Page History

GNSO Council Meeting #4 of 2024 held on 18 Apr 2024 

• Agenda
• Matters of Interest
• Meeting Details
• Meeting Record
• Special Summary Report

GNSO Council Meeting #4 of 2024 held on 18 Apr 2024 

Full Agenda  |  Documents  |  Motions

• Item 1: Administrative Matters
• Item 2: Opening Remarks / Review of Projects List and Action Item List. 
• Item 3: Consent Agenda
  • GNSO Council Review of the GAC Communiqué
  • GNSO Council Small Team Guidance Document
  • Confirmation of Standing Predictability Implementation Review Team (SPIRT) Charter Drafting Team Leadership (Chair - Nitan Walia; Vice-chair - Alan Greenberg; GNSO Council liaison - Anne Aikman-Scalese)
• Item 4: COUNCIL VOTE - Deferral of Policy Status Report Request - Expiration Policies
• Item 5: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Diacritics in Latin Script
• Item 6: COUNCIL VOTE - SubPro Supplemental Recommendations
• Item 7: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - New gTLD Auction Proceeds Cross Community Working Group - Auction Proceeds (CCWG-AP) - Proposed Update to Recommendation 7
• Item 8: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Review of Action Decision Radar
• Item 9: Update on Status of Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Implementation
• Item 10: ANY OTHER BUSINESS

  • 10.1 - Update on ICANN80 planning and GNSO Draft schedule

  • 10.2 - Replacement of Council representative to the Continuous Improvement Program Community Coordination Group (CIP-CCG)

  • 10.3 - Upcoming Sessions/Updates on the Registration Data Request System (RDRS) 

For notes on highlighted items click on MATTERS OF INTEREST tab above

Matters of interest to ALAC/At-Large

• Item 1: Administrative Matters
  • Minutes of the GNSO Council Meeting on 15 February 2024 were posted on  02 March 2024
  • Minutes of the GNSO Council Meeting on 06 March 2024 were posted on 23 March 2024
• Item 4: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Reaction to Program Management Tools Discussion
  
  • During Council’s recent Strategic Planning Session (SPS), Council Leadership and GNSO Support Staff provided an overview of the available program management tools to educate new councilors on what tools are available and how to best utilize them. Council agreed to do a comprehensive and detailed review of the program management tools on a tri-annual basis. The Council agreed the tri-annual cadence aligned with the current ICANN conference schedule, and the first of these reviews was conducted during the Council’s Working Session at ICANN79.
  • Having performed a comprehensive review of the program management suite of tools during its working session, Council will now discuss lessons learned and potential suggestions for the next review at the ICANN80 working session.
• Item 5: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Council Engagement with PDP Working Group Chairs
  • During the Council’s 2023 Strategic Planning Session, the Council agreed that updates from PDP Working Group Chairs and Council liaisons should be more purpose-driven. 
  • In discussing this, GNSO Support Staff provided background information on the GNSO Policy Webinar. Specifically, the webinars began in 2018 and were designed to provide the Council with an opportunity to directly engage with PDP chairs regarding the progress of their working groups. This engagement previously took place at ICANN meetings during GNSO working sessions; however, when the ICANN meeting schedule was shortened, these interactions were moved to a webinar format in an effort to allow the engagement to continue.
  • After receiving this background information, some Councilors noted that if the purpose is for the Council to hear frank updates from Working Group Chairs, the webinar should be for Councilors rather than a larger community update. Additionally, Councilors reviewed the list of questions provided to Working Group Chairs in an effort to better understand Working Group progress and potential challenges (if any). 
  • Councilors attended the webinar, in its updated form, prior to ICANN79, and Council will discuss if the updates to the webinar format helped make the interactions more purpose driven or if further updates may be needed.
• Item 6: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Update on Contracted Party House Abuse Subgroup Meetings with the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group
  • In February 2022, Council formed a small team of interested Council members to consider what policy efforts, if any, Council should consider undertaking to support the efforts already underway in the different parts of the community to tackle DNS abuse. 
  • The DNS Abuse Small Team preliminarily concluded that there is not enough information available to warrant further policy work at this time. Following the update from the DNS Abuse Small Team, Council representatives from the Registrar Stakeholder Group commented on the productive dialogue between Contracted Parties and the ICANN Community with respect to DNS Abuse and committed to continuing the dialogue with interested groups.
  • To that end, on 23 January 2024, the Registrar Stakeholder Group and the Registries Stakeholder Group DNS Abuse Subgroups met with the Non-Commercial Stakeholder group as the first in a planned series of outreach sessions to the ICANN Community regarding pain points with respect to DNS Abuse. The discussion touched on potential recommendations for solutions and potential future work.
  • Council will receive an update on this meeting and subsequent discussions with other groups.
• Item 7: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Response to Update from ICANN org Implementation Update and interaction with ICANN Board

  • During Council’s Working Session, ICANN org provided an overview of the implementation status of the projects that are currently in implementation. These include:

    • Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Implementation (PPSAI)

    • Preventative and Curative Rights Protections for Intergovernmental Organizations (IