2. GAC-GNSO Joint Meeting
6 March 2016

3. Agenda 1 2 3
CCWG-Accountability Supplemental Final Report – Status Update
Welcome
Update from GAC-GNSO Consultation Group 4 5
This is a stylized agenda slide for your presentation.
To delete a box, if there are too many boxes, click the edge of the box, ensure the entire box is highlighted, then DELETE.
To update the numbers and text, click inside the circle for the numbers or in the box for the text, revise the text.
Status update on GAC Activities
GNSO Policy Development Processes - Status Update
Here’s a place to introduce your sixth agenda item from your talk.

4. 1. Welcome
Breakup your presentation, divide it into sections. This is especially useful if most of your presentation is text.

5. 2. Update from GAC-GNSO Consultation Group on GAC Early Engagement in GNSO PDP
Breakup your presentation, divide it into sections. This is especially useful if most of your presentation is text.

6. Current Status
Joint GNSO – GAC initiative - Explore and enhance ways of early engagement of the GAC in relation to GNSO policy development activities.
Work divided into two tracks:
Day-to-day ongoing co-ordination
GAC Early engagement in GNSO PDP
Deliverables to date:
GNSO Liaison to the GAC – A Pilot Project
Implementation of PDP Issue Scoping recommendations as a pilot (‘Quick Look Mechanism’)
Monthly PDP “one-pagers” highlighting next engagement opportunity
Joint GAC-GNSO Leadership calls prior to ICANN meetings to prepare (this) joint session and discuss any items of common interest

7. Review of the GNSO Liaison to the GAC
Current Status
Questions
Implemented as a pilot project
CG has reviewed role and functioning
Found that it contributed to facilitating GAC early engagement in GNSO PDP
Provided recommendation to the GAC/GNSO to continue this role as a permanent position in the next fiscal year
Proposed the following modifications:
Regular co-ordination calls between Liaison & GAC Secretariat
No term limit, but role reviewed & reconfirmed by GNSO Council annually
Role of Liaison formalized in GNSO Operating Procedures
Liaison invited to attend GNSO Council as an observer
Do you agree with the recommendations and findings of the CG?
 If yes, move forward with implementation of GNSO Liaison as a permanent role ?

8. Review of Quick Look Mechanism
Current Status
Questions
Quick Look Mechanism is being implemented on a trial basis
For a minimum of 3 consecutive GNSO PDP's
CG reviewed use of Quick Look Mechanism to date – so far applied in the case of 3 PDPs
A number of simplifications have been identified to further streamline the process
What is the experience from others involved in this process to date (e.g. GAC Quick Look Committee, GAC Secretariat, GNSO liaison to the GAC)
Are there any improvements that can already be identified that should be considered by the Consultation Group?
Does the Quick Look Mechanism facilitate preparation and engagement of the GAC in the later stages of a PDP?
 CG to review feedback and modify proposed simplifications if needed ?

9. Remaining Stages of the GNSO PDP
Current Status
Questions
CG reviewed additional engagement opportunities in subsequent phases of PDP (e.g. Initiation, Working Group)
Documented recommendations and also ideas for further exploration put forward to the GAC and GNSO for input
What is your feedback on the recommendations and ideas for early engagement?
 CG to consider next steps, including which recommendations to put forward for GAC/GNSO approval, factoring in feedback received ?

10. 3. CCWG-Accountability Supplemental Final Report – Status Update
Breakup your presentation, divide it into sections. This is especially useful if most of your presentation is text.

11. 4. Status update on GAC Activities
Breakup your presentation, divide it into sections. This is especially useful if most of your presentation is text.

12. 5. GNSO Policy Development Processes – Status Update
Breakup your presentation, divide it into sections. This is especially useful if most of your presentation is text.

13. Next-Generation RDS to replace WHOIS
PDP WG Status Update

14. Purpose of PDP - Phase 1
What are the fundamental requirements for gTLD registration data? When addressing this, the PDP WG should consider, at a minimum, five questions: users/purposes, associated access, accuracy, data element, & privacy requirements
Is a new policy framework and next-generation RDS needed to address these requirements?
If yes, what cross-cutting requirements must any next-generation RDS address, including questions 6-11: coexistence, compliance, system model, and cost, benefit, and risk analysis requirements
If no, does the current WHOIS policy framework sufficiently address these requirements? If not, what revisions are recommended to the current WHOIS policy framework to do so?

