[council] GNSO Council Resolutions - 15 December 2011

Glen de Saint Géry Glen at icann.org
Fri Dec 16 10:58:36 UTC 2011

Dear Councillors,

Ahead of the official GNSO Council minutes, the following two resolutions were passed at the Council meeting on 15 December 2011.

Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thank you.
Kind regards,


1.    Competing Proposed Motion on the UDRP PDP

Whereas the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group submitted a final report to the GNSO Council on 29 May 2010 (see http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/rap-wg-final-report-29may10-en.pdf), recommending an issue report on the current state of the UDRP considering both

(a) How the UDRP has addressed the problem of cybersquatting to date, and any insufficiencies/inequalities associated with the process, and

(b) Whether the definition of cybersquatting inherent within the existing UDRP language needs to be reviewed or updated, and

Whereas, on February 3, 2011, the GNSO Council requested an Issues Report in accordance with the recommendations of the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/rap-wg-final-report-29may10-en.pdf) and

Whereas, a Preliminary Issue Report was published on 27 May 2011 (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/prelim-report-current-state-udrp-27may11-en.pdf) and series of webinars and workshops were held soliciting public comment to allow for the ICANN community to provide feedback on the analysis and recommendations contained therein, and

Whereas, a Final Issue Report was published on 3 October 2011 (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/udrp/udrp-final-issue-report-03oct11-en.pdf) in which ICANN staff recommended the GNSO Council consider the “perspective of the majority of the ICANN community, and the advice of the Government Advisory Committee (GAC), and the At-Large Advisory Committee” and that “a PDP be delayed until after the New gTLD Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS) has been in operation for at least eighteen months. . . to allow the policy process to be informed by data regarding the effectiveness of the URS, which was modeled on the UDRP, to address the problem of cybersquatting.”

RESOLVED, that the GNSO approves the initiation of a PDP and the establishment of a Working Group on recommendation #7 of the IRTP Part B Working Group concerning the requirement to lock a domain name subject to UDRP proceedings, which the GNSO Council at its meeting on 22 June 2011 received and agreed to consider when it takes up consideration of the Final Issue Report on the Current State of the UDRP.

RESOLVED further, the GNSO Council requests a new Issue Report on the current state of all rights protection mechanisms implemented for both existing and new gTLDs, including but not limited to, the UDRP and URS, should be delivered to the GNSO Council by no later than eighteen (18) months following the delegation of the first new gTLD.

2.    Motion for JIG (Joint ccNSO/GNSO IDN Working Group) response to August 2011 Board Resolution on Single Character IDN TLDs

WHEREAS, the JIG (Joint ccNSO/GNSO IDN Working Group) was formed by mutual charters between the ccNSO and GNSO councils, and extended (ccNSO: http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/minutes-council-23aug11-en.pdf | GNSO: http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201107) to complete its work on the 3 identified issues of common interest between the ccNSO and GNSO;

WHEREAS, the subject of Single Character IDN TLDs was discussed at the GNSO IDN WG, the GNSO Reserved Names WG and incorporated into the GNSO New gTLD Recommendations, and consistently resulted in community consensus to allow the implementation of Single Character IDN TLDs;

WHEREAS, the JIG developed and published an Initial Report on Single Character IDN TLDs (http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/jig-initial-report-26jul10-en.pdf) for public comments (http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-27jul10-en.htm) and incorporated the comments (http://forum.icann.org/lists/jig-initial-report/pdfaul7JXcqaa.pdf) into a draft Final Report (http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-04dec10-en.htm) for further public comments,

WHEREAS, the JIG conducted a public session during the Cartagena ICANN meetings (http://cartagena39.icann.org/node/15395);

WHEREAS, the JIG incorporated comments received (http://forum.icann.org/lists/jig-draft-final-report/pdfQxF383O30Q.pdf) and completed a Final Report (http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/jig-final-report-single-character-idns-30mar11-en.pdf) which was approved by the ccNSO (http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/minutes-council-10may11-en.pdf) and GNSO (http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201107) councils;

WHEREAS, the ICANN Board made a resolution at their August 25, 2011 meeting regarding the subject: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-25aug11-en.htm#5; and,

