Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) Advice Status

• ICANN71 Virtual Community Forum Communique (21 June 2021)

ICANN71 Virtual Policy Forum Communique

1.a.i

IGO Protections

(21 Jun 2021)

Phase 1 | Receive & Acknowledge

The ICANN71 Virtual Policy Forum Communique was published on 21 June 2021 and is currently being reviewed by the ICANN Board.

ICANN71 Virtual Policy Forum Communique

Follow-up 1

CCT Review Recommendations

(21 June 2021)

Phase 1 | Receive & Acknowledge

The ICANN71 Virtual Policy Forum Communique was published on 21 June 2021 and is currently being reviewed by the ICANN Board.

ICANN71 Virtual Policy Forum Communique

Follow-up 2

EPDP Phase 1 Policy Implementation

(21 June 2021)

Phase 1 | Receive & Acknowledge

The ICANN71 Virtual Policy Forum Communique was published on 21 June 2021 and is currently being reviewed by the ICANN Board.

ICANN71 Virtual Policy Forum Communique

Follow-up 3

Privacy Proxy Services Accreditation Implementation

(21 June 2021)

Phase 1 | Receive & Acknowledge

The ICANN71 Virtual Policy Forum Communique was published on 21 June 2021 and is currently being reviewed by the ICANN Board.

ICANN66 Montreal Communique

§1.a.i.
CCT Review and Subsequent Rounds of New gTLDs

(6 Nov 2019)

Phase 3 | Evaluate & Consider

On 26 January 2020, the Board considered the Montreal Communique and provided this response in its scorecard:

"The Board is unable to accept or reject this advice at this time and proposes to defer action until such time as the Board has concluded its consideration of the CCT recommendations and the Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group and the All Rights Protection Mechanisms PDP Working Group have delivered their policy recommendations to the GNSO Council.

On 16 December 2019, ICANN org sent a letter to the GAC Chair providing some additional background and considerations relating to implementation of the Competition, Consumer Trust, and Consumer Choice Review Team (CCTRT) recommendations. The CEO noted that the Board had referred policy-dependent recommendations contained in the CCT report to the community policy development process. The CEO also noted that the Board has put several such recommendations in pending status due to significant dependencies as well as various stated implementation and public interest concerns.

On 17 December 2019, the Board discussed its questions on this advice on a call with the GAC regarding the Montreal communique. As discussed on this call, accepting the GAC's advice at this time appears to be in tension with the delegation of policy development authority under the ICANN Bylaws to the community through the bottom-up multistakeholder policy development process. In addition, until community-developed policy recommendations applicable to a subsequent round are developed, the Board has no basis to determine whether the GAC's concerns have been adequately addressed and, if not, no basis for entering into discussion with the GAC in an effort to identify a mutually acceptable solution as required by the Bylaws.

The Board understands that the GAC provided additional clarifications to this advice in a letter on 22 January 2020. The Board will consider when and if further action is needed on this item after review of the GAC clarifications and after continued discussion with the GAC."

Accordingly, this item will remain in Phase 3 pending further Board consideration.

ICANN48 Buenos Aires Communique

§4.a.i.
Protection of Inter-Governmental Organisations (IGOs)

(20 Nov 2013)

Phase 3 | Evaluate & Consider

The NGPC published a comprehensive report of NGPC responses and updates to GAC Advice regarding the New gTLD Program on 7 October 2015 and provided this response in its scorecard:

The GNSO Council approved recommendations from the expedited PDP on 20 November 2013 regarding protections for IGOs and INGOs. The GNSO forwarded its policy recommendations to the ICANN Board for further consideration. On 7 February 2014, the Board (i) adopted the policy recommendations GNSO Council's unanimous recommendations that are not inconsistent with the GAC's advice, (ii) requested additional time to consider the remaining recommendations, and (iii) decided to facilitate discussions among the relevant parties to reconcile any remaining differences between the policy recommendations and the GAC advice on the topic. These policy recommendations and the GAC advice are still under consideration.

On 11 July 2019 the ICANN Board Chair sent a letter notifying the GAC Chair that the GNSO Council has approved four policy recommendations that were developed by the GNSO's PDP Working Group on IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms which include the following points: no substantive changes to existing rights protection mechanisms are needed for INGOs; no specific new dispute resolution procedures should be created for IGOs; and clarifying policy guidance is to be developed as to the filing of complaints by IGOs under the existing procedures.

The four recommendations were posted for public comment on 11 July 2019 and will close on 20 August 2019. After the public comment period closes, the Board will meet to consider whether to adopt the four recommendations.

The GAC sent a letter to the Board on 20 August 2019 regarding the GNSO PDP on IGO-INGO Access to Curative RPMs Policy Recommendations. The Board provided a response on 14 October 2019.

In a 26 Jan 2021 Letter from Maarten Botterman to Manal Ismail, "[t]he Board may only partially accept the GAC advice concerning a permanent system of notification when a registrant registers a domain name matching an IGO acronym.

As outlined in the Board's 22 October 2020 resolution, the Board believes at this time that the most appropriate solution (not including any curative rights mechanisms) regarding second level protections for IGO acronyms that is in the best interests of the ICANN community and ICANN will be for the ICANN organization to implement, as an operational matter, an ongoing (i.e. permanent) post-registration notification mechanism that will notify an affected IGO when a third party registers a second level domain matching that organization's acronym."

This advice item remains open for further Board consideration.

