ICANN Resolutions » GAC Advice: Montréal Communiqué (November 2019)

Important note: The Board Resolutions are as reported in the Board Meeting Transcripts, Minutes & Resolutions portion of ICANN's website. Only the words contained in the Resolutions themselves represent the official acts of the Board. The explanatory text provided through this database (including the summary, implementation actions, identification of related resolutions, and additional information) is an interpretation or an explanation that has no official authority and does not represent the purpose behind the Board actions, nor does any explanations or interpretations modify or override the Resolutions themselves. Resolutions can only be modified through further act of the ICANN Board.

GAC Advice: Montréal Communiqué (November 2019)


Resolution of the ICANN Board
Meeting Date: 
Sun, 26 Jan 2020
Resolution Number: 
2020.01.26.09
Resolution Text: 

Whereas, the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) met during the ICANN66 meeting in Montréal, Canada and issued a communiqué on 6 November 2019 ("Montréal Communiqué"), which contains four items of consensus advice and three items of follow-up to previous advice. The consensus advice concerns the CCT Review and Subsequent Rounds of New gTLDs, and Domain Name Registration Directory Service and Data Protection. The follow-up to previous advice concerns Protection of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Designations and Identifiers, IGO Protections, and Domain Name Registration Directory Services and Data Protection.

Whereas, in a 16 December 2019 letter, the ICANN President and CEO provided information on the implementation efforts related to the CCT Review and posed clarifying questions regarding the GAC's advice on the topic to the GAC Chair.

Whereas, in a 17 December 2019 call, the ICANN Board and GAC discussed the Montréal Communiqué and any clarifying questions from the ICANN Board regarding the GAC's advice.

Whereas, in a 19 December 2019 letter, the GNSO Council provided its feedback to the Board concerning the follow-up to previous advice contained in the Montréal Communiqué.

Whereas, in a 6 January 2020 letter, ICANN org provided an update on the EPDP Phase 1 Implementation schedule, as requested by the GAC in its Montréal Communiqué.

Whereas, in a 22 January 2020 letter, the GAC provided additional clarifications regarding its advice in its Montréal Communiqué.

Whereas, the Board developed a scorecard to respond to the GAC's advice in the Montréal Communiqué, taking into account previous dialogue between the Board and the GAC on the topics as well as the information provided by the GNSO Council.

Resolved (2020.01.26.09), the Board adopts the scorecard titled "GAC Advice – Montréal Communiqué: Actions and Updates (26 January 2020)" in response to items of GAC advice in the Montréal Communiqué.

Rationale for Resolution: 

Article 12, Section 12.2(a)(ix) of the ICANN Bylaws permits the GAC to "put issues to the Board directly, either by way of comment or prior advice, or by way of specifically recommending action or new policy development or revision to existing policies." In its Montréal Communiqué (6 November 2019), the GAC issued consensus advice to the Board on the CCT Review and Subsequent Rounds of New gTLDs, and Domain Name Registration Directory Service and Data Protection. The GAC also issued follow-ups to previous advice on the Protection of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Designations and Identifiers, IGO Protections, and Domain Name Registration Directory Services and Data Protection. The ICANN Bylaws require the Board to take into account the GAC's advice on public policy matters in the formulation and adoption of the polices. If the Board decides to take an action that is not consistent with the GAC advice, it must inform the GAC and state the reasons why it decided not to follow the advice. Any GAC advice approved by a full consensus of the GAC (as defined in the Bylaws) may only be rejected by a vote of no less than 60% of the Board, and the GAC and the Board will then try, in good faith and in a timely and efficient manner, to find a mutually acceptable solution.

The Board is taking action today on all items in the Montréal Communiqué.

The Board's actions are described in the scorecard dated 26 January 2020.

In adopting its response to the GAC advice in the Montréal Communiqué, the Board reviewed various materials, including, but not limited to, the following materials and documents:

Board resolutions of 15 May 2019 regarding the Kobe Communiqué: https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2019-05-15-en...

Montréal Communiqué (6 November 2019): https://gac.icann.org/contentMigrated/icann66-montreal-communique

16 December 2019 letter from ICANN President and CEO to GAC Chair regarding the GAC's advice on the CCT Review and Subsequent Rounds of New gTLDs: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/marby-to-ismail-16d...

The GNSO Council's review of the follow-up to previous advice in the Montréal Communiqué as presented in the 19 December 2019 letter to the Board: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/drazek...

6 January 2020 letter from ICANN President and CEO to GAC Chair regarding the EPDP Phase 1 Implementation Schedule: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/marby-to-ismail-06j...

22 January 2020 letter from GAC Chair to ICANN Board Chair regarding additional clarifications of the Montréal Communiqué advice: https://gac.icann.org/contentMigrated/gac-response-to-icann-board-clarif...

The adoption of the GAC advice as provided in the scorecard will have a positive impact on the community because it will assist with resolving the advice from the GAC concerning gTLDs and other matters. Acting on GAC advice is aligned with ICANN's mission and the GAC's role in ICANN's multistakeholder model, and supports the public interest. There are no foreseen fiscal impacts associated with the adoption of this resolution. Approval of the resolution will not impact security, stability or resiliency issues relating to the DNS. This is an Organizational Administrative function that does not require public comment.