Hi,

I’m not going to make it to BA (plan on participating remotely), so thought I’d give a brief overview of two motions that I’ve submitted for the council meeting next Wednesday. The full list of motion (five in total) can be found here: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+24+June+2015

1. GNSO Council Motion on Adoption of the GNSO Policy and Implementation Working Group Final Report and Recommendations:

I’m very much in favour of voting to adopt the recommendations in this WG’s final report (http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/policy-implementation-recommendations-01jun15-en.pdf). I was quite happy with the initial report, and since its publication for public comments, the WG has adopted all the recommended changes provided by the NCSG, except for one concerning raising the voting threshold levels to initiate one of the suggested new processes (the GNSO Guidance Process). This concern, however, was alleviated by other provisions, most importantly by not allowing for consensus policies to be developed using this process that may create new obligations beyond contractual ones for registrars/registries. The concern here was using a GGP to create new obligations on registrants that do not effect contracted parties (example: new UDRP provisions).

If anyone has any questions/concerns regarding this report or the recommendations in it, I’d be happy to discuss them on-list, or during any of the NCSG meetings in BA prior to the council meeting. I plan on participating in those remotely as well.

2. Motion on the Adoption of the GNSO Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information PDP Working Group Final Report and Recommendations

This is another PDP WG in which I personally endorse the recommendation. The chief one being made is that translation and transliteration of internationalised (not submitted in US ASCII) contact information in the WHOIS is NOT mandatory. This question could only have one of two answers being desirable or not. The PDP WG determined that it was not desirable, as it would incur great and unwarranted costs on registrars and registrants, while the justification to do so would in fact be very limited. This PDP WG did not achieve “full consensus”, as the IPC did not agree with this final recommendation, and submitted a minority statement. The full report and recommendations can be found here: http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/gtlds/translation-transliteration-contact-final-12jun15-en.pdf

Again…, let me know if anyone has any questions/concerns on this. I’d be happy to address them.

Thanks.

Amr