Historical Resolution Tracking Feature » GNSO Policy & Implementation Recommendations
Important note: 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.
GNSO Policy & Implementation Recommendations
Board endorses the set of GNSO principles / requirements as they relate to policy & implementation as outlined in section 4, Annex L of the Final Recommendations Report
Whereas, On 17 July 2013, the GNSO Council approved the charter for a GNSO non-PDP Policy and Implementation Working Group (http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201307) tasked to provide the GNSO Council with a set of recommendations on:
A set of principles that would underpin any GNSO policy and implementation related discussions, taking into account existing GNSO Operating Procedures.
A process for developing gTLD policy, perhaps in the form of "Policy Guidance", including criteria for when it would be appropriate to use such a process (for developing policy other than "Consensus Policy") instead of a GNSO Policy Development Process.
A framework for implementation related discussions associated with GNSO Policy Recommendations.
Criteria to be used to determine when an action should be addressed by a policy process and when it should be considered implementation.
Further guidance on how GNSO Implementation Review Teams, as defined in the PDP Manual, are expected to function and operate.
Whereas, the GNSO Policy and Implementation Working Group published its Initial Recommendations Report for public comment on 19 January 2015 (see https://www.icann.org/public-comments/policy-implementation-2015-01-19-en).
Whereas, the GNSO Policy and Implementation Working Group reviewed the input received (see public comment review tool [DOC, 267 KB]) and updated the report accordingly resulting in a Final Recommendations Report, which was submitted to the GNSO Council on 2 June 2015.
Whereas, the Final Recommendations Report (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/policy-implementation-recommendations-01... [PDF, 1.53 MB]) was adopted unanimously by the GNSO Council on 24 June 2015.
Whereas, on 28 July 2015, the ICANN Board directed ICANN Staff to post the proposed changes to the ICANN Bylaws as a result of the proposed recommendations in the Final Recommendations Report for public comment (see https://www.icann.org/public-comments/bylaws-amendments-2015-07-31-en).
Whereas two comments was received in support of the proposed recommendations, including one Advice Statement from the ALAC.
Whereas the ATRT2 recommended that "the Board should continue supporting cross-community engagement aimed at developing an understanding of the distinction between policy development and policy implementation. Develop complementary mechanisms whereby the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees (SO/AC) can consult with the Board on matters, including but not limited to policy, implementation and administrative matters, on which the Board makes decisions" (Recommendation #4).
Resolved (2015.09.28.16), the Board approves the amendments to the ICANN Bylaws Article X, section 3-9 as posted for public comment addressing the new GNSO voting thresholds resulting from the GNSO Guidance Process (GGP) and GNSO Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP).
Resolved (2105.09.28.17), the Board approves the amendments to ICANN Bylaws Annex A as posted for public comment (see https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/bylaws-proposed-amendments-g... [PDF, 656 KB]), creating a new Annex A-1 that outlines the GNSO EPDP.
Resolved (2015.09.28.18), the Board approves the amendments to ICANN Bylaws Annex A as posted for public comment (see https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/bylaws-proposed-amendments-g... [PDF, 656 KB]), creating a new Annex A-2 that outlines the GNSO GGP.
Resolved (2015.09.28.19), the Board endorses the set of GNSO principles / requirements as they relate to policy & implementation as outlined in section 4 of the Final Recommendations Report, and directs the President and CEO, or his designee(s), as well as the ICANN community to take these principles and requirements into account as it engages on GNSO policy and implementation related issues.
Resolved (2015.09.28.20), the Board endorses the Implementation Review Team Guidelines & Principles as outlined in Annex L of the Final Recommendations Report and directs ICANN Staff as well as the ICANN community to take these Guidelines and Principles into account as it engages on implementation related issues.
Resolved (2015.09.28.21), the Board acknowledges the Advice provided by the ALAC and commits to carefully monitor GNSO policy development activities to ensure that user and public interests are appropriately considered and that the implementation of complex policy can be accomplished in reasonable time frames.
Resolved (2015.09.28.22), the Board directs the President and CEO, or his designee(s), to post the relevant documents on GNSO policy and implementation related pages on the GNSO and ICANN website, and to seek and incorporate feedback on enhancements and additional supporting materials as appropriate.
Resolved (2015.09.28.23), the Board considers ATRT2 Recommendation #4 hereby completed and invites ATRT3 to review these adopted recommendations in light of the ATRT2 findings and recommendations.
Resolved (2015.09.28.24), the Board thanks the GNSO community and others involved for their hard work on this effort.
Why the Board is addressing the issue?
Mainly as a result of discussions stemming from implementation related issues of the new generic Top-Level Doman (gTLD) program, there has been an increased focus on which topics call for policy and which call for implementation work, including which processes should be used, at what time and how issues which are the subject of diverging opinions during the implementation process should be acted upon. Following several discussions, including the publication of a staff discussion paper and a community session during the ICANN46 meeting, the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council decided in July 2013 to form a Working Group (WG) which was tasked to develop a set of recommendations on:
A set of principles to underpin future GNSO policy and implementation related discussions, taking into account existing GNSO Operating Procedures.
