[ispcp] WG: Council resolutions 12 April 2012

[<KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx>]

FYI


Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich



________________________________
Von: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Im Auftrag von Glen de Saint Géry
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 12. April 2012 18:04
An: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Betreff: [council] Council resolutions 12 April 2012


Dear All,



The GNSO Council passed the following resolutions at the meeting today, 12 April  2012.

A recording of the meeting is available at:

http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-20120412-en.mp3

Please let me know if you have any questions.



Thank you.

Kind regards,



Glen



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, also 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 contract negotiations on the .com agreement are complete, as the results of that negotiation may determine whether a PDP on 'thick' Whois is still required.


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 .com negotiations have been completed by 30 November 2012.


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.


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.

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