<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [council] Resolutions from the Meeting of the New gTLD Program Committee held in Los Angeles on 5 Feb 2014
- To: "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [council] Resolutions from the Meeting of the New gTLD Program Committee held in Los Angeles on 5 Feb 2014
- From: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 02:38:57 +0000
- Accept-language: en-AU, en-US
- In-reply-to: <05b101cf2711$356d8150$a04883f0$@afilias.info>
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- References: <263EE96C7DADD44CB3D5A07DBD41D0E86293AFAD@bne3-0002mitmbx.corp.mit> <05b101cf2711$356d8150$a04883f0$@afilias.info>
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: Ac8lLKsPbB3xPtusRf28bKQ7u8P7ZQBkLgGAADYnt3A=
- Thread-topic: [council] Resolutions from the Meeting of the New gTLD Program Committee held in Los Angeles on 5 Feb 2014
Hello Jonathan,
The rationale from the Board resolution gives a little more context:
Rationale for Resolutions 2014.02.07.05 – 2014.07.06
Why is the Board addressing this issue now?
In response to the GAC advice on protecting the identifiers of the RCRC, IOC
and IGOs in the New gTLD Program, the Board tasked the GNSO with developing
policy in response to the GAC advice. In its deliberations, the GNSO Council
determined that a Policy Development Process (PDP) was required to resolve the
issue as to special protections of strings at the top and second levels for
international organizations. In October 2012, the GNSO Council approved the
initiation of a PDP on this issue. The PDP Working Group published its Initial
Report for public comment on 14 June 2013, followed by its Final Report on 10
November 2013. The Final Report included over twenty consensus recommendations
from the WG and Minority Statements from the RCRC, IGO and INGO representatives
who participated in the WG, the GNSO's Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group and
ICANN's At Large Advisory Committee. All the WG's consensus recommendations
were approved unanimously by the GNSO Council.
Following the closing of the public comment period on these recommendations and
adoption by the GNSO Council of a Recommendations Report to the ICANN Board,
the next step as outlined in Annex A of the ICANN Bylaws is consideration by
the ICANN Board of the GNSO recommendations. The Bylaws require the Board to
"meet to discuss" the GNSO policy recommendations "as soon as feasible, but
preferably not later than the second meeting after receipt of the Board Report
from the Staff Manager.
In addition, Article XI, Section 2.1 of the ICANN Bylaws permits the GAC to
"put issues to the Board directly, either by way of comment or prior advice, or
by way of specifically recommending action or new policy development or
revision to existing policies." The GAC issued advice to the Board on the New
gTLD Program through its Beijing Communiqué dated 11 April 2013, its Durban
Communiqué dated 18 July 2013, and its Buenos Aires Communiqué dated 20
November 2013. The ICANN Bylaws require the Board to take into account the
GAC's advice on public policy matters in the formulation and adoption of the
polices. If the Board decides to take an action that is not consistent with the
GAC advice, it must inform the GAC and state the reasons why it decided not to
follow the advice. The Board and the GAC will then try in good faith to find a
mutually acceptable solution. If no solution can be found, the Board will state
in its final decision why the GAC advice was not followed.
What is the proposal being considered?
Before considering the resolving the substantive issues concerning the GNSO
policy recommendations, the Board is considering how it would like to proceed
on this topic as a procedural matter.
The GNSO unanimously adopted the policy recommendations in the Final Report on
the IGO-INGO PDP. The policy recommendations are being transmitted to the Board
for review and consideration pursuant to the ICANN Bylaws. The GAC has also
issued advice to the Board on protections for IGOs in the context of the New
gTLD Program - most recently in its Buenos Aires Communiqué. Because the
advice relates to the New gTLD Program, the ICANN Board New gTLD Program
Committee (NGPC) is considering the GAC advice. The NGPC has not yet
finalized is proposal to address the GAC's advice relating to protections for
IGOs but is actively working on the issue.
In general, the GNSO recommendations are largely consistent with the advice
submitted by the GAC to the ICANN Board. However, there are specific GNSO
policy recommendations that differ from the GAC's advice. At this time, the
Board is considering acknowledging the policy recommendations of the GNSO in
the Final Report on the IGO-INGO PDP, but requesting additional time to
consider the recommendations given that the NGPC is actively working on
addressing the GAC's advice on the same topic. The Board is considering taking
a holistic approach to considering the GNSO policy recommendations and the
GAC's advice by directing the NGPC to
(1) consider the policy recommendations from the GNSO as it continues to
actively develop an approach to respond to the GAC advice on protections for
IGOs, and
(2) develop a comprehensive proposal to address the GAC advice and the GNSO
policy recommendations for consideration by the Board at a subsequent meeting.
Regards,
Bruce Tonkin
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|