[ispcp] Fwd: [council] GNSO Council Resolution 20 September 2017
Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben
wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de
Thu Sep 21 19:31:51 UTC 2017
FYI!
-------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht --------
Betreff: [council] GNSO Council Resolution 20 September 2017
Datum: Thu, 21 Sep 2017 02:02:27 +0000
Von: Terri Agnew <terri.agnew at icann.org>
An: council at gnso.icann.org <council at gnso.icann.org>
Kopie (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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ispcp/attachments/20170921/a80e3d0f/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
council mailing list
council at gnso.icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
More information about the ispcp
mailing list