ICANN49 Singapore Communique

§8
Protection of Inter-‐Governmental Organisation (IGO) Names and Acronyms

(27 Mar 2014)

Phase 3 | Evaluate & Consider

The NGPC published a comprehensive report of NGPC responses and updates to GAC Advice regarding the New gTLD Program on 7 October 2015 and provided this response in its scorecard:

On 14 May 2014, the NGPC adopted (https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-new-gtld-2014...) another iteration of the Scorecard (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/resolutions-new-gtld-annex-1...) and provided the following response: On 7 February 2014, the Board directed the NGPC to: (1) consider the policy recommendations from the GNSO as the NGPC 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. On 13 March 2014, the NGPC forwarded to the GAC for information a draft proposal for implementing the GAC advice on IGO acronym protections at the second level. On 30 April 2014, the Board took action to adopt the GNSO policy recommendations that are not inconsistent with GAC Advice received by the Board on the topic of IGO protections. With respect to the GNSO policy recommendations that differ from the GAC Advice (including this item of GAC Advice) the Board requested additional time to consider them, and will facilitate discussions among the relevant parties to reconcile any remaining differences between the policy recommendations and the GAC advice on the topic. These policy recommendations and the GAC advice are still under consideration.

On 11 July 2019 the ICANN Board Chair sent a letter notifying the GAC Chair that the GNSO Council has approved four policy recommendations that were developed by the GNSO's PDP Working Group on IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms which include the following points: no substantive changes to existing rights protection mechanisms are needed for INGOs; no specific new dispute resolution procedures should be created for IGOs; and clarifying policy guidance is to be developed as to the filing of complaints by IGOs under the existing procedures.

The four recommendations were posted for public comment on 11 July 2019 and will close on 20 August 2019. After the public comment period closes, the Board will meet to consider whether to adopt the four recommendations.

The GAC sent a letter to the Board on 20 August 2019 regarding the GNSO PDP on IGO-INGO Access to Curative RPMs Policy Recommendations. The Board provided a response on 14 October 2019 (item also noted below in the closed items).

As noted in the 26 Jan 2021 Letter from Maarten Botterman to Manal Ismail, "[t]he Board may only partially accept the GAC advice concerning a permanent system of notification when a registrant registers a domain name matching an IGO acronym.

As outlined in the Board's 22 October 2020 resolution, the Board believes at this time that the most appropriate solution (not including any curative rights mechanisms) regarding second level protections for IGO acronyms that is in the best interests of the ICANN community and ICANN will be for the ICANN organization to implement, as an operational matter, an ongoing (i.e. permanent) post-registration notification mechanism that will notify an affected IGO when a third party registers a second level domain matching that organization's acronym."

This advice item remains open for further Board consideration.

ICANN50 London Communique

§5
Protection of Inter-Governmental Organisation (IGO) Names and Acronyms

(25 Jun 2014)

Phase 3 | Evaluate & Consider

The NGPC published a comprehensive report of NGPC responses and updates to GAC Advice regarding the New gTLD Program on 7 October 2015 and provided this response in its scorecard:

On 8 September 2014, the NGPC adopted another iteration of the Scorecard (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/resolutions-new-gtld-annex-1...) to address this advice. At that time, the NGPC reported that it was considering available options to reconcile the differences between the GAC advice and the GNSO policy recommendations concerning protections for IGO acronyms. On 16 June 2014, the NGPC sent a letter to the GNSO Council highlighting the previously noted concerns and providing an opportunity for the GNSO to consider modifying its policy recommendations at issue in accordance with Section 16 of the GNSO's PDP Manual. (Section 16 of the GNSO's PDP Manual permits modification to approved GNSO Council policies at any time prior to final approval by the Board.) At that time, NGPC was awaiting a response from the GNSO. The NGPC agreed to continue to provide updates to the GAC, the GNSO, and the broader ICANN community about its progress to address this matter, and noted that the temporary protections afforded to IGOs remain in place while the parties continue discussions. This matter remains under consideration.

On 11 July 2019 the ICANN Board Chair sent a letter notifying the GAC Chair that the GNSO Council has approved four policy recommendations that were developed by the GNSO's PDP Working Group on IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms which include the following points: no substantive changes to existing rights protection mechanisms are needed for INGOs; no specific new dispute resolution procedures should be created for IGOs; and clarifying policy guidance is to be developed as to the filing of complaints by IGOs under the existing procedures.

The four recommendations were posted for public comment on 11 July 2019 and will close on 20 August 2019. After the public comment period closes, the Board will meet to consider whether to adopt the four recommendations.

The GAC sent a letter to the Board on 20 August 2019 regarding the GNSO PDP on IGO-INGO Access to Curative RPMs Policy Recommendations. The Board provided a response on 14 October 2019 (item also noted below in the closed items).

In a 26 Jan 2021 Letter from Maarten Botterman to Manal Ismail, it was noted that "[t]he Board may only partially accept the GAC advice concerning a permanent system of notification when a registrant registers a domain name matching an IGO acronym.

As outlined in the Board's 22 October 2020 resolution, the Board believes at this time that the most appropriate solution (not including any curative rights mechanisms) regarding second level protections for IGO acronyms that is in the best interests of the ICANN community and ICANN will be for the ICANN organization to implement, as an operational matter, an ongoing (i.e. permanent) post-registration notification mechanism that will notify an affected IGO when a third party registers a second level domain matching that organization's acronym."

This advice item remains open for further Board consideration.

ICANN51 Los Angeles Communique

§5.a.I-II – 5.b.I.
Protection of Inter‐Governmental Organisation (IGO) Names and Acronyms

(15 Oct 2014)

Phase 3 | Evaluate & Consider

The NGPC published a comprehensive report of NGPC responses and updates to GAC Advice regarding the New gTLD Program on 7 October 2015 and provided this response in its scorecard:

The GNSO Council approved recommendations from the expedited PDP on 20 November 2013 regarding protections for IGOs and INGOs (https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20131120-2). The GNSO forwarded its policy recommendations to the ICANN Board for further consideration. On 7 February 2014, the Board (i) adopted the policy recommendations GNSO Council's unanimous recommendations that are not inconsistent with the GAC's advice, (ii) requested additional time to consider the remaining recommendations, and (iii) decided to facilitate discussions among the relevant parties to reconcile any remaining differences between the policy recommendations and the GAC advice on the topic (https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2014-02-07-en...). These policy recommendations and the GAC advice are still under consideration.

