[council] GNSO Council motions & votes 18 April 2019
Rafik Dammak
rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM
Fri Apr 19 05:05:13 EEST 2019
Hi all,
You can find motions voted in last GNSO Council meeting below.
Best Regards,
Rafik
---------- Forwarded message ---------
Dear all,
Please find below the resolutions and vote results from the GNSO Council at
its meeting on Thursday 18 April 2019 to be posted on the GNSO resolutions
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_council_resolutions&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=PDd_FX3f4MVgkEIi9GHvVoUhbecsvLhgsyXrxgtbL10DTBs0i1jYiBM_uTSDzgqG&m=yxEnwDIwckb9fkvlckC1vW6G9xQe0NyPu1F-rRdOgzE&s=Z3iuKG7u1GgrF1LpP0WGzNaqjg88s0AvxRP-VGk0ymE&e=>
page shortly.
*Consent Agenda *
- *Motion
<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+18+April+2019>*
to adopt the GNSO Council response
<https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-gac-communique-18apr19-en.pdf> to
the *GAC Communique
<https://gac.icann.org/contentMigrated/icann64-kobe-communique>*
- Confirmation of the Recommendations Report
<https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/council-recommendations-epdp-temp-spec-gtld-rd-29mar19-en.pdf>to
the ICANN Board regarding adoption of the Final Report from the Expedited
PDP on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data PDP WG, Phase
1.
- Approval of the suggested amendments to the GNSO’s Fellowship
Selection criteria. (see
https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/fellowship-application-criteria-13apr19-en.pdf
)
* Motion vote:* *Adoption of the GNSO Council Review of GAC Communiqué for
submission to the ICANN Board*
Whereas,
1. 1. The Governmental Advisory Committee advises the ICANN Board on
issues of public policy, and especially where there may be an interaction
between ICANN's activities or policies and national laws or international
agreements. It usually does so as part of a Communiqué, which is published
towards the end of every ICANN meeting.
2. 2. The GNSO is responsible for developing and recommending to the
ICANN Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains.
3. 3. The GNSO Council has expressed a desire to provide feedback to
the ICANN Board on issues in the GAC Communiqué as these relate to generic
top-level domains to inform the ICANN Board as well as the broader
community of past, present or future gTLD policy activities that may
directly or indirectly relate to advice provided by the GAC.
4. 4. The GNSO Council hopes that the input provided through its
review of the GAC Communiqué will further enhance the co-ordination and
promote the sharing of information on gTLD related policy activities
between the GAC, Board and the GNSO.
Resolved,
1. 1. The GNSO Council adopts the GNSO Council Review of the Kobe GAC
Communiqué (see
https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/review-gac-communique-18apr19-en.pdf)
and requests that the GNSO Council Chair communicate the GNSO Council
Review of the Kobe GAC Communiqué to the ICANN Board.
2. The GNSO Council requests that the GNSO Chair also informs the GAC
Chair of the communication between the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board.
Vote results
<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/gnso-council-motion-recorder-18apr19-en.pdf>
*Council vote: Approval of the appointment of Janis Karklins as Chair for
the Expedited Policy Development Process Team on the Temporary
Specification for gTLD Registration Data*
Specification for gTLD Registration Data. (see:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2019-April/022561.html). Note:
Removed from the Consent Agenda (by Councilor request).
Vote results
<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/gnso-council-motion-recorder-18apr19-en.pdf>
*Motion vote: Approval of the Final Report From the GNSO PDP Working Group
on the IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms*
WHEREAS:
1. 1. On 9 July 2018, the Policy Development Process (PDP) Working
Group on International Governmental Organizations (IGO) and International
Non-Governmental Organizations (INGO) Access to Curative Rights Protection
Mechanisms submitted its *Final Report
<https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-crp-access-final-17jul18-en.pdf>*
to the GNSO Council. The Final Report contains five policy
recommendations, namely:
*Recommendation 1(a)*: For INGOs (including the Red Cross movement and the
International Olympic Committee), no substantive changes to the UDRP and
URS are to be made, and no specific new dispute resolution procedures are
to be created.
