[ALAC] ICANN Board resolutions from meeting of 7 Feb 2014 in LA
Alan Greenberg
alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Wed Feb 12 03:44:14 UTC 2014
Of note:
- Steve Crocker no longer has a New gTLD conflict and is now on the NGPC.
- As we expected as the Board had noted the GNSO
recommendations on IGO/INGO names, but ther
recommendations are not something that they could
simply approve, and will further study the matter to see what may be done.
- They are starting a new committee looking at the NomCom.
- They approved the recommendation on Thick
Whois! Note that this was not on the consent
agenda so it will be interesting to see the
minutes and whether there was any substantive discussion.
Alan
From:
http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-07feb14-en.htm
Approved Board Resolutions | Regular Meeting of the ICANN Board
7 February 2014
1. Consent Agenda
a. Approval of Board Meeting Minutes
b. Appointment of Joe Abley to the
Security & Stability Advisory Committee
c. Technical Liaison Group Bylaws Revisions
d. New gTLD Program Committee Membership
2. Main Agenda
a. Protection of IGO-INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs PDP
b. Formation of Board Working Group on
Nominating Committee Recruitment & Selection Process and Size & Composition
c. GNSO Thick Whois Policy Development Process Recommendations
1. Consent Agenda:
a. Approval of Board Meeting Minutes
b. Appointment of Joe Abley to the
Security & Stability Advisory Committee
c. Technical Liaison Group Bylaws Revisions
d. New gTLD Program Committee Membership
2. Main Agenda:
a. Protection of IGO-INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs PDP
Whereas, on 17 October 2012, the GNSO Council
launched a Policy Development Process (PDP) on
the Protection of IGO-INGO Identifiers in All
gTLDs addressing the questions set forth in the
PDP Working Group Charter at
http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-charter-15nov12-en.pdf [PDF, 189 KB].
Whereas, the PDP followed the prescribed PDP
steps as stated in the ICANN Bylaws and the GNSO
PDP Manual, and resulted in a Final Report
delivered to the GNSO Council on 10 November 2013.
Whereas, the Protection of IGO-INGO Identifiers
in All gTLDs Working Group (IGO-INGO WG) reached
consensus on twenty-five recommendations in
relation to the issues outlined in its Charter.
Whereas, the GNSO Council reviewed, and discussed
the recommendations of the IGO-INGO WG, and
adopted the WG's consensus recommendations by a
unanimous vote at its meeting on 20 November 2013
(see http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20131120-2 ).
Whereas after the GNSO Council vote, a public
comment period was held on the approved
recommendations, and the comments received have
been summarized and published
(http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/igo-ingo-recommendations-27nov13-en.htm
).
Whereas, the GAC advised the ICANN Board in the
Buenos Aires Communiqué that it remained
committed to continuing the dialogue with the
NGPC on finalizing the modalities for permanent
protection of IGO acronyms at the second level,
and the NGPC is actively working on the issue.
Resolved (2014.02.07.05), the Board acknowledges
receipt of the GNSO Council's unanimous
recommendations on the Protection of IGO-INGO
Identifiers in All gTLDs as set forth in the
IGO-INGO WG's Final Report (see
http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-10nov13-en.pdf
[PDF, 644 KB]), and requests additional time to
consider the recommendations so that it may take
into account advice from the GAC addressing the same topic.
Resolved (2014.02.07.06), the Board directs the
ICANN Board New gTLD Program Committee to:
(1) consider the policy recommendations
from the GNSO as it continues to actively develop
an approach to respond to the GAC advice on protections for IGOs; and
(2) develop a comprehensive proposal to
address the GAC advice and the GNSO policy
recommendations for consideration by the Board at a subsequent meeting.
b. Formation of Board Working Group on
Nominating Committee Recruitment & Selection Process and Size & Composition
Whereas the Board previously received the Final
Report of the NomCom Finalization Review Working
Group on 12 March 2010
(http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm)
, which called for a review in three-years' time
of issues of the composition, size and
recruitment function of the Nominating Committee.
Whereas the Structural Improvements Committee
(SIC) recommends that it is time to complete the
follow-up work anticipated in the Final Report
and that a Board Working Group be established for such purpose.
Resolved (2014.02.07.07), the Board approves the
establishment of a Board Working Group on
Nominating Committee (BWG-NomCom) in accordance
with the Charter recommended by the SIC, the
membership of which will be addressed by the Board Governance Committee.
Related materials:
Final report of the NomCom Review Finalization
Group issued in January 2010
http://www.icann.org/en/groups/reviews/nomcom/nomcom-review-finalization-wg-final-report-29jan10-en.pdf
Nominating Committee Improvements Implementation
Project Plan adopted in March 2012
http://www.icann.org/en/groups/reviews/nomcom/nomcom-improvements-implementation-plan-01mar12-en.pdf
c. GNSO Thick Whois Policy Development Process Recommendations
Whereas, on 14 March 2012, the GNSO Council
launched a Policy Development Process (PDP) on
the use of 'thick' Whois by all gTLD Registries,
both existing and future (see PDP WG Charter, set
forth at https://community.icann.org/x/vIg3Ag).
>Whereas the PDP followed the prescribed PDP
>procedures as stated in the Bylaws and due
>process resulting in a Final Report delivered on 21 October 2013.
>
>Whereas the Thick Whois PDP Working Group (WG)
>reached full consensus on the recommendations in
>relation to the issues outlined in the Charter.
>
>Whereas the GNSO Council reviewed and discussed
>the recommendations of the Thick Whois PDP WG,
>and adopted the Recommendations on 31 October
>2013 by a Supermajority and unanimous vote (see
>http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20131031-1).
>
>Whereas the GNSO Council vote exceeded the
>required voting threshold set forth in the ICANN
>Bylaws to impose new Consensus Policies on ICANN contracted parties.
>
>Whereas the GNSO Council resolved to convene a
>Thick Whois Implementation Review Team to assist
>ICANN Staff in developing the implementation
>details for the new policy should it be approved by the ICANN Board.
>
>Whereas after the GNSO Council vote, a public
>comment period was held on the approved
>recommendations, and the comments received
>strongly supported the recommendations
>(http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/thick-whois-recommendations-06nov13-en.htm).
>
>Resolved (2014.02.07.08), the Board adopts the
>GNSO Council Policy Recommendations for a new
>Consensus Policy on Thick Whois as set forth in
>section 7.1 of the Final Report (see
>http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/whois/thick-final-21oct13-en.pdf
>[PDF, 1.23 MB]).
>
>Resolved (2014.02.07.09), the Board directs the
>President and CEO to develop and execute on an
>implementation plan for the Thick Whois Policy
>consistent with the guidance provided by the
>GNSO Council. The President and CEO is
>authorized and directed to work with the
>Implementation Review Team in developing the
>implementation details for the policy, and to
>continue communication with the community on such work.
More information about the ALAC
mailing list