On 11 July 2019 the ICANN Board Chair sent a letter notifying the GAC Chair that the GNSO Council has approved four policy recommendations that were developed by the GNSO's PDP Working Group on IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms which include the following points: no substantive changes to existing rights protection mechanisms are needed for INGOs; no specific new dispute resolution procedures should be created for IGOs; and clarifying policy guidance is to be developed as to the filing of complaints by IGOs under the existing procedures.

The four recommendations were posted for public comment on 11 July 2019 and will close on 20 August 2019. After the public comment period closes, the Board will meet to consider whether to adopt the four recommendations.

The GAC sent a letter to the Board on 20 August 2019 regarding the GNSO PDP on IGO-INGO Access to Curative RPMs Policy Recommendations. The Board provided a response on 14 October 2019 (item also noted below in the closed items).

As noted in the 26 Jan 2021 Letter from Maarten Botterman to Manal Ismail, "[t]he Board may only partially accept the GAC advice concerning a permanent system of notification when a registrant registers a domain name matching an IGO acronym.

As outlined in the Board's 22 October 2020 resolution, the Board believes at this time that the most appropriate solution (not including any curative rights mechanisms) regarding second level protections for IGO acronyms that is in the best interests of the ICANN community and ICANN will be for the ICANN organization to implement, as an operational matter, an ongoing (i.e. permanent) post-registration notification mechanism that will notify an affected IGO when a third party registers a second level domain matching that organization's acronym."

This advice item remains open for further Board consideration.

ICANN52 Singapore Communique

§2
Protection of Names and Acronyms for Inter-Governmental Organisations (IGOs)

(11 Feb 2015)

Phase 3 | Evaluate & Consider

The NGPC published a comprehensive report of NGPC responses and updates to GAC Advice regarding the New gTLD Program on 7 October 2015 and provided this response in its scorecard:

The GNSO Council approved recommendations from the expedited PDP on 20 November 2013 regarding protections for IGOs and INGOs (https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20131120-2). The GNSO forwarded its policy recommendations to the ICANN Board for further consideration. On 7 February 2014, the Board (i) adopted the policy recommendations GNSO Council's unanimous recommendations that are not inconsistent with the GAC's advice, (ii) requested additional time to consider the remaining recommendations, and (iii) decided to facilitate discussions among the relevant parties to reconcile any remaining differences between the policy recommendations and the GAC advice on the topic (https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2014-02-07-en...). These policy recommendations and the GAC advice are still under consideration.

On 11 July 2019 the ICANN Board Chair sent a letter notifying the GAC Chair that the GNSO Council has approved four policy recommendations that were developed by the GNSO's PDP Working Group on IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms which include the following points: no substantive changes to existing rights protection mechanisms are needed for INGOs; no specific new dispute resolution procedures should be created for IGOs; and clarifying policy guidance is to be developed as to the filing of complaints by IGOs under the existing procedures.

The four recommendations were posted for public comment on 11 July 2019 and will close on 20 August 2019. After the public comment period closes, the Board will meet to consider whether to adopt the four recommendations.

The GAC sent a letter to the Board on 20 August 2019 regarding the GNSO PDP on IGO-INGO Access to Curative RPMs Policy Recommendations. The Board provided a response on 14 October 2019 (item also noted below in the closed items).

As noted in the 26 Jan 2021 Letter from Maarten Botterman to Manal Ismail, "[t]he Board may only partially accept the GAC advice concerning a permanent system of notification when a registrant registers a domain name matching an IGO acronym.

As outlined in the Board's 22 October 2020 resolution, the Board believes at this time that the most appropriate solution (not including any curative rights mechanisms) regarding second level protections for IGO acronyms that is in the best interests of the ICANN community and ICANN will be for the ICANN organization to implement, as an operational matter, an ongoing (i.e. permanent) post-registration notification mechanism that will notify an affected IGO when a third party registers a second level domain matching that organization's acronym."

This advice item remains open for further Board consideration.

ICANN58 Copenhagen Communique

§2.a.I
IGO Protections

(15 Mar 2017)

Phase 3 | Evaluate & Consider

On 12 June 2017 the Board considered the Copenhagen Communique and provided this response in its scorecard:

The Board takes note of this advice and has directed the ICANN organization to investigate the feasibility of implementing a system of notification to IGOs regarding second-level registration of strings that match their acronyms. The Board also notes that the IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms Policy Development Process (PDP) is ongoing. The Board awaits the results of the PDP, and will consider the PDP results and the findings of the ICANN organization regarding feasibility of IGO notifications as it considers whether implementation of such a mechanism will be appropriate in all circumstances.

On 11 July 2019 the ICANN Board Chair sent a letter notifying the GAC Chair that the GNSO Council has approved four policy recommendations that were developed by the GNSO's PDP Working Group on IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms which include the following points: no substantive changes to existing rights protection mechanisms are needed for INGOs; no specific new dispute resolution procedures should be created for IGOs; and clarifying policy guidance is to be developed as to the filing of complaints by IGOs under the existing procedures.

The four recommendations were posted for public comment on 11 July 2019 and will close on 20 August 2019. After the public comment period closes, the Board will meet to consider whether to adopt the four recommendations.

The GAC sent a letter to the Board on 20 August 2019 regarding the GNSO PDP on IGO-INGO Access to Curative RPMs Policy Recommendations. The Board provided a response on 14 October 2019 (item also noted below in the closed items).

This advice item remains open for further Board consideration.

