[council] Resolutions from New gTLD Program Committee held on 2 July 2013

Thu Jul 4 05:56:20 UTC 2013

From:  http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-02jul13-en.htm

Approved Resolutions | Meeting of the New gTLD Program Committee

2 July 2013

 1.   Main Agenda:

	a.   Revised BGC Recommendation on Reconsideration Request 13-3

Whereas, the Noncommercial Users Stakeholders Group's ("NCSG") Reconsideration Request, Request 13-3, sought reconsideration of the staff action of 20 March 2013 regarding "Trademark Claims Protections for Previously Abused Names".

Whereas, the BGC considered the issues raised in Reconsideration Request 13-3, as well as the issues brought to and discussed by the GNSO Council regarding some of the language in the BGC's Recommendation.

Whereas, the BGC revoked its initial recommendation, and issued a Revised BGC Recommendation on Reconsideration Request 13-3, which ultimately recommended that no further action was warranted with respect to Request 13-3.

Resolved (2013.07.02.NG01), the New gTLD Program Committee adopts the Revised BGC Recommendation on Reconsideration Request 13-3 http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration/recommendation-ncsg-25jun13-en.pdf  

Resolved (2013.07.02.NG02), the New gTLD Program Committee directs ICANN's President and CEO to assure that the issues raised within Request 13-3 are brought to the ongoing community discussion on policy versus implementation within ICANN.

	b.   Initial Protection for IGO Identifiers

Whereas, the GAC met during the ICANN 46 meeting in Beijing and issued a Communiqué on 11 April 2013 ("Beijing Communiqué");

Whereas, the Beijing Communiqué reiterated the GAC's previous advice to the Board that "appropriate preventative initial protection for the IGO names and acronyms on the provided list be in place before any new gTLDs would launch" (the "IGO GAC Advice").   The IGO GAC Advice is identified in the GAC Register of Advice as 2013-04-11-IGO;

Whereas, in response to a number of issues raised by the Board, the GAC noted in the Beijing Communiqué that it is "mindful of outstanding implementation issues" and that it is committed to "actively working with IGOs, the Board, and ICANN Staff to find a workable and timely way forward";

Whereas, the NGPC met on 8 and 18 May and 4, 11 and 18 June 2013 to consider a plan for responding to the advice on the New gTLD Program, including the IGO GAC Advice;

Whereas, in a 6 June 2013 response letter to the GAC on the IGO GAC Advice, the ICANN Board Chairman proposed that a small number of NGPC members and ICANN staff begin a dialogue with the GAC on these issues http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/crocker-to-dryden-2-06jun13-en ;

Whereas, the NGPC met on 25 June 2013 to further discuss and consider its plan for responding the GAC's advice in the Beijing Communiqué on the IGO GAC Advice;

Whereas, the final draft of the New gTLD Registry Agreement posted for public comment on 29 April 2013 http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/base-agreement-29apr13-en.htm  includes IGO protections, but does not yet specify the names and acronyms to be protected;

Whereas, the NGPC is undertaking this action pursuant to the authority granted to it by the Board on 10 April 2012, to exercise the ICANN Board's authority for any and all issues that may arise relating to the New gTLD Program.

Resolved (2013.07.02.NG03), the NGPC confirms that appropriate preventative initial protection for the IGO identifiers will continue to be provided as presented in the proposed New gTLD Registry Agreement posted for public comment on 29 April 2013   http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/base-agreement-29apr13-en.htm   while the GAC, NGPC, ICANN Staff and community continue to actively work through outstanding implementation issues.

Resolved (2013.07.02.NG04), the NGPC determines that pursuant to Specification 5 in the proposed New gTLD Registry Agreement posted for public comment on 29 April 2013 http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/base-agreement-29apr13-en.htm , registry operators will implement temporary protections for the IGO names and acronyms on the "IGO List dated 22/03/2013" attached to this Resolution as Annex 1  until the first meeting of the NGPC following the ICANN 47 Meeting in Durban.

Resolved (2013.07.02.NG05), the NGPC will dialogue with the GAC prior to its first meeting following the ICANN 47 meeting in Durban to work through outstanding implementation issues concerning protections for IGO names and acronyms.

Resolved (2013.07.02.NG06), if the NGPC and GAC do not reach an agreement on outstanding implementation issues for protecting IGO names and acronyms by the first meeting of the NGPC following the ICANN 47 meeting in Durban, and subject to any matters that arise during the discussions, the NGPC determines that registry operators will be required to protect only the IGO names identified on the GAC's "IGO List dated 22/03/2013" attached to this Resolution as Annex 1 .

	c.  Category 1 Safeguard Advice from GAC

Whereas, the GAC met during the ICANN 46 meeting in Beijing and issued a Communiqué on 11 April 2013 ("Beijing Communiqué");

Whereas, the Beijing Communiqué included Category 1 safeguard advice, which is identified in the GAC Register of Advice as 2013-04-11-Safeguards-Categories-1 (the "Category 1 Safeguard Advice");

