Fwd: [council] GNSO Council Resolution 20 September 2017

Thu Sep 21 01:41:32 EEST 2017

Dear all,
Following Rafik's email with yesterday's GNSO call recording -- please find
(in the forwarded email) also all the resolutions adopted yesterday.
Warm regards,
Tatiana

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Terri Agnew <terri.agnew at icann.org>
Date: Thu 21. Sep 2017 at 04:02
Subject: [council] GNSO Council Resolution 20 September 2017
To: council at gnso.icann.org <council at gnso.icann.org>
Cc: gnso-secs at icann.org <gnso-secs at icann.org>

Dear all,

The following resolution was adopted by the GNSO Council at its meeting on
Wednesday, 20 September 2017.

These resolutions are also published on page:

https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_council_resolutions&d=DgMFAw&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=ygCeG59ipFav-VYEGtJXBJEtU3ifRMjWTQmzalzlr_s&s=eYaHRknuS8dwnlfsWzG_MCs1m8B2j3GrXzvzw5lHDlw&e=>

 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
<https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/gnso-council-motion-recorder-20sep17-en.pdf>
– friendly amendment

Vote results
<https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/gnso-council-motion-recorder-20sep17-en.pdf>–
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
<https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/gnso-council-motion-recorder-20sep17-en.pdf>

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
<https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/gnso-council-motion-recorder-20sep17-en.pdf>

Thank you,

Terri

_______________________________________________
council mailing list
council at gnso.icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20170921/6de6b6d2/attachment.htm>