ICANN58 Copenhagen Communique

§2.a.II
IGO Protections

(15 Mar 2017)

Phase 3 | Evaluate & Consider

On 12 June 2017 the Board considered the Copenhagen Communique and provided this response in its scorecard:

The Board accepts this advice and will continue to facilitate discussions between the GAC and GNSO on the subject of appropriate protections for IGO acronyms.

On 11 July 2019 the ICANN Board Chair sent a letter notifying the GAC Chair that the GNSO Council has approved four policy recommendations that were developed by the GNSO's PDP Working Group on IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms which include the following points: no substantive changes to existing rights protection mechanisms are needed for INGOs; no specific new dispute resolution procedures should be created for IGOs; and clarifying policy guidance is to be developed as to the filing of complaints by IGOs under the existing procedures.

The four recommendations were posted for public comment on 11 July 2019 and will close on 20 August 2019. After the public comment period closes, the Board will meet to consider whether to adopt the four recommendations.

The GAC sent a letter to the Board on 20 August 2019 regarding the GNSO PDP on IGO-INGO Access to Curative RPMs Policy Recommendations. The Board provided a response on 14 October 2019 (item also noted below in the closed items).

As noted in the 26 Jan 2021 Letter from Maarten Botterman to Manal Ismail, "[t]he Board may only partially accept the GAC advice concerning a permanent system of notification when a registrant registers a domain name matching an IGO acronym.

As outlined in the Board's 22 October 2020 resolution, the Board believes at this time that the most appropriate solution (not including any curative rights mechanisms) regarding second level protections for IGO acronyms that is in the best interests of the ICANN community and ICANN will be for the ICANN organization to implement, as an operational matter, an ongoing (i.e. permanent) post-registration notification mechanism that will notify an affected IGO when a third party registers a second level domain matching that organization's acronym."

This advice item remains open for further Board consideration.

ICANN58 Copenhagen Communique

§2.a.III
IGO Protections

(15 Mar 2017)

Phase 3 | Evaluate & Consider

On 12 June 2017 the Board considered the Copenhagen Communique and provided this response in its scorecard:

The Board notes that the GNSO PDP Working Group on IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms is considering the comments on its Initial Report which were submitted by the GAC and a number of IGOs on this subject.

On 11 July 2019 the ICANN Board Chair sent a letter notifying the GAC Chair that the GNSO Council has approved four policy recommendations that were developed by the GNSO's PDP Working Group on IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms which include the following points: no substantive changes to existing rights protection mechanisms are needed for INGOs; no specific new dispute resolution procedures should be created for IGOs; and clarifying policy guidance is to be developed as to the filing of complaints by IGOs under the existing procedures.

The four recommendations were posted for public comment on 11 July 2019 and will close on 20 August 2019. After the public comment period closes, the Board will meet to consider whether to adopt the four recommendations.

The GAC sent a letter to the Board on 20 August 2019 regarding the GNSO PDP on IGO-INGO Access to Curative RPMs Policy Recommendations. The Board provided a response on 14 October 2019 (item also noted below in the closed items).

As noted in the 26 Jan 2021 Letter from Maarten Botterman to Manal Ismail, "[t]he Board may only partially accept the GAC advice concerning a permanent system of notification when a registrant registers a domain name matching an IGO acronym.

As outlined in the Board's 22 October 2020 resolution, the Board believes at this time that the most appropriate solution (not including any curative rights mechanisms) regarding second level protections for IGO acronyms that is in the best interests of the ICANN community and ICANN will be for the ICANN organization to implement, as an operational matter, an ongoing (i.e. permanent) post-registration notification mechanism that will notify an affected IGO when a third party registers a second level domain matching that organization's acronym."

This advice item remains open for further Board consideration.

ICANN59 Johannesburg Communique

§1.a.I-III.
Intergovernmental Organization (IGO) Protections

(29 Jun 2017)

Phase 3 | Evaluate & Consider

On 23 September 2017 the Board considered the Johannesburg Communique and provided this response in its scorecard:

The Board acknowledges the GAC's Advice and its concerns. The Board reiterates that as part of a PDP, the Working Group has an obligation to duly consider all inputs received*. The Board notes that the GNSO Council has informed the Board that all public comments and input received by the PDP Working Group, including from the GAC and IGOs, have been extensively discussed by the Working Group. The Board notes, further, that the GNSO Council considers the upcoming ICANN60 meeting to be an opportunity for further discussions among the community. The Board will continue to facilitate these discussions and encourages participation in them by all affected parties.

* From the GNSO Operating Procedures: "Public comments received as a result of a public comment forum held in relation to the activities of the WG should be carefully considered and analyzed. In addition, the WG is encouraged to explain their rationale for agreeing or disagreeing with the different comments received and, if appropriate, how these will be addressed in the report of the WG".

On 11 July 2019 the ICANN Board Chair sent a letter notifying the GAC Chair that the GNSO Council has approved four policy recommendations that were developed by the GNSO's PDP Working Group on IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms which include the following points: no substantive changes to existing rights protection mechanisms are needed for INGOs; no specific new dispute resolution procedures should be created for IGOs; and clarifying policy guidance is to be developed as to the filing of complaints by IGOs under the existing procedures.

The four recommendations were posted for public comment on 11 July 2019 and will close on 20 August 2019. After the public comment period closes, the Board will meet to consider whether to adopt the four recommendations.

The GAC sent a letter to the Board on 20 August 2019 regarding the GNSO PDP on IGO-INGO Access to Curative RPMs Policy Recommendations. The Board provided a response on 14 October 2019 (item also noted below in the closed items).

As noted in the 26 Jan 2021 Letter from Maarten Botterman to Manal Ismail, "[t]he Board may only partially accept the GAC advice concerning a permanent system of notification when a registrant registers a domain name matching an IGO acronym.

As outlined in the Board's 22 October 2020 resolution, the Board believes at this time that the most appropriate solution (not including any curative rights mechanisms) regarding second level protections for IGO acronyms that is in the best interests of the ICANN community and ICANN will be for the ICANN organization to implement, as an operational matter, an ongoing (i.e. permanent) post-registration notification mechanism that will notify an affected IGO when a third party registers a second level domain matching that organization's acronym."

This advice item remains open for further Board consideration.

ICANN60 Abu Dhabi Communique

§1.a.I
Intergovernmental Organization (IGO) Protections

(1 Nov 2017)

Phase 3 | Evaluate & Consider

On 4 February 2018 the Board considered the Abu Dhabi Communique and provided this response in its scorecard:

The Board accepts the GAC advice to review closely the policy recommendations, including those that may differ from GAC advice and the associated public comments before taking action. The Board acknowledges the GAC's longstanding advice on the need to protect IGO acronyms in the domain name system, and appreciates the GAC's interest in the outcome of the GNSO PDP on IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Mechanisms. While the direct management of a GNSO PDP is a role for the GNSO Council, the Board does maintain strong interest in the progress of this PDP. The Board looks forward to receiving the final policy recommendations from the GNSO as well as any further GAC advice on this topic. The Board remains committed to facilitating discussions between all affected parties that may resolve any conflicts that may arise, and acknowledges its role under the ICANN Bylaws to act in the best interests of ICANN and the community, in furtherance of ICANN's Mission, consistent with the organization's Commitments and Core Values, and in accordance with the specific requirements of the Bylaws for receiving, considering, and acting on GNSO policy recommendations and GAC Advice.

On 11 July 2019 the ICANN Board Chair sent a letter notifying the GAC Chair that the GNSO Council has approved four policy recommendations that were developed by the GNSO's PDP Working Group on IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms which include the following points: no substantive changes to existing rights protection mechanisms are needed for INGOs; no specific new dispute resolution procedures should be created for IGOs; and clarifying policy guidance is to be developed as to the filing of complaints by IGOs under the existing procedures.

The four recommendations were posted for public comment on 11 July 2019 and will close on 20 August 2019. After the public comment period closes, the Board will meet to consider whether to adopt the four recommendations.

The GAC sent a letter to the Board on 20 August 2019 regarding the GNSO PDP on IGO-INGO Access to Curative RPMs Policy Recommendations. The Board provided a response on 14 October 2019 (item also noted below in the closed items).

As noted in the 26 Jan 2021 Letter from Maarten Botterman to Manal Ismail, "[t]he Board may only partially accept the GAC advice concerning a permanent system of notification when a registrant registers a domain name matching an IGO acronym.

As outlined in the Board's 22 October 2020 resolution, the Board believes at this time that the most appropriate solution (not including any curative rights mechanisms) regarding second level protections for IGO acronyms that is in the best interests of the ICANN community and ICANN will be for the ICANN organization to implement, as an operational matter, an ongoing (i.e. permanent) post-registration notification mechanism that will notify an affected IGO when a third party registers a second level domain matching that organization's acronym."

This advice item remains open for further Board consideration.

ICANN61 San Juan Communique

§1.a.IV.
GDPR and WHOIS

(15 Mar 2018)

Phase 3 | Evaluate & Consider

The ICANN Board initially considered this advice on 30 May 2018. However at the time, the Board responded, "as requested by the GAC in its 17 May 2018 letter to the ICANN Board Chair, the Board defers consideration of this advice pending further discussion with the GAC.

The Board most recently considered this item on 15 May 2019 and stated in the scorecard:

As noted in the Barcelona scorecard, the Board monitored the progress of the EPDP, which has now concluded its Phase 1work. The public comment on the EPDP Team Final Report closed on 17 April 2019, and ICANN org has published a report of public comments. Because the GAC stated that it "would welcome the ICANN Board's adoption the EPDP Phase 1 policy recommendations as soon as possible" and the EPDP Team has said that it "will determine and resolve the Legal vs. Natural issue in Phase 2", the Board continues to defer action on this advice.

ICANN61 San Juan Communique

§1.a.VI.
GDPR and WHOIS

(15 Mar 2018)

Phase 3 | Evaluate & Consider

The ICANN Board initially considered this advice on 30 May 2018. However at the time, the Board responded, "as requested by the GAC in its 17 May 2018 letter to the ICANN Board Chair, the Board defers consideration of this advice pending further discussion with the GAC."

The Board most recently considered this item on 15 May 2019 and stated in the scorecard:

The Board continues to defer action on this advice. Recommendation 3 of the EPDP Final Report states that the EPDP Team undertakes to make a recommendation pertaining to a standardised model for lawful disclosure of non-public Registration Data now that the gating questions in the charter have been answered. This will include addressing questions such as: Whether such a system should be adopted; What are the legitimate purposes for third parties to access registration data; What are the eligibility criteria for access to non-public Registration data; Do those parties/groups consist of different types of third-party requestors; What data elements should each user/party have access to?

This advice item remains open for further Board consideration.

ICANN61 San Juan Communique

§1.a.VII.
GDPR and WHOIS

(15 Mar 2018)

Phase 3 | Evaluate & Consider

The ICANN Board initially considered this advice on 30 May 2018. However at the time, the Board responded, "as requested by the GAC in its 17 May 2018 letter to the ICANN Board Chair, the Board defers consideration of this advice pending further discussion with the GAC."

The Board most recently considered this item on 15 May 2019 and stated in the scorecard:

The Board continues to defer action on this advice. Recommendation 3 of the EPDP Final Report states that the EPDP Team undertakes to make a recommendation pertaining to a standardised model for lawful disclosure of non-public Registration Data now that the gating questions in the charter have been answered. This will include addressing questions such as: Whether such a system should be adopted; What are the legitimate purposes for third parties to access registration data; What are the eligibility criteria for access to non-public Registration data; Do those parties/groups consist of different types of third-party requestors; What data elements should each user/party have access to?

