ICANN Resolutions » GAC Communiqué Durban - Scorecard

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 Communiqué Durban - Scorecard


Resolution of the New gTLD Program Committee
Topic: 
GAC Communique Durban Scorecard
Summary: 

NGPC adopts the “ICANN Board New gTLD Program Committee Scorecard in response to GAC Durban Communiqué” (10 September 2013).

Category: 
Board
Meeting Date: 
周二, 10 九月 2013
Resolution Number: 
2013.09.10.NG03
Resolution Text: 

Whereas, the GAC met during the ICANN 47 meeting in Durban and issued a Communiqué on 18 July 2013 (“Durban Communiqué”).

Whereas, on 1 August 2013, ICANN posted the Durban Communiqué and officially notified applicants of the advice <http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/announcements-and-media/announcement-01aug13-en>, triggering the 21-day applicant response period pursuant to the Applicant Guidebook Module 3.1.

Whereas, the NGPC met on 12 August 2013 to consider a plan for responding to the GAC’s advice on the New gTLD Program, transmitted to the Board through its Durban Communiqué.

Whereas, the NGPC has considered the applicant responses submitted during the 21- day applicant response period, and the NGPC has identified items of advice in the attached scorecard where its position is consistent with the GAC’s advice in the Durban Communiqué.

Whereas, the NGPC developed a scorecard to respond to the GAC’s advice in the Durban Communiqué similar to the one used to address the Beijing Advice as well as during the GAC and the Board meetings in Brussels on 28 February and 1 March 2011, and has identified where the NGPC’s position is consistent with GAC advice, noting those as “1A” items.

Whereas, the NGPC is undertaking this action pursuant to the authority granted to it by the Board on 10 April 2012, to exercise the ICANN Board’s authority for any and all issues that may arise relating to the New gTLD Program.

 

Resolved (2013.09.10.NG03), the NGPC adopts the “ICANN Board New gTLD Program Committee Scorecard in response to GAC Durban Communiqué” (10 September 2013), attached as Annex 1 to this Resolution, in response to the items of GAC advice in the Durban Communiqué as presented in the scorecard.

Rationale for Resolution: 

Why the NGPC is addressing the issue?

Article XI, Section 2.1 of the ICANN Bylaws <http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws - XI> permit 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.” The GAC issued advice to the Board on the New gTLD Program through its Durban Communiqué dated 18 July 2013. 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. The Board and the GAC will then try in good faith to find a mutually acceptable solution. If no solution can be found, the Board will state in its final decision why the GAC advice was not followed.

 

What is the proposal being considered?

The NGPC is being asked to consider accepting the GAC’s Durban advice as described in the attached ICANN Board New gTLD Program Committee Scorecard in response to GAC Durban Communiqué” (10 September 2013). As noted in the scorecard, most items of advice are scored as “1A,” which indicates that the NGPC’s position is consistent with GAC advice as described in the scorecard.

 

Which stakeholders or others were consulted?

On 1 August 2013, ICANN posted the GAC advice and officially notified applicants of the advice <http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/announcements-and-media/announcement-01aug13-en>, triggering the 21-day applicant response period pursuant to the Applicant Guidebook Module 3.1. The complete set of applicant responses are provided at: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/gac-advice/durban47. The NGPC has considered the applicant responses in formulating its response to the GAC advice as applicable.

 

What concerns or issues were raised by the community?

As part of the 21-day applicant response period, several of the applicants indicated that they have entered into dialogue with the affected parties, and they anticipated reaching agreement on the areas of concern. Some of the applicants noted that they have proposed additional safeguards to address the concerns of the relevant governments are unsure as to whether a settlement can be reached. These applicants asked that the ICANN Board allow their applications to proceed even if an agreement among the relevant parties cannot be reached. Additionally, inquiries have been made as to whether applicants and the relevant governments will have the opportunity to comment on conversations among the GAC, ICANN Board, and ICANN staff. There have been requests that that the GAC, NGPC, and ICANN staff consult with applicants before decisions regarding any additional safeguards are made.

 

Other applicants noted the important role of governments in the multi-stakeholder model, but advised the NGPC that it should not allow governments to exercise veto power over ICANN policies adopted through the multi-stakeholder process.

 

What significant materials did the Board review?

As part of its deliberations, the NGPC reviewed the following materials and documents:

 

{C}·      GAC Durban Communiqué:

 https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/27132037/Final_GAC_Communique_Durban_20130717.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1374215119858&api=v2

 

{C}·      Applicant responses to GAC advice: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/gac-advice/durban47

 

{C}·      Applicant Guidebook, Module 3:

http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/objection-procedures-04jun12-en.pdf

 

{C}·      Summary of Applicant Responses to GAC Advice in the Durban Communiqué (see reference materials).

 

What factors did the Board find to be significant?

In adopting its response to the GAC’s advice in the Durban Communiqué, the NGPC considered the applicant comments submitted, the GAC’s advice transmitted in the Durban Communiqué, and the procedures established in the AGB.

 

Are there positive or negative community impacts?

The adoption of the GAC advice as provided in the attached scorecard will assist with resolving the GAC advice in manner that permits the greatest number of new gTLD applications to continue to move forward as soon as possible.

 

Are there fiscal impacts or ramifications on ICANN (strategic plan, operating plan, budget); the community; and/or the public?

There are no foreseen fiscal impacts associated with the adoption of this resolution.

 

Are there any security, stability or resiliency issues relating to the DNS?

Approval of the proposed resolution will not impact security, stability or resiliency issues relating to the DNS.

 

Is this either a defined policy process within ICANN's Supporting Organizations or ICANN's Organizational Administrative Function decision requiring public comment or not requiring public comment?

ICANN posted the GAC advice and officially notified applicants of the advice on 1 August 2013. This triggered the 21-day applicant response period pursuant to the Applicant Guidebook Module 3.1.