*Recommendation 1(b)*: For IGOs, no specific new dispute resolution
procedures are to be created.
*Recommendation 2*: The Working Group notes that an IGO may seek to
demonstrate that it has the requisite standing to file a complaint under
the UDRP or URS by showing that it has complied with the requisite
communication and notification procedure in accordance with Article 6ter of
the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property. An IGO may
consider this to be an option where it does not have a registered trademark
or service mark in its name and/or acronym but believes it has certain
unregistered trademark or service mark rights for which it must adduce
factual evidence to show that it nevertheless has substantive legal rights
in the name and/or acronym in question.
In this regard, the Working Group recommends that specific Policy Guidance
on this topic be issued by ICANN to clarify the following points: (a) this
alternative mechanism for standing is not needed in a situation where an
IGO already holds trademark or service mark rights in its name and/or
acronym, as the IGO would in such a case proceed in the same way as a
nonIGO trademark owner; (b) whether or not compliance with Article 6ter
will be considered determinative of standing is a decision to be made by
the UDRP or URS panelist(s) based on the facts of each case; and (c) the
possibility that an IGO may seek to rely on its compliance with Article
6ter to demonstrate standing should not modify or affect any of the
existing grounds which UDRP and/or URS panelists have previously found
sufficient for IGO standing (e.g. based on statutes and treaties).
*Recommendation 3*: ICANN shall create and issue Policy Guidance: (a)
outlining the various procedural filing options available to IGOs, e.g.
they have the ability to elect to have a complaint filed under the UDRP
and/or URS on their behalf by an assignee, agent or licensee; and (b)
advising IGOs and INGOs to, in the first instance and prior to filing a
UDRP or URS complaint, contact the registrar of record to address the harms
for which they are seeking redress. In addition, ICANN shall ensure that
this Policy Guidance document is brought to the notice of the Governmental
Advisory Committee (GAC) for its and its members’ and observers’
information, and published along with the procedures and rules applicable
to the UDRP and URS on the ICANN website
*Recommendation 4*: Notwithstanding GAC advice concerning access to
curative rights processes for IGOs as well as the Charter language
requiring the Working Group to consider “the need to address the issue of
cost to IGOs and INGOs to use curative processes”, there was no support
within the Working Group for a recommendation to provide subsidies to any
party to use the UDRP or URS. Nevertheless, the Working Group recognizes
that it has no authority to obligate the expenditure of ICANN funds, and it
understands, further, that the feasibility of providing IGOs with access to
the UDRP and URS at no or nominal cost to the IGOs is a question that must
be addressed directly through discussions between the ICANN Board with the
GAC and IGOs. The Working Group also notes that many Working Group members
believe that a respondent should also be eligible to receive financial
support for its defense in a case where ICANN has subsidized the
complainant.
*Recommendation 5*: Where a losing registrant challenges the initial
UDRP/URS decision by filing suit in a national court of mutual jurisdiction
and the IGO that succeeded in its initial UDRP/URS complaint also succeeds
in asserting jurisdictional immunity in that court, the decision rendered
against the registrant in the predecessor UDRP or URS shall be set aside
(i.e. invalidated).
2. On 19 July 2018, the GNSO Council *acknowledged
<https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20180719-1>* receipt of the
PDP Final Report, noted that, “[i]n view of the need to consider the topic
of curative rights protections for IGOs in the broader context of
appropriate overall scope of protection for all IGO identifiers (including
IGO acronyms), the GNSO Council intends to review this Final Report … with
a view toward developing a possible path forward that will also facilitate
the resolution of the outstanding inconsistencies between GAC advice and
prior GNSO policy recommendations on the overall scope of IGO protections”,
and confirmed its “intention to act on the recommendations that have been
developed by the Working Group at the earliest opportunity following its
review and deliberations on these topics”;
3. The GNSO Council has discussed the PDP Final Report on various
occasions, including at a webinar conducted on 9 October 2018 and during
the GNSO Council’s meetings in August 2018, October 2018, November 2018,
December 2018 and January 2019;
4. As part of these discussions, the GNSO Council also reviewed the
procedural options currently available to it under the GNSO’s operating
rules and procedures (see, e.g.:
*https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/igo-ingo-crp-procedural-options-council-29nov18-en.pdf
<https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/igo-ingo-crp-procedural-options-council-29nov18-en.pdf>*
and *https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2018-December/022153.html
<https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2018-December/022153.html>*);
5. At the ICANN63 Public Meeting held in Barcelona, Spain, the GNSO Council
agreed to withdraw a motion to vote on the PDP Final Report submitted for
the Council’s October 2018 meeting, in view of a number of concerns about
the report that had been raised by several Councilors and stakeholder
groups;
6. On 21 October 2018, the Chair of the Governmental Advisory Committee
(GAC) sent a *letter
<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/ismail-to-forrest-et-al-21oct18-en.pdf>*
to the GNSO Council leadership requesting an opportunity for the GAC to
engage with the GNSO Council “as a matter of urgency; and [asking] that the
GNSO Council gives serious consideration to the option of deferring its
decision on the named PDP final recommendations until a dialogue between
GAC and GNSO Council has been conducted”;
On 14 January 2019, the GNSO Council leadership *responded
<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/gnso-council-to-ismail-14jan19-en.pdf>*
to the GAC Chair’s 21 October 2018 letter, welcoming the GAC’s wish to
engage in an “open and constructive dialogue”;
8. At the ICANN64 Public Meeting held in Kobe, Japan, the GNSO Council
leadership described the procedural options that the Council is considering
and sought the GAC’s feedback on the GAC’s willingness to participate in a
targeted effort focusing on the issue of curative rights for IGOs and
possibly drawing on the community’s recent experiences with the Expedited
PDP on the Temporary Specification and Work Track 5 of the GNSO New gTLD
Subsequent Procedures PDP;
9. The GAC’s *Kobe Communique
<https://gac.icann.org/contentMigrated/icann64-kobe-communique>* noted the
GAC’s “fruitful exchanges with the GNSO Council regarding the possibility
of restarting the PDP on curative protections, under conditions amenable to
all interested parties, including IGOs and interested GAC members, with a
view to achieving mutually acceptable results [with] a timeline with a
targeted date associated with such a course of action”; and
10. As a result of the numerous discussions that have taken place since the
submission of the PDP Final Report, the GNSO Council believes it has
thoroughly considered all the available options and now wishes to proceed
in the manner specified below.
RESOLVED:
1. 1. The GNSO Council approves, and recommends that the ICANN Board
adopt, Recommendations 1, 2, 3 & 4 of the PDP Final Report. The GNSO
Council directs ICANN staff to prepare a Recommendations Report for
delivery to the ICANN Board in accordance with the process outlined in the
ICANN Bylaws.
2. 2. The GNSO Council does not approve Recommendation 5 of the PDP
Final Report and directs the Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms in
All gTLDs (RPM) PDP to consider, as part of its Phase 2 work, whether an
appropriate policy solution can be developed that is generally consistent
with Recommendations 1, 2, 3 & 4 of the PDP Final Report and:
3. a) accounts for the possibility that an IGO may enjoy
jurisdictional immunity in certain circumstances;
a. b) does not affect the right and ability of registrants to file
judicial proceedings in a court of competent jurisdiction;
b. c) preserves registrants’ rights to judicial review of an initial
UDRP or URS decision; and
c. d) recognizes that the existence and scope of IGO jurisdictional
immunity in any particular situation is a legal issue to be determined by a
court of competent jurisdiction.
4. 3. The GNSO Council intends to amend the charter for the RPM PDP
Working Group to reflect this new instruction accordingly.
5. 4. The GNSO Council affirms that it will take into account its
approval of Recommendations 1, 2, 3 & 4 in considering the recommendations
it receives from the RMP PDP Working Group.
6. 5. The GNSO Council thanks all the members of the IGO-INGO Access
to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms PDP for their hard work in
completing this PDP.
Vote results
<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/gnso-council-motion-recorder-18apr19-en.pdf>
_______________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20190419/2110d1ec/attachment.htm>
More information about the Ncsg-discuss
mailing list