This advice item remains open for further Board consideration.

ICANN61 San Juan Communique

§2.a.I.
IGO Reserved Acronyms

(15 Mar 2018)

Phase 3 | Evaluate & Consider

The ICANN Board initially considered this advice on 30 May 2018. However at the time, the Board responded, "The Board thanks the GAC for the clarifications provided on 15 May 2018. The Board has asked the ICANN Organization to review the advice in light of these responses and to assess the feasibility of the request. The Board will defer action on this item at this time, and in due course will engage with the GAC should further clarifications be necessary before taking action on this advice."

The Board most recently considered this item on 15 May 2019 and stated in the scorecard:

Following from the Board's response to the GAC's Panama Communique, the Board is aware that a feasibility study has been initiated by ICANN Org with the support of the GAC, WIPO, and OECD to ensure that the list of IGOs is as accurate and complete as possible. The Board intends to monitor the progress of this study and will engage with the GAC as necessary concerning ICANN Org's implementation of this advice.

On 11 July 2019 the ICANN Board Chair sent a letter notifying the GAC Chair that the GNSO Council has approved four policy recommendations that were developed by the GNSO's PDP Working Group on IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms which include the following points: no substantive changes to existing rights protection mechanisms are needed for INGOs; no specific new dispute resolution procedures should be created for IGOs; and clarifying policy guidance is to be developed as to the filing of complaints by IGOs under the existing procedures.

The four recommendations were posted for public comment on 11 July 2019 and will close on 20 August 2019. After the public comment period closes, the Board will meet to consider whether to adopt the four recommendations.

The GAC sent a letter to the Board on 20 August 2019 regarding the GNSO PDP on IGO-INGO Access to Curative RPMs Policy Recommendations. The Board provided a response on 14 October 2019 (item also noted below in the closed items).

As noted in the 26 Jan 2021 Letter from Maarten Botterman to Manal Ismail, "[t]he Board may only partially accept the GAC advice concerning a permanent system of notification when a registrant registers a domain name matching an IGO acronym.

As outlined in the Board's 22 October 2020 resolution, the Board believes at this time that the most appropriate solution (not including any curative rights mechanisms) regarding second level protections for IGO acronyms that is in the best interests of the ICANN community and ICANN will be for the ICANN organization to implement, as an operational matter, an ongoing (i.e. permanent) post-registration notification mechanism that will notify an affected IGO when a third party registers a second level domain matching that organization's acronym."

This advice item remains open for further Board consideration.

ICANN62 Panama Communique

§2.a.II.
Protection of IGO Identifiers

(28 Jun 2018)

Phase 3 | Evaluate & Consider

On 16 September 2018 the Board considered this advice and stated in its scorecard:

The Board notes that on 9 July 2018 the Final Report from the IGO-INGO access to curative rights protection mechanisms PDP was submitted to the GNSO Council, and it is currently under review by the GNSO Council. The Board will consider any PDP recommendations that are approved by the GNSO Council and ensure that GAC advice is adequately taken into account in any Board decisions. The Board also welcomes the GAC's desire to work with it and the GNSO and the Board is open to suggestions from the GAC as to how it believes such collaboration can constructively take place.

The GAC sent a letter to the Board on 20 August 2019 regarding the GNSO PDP on IGO-INGO Access to Curative RPMs Policy Recommendations. The Board provided a response on 14 October 2019 (item also noted below in the closed items).

As noted in the 26 Jan 2021 Letter from Maarten Botterman to Manal Ismail, "[t]he Board may only partially accept the GAC advice concerning a permanent system of notification when a registrant registers a domain name matching an IGO acronym.

As outlined in the Board's 22 October 2020 resolution, the Board believes at this time that the most appropriate solution (not including any curative rights mechanisms) regarding second level protections for IGO acronyms that is in the best interests of the ICANN community and ICANN will be for the ICANN organization to implement, as an operational matter, an ongoing (i.e. permanent) post-registration notification mechanism that will notify an affected IGO when a third party registers a second level domain matching that organization's acronym."

This advice item remains open for further Board consideration.

ICANN61 San Juan Communique

§1.b.III.
GDPR and WHOIS

(15 Mar 2018)

Phase 4 | Implement

On 30 May 2018 the Board considered the San Juan Communique and provided this response in its scorecard:

The Board accepts this advice. ICANN org's Government Stakeholder and IGO Engagement teams continue to facilitate regular engagement and capacity building activities with governments around the world. As part of their engagement activities, these team members continue to raise awareness about the changes to the WHOIS system related to compliance with the GDPR, and opportunities for inputs from governments.

In the Board's 30 May 2018 resolution and scorecard, ICANN org's Government Stakeholder and IGO Engagement teams "continue to facilitate regular engagement and capacity building activities with governments around the world. As part of their engagement activities, continue to raise awareness about the changes to the WHOIS system related to compliance with the GDPR, and opportunities for inputs from governments."

This item is currently in implementation.

ICANN62 Panama Communique

§1.a.I.
GDPR and WHOIS

(28 Jun 2018)

Phase 4 | Implement

On 16 September 2018 the Board considered this advice and stated in its scorecard:

The Board appreciates the GAC's communication on the sense of urgency as it relates to developing a unified access model. The Board notes that the ICANN org continues to seek input on the critical components of a unified access model for continued access to WHOIS data. The Board welcomes and encourages the GAC's input to this process.

Maarten Botterman noted in his 9 March 2021 letter to Manal Ismail, that the Board notified the GAC "that the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council has approved all of the Phase 2 policy recommendations developed during the Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP) on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data. Recommendations #1-18 related to the System for Standardized Access/Disclosure ("SSAD") are posted for public comment, in accordance with Article 3, Section 6.a-iii of the ICANN Bylaws, prior to Board action.

In the event that the GAC believes that there are public policy issues raised by these recommendations and provides advice accordingly on those issues, the ICANN Board will take the GAC's advice into account on this matter, as set forth in the Bylaws."

The Board also notes the GAC's ICANN70 advice requesting the Board to consider the GAC's minority statement on the EPDP Phase 2 report.

The Board adopted a scorecard related to the GAC ICANN70 Communique and addressed the advice in the scorecard, including an annex with a detailed response.

This item is currently in implementation.

ICANN62 Panama Communique

§2.a.III.
Protection of IGO Identifiers

(28 Jun 2018)

Phase 4 | Implement

On 16 September 2018 the Board considered this advice and stated in its scorecard:

The Board directs the ICANN org to provide adequate resources to assist the GAC in its endeavor to ensure accuracy and completeness of IGO contacts on the list of identifiers.

This item is currently in implementation.

ICANN64 Kobe Communique

§1.a.V.
WHOIS and Data Protection Legislation

(14 Mar 2019)

Phase 4 | Implement

On 15 May 2019 the Board adopted the scorecard titled "GAC Advice – Kobe Communiqué: Actions and Updates (15 May 2019)" in response to items of GAC advice in the Kobe Communiqué and the San Juan Communiqué. The Board accepts this advice and will do what it can, within its authority and remit, and in light of other relevant considerations, to facilitate swift implementation of new registration data directory services policies, and if possible, send distinct parts to implementation as and when they are agreed.

In the Board's 15 May 2019 resolution, it was noted that ICANN org continues to work "within its authority and remit, and in light of other relevant considerations, to facilitate swift implementation of new registration data directory services policies, and if possible, send distinct parts to implementation as and when they are agreed."

This item is currently in implementation.

ICANN66 Montreal Communique

§2.b.i.
Domain Name Registration Directory Service and Data Protection – Phase 2 of the EPDP

(6 Nov 2019)

Phase 4 | Implement

On 26 January 2020, the Board considered the Montreal Communique and provided this response in its scorecard:

"The Board notes that the GAC advice refers to a "current system" that requires "reasonable access" to non-public domain name registration. The Interim Registration Data Policy for gTLDs/Temporary Specification meets the "reasonable access" standard by requiring contracted parties to provide reasonable access to a requester who has a legitimate interest to data that is not outweighed by the fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject. The rules do not, however prescribe how the contracted providers comply with this requirement. The Interim Policy does not prescribe a "system" that the contracted parties must utilize in order to fulfill their access obligations, nor does it contain a contractually-mandated standard form for requests for third-party access.

Accordingly, the Board accepts the GAC's advise to ensure that the requirements to provide reasonable access are operating effectively consistent with existing Consensus Policy by instructing the ICANN org to:

– educate key stakeholder groups, including governments, that contracted parties are obligated to address requests for non-public data; and

-actively make available links to registrar and registry information and points of contact on this topic.

Although Org does not have authority to unilaterally obligate Contracted Parties to use a standard form, the Board directs ICANN org to collaborate with the Registry and Registrar Stakeholder Groups to develop a voluntary standard request form that can be used by stakeholders to request access based upon the current Consensus Policy and actively making that request form available."

ICANN org collaborated with RrSG and RySG on the standard request form. It revealed operational and implementation challenges with a "form," as advised by the GAC. (ex: Some Contracted Parties may have established request intake methods, such as web form or a customer portal process which may not be compatible with a "form".)

ICANN org, working with RrSG and RySG, developed a set of minimum required information which provides more flexibility and better usability to accomplish the goal of the GAC: "the current system to request "reasonable access" to non-public registration data is operating effectively."

ICANN org continues to engage with RySG and RrSG to explore solutions to fulfill this GAC Advice iem 2.b.i.

This item is currently in implementation.

ICANN49 Singapore Communique

§4.c.
Specific Strings – .ram and .indians

(27 Mar 2014)

8 June 2020

The NGPC published a comprehensive report of NGPC responses and updates to GAC Advice regarding the New gTLD Program on 7 October 2015 and provided this response in its scorecard:

In response to the GAC's advice in the Durban Communiqué concerning .RAM and .INDIANS, on 10 September 2013, the NGPC adopted an iteration of the Scorecard (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/resolutions-new-gtld-annex-1...) taking note of the concerns expressed in the GAC's advice. a) With respect to .RAM, in the 14 May 2014 iteration of the Scorecard (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/resolutions-new-gtld-annex-1...), the NGPC took note of the concerns expressed in the GAC's Singapore advice that "the application for .ram is a matter of extreme sensitivity for the Government of India on political and religious considerations." The NGPC also noted the applicant response to the Board from Chrysler Group LLC ("Chrysler") concerning this advice, in which Chrysler indicated that it "remains hopeful that an accommodation can be reached that addresses the Government's concerns, yet allows Chrysler to register and operate .RAM as a restricted, exclusively-controlled gTLD. Chrysler representatives are willing to meet with the Government of India to discuss the resolution of this matter at any time that is convenient for the Government." At this time, the NGPC continues to deliberate on this item of GAC advice and encourages the impacted parties to continue the noted discussions. b) With respect to .INDIANS, the NGPC notes that on 26 August 2014, the applicant for .INDIANS notified ICANN that it was withdrawing its application from the New gTLD Program.

The applicant for .RAM withdrew its application in October 2019. The Board provided an update on this item in a letter of 8 June 2020 (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/botterman-to-ismail-08jun20-en.pdf). This item is now closed.

ICANN62 Panama Communique

§2.a.I.
Protection of IGO Identifiers

(28 Jun 2018)

8 June 2020

On 16 September 2018 the Board considered this advice and stated in its scorecard:

The Board will continue to maintain current temporary protections of IGO acronyms pending resolution of this issue.

The acronyms of the IGO identified on the "IGO List" have been protected by reservation in New gTLDs based on the direction of the Board from July 2013. This was implemented through the update to the reserved names list: https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/packages/reserved-names/ReservedNames.xml#IGOs-2.

The Board provided an update on this item in a letter of 8 June 2020 (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/botterman-to-ismail-08jun20-en.pdf). This item is now closed.

ICANN63 Barcelona Communique

§1.a.III.
Two-Character Country Codes at the Second Level

(25 Oct 2018)

8 June 2020

On 27 January 2019 the Board considered the Barcelona Communique and provided this response in its scorecard:

The Board acknowledges that some GAC members have expressed concerns regarding the process for release of two-character labels at the second-level and that the GAC has issued advice directing the ICANN org to engage with concerned governments. The Board notes that the ICANN org conducted telephonic conversations with concerned governments in May 2017 explaining the rationale and development of the framework adopted by the 8 November 2016 Board resolution. Additionally, the ICANN Board and org engaged in discussions with the GAC at the Board-GAC Recommendation Implementation (BGRI) meetings at ICANN61, ICANN62 and ICANN63. The adopted Measures also urged registry operators to engage with the relevant GAC members when a risk is identified in order to come to an agreement on how to manage it or to have a third-party assessment of the situation if the name in question was already registered, advice which the GAC provided in its Helsinki Communiqué. The Board notes that the ICANN org is developing a dedicated webpage for the GAC members to easily track the registration of two-character domain names that correspond with a specific country code and which enables GAC members to submit a request for ICANN compliance action in the event of a perceived misuse. This service will aggregate two-character second level domains automatically to a table on the GAC site, which can also be downloaded for offline analysis by GAC members. The service will run daily after all root zone files are updated, aggregating all new two-character second-level domain registrations and displaying to GAC Members. The ICANN org also describes this engagement and these tools in in its memo and Historical Overview. Although the Board believes that the advice to engage with concerned governments to explain the process and rationale has been fully implemented, the Board directs the ICANN President and CEO to continue to develop the tools as noted above to allow concerned GAC members to track two-character registrations.

The Board and the GAC discussed the development of the tool during the BGIG meeting at ICANN65 in Marrakech. The tool was subject to further discussion during ICANN66 in Montreal. The ICANN organization will be available to answer questions regarding the tool on an ongoing basis.

The Board provided an update on this item in a letter of 8 June 2020 (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/botterman-to-ismail-08jun20-en.pdf). This item is now closed.

ICANN64 Kobe Communique

§1.a.I.
WHOIS and Data Protection Legislation

(14 Mar 2019)

8 June 2020

On 15 May 2019 the Board adopted the scorecard titled "GAC Advice – Kobe Communiqué: Actions and Updates (15 May 2019)" in response to items of GAC advice in the Kobe Communiqué and the San Juan Communiqué. The Board acknowledges this advice and while it cannot guarantee the end result, because the EPDP is a community procedure that determines its own processes, the Board does support the request that the second phase of this policy development institute concrete milestones and progress reports. The Board shall convey the request via its Liaisons to the EPDP and via its communications with the GNSO Council. The Board notes that ICANN org is also providing support to the EPDP Phase 2 to support its work.

The EPDP Team has reported on its project milestones regularly, including regular updates to the GNSO Council (the body overseeing the policy development) as well as community updates via pre-ICANN webinars and cross-community sessions at ICANN meetings. For more information on the EPDP Team's workplan, please refer to the following page: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=105388008.

The Board provided an update on this item in a letter of 8 June 2020 (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/botterman-to-ismail-08jun20-en.pdf). This item is now closed.

ICANN64 Kobe Communique

§1.a.II.
WHOIS and Data Protection Legislation

(14 Mar 2019)

8 June 2020

On 15 May 2019 the Board adopted the scorecard titled "GAC Advice – Kobe Communiqué: Actions and Updates (15 May 2019)" in response to items of GAC advice in the Kobe Communiqué and the San Juan Communiqué. The Board acknowledges this advice and while it cannot guarantee the end result, because the EPDP is a community procedure that determines its own processes, the Board does support the request that the second phase of this policy development institute concrete milestones and progress reports. The Board shall convey the request via its Liaisons to the EPDP and via its communications with the GNSO Council. The Board notes that ICANN org is also providing support to the EPDP Phase 2 to support its work.

The EPDP Team constructed a work plan, where it clearly defined all issues to be handled in Phase 2, and the Team classified all in-scope topics as Priority 1 and Priority 2. Since the GNSO Council's approval of its work plan, the EPDP Team has been making progress and is currently on-target to meet its first milestone of publishing its Initial Report. For more information on the EPDP Team's workplan, please refer to the following page: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=105388008.

The Board provided an update on this item in a letter of 8 June 2020 (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/botterman-to-ismail-08jun20-en.pdf). This item is now closed.

ICANN66 Montreal Communique

§2.a.i.
Domain Name Registration Directory Service and Data Protection – Phase 1 of the EPDP

(6 Nov 2019)

8 June 2020

On 26 January 2020, the Board considered the Montreal Communique and provided this response in its scorecard:

"The Board accepts this advice. The Board agrees that a realistic schedule for the implementation of the EPDP Phase 1 work plan is a prudent component of the implementation plan. The Board notes the ICANN org sent a letter to the GAC chair on 6 January 2020 with a status update as requested by the GAC. In that letter the Org cites they are applying the Consensus Policy Implementation Framework (CPIF) and summarizes both this process and progress to date. Additionally the letter notes that the implementation plan that will be published for public comment will include an implementation timeline. The Board will continue to closely monitor the implementation of the EPDP Phase 1 work."

The Board provided an update on this item in a letter of 8 June 2020 (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/botterman-to-ismail-08jun20-en.pdf). This item is now closed.