Whereas, on 23 April 2013, ICANN initiated a public comment forum to solicit the community's input on how the NGPC should address GAC advice regarding safeguards applicable to broad categories of New gTLD strings http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/gac-safeguard-advice-23apr13-en.htm ;

Whereas, the NGPC met on 8 and 18 May and 4, 11, 18 and 25 June 2013 to consider a plan for responding to the GAC's advice on the New gTLD Program, including the Category 1 Safeguard Advice;

Whereas, the NGPC met on 2 July 2013 to further discuss and consider its plan for responding the GAC's advice in the Beijing Communiqué on the New gTLD Program;

Whereas, the NGPC has considered the public comments on the Category 1 Safeguard Advice submitted during the public comment forum; and

Whereas, the NGPC is undertaking this action pursuant to the authority granted to it by the Board on 10 April 2012, to exercise the ICANN Board's authority for any and all issues that may arise relating to the New gTLD Program.

Resolved (2013.07.02.NG07), the NGPC agrees to begin a dialogue with the GAC during the ICANN Meeting in Durban to clarify the scope of the requirements provided in the Category 1 Safeguard Advice. (Note: the dialogue with the GAC on Category 1 will also include discussion of GAC's Category 2.1 Safeguard Advice regarding "Restricted Access" since that advice applies to the strings listed under Category 1.)

Resolved (2013.07.02.NG08), the NGPC directs staff to defer moving forward with the contracting process for applicants who have applied for TLD strings listed in the GAC's Category 1 Safeguard Advice, pending a dialogue with the GAC.

d.  Registry Agreement

Whereas, the new generic Top-Level Domain (New gTLD) Program was developed to increase competition and choice by introducing new gTLDs into the Internet's addressing system;

Whereas, the Applicant Guidebook (AGB) was produced to define the New gTLD Program, and included a draft New gTLD Registry Agreement to be entered into by successful applicants and ICANN before proceeding to delegation;

Whereas, on 5 February 2013, ICANN posted for public comment a proposed "Revised New gTLD Registry Agreement Including Additional Public Interest Commitments Specification," which announced proposed revisions to the agreement in response to developments since the last posting of the AGB in June 2012 and a general review of the contractual needs of the New gTLD Program;

Whereas, on 29 April 2013, ICANN posted for public comment the "Proposed Final New gTLD Registry Agreement," which included certain updates and changes to the New gTLD Registry Agreement in response to community feedback on the version of the New gTLD Registry Agreement posted for public comment on 5 February 2013 and discussions of the agreement at the ICANN 46 meeting in Beijing, China;

Whereas, ICANN and a group selected by the Registry Stakeholder Group, the Registry Negotiating Team, have continued negotiating the proposed terms of the New gTLD Registry Agreement;

Whereas, the GAC met during the ICANN 46 meeting in Beijing and issued advice in a Communiqué on 11 April 2013 ("Beijing Communiqué");

Whereas, on 23 April 2013, ICANN initiated a public comment forum to solicit the community's input on how the NGPC should address GAC advice in the Beijing Communiqué regarding safeguards applicable to broad categories of New gTLD strings http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/gac-safeguard-advice-23apr13-en.htm ;

Whereas, the Beijing Communiqué included advice, which if implemented as suggested by the community, in some cases would require revisions to the New gTLD Registry Agreement;

Whereas, on 25 June 2013, the NGPC adopted resolutions to revise the New gTLD Registry Agreement to respond to certain elements of the GAC's safeguard advice in the Beijing Communiqué http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-25jun13-en.htm#2 ;

Whereas, the NGPC has considered all of the comments received from the community from the various public comment forums, and has determined that the revised New gTLD Registry Agreement attached to this Resolution as Annex 1 includes significant improvements in response to the concerns raised by the community; and

Whereas, the NGPC is undertaking this action pursuant to the authority granted to it by the Board on 10 April 2012, to exercise the ICANN Board's authority for any and all issues that may arise relating to the New gTLD Program.

Resolved (2013.07.02.NG09), the NGPC approves the form of the New gTLD Registry Agreement attached to this Resolution as Annex 1;

Resolved (2013.07.02.NG10), the President and CEO is authorized to take all necessary steps to implement the revised New gTLD Registry Agreement and to move forward with implementation of the New gTLD Program.

	e.    ALAC Statement on TMCH/Variants - Discussion of letter

No resolution taken.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: resolutions-new-gtld-annex-1-item-1b-02jul13-en.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 517233 bytes
Desc: resolutions-new-gtld-annex-1-item-1b-02jul13-en.pdf
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20130704/e4c50ec0/resolutions-new-gtld-annex-1-item-1b-02jul13-en.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: resolutions-new-gtld-annex-1-item-1d-02jul13-en.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 926828 bytes
Desc: resolutions-new-gtld-annex-1-item-1d-02jul13-en.pdf
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20130704/e4c50ec0/resolutions-new-gtld-annex-1-item-1d-02jul13-en.pdf>