Public Comment is a vital part of our multistakeholder model. It provides a mechanism for stakeholders to have their opinions and recommendations formally and publicly documented. It is an opportunity for the ICANN community to effect change and improve policies and operations.
Ce contenu est uniquement disponible en
Submissions for this Proceeding
Proposed GNSO Process for ICANN Board to Reverse Adoption of GNSO Policy Recs
View this Proceeding
My Submissions
Search Public Comment Submissions For This Proceeding
To search for keywords within Public Comment submissions documents or pages, type in the keyword and press Enter after each selection.
Submission Summary:
The Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposed GNSO process for the ICANN Board to reverse adopted GNSO policy recommendations, but considers the proposal imperfect, arguing that the real issue is timely implementation of PDP recommendations rather than a procedural gap for Board reconsideration; the IPC also highlights conflicts with ICANN Bylaws in the proposal, emphasizing that any new Bo...
Submission Summary:
The ICANN Business Constituency supports tightly defined, high-threshold conditions for reversing adopted GNSO policies. The BC stresses the importance of policy finality, clear rules around what qualifies as “new information,” mandatory root cause analysis, strong procedural safeguards, and a higher bar for review to protect business reliance interests, investment certainty, and confidence in ICANN’s bottom-up model.
Submission Summary:
Tucows broadly supports the updates to the Policy Development Process (PDP) Manual and the GNSO Guidance Process (GGP) Manual, as it is useful and appropriate to provide a process for the Board to reverse or adjust a recommendation after approval but before implementation is completed. Tucows also supports the RrSG’s proposed modification to the requirement that new information be the reason for such a reversal by adding change in relevant cir...
Submission Summary:
PDF includes short supportive statement.
Submission Summary:
The Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) appreciates the opportunity to provide input on the proposed updates to the GNSO Operating Procedures concerning a process for the ICANN Board to reconsider or reverse its adoption of GNSO policy recommendations.
As the home for civil society, academia, and non-commercial Internet users within the GNSO, the NCSG has a long-standing interest in ensuring that ICANN’s policy development ecosystem...
Submission Summary:
The RrSG recognizes that a Reversal Process is necessary and supports the development of a Process by which the ICANN Board can reverse adoption of GNSO policy recommendations in very limited circumstances and with appropriate guardrails, as already noted in the proposal. The RrSG suggests that the action could be taken on the basis of a change in relevant circumstances, and notes that consultation with the GNSO Council or the IRT may be benef...
Submission Summary:
The ALAC and At-Large community welcome the opportunity to comment on the Proposed GNSO Process for ICANN Board to Reverse Adoption of GNSO Policy Recommendations.
We acknowledge the ICANN Board does not currently have a documented ability to reverse its adoption of GNSO policy recommendations, and that this lacuna needs to be addressed. We therefore generally welcome the proposed amendments to the PDP and the GGP Manuals to address this...
Submission Summary:
The RySG acknowledges the need for the Proposed Process, agrees that it should be reserved for limited circumstances and that the reversal of an implemented and in-force recommendation should not be permitted, and further recommends considering a limited public consultation or public comment process.
Submission Summary:
This submission supports the GNSO Council’s proposal to establish a process for the ICANN Board to reconsider adopted policy recommendations, recognizing the need for transparency, accountability, and community trust. While the principle of acting “sparingly and only where deemed necessary” is sound, this phrase is subjective and could be open to inconsistent interpretation.
The submission recommends clear safeguards to prevent misuse or...
Submission Summary:
The At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) supports the GNSO's proposal to enable Board reversal of adopted recommendations, closing the procedural gap from SubPro Recommendation 20.6 while balancing fiduciary flexibility with multistakeholder guardrails. High-level observations: The threshold needs an objective two-part test with examples; timelines require volunteer extensions (120 days +60); limit to one request; add 10-day public comment and e...