GNSO Council Resolutions-12 Apr 2012

Colleagues,

I just read the last resolution past today - see below. I must state my utter disappointment, for 3 reasons:

First at the Stakeholders' Group level, it was agreed in NCSG-PC exchanges that the concept of "International Legal Personality" flushed out by NPOC in San José, was valuable and would be part of a "whereas" clause of our motion or any friendly motion supported by NCSG GNSO Councillors. I note with regret that this was not respected.

Second, the resolution deals only with IGOs (International Governmental Organizations). It exclude International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGOs), a major current and future constituency of NPOC. The Red Cross for instance is not an IGO, it is an INGO with "International Legal Personality". In a multi-stakeholder organization like ICANN, the place and voice of civil society must be equal to that of governments, individuals and private sector. Not including INGOs in this resolution is not adhering to that principle and places civil society as "last amongst equals". Including only IGOs places Governments as "first amongst equals".

Finally, it is also very disappointing that after a long period of systematic complaints by NCUC members about the lack of participation in policy debate by NPOC members, that the very first substantive proposal by NPOC since Dakar is brushed aside. I wrote at least two recent emails to indicate the NPOC position was clear and strong about insertion of the concept of "ILP" in a "Whereas" paragraph. So much for NCUC-NPOC agreement of collaboration agreed to in San José. In retrospect, with all GNSO Councillors for NCSG coming from NCUC, it was naive of me to assume and trust that NPOC's relatively well balanced suggestion would not be eroded little by little until it was totally diluted out in the statement: *"And whereas various possible criteria for the grant of protective rights to such organizations was suggested at the ICANN meeting in Costa Rica". *I know of only one criteria proposal suggested in Costa Rica: the use of the International Legal Personality test proposed by NPOC. The Portugal representative statement at the GAC meeting alluded possibly to this generic concept but was not as carefully and sharply worded as the NPOC proposal. Very disappointing and quite a missed opportunity to work together...

It only means that we need to get NPOC members elected to GNSO positions. Unfortunatley, with the NCSG voting landscape as it now stands, this is very unlikely for a long long time!

Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA
Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca<http://www.ceci.ca/en/about-ceci/team/board-of-directors/>
Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, http://www.schulich.yorku.ca 
Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, http://www.gkpfoundation.org 
NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, http://www.chasquinet.org 
Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/
O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824
Skype: alain.berranger

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 12:04 PM
Subject: [liaison6c] GNSO Council resolutions 12 April 2012
To: liaison6c <liaison6c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Dear All,

The GNSO Council passed the following resolutions at the meeting
today, 12 April  2012.

A recording of the meeting is available at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-20120412-en.mp3

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Thank you.

Kind regards,

Glen

1. Motion to delay the ‘thick’ Whois Policy Development Process

Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on ‘thick’ Whois at
its meeting on 22 September 2011 (see
http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109);

Whereas a Preliminary Issue Report on ‘thick’ Whois was prepared by
staff and posted on 21 November 2011 for public comment (see
http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-21nov11-en.htm);

Whereas a Final Issue Report on ‘thick’ Whois was published on 2
February 2012 (see
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/final-report-thick-whois-02feb12-en.pdf);

Whereas the Final Issue Report recommends that the GNSO Council
proceed with a Policy Development Process limited to consideration of
the issues discussed in this report, and the General Counsel of ICANN
has indicated the topic is properly within the scope of the ICANN
policy process and within the scope of the GNSO;****

Whereas the GNSO Council initiated a Policy Development Process at its
meeting of 14 March 2012 (see
http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#20120314-1);

Whereas at its wrap up session on 15 March, also taking into account
the current workload of the GNSO community, the GNSO Council voiced
support for a delay in the start of the PDP until contract
negotiations on the .com agreement are complete, as the results of
that negotiation may determine whether a PDP on ‘thick’ Whois is still
required.

THEREFORE BE IT:

Resolved, the next step (creating a drafting team to develop a
charter) of the ‘thick’ Whois PDP will be delayed until the .com
negotiations have been completed by 30 November 2012.

2. Motion to delay the ‘thick’ Whois Policy Development Process

Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on ‘thick’ Whois at
its meeting on 22 September 2011 (see
http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109);

Whereas a Preliminary Issue Report on ‘thick’ Whois was prepared by
staff and posted on 21 November 2011 for public comment (see
http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-21nov11-en.htm);

Whereas a Final Issue Report on ‘thick’ Whois was published on 2
February 2012 (see
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/final-report-thick-whois-02feb12-en.pdf);

Whereas the Final Issue Report recommends that the GNSO Council
proceed with a Policy Development Process limited to consideration of
the issues discussed in this report, and the General Counsel of ICANN
has indicated the topic is properly within the scope of the ICANN
policy process and within the scope of the GNSO;

Whereas the GNSO Council initiated a Policy Development Process at its
meeting of 14 March 2012 (see
http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#20120314-1);

Whereas at its wrap up session on 15 March, taking into account the
current workload of the GNSO community, the GNSO Council voiced
support for a delay in the start of the PDP until both ICANN staff and
GNSO resources are available to deal with this. 

THEREFORE BE IT:

Resolved, the next step (creating a drafting team to develop a
charter) of the ‘thick’ Whois PDP will be delayed until the first GNSO
Council meeting after 30 November 2012.

3. Motion to request an Issue Report on the protection of names and acronyms of IGOs

Whereas on September 7, 2007 the GNSO Council approved by
supermajority vote a PDP on new gTLDs with a number of
recommendations, none of which afforded special protection to specific
applicants;

Whereas the GNSO Council passed a resolution approving new protections
for the first round of the new gTLD program as recommended by the
GNSO's International Olympic Committee (IOC) and Red Cross/Red
Crescent (RC) Drafting Team;

Whereas this resolution indicated that further discussions were
required on associated policies relating to protections for certain
international organizations at the second level, if any;

Whereas comments have been received coincident with the motion that
included requests from international governmental organizations
requesting the same protective rights as those for the IOC/RCRC for
the current and future rounds of the new gTLD program;

And whereas various possible criteria for the grant of protective
rights to such organizations was suggested at the ICANN meeting in
Costa Rica.

Now therefore be it resolved,

The GNSO Council requests an issue report to precede the possibility
of a PDP that covers the following issues:

- Definition of the type of organizations that should receive special
protection at the top and second level, if any; and

- Policies required to protect such organizations at the top and
second level.