-
Communiqués
More
-
Correspondence
More
-
Itemized Advice
More
-
Principles & Guidelines
More
2012-10-17-IOCRC
GAC Advice
2012-10-17-IOCRC
N/A
Consensus met
2012-10-17-IOCRC
Communication
The GAC welcomes the ICANN Board’s Resolution on 13 September 2012, and agrees with the Board that protection for the second level should be in place before the delegation of the first new gTLDs.
The GAC notes the GNSO’s Drafting Team has recently posted a set of recommendations, which state that an expedited policy development process (PDP) is required.
The GAC will seek clarification from the GNSO as to its rationale for initiating a PDP. In light of the legal basis for advancing protections for the IOC/Red Cross Names at the top and second levels, which include coverage under international legal instruments and under national laws in multiple jurisdictions, the GAC considers its advice on the matter to fall into the category of implementation rather than policy development. The GAC requests the opportunity to understand the views of the Board in this regard.
GAC Acknowledgement of Register Entry
15 November 2012
Next Steps/Required Action
GAC to seek clarification from the GNSO as to its rationale for initiating a PDP
Board to respond - 5 December 2012 11 January 2013, 16 January 2013
Responsible Party
GAC/Board
Current Status/Communications Log
Letter sent to GNSO on 28 November 2012
Board Response to GAC Toronto Communique.pdf
Letter to ICANN GAC 23 December 2012.pdf - From GNSO
Letter to ICANN GAC 31 January 2013 (Final).pdf - From GNSO
Board Action (Accept/Disagree)
The GAC in its Toronto Communiqué requested an opportunity to understand the Board’s view on the GAC’s position that its advice on the protection of RCRC and IOC names in new gTLDs is a matter of implementation rather than policy development.
In responding to this request, the Board notes that New gTLD Program Committee’s Progress Report, published on 3 August 2012[1], specifically addressed the issue of the protection of RCRC and IOC names. The Committee stated that:
“All recent inputs have been reviewed…Review of this material indicates that the appropriate course is for the Board to leave these issues in the hands of ICANN’s policy-making bodies. This was the recommendation of the Board in its Singapore resolution when considering protections for the IOC and Red Cross. ICANN staff members are supporting that discussion in the GNSO. The IOC and Red Cross are addressing their comments to the GNSO. The GNSO is properly considering whether to do additional work on these issues.”
The development of policy does not necessarily have to always fall within a formal policy development process (PDP). This was recently demonstrated through the GNSO IOC/RCRC Drafting Team’s efforts and ability to develop recommendations to provide special protection for the RCRC and IOC names at the second level for the first round of new gTLDs, consistent with the GAC’s advice on this issue
The Board notes that the GNSO Council, in its meeting on 20 Dec, passed a motion to provide protection at the second level for certain International Olympic Committee / Red Cross Red Crescent (IOC / RCRC) names in the first round of new gTLDs, pending the outcome of a formal PDP on the matter.
It’s important to note that the current GNSO work through the IGO-INGO PDP Working Group is focusing on the broader, more long-term issue of providing special protections for IGO and INGO names in all gTLDs. Given the impact that such permanent protections will have on a broad spectrum of the community as well as to address the diverse opinions within the community that have been raised related to this matter, the Bylaws reserve to the GNSO the ability to initiate policy development work on this measure. The Board is not in a position to direct the GNSO to abandon policy work on matters within its Bylaws-mandated scope, just as the Board is not a position to direct the GAC on which matters the GAC could consider as issues affecting public policy.
The Board commits, however, that in the event policy recommendations (from the GNSO or any other SO within the ICANN community) are in conflict with GAC advice, the Board will follow all Bylaws-mandated procedures in the consideration of those recommendations. If it is not a Board-initiated PDP, the Board only gets involved in consideration of the policy recommendations after approval by the relevant SO. As the BGRI WG has been focusing on, early engagement by the GAC and other advisory committees into PDPs – even those PDPs that the GAC believes its advice should foreclose – could result in positive outcomes for all in the PDP.
[1] http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/new-gtld/report-03aug12-en.pdf