A process for developing gTLD policy, possibly in the form of "Policy Guidance," including criteria for when it would be appropriate to use such a process (for developing policy other than "Consensus Policy") instead of a GNSO Policy Development Process;
A framework for implementation related discussions associated with GNSO policy recommendations;
Criteria to be used to determine when an action should be addressed by a policy process and when it should be considered implementation; and
Further guidance on how GNSO Implementation Review Teams, as defined in the PDP Manual, are expected to function and operate.
The recommendations of the Working Group were adopted unanimously by the GNSO Council on 24 June 2015 and subsequently submitted to the ICANN Board for its consideration.
Furthermore, this issue was also identified by the Accountability and Transparency Review Team 2 (ATRT2) as a priority: 'the Board should continue supporting cross-community engagement aimed at developing an understanding of the distinction between policy development and policy implementation. Develop complementary mechanisms whereby the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees (SO/AC) can consult with the Board on matters, including but not limited to policy, implementation and administrative matters, on which the Board makes decisions' (Recommendation #4).
What is the proposal being considered?
The Board's action today is to adopt recommendations from the GNSO concerning policy and implementation. The adopted recommendations include three new GNSO processes, two of which—the GNSO Guidance Process (GGP) and the GNSO Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP)—require changes to the ICANN Bylaws. The Board's action approves the required changes to the Bylaws to implement the GNSO Guidance Process and the GNSO Expedited Policy Development Process. These new processes are intended to provide the GNSO Council with more flexibility to address policy issues through formal processes to be used if specific criteria are met. Furthermore, the Board is taking action to endorse the proposed GNSO policy & implementation principles and guidelines to guide further staff as well as community work related to GNSO policy and implementation.
Which stakeholders or others were consulted?
Following several discussions, including the publication of a staff discussion paper (see https://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/policy-implementation-framework... [PDF, 195 KB] and http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-policy-implementation-31jan13/) and a community session during the ICANN46 meeting (see http://beijing46.icann.org/node/37133) the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council decided in July 2013 in consultation with other SO/ACs (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/robinson-to-so-ac-leadership-23a... [PDF, 236 KB]) to form a GNSO WG to address a number of specific issues as they relate to GNSO Policy & Implementation. The GNSO Working Group solicited initial input from all ICANN SO/ACs and GNSO SG/Cs at an early stage (see https://community.icann.org/x/iSmfAg). The publication of the Initial Report was accompanied by a public comment forum (see https://www.icann.org/public-comments/policy-implementation-2015-01-19-en) as well as a community session during ICANN52 (see https://singapore52.icann.org/en/schedule/wed-policy-implementation). The WG reviewed and addressed all input received as demonstrated in the public comment review tool (see https://community.icann.org/x/iSmfAg). Following the unanimous adoption by the GNSO Council of the Final Recommendations Report, the ICANN Board directed ICANN Staff to post the proposed changes to the ICANN Bylaws for public comment (see https://www.icann.org/public-comments/bylaws-amendments-2015-07-31-en). Two comments, including an Advice Statement from the ALAC, were received in support of the recommendations (see http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-bylaws-amendments-31jul15/).
What concerns or issues were raised by the community?
The WG reviewed and addressed all input received as demonstrated in the public comment review tool (see https://community.icann.org/x/iSmfAg). The ALAC, in its Advice Statement in response to the public comment forum launched by the ICANN Board, supported the recommendations but also recommended that the ICANN Board carefully monitor GNSO policy development activities to ensure that user and public interests are appropriately considered and that the implementation of complex policy can be accomplished in reasonable time frames.
What significant materials did the Board review?
The Board reviewed the GNSO Policy & Implementation Final Recommendations Report (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/policy-implementation-recommendations-01... [PDF, 1.53 MB]) and related materials.
What factors did the Board find to be significant? Are there positive or negative community impacts?
The Board considers it of significant importance that these recommendations were developed by the community in consultation with ICANN staff and that these recommendations received the unanimous support of the GNSO Council. Furthermore, the Board recognizes the importance of addressing this issue, as also pointed out by the ATRT2, and is of the view that these recommendations will provide the GNSO Council with more flexibility to address policy issues through formal processes as well as providing the necessary clarity and predictability with regards to GNSO policy & implementation related issues.
Are there fiscal impacts or ramifications on ICANN (strategic plan, operating plan, budget); the community; and/or the public?
No fiscal impacts or ramifications are expected as a result of the implementation of these recommendations.
Are there any security, stability or resiliency issues relating to the DNS?
No security, stability or resilience issues relating to the DNS have been identified in relations to these recommendations.