org/en/resolutions#201204> 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<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/protection-igo-names-final-issue-report-01oct12-en.pdf>
 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<http://gnso.icann.org/en/resolutions#201210> 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<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/minutes-new-gtld-26nov12-en.htm>
 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<http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20121220-1> 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<http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/robinson-to-dryden-23dec12-en.pdf>
 these decisions to the GAC;

16. On 28 February 2013 the GNSO Council Chair sent a 
letter<http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/robinson-to-crocker-chalaby-28feb13-en.pdf>
 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<http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/dryden-to-crocker-chalaby-22mar13-en.pdf>
 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<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-initial-14jun13-en.pdf> for 
public comment;

19. At the ICANN meeting in Durban in July 2013 the GAC through its 
Communique<https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/27132037/Final_GAC_Communique_Durban_20130718.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1375787122000&api=v2>
 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<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-20sep13-en.pdf> 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<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-10nov13-en.pdf> 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:

A.    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.

B.    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.

C.    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.

D.    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;
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

Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thank you.
Kind regards,

Glen

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