[council] GNSO Council Resolution 20 September 2017

[Pascal Bekono]

Thank you Tatiana,

Good resolutions indeed.


2017-09-21 7:41 GMT+01:00 Tatiana Tropina <tatiana.tropina at gmail.com>:

> 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/20170921/91184a22/attachment.htm>