15. PDP WG initiation activities completed
GNSO Council approved WG Charter on 19 November 2015
Call for Volunteers initiated on 4 January 2016
Initial WG Meeting on 26 January 2016
WG Composition: 134 WG Members & 110 Observers as of 1 March 2016
WG Leadership Team: Chuck Gomes (Chair), David Cake (Vice Chair), Susan Kawaguchi (Vice Chair), Michele Neylon (Vice Chair)

16. PDP WG activities now underway
Small team is reviewing existing WG Membership GNSO SG/C and SO/AC affiliations and expertise to identify gaps requiring outreach (if any)
Draft Work Plan was prepared by leadership team for WG discussion
Charter divides this WG’s effort into three phases
Per charter, initial tasks focus on Phase One (requirements):
Define requirements for registration data services, regardless of the system used to deliver them
Decide whether a new RDS is needed and, if so, why or if not, how would existing WHOIS need to be modified
Initial outreach message to SO/ACs and GNSO SG/Cs now being drafted
WG leadership has reached out to Board WG on RDS to ensure coordination – informal meeting scheduled for Monday 7 March
WG now reviewing available inputs to start identifying possible requirements

17. Further Information
RDS PDP WG Wiki Workspace Generation+gTLD+Registration+Directory+Services+to+Replace+Whois
WG Charter
Final Issue Report report-next-generation-rds-07oct15-en.pdf
WG F2F Meeting in Marrakech on Wednesday 9 March from – local time -

18. New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP
Status Update

19. Purpose of New gtTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP
Determine what, if any changes may need to be made to the existing Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains policy recommendations from 8 August 2007.
Original policy recommendations as adopted by the GNSO Council and ICANN Board have “been designed to produce a systemized and ongoing mechanisms for applicants to propose new top-level domains”
If changes needed:
Clarifying, amending or overriding existing policy principles, recommendations, and implementation guidance;
Developing new policy recommendations;
Supplementing or developing new implementation guidance

20. Current Status
Following the work of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Discussion Group, the GNSO Council requested a Preliminary Issue Report on 24 June 2015
Staff published the Preliminary Issue Report for public comment on 31 August 2015 – 14 comments submitted
Final Issue Report incorporated input received and submitted to GNSO Council on 4 December 2015
GNSO Council initiated PDP on 17 December 2015
GNSO Council adopted charter on 21 January 2016
Call for volunteers published on 27 January 2016
~80 WG members and ~30 Mail List Observers
First WG Meeting held on 22 February
Charter adoption delayed as concerns raised about potential overlap between New gTLD Sub Proc and RPMs. Second-level RPMs related policy recommendations beyond remit of New gTLD group, although potential for group to consider RPMs related topics if RPMs PDP does not intend to discuss.
Set of nearly 40 subjects identified by DG and detailed in Final Issue Report/captured in Charter (e.g., fundamentally whether new gTLDs are needed, how it should be configured – rounds, how global public interest is incorporated, exclusive use of generics, base registry agreement, etc.)
Subjects serve as basis of work for PDP WG

21. Next Steps 1 4 2 5 3 Confirm WG Leadership Keep Eyes and Ears Open
Jeff Neuman, Avri Doria and Stephen Coates have been selected as co-chars. 1 4
Keep Eyes and Ears Open
There are other review efforts underway or already completed that should be considered by WG 2
Develop Work Plan
The WG needs to develop work plan to identify necessary steps, timeline, and milestones. 5
Seek Input
As the WG makes progress, it should solicit statements from SG/Cs and as appropriate SO/ACs 3
Decide on Schedule
The WG will need to agree to a schedule for its ongoing meetings.

22. More Information
Final Issue Report -
WG Wiki -
WG face to face at ICANN55 – Thursday 10 March, 9:00-10:30 local time -

23. PDP to Review all RPMs in all gTLDs
Status Update

24. Where are we now and how did we get here?
Feb 2011: GNSO Council requests Issue Report on current state of UDRP
Nov 2011: Staff recommends waiting till 18 months after New gTLD Prog launch
Dec 2011: GNSO Council requests Issue Report on all RPMs for 18 months after New gTLD Program launch
9 October 2015:
Preliminary Issue Report on review of all RPMs in all gTLDs published
15 January 2016:
Final Issue Report submitted to GNSO Council
18 February 2016:
GNSO Council meeting on initiating PDP; discussion of scope of WG Charter