WHEREAS, the JIG considered the resolution and found it to be in contradiction with the community consensus on the matter,

NOW THEREFORE RESOLVED that, upon the mutual resolution from both the GNSO and ccNSO councils on the subject, the Council Chairs would send to the ICANN Board the following letter in response to their August 2011 resolution on Single Character IDN TLDs:

JIG (Joint ccNSO/GNSO IDN Working Group) Response to ICANN Board Resolution on Single Character IDN TLDs

Dear ICANN Board,

First of all, we appreciate activity at the ICANN Board regarding Single Character IDN TLDs.  In response to the August 2011 resolution (http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-25aug11-en.htm#5) however, we express our disappointment and concern on 3 critical aspects:

    Both the ccNSO and the GNSO councils have at multiple occasions expressed a consensus principle that the introduction of IDN gTLDs or IDN ccTLDs should not be delayed because of lack of readiness of one category.  The August 2011 Board resolution (by specifying that “processes for delegation of single-character IDN TLDs will be made available after the first gTLD application round and conclusion of IDN ccTLD policy work.”) perhaps inadvertently conflicted with this community consensus understanding and should be rectified or clarified.

    The issue of Single Character IDN TLDs have gone through at least 4 rounds of community discussions, including at the GNSO IDN WG (http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/idn-wg-fr-22mar07.htm), the GNSO Reserved Names WG (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/final-report-rn-wg-23may07.htm), incorporated into the GNSO New gTLD recommendations (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm), and of course the JIG report (http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/jig-final-report-single-character-idns-30mar11-en.pdf).  Each time there is consistent consensus support from the community for allowing Single Character IDN TLDs in the new gTLD process (including the first round), and no objections were received from any of the ACs.  The August 2011 Board resolution specifying that Single Character IDN TLDs not be included in the first round ignores this repeated community consensus without reasonable rationale.

    While the August 2011 Board resolution generally requested input from a collection of ACs, there is a lack of progressive direction towards the implementation of Single Character IDN TLDs.  Furthermore, while input from ACs is always welcome, given the multitude of public comment periods already conducted for the subject, including participation from SSAC members, with consistent consensus response, such consultation with ACs should not become an arbitrary hurdle for the implementation of Single Character IDN TLDs, especially for the New gTLD process.

Single Character IDN TLDs is not simply a “good to have” feature, but a necessary requirement for some of the IDN communities in order to allow broadly attractive and competitive gTLDs.  As an example, for Chinese IDN TLDs, the prohibition of Single Character IDN TLDs would effectively devoid the community of single-syllable-single-word TLDs, which is otherwise acceptable for English and other alphabetic based language TLDs (e.g. “.word” would be an acceptable ASCII single-syllable-single-word TLD, yet a similar single-syllable-single-word TLD “.字” would not be acceptable for Chinese), creating an unjustified situation of inequity, and significantly hindering the adoption of IDN.

The JIG, through the ccNSO and GNSO councils therefore sincerely urges the Board to:

    Implement the community consensus of allowing Single Character IDN TLDs without restricting such implementation to being after the first round of the new gTLD process, and to decouple the requirement that IDN ccTLD or IDN gTLD mechanisms wait for the other;

    If necessary, form an implementation team to assist staff in immediately implementing Single Character IDN TLDs for scripts and languages where the input of a Single Character requires multiple keystrokes (e.g. ideographical scripts, and avoiding the potential technical concern of keyboard layouts identified in the JIG report), and for the team to further guide implementation for other scripts as well as coordinate input from the ACs; and,

    Update or amend the New gTLD Applicant Guidebook for such implementation before the application period for the first round is over.

The JIG and the significantly affected language communities are prepared to support ICANN staff and Board in the swift implementation of Single Character IDN TLDs without compromising the security and stability of the Internet.  The JIG further believes that minor adjustments to the Applicant Guidebook would suffice and is ready to work with staff closely to complete its implementation.

We look forward to the positive response and actions from the Board.


ccNSO Council (approval: [LINK])

GNSO Council (approval: [LINK])

JIG -- Joint ccNSO/GNSO IDN Working Group

Glen de Saint Géry
GNSO Secretariat
gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20111216/b5233490/attachment.html>

More information about the council mailing list