ICANN Resolutions » GAC Advice: San Juan Communiqué (March 2018)
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.
Whereas, the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) met during the ICANN61 meeting in San Juan, Puerto Rico and issued advice to the ICANN Board in a Communiqué [PDF, 234 KB] on 15 March 2018 ("San Juan Communiqué").
Whereas, the San Juan Communiqué was the subject of an exchange between the Board and the GAC on 11 April 2018.
Whereas, in a 7 May 2018 letter [PDF, 237 KB], the GNSO Council provided its feedback to the Board concerning advice in the San Juan Communiqué relevant to generic top-level domains to inform the Board and the community of gTLD policy activities that may relate to advice provided by the GAC.
Whereas, the GDPR advice was the subject of an informal consultation between the Board and the GAC on 8 May 2018.
Whereas, in a 11 May 2018 letter [PDF, 315 KB], the Board provided its preliminary positions on the GAC advice related to GDPR and WHOIS.
Whereas, in a 17 May 2018 letter [PDF, 525 KB], the GAC responded to the Board's preliminary positions on the GAC advice related to GDPR and WHOIS.
Whereas, in its resolution of 17 May 2018, the Board deferred formal action on determining that there are likely to be elements of the Temporary Specification [PDF, 736 KB] that are inconsistent or could be viewed as inconsistent with certain items of GAC advice in the San Juan Communiqué.
Whereas, the Board developed an iteration of the scorecard to respond to the GAC's advice in the San Juan Communiqué, taking into account the dialogue and correspondence between the Board and the GAC, and the information provided by the GNSO Council.
Resolved (2018.05.30.03), the Board adopts the scorecard titled "GAC Advice – San Juan Communiqué: Actions and Updates (30 May 2018)" [PDF, 571 KB] in response to items of GAC advice in the San Juan Communiqué.
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 San Juan Communiqué (15 March 2018), the GAC issued advice to the Board on: General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and WHOIS; and, Intergovernmental Organization (IGO) reserved acronyms. The GAC also provided a follow-up to previous advice on: Applications for dot Amazon and related strings, and 2-Character Country/Territory Codes at the 2nd Level. 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.
Following the GAC response [PDF, 525 KB] to its preliminary positions on the GAC advice related to GDPR and WHOIS, provided in a letter [PDF, 315 KB] on 11 May 2018, the Board deferred formal action on determining that there are likely to be elements of the Temporary Specification [PDF, 736 KB] that are inconsistent or could be viewed as inconsistent with certain items of GAC advice in the San Juan Communiqué. The Board is taking action today to accept six of the items related to GDPR and WHOIS and will defer consideration of the remaining four items related to GDPR and WHOIS pending further discussion with the GAC. The Board will consider if further action is needed following these discussions. The Board's actions are described in the scorecard [PDF, 571 KB] dated 30 May 2018.
In adopting its response to the GAC advice in the San Juan Communiqué, the Board reviewed various materials, including, but not limited to, the following materials and documents:
San Juan Communiqué (15 March 2018): https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/gac-to-icann-15mar1... [PDF, 234 KB]
The GNSO Council's review of the advice in the San Juan Communiqué as presented in the 7 May 2018 letter to the Board: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/forrest-et-al-to-ch... [PDF, 237 KB]
The GAC letter of 15 May 2018 regarding answers to Board clarifying questions on GAC San Juan Advice related to the list of IGOs Names: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/ismail-to-chalaby-1... [PDF, 699 KB]
The GAC letter of 17 May 2018 regarding the response to the letter from the ICANN Board regarding the revised scorecard on the ICANN61 GAC GDPR Advice: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/ismail-to-chalaby-1... [PDF, 525 KB]
This action is in furtherance of ICANN's mission as the Board is obligated under the Bylaws to consider the GAC's advice on public policy matters. This is also in the public interest, as the Board is considering the views of the GAC as well as other parts of the community in resolving these pending items of advice.
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. 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.