Page History

ALAC-GNSO Council Bilateral Meeting on 6 Jun 2023 

• Agenda 
• Meeting DetailsMeeting Record
• Special Summary Report

ALAC-GNSO Council Bilateral Meeting held on 6 Jun 2023

1. Opening and Welcome (3 mins)

- Eduardo Diaz, Moderator
- Jonathan Zuck, ALAC Chair
- Sebastien Ducos, GNSO Chair 

2. Next Round of New gTLDs / Subsequent Procedures 38 Pending Recommendation & Other Dependencies (45 mins) 

GNSO Speakers: Paul McGrady (GNSO Council Small Team lead)
ALAC Speaker: Justine Chew (ALAC Liaison to the GNSO) 

(2a) The GNSO plan requested by the Board in respect of the 38 pending recommendations; 
(2b) ALAC's response to draft Closed Generics Framework and ensuing policy process.

3. DNS Abuse (with reference to GNSO Council Small Team on DNS Abuse) (20 mins)

ALAC Speaker: Jonathan Zuck (ALAC Chair)
GNSO Speaker: Greg DiBiase (GNSO Council Vice-Chair)

(3a) ICANN-CPH Contractual Amendment Negotiations Public Comment Proceedings, 29 May - 13 Jul
(3b) ALAC's response to the GNSO DNS Abuse Small Team's draft findings on bulk registrations.

4. Next Steps (5 mins)

- Sebastien Ducos, GNSO Chair 
- Jonathan Zuck, ALAC Chair

5. Adjourn

Special Summary Report of 56 Jun 2023 ALAC-GNSO Council Bilateral Meeting to ALT-PLUS

For brevity, I will just highlight a few things here. key outcomes on the 2 topics that were discussed at this bilateral call. 

1. Next Round of New gTLDs / Subsequent Procedures 38 Pending Recommendation & Other Dependencies

(2a) The GNSO plan requested by the Board in respect of the 38 pending recommendations;

• As the GNSO Council Small Team lead on the Subsequent Procedures 38 Pending Recommendations, Paul McGrady provided a high level update on where Council stood on these pending recommendations post its Extraordinary meeting yesterday on 5 Jun 2023 ( see report ). He noted that the dialogue between the small team/Council and the Board SubPro caucus / full Board was ongoing as both sides work towards either resolution with the Board, or in some cases, non-adoption, of the pending recommendations by the Board. At present, Council is still considering the positions suggested by its small team on how to approach each of the grouped recommendations. More details of the groupings and corresponding approaches can be found at the small team's wiki (see link the small team's work sheet )
• I responded to Paul's queries about where the ALAC/At-Large stood on these pending recommendations, based on the consultation that was conducted with CPWG on 31 Mar 2023, wherein the ALAC's priority - even from past statements to the SubPro PDP WG and advice to the ICANN Board - concentrated on a handful of topics among the 38 pending recommendations. Those priorities revolve around the enforceability of PICs/RVCs (including the Board-mooted limited Bylaw amendment to fully guard against potential legal challenges against ICANN on questions of mission creep), completion of the Applicant Support implementation guidance work, and possibly the issue brought up by the Board on a possible case-by-case waiver of DNS Abuse obligations on single-registrant TLD registry operators per the RA Spec 11 3(a) and 11 3(b).  
• I made it a point to note that the following in-principle remarks:
  • The ALAC remains respectful of the multi-stakeholder model of policy development, wherein we would respect recommendations derived out of clear community consensus unless new information arises (which were not considered during the PDP) such as the concerns raised by the Board on Rec. 9.2 (i.e. which calls for a blanket waiver on DNS Abuse obligations on single-registrant TLD registry operators per the RA Spec 11 3(a) and 11 3(b) as mentioned above.
  • For topics or issues where no recommendation exists (or where recommendations were not approved by Council, and therefore does not go to the Board of adoption), then the ALAC will continue to socialize its positions on the same. As an example, the issue of Auctions, which bears a composite of 2 parts: (1) the permissability of vs ban on private auctions, and (2) the Vickrey Auction model as a better alternative to the existing ICANN Auctions of Last Resort.  
  • The ALAC and the At-Large are prepared to consider the above-mentioned limited Bylaw amendment approach if that is what the Board deems as the best way to guard against potential legal challenges if ICANN were to enforce contractual PICs/RVCs which a registry or a third party mounts a case for the PIC/RVC being unenforceable for falling outside of ICANN's mission.
• While there wasn't significant divergence on how ALAC's position sat with GNSO's on these pending recommendation, I did touched on one area where both AC and SO might want to collaborate, during implementation perhaps, which is work on ensureing that the mechanism by which PICs/RVCs as submitted/considered and eventually framed and transformed into contractual obligations will enable the formulation of objective commitments with clear criteria for evaluation/enforcement purposes.

(2b) ALAC's response to draft Closed Generics Framework and ensuing policy process

• John McElwaine, GNSO Council Vice-Chair and the GNSO Council Liaison to the Closed Generics Dialogue, spoke on the latest development to the work of the small group for the Dialogue and indicated that a version of the draft Closed Generics Framework would be released very soon (targeting after the small group call on Wed, 6 June). He also reminded us that whatever the framework read, it would still need to undergo some policy development process to actually generate policy recommendations. An EPDP is being mooted by Council as the policy vehicle for this purpose, although it has yet to be decided by Council. John however confirmed - in response to my request - that the policy vehicle ought to be of a cross-community nature, involving the ALAC and the GAC and others. 

2. DNS Abuse (with reference to GNSO Council Small Team on DNS Abuse)

(3a) ICANN-CPH Contractual Amendment Negotiations Public Comment Proceedings, 29 May - 13 Jul

• Jonathan Zuck, ALAC Chair, expressed satisfaction that the question of clarity needed for DNS Abuse obligations on the part of Contracted Parties is finally being attempted to be addressed through the ICANN-CPH contractual amendment negotiations as this has been long requested by the community.
• Greg DiBiase, GNSO Council Vice-Chair, echoed Jonathan's sentiment and reiterated that this was something that the Contracted Parties also felt was a necessary step, especially to help provide some clear minimum standards which ICANN Contractual Compliance can effectively enforce.
• We need to examine the proposed amendments and the ICANN Advisory which are are the subject of the public comment proceedings and provide inputs there.

(3b) ALAC's response to the GNSO DNS Abuse Small Team's draft findings on bulk registrations.

• Jonathan queried the GNSO DNS Abuse Small Team's draft findings on bulk registrations and asked after the rationale for the same. If it's a question of definition of bulk registrations being the stumbling block, GNSO or the community could designate one or even adopt one that has been used in past research (eg. in ). It seems that putting in abeyance the issue of investigating the relationship between bulk registrations and DNS Abuse is not desirable in the context of the continual fight to mitigate DNS Abuse.
• Both Greg and Sebastien Ducos, GNSO Chair assured us that the proposed investigation into bulk registrations has not been rejected, but merely that GNSO didn't have sufficient information at this point to pursue any attempt at policy development on it, and because  of this, it cannot be prioritized along with other streams of work already being undertaken by GNSO Council (eg. Closed Generics, the pending SubPro recommendations etc etc). 
• Both Greg and Sebastien would be happy to carry on this conversation with ALAC Leadership to gain an understanding and ideas on how GNSO might progress such an investigation.TBD