RE: [council] Resolutions from the Meeting of the New gTLD Program Committee held in Los Angeles on 5 Feb 2014

["Jonathan Robinson" <jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thank-you Bruce,

That does indeed provide quite a lot more context and associated opportunity o 
for better understanding.

Jonathan

-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: 12 February 2014 02:39
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [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