29January2016
Dr.StevenCrocker
Chair,BoardofDirectors
InternetCorporationforAssignedNamesandNumbers(ICANN)
DearDr.Crocker,
IamwritingtoyouwithregardtoaresolutionoftheformerNewgTLDProgramCommittee
(NGPC)dealingwithGACadvicecontainedinitsCommuniquéfromtheJune2015Buenos
AiresmeetinganddealingwithsafeguardsforthecurrentroundofnewgTLDs.Theresolution
is2015.10.18.NG02.
Asageneralcomment,theGACremainsoftheviewthat,consistentwithpreviousadvice,as
manyissuesaspossible(withinlegalconstraints)shouldbedealtwithinthecurrentround,
withoutprejudicetoconsideringthemontheirmeritsinthelead-uptoanysubsequent
rounds.
Yourresponsetothefollowingmatterswouldbeappreciated:
1. Theredoesnotappeartohavebeenanyformalcommunicationofthisresolutiontothe
GAC.IsittheBoard’sintentiontomakesuchaformalcommunication?Itmaybehelpful
todosointheinterestsofcommunitytransparency.
2. ThescorecardofBoardactiononGACadvicesincetheBeijingCommuniqué(referencedin
theNGPCresolution)seemstoindicatethatallGACadvicesincethenhasbeenaccepted
insomeformoranother.Asyoumaybeaware,arecentGACinternalreviewofGAC
adviceeffectivenessfoundthisnottobethecase,aconclusionsupportedbyGAC
membersattheDublinmeeting.WithregardtothescorecardsystemusedbytheBoard,
theGACmadeaclearandexplicitrequestforthescorecardtoinclude:a)whatelements
ofGACadvicehavebeenimplemented;b)whatremainsaworkinprogress;andc)what
hasnotbeenacceptedforimplementation,withaclearrationalefornotbeingaccepted.”
Moreoverthisscorecardshouldcomplywiththefollowing:“Inanyinstancesofcomplete
orpartialrejectionoftheAdvice,theGACurgestheNGPCtoclarifythemilestones
intendedtobefollowedinordertoseekapotentially“mutuallyacceptablesolution”as
mandatedbyICANN’sBylaws.”
Thecurrentscorecarddoesnotappeartomeetthesecriteria.
WithregardtothemostrecentGACadvice,theGACBuenosAiresandDublin
Communiquésrequestedthat:
(1)TheNGPCcreatealistofcommendedPICexamples;and
(2)“RelevantstakeholdersshouldbeidentifiedandencouragedtodeviseasetofPICs…”
TheBoardscorecardstatesthatinresponseto(1)agenerallistofallPICsisbeingcreated.
Thisisclearlynotthesameascreatinga“listofcommended”PICexamplesthatcould
serveasbestpracticeexamples.Regarding(2)theNGPCsimplyreferstoforwardinga
somewhatrelatedthird-partyproposaltoGNSOandALAC.Thisisclearlyinconsistentwith
theGACadviceonthisissue,whichrequestedactionbytheNGPCto“identify”and
“encourage”relevantstakeholderstodeviseasetofPICsthatworkwell.
IwouldappreciateanysuggestionsyoumayhavefortheBoardandtheGACworking
togethertoresolvethisapparentdisconnectioninhowweseethesamesetofissues.
3. Withregardtoindustry-ledinitiatives,youalsoreferredtothisinyourletterof28April
2015,andInotethattherewasfurtherbriefingbystafftotheNGPCinSeptember2015,
referencedathttps://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/minutes-new-gtld-201509-28-en.SuchinitiativesarecertainlywelcomedbytheGAC.However,theonlyspecific
exampleonwhichthereappearstobeanypublicrecordistheDNSSealandAwards
project,onwhichthereseemstohavebeennoactivitysince2014:referencedat
http://dnsseal.wiki/;andinanyeventthisdoesnotaddresstheGAC’srequestsnoted
above.IstheBoardabletoprovideanydetailsofcurrentindustry-ledinitiatives,including
contactdetailsshouldtheGACwishtoinviteabriefingfromthoseresponsible?
4. Withregardtoreportingonthelevelsandpersistenceofabusiveconduct,pleasenote
thatGAC’sadvicecontainedintheDublinCommuniquéreferredtoawiderangeofsuch
conduct,includingmalware,botnets,phishing,pharming,piracy,trademarkand/or
copyrightinfringement,counterfeitingandfraudulentordeceptivepractices.
5. Takingintoaccountalloftheabovepoints,IdrawtheattentionoftheBoardtothe
currentprocessforconsultationsbetweentheBoardandtheGACincludingthose
requiredpursuanttoArticleXISection2.1.joftheICANNBylaws(attached).Youwillrecall
thesewereagreedfollowingtheATRT1Report.IftheBoardcanclarifythestepsithas
takentocomplywiththeseproceduresinthisinstancethatwouldbeveryhelpful.
IfpossibleIwouldappreciatearesponsefromtheBoardbymid-February2016inorderto
enableappropriateconsiderationattheMarrakechmeeting.
Bestregards,
MrThomasSchneider
Chair,GovernmentalAdvisoryCommittee