25. What are the RPMs to be Reviewed in this PDP?
Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedures (PDDRPs)
Sunrise Period and Trademark Claims Service
Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS)
The URS was designed as a complement to the UDRP, to provide trademark owners with a quick and low-cost process to suspend domain names based on the same substantive grounds as the UDRP. It applies only to domain names registered in the New gTLDs.
The PDDRPs provide alternative avenues for a trademark holder who is harmed by a new gTLD registry operator’s conduct to obtain redress.
Sunrise services provide trademark holders with an advance opportunity to register domain names corresponding to their marks before names are generally available to the public.
The Trademark Claims period follows the Sunrise period and runs for at least the first 90 days in which domain names are generally made available to all registrants that are qualified to register domain names within the TLD.
Trademark Clearing
House (TMCH)
Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP)
The UDRP was created in 1999 and provides a uniform, standardized, alternative dispute resolution procedure to resolve disputes concerning who is the rightful holder of a registered domain name. It is applicable to all domains registered in all generic top-level domains (gTLDs).
The Trademark Clearinghouse is a global database of verified trademark information to support rights protection processes. Benefits of inclusion include access to Sunrise Period and Trademark Claims Service.
Icons or text are editable, change/add to your preference.

26. Features of the recommended Two-Phased PDP
PHASE ONE
Initiation
Appoint Community Liaison between RPM PDP and New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP
First Phase
Review New gTLD Program RPMs (UDRP is not included)
Coordinate with Subsequent Procedures PDP to minimize overlap and duplication, monitor CCT Review work
Conclude Phase One
Prepare First Initial Report – may include preliminary recommendations and notes for Phase Two
Open public comment forum
Inform GNSO Council
PHASE TWO
Review UDRP; develop new recommendations to enable consistent framework
Update preliminary recommendations
Continue coordination efforts
Initial Report
Prepare Second Initial Report containing recommendations for both phases
Publish for and review public comments
COMPLETION
Create Final Report taking into account public comments and findings/results of other parallel efforts
Submit Report to GNSO for approval
Look for different ways to display your data or text by using alternatives to simple bullets.
To adjust the number in the arrow to text or another number, click on the text box around the number, revise.
To add an arrow, click on the arrow, ensure the arrow is highlighted, COPY and PASTE and move to the desired placement, or DELETE if there are too many arrows.

27. Next Steps
ICANN 55: Council expected to vote on Charter for PDP Working Group
Immediately following ICANN55: Call for Volunteers to Join PDP WG
End-March/early April: First meeting of PDP Working Group
Info:
Final Issue Report
Public Comment and Preliminary Issue Report:

28. IGO-INGO Curative Rights Protections Policy Development Process
ICANN-55 l March 2016

29. Status Update & Current Issues
External legal advice on state of international law relating to IGO jurisdictional immunity
Draft memo sent to co-chairs and staff in end- January; feedback provided to expert for final draft (expected end-March 2016)
Synopsis circulated to Working Group members for review and discussion (including in Marrakech)
Alignment with work of GAC-IGO “small group”
Expecting final proposal after ICANN55
WG will consider expert advice and review final proposal in coming to conclusions regarding IGO immunity

30. Legal expert summary analysis
Preliminary notes indicate that immunity is a multi- faceted issue
Different types of immunity – absolute, functional, limited
May depend on various factors – nature of IGO, jurisdiction in question, type of waiver etc.
Key issue for IGOs - whether requesting an IGO waiver as part of UDRP/URS initiation unduly violates an IGO’s right to immunity, particularly given the need to balance a domain registrant’s legal rights and legitimate interests

31. Next Steps Timeline Next Steps:
Aim to conclude internal WG discussions by ICANN56
WG will finalize recommendations on whether Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy and/or Uniform Rapid Suspension process should be amended; or whether a new specific and narrow mechanism should be developed
Next Steps:
Preliminary recommendations (Initial Report) to be published for public comment upon conclusion of initial WG discussions (2nd or 3rd quarter of 2016?)

32. Background on the IGO-INGO PDP
Working Group chartered in June 2014: jun14-en.pdf
Main task - “evaluate: (i) whether the UDRP and/or URS should be amended (to enable their access and use by IGOs and INGOs whose identifiers had been recommended for protection by the IGO-INGO PDP WG) and if so, in what way; or (ii) whether a separate narrowly- tailored procedure modeled on these curative rights protection measures to apply only to protected IGO and INGO identifiers should be developed."
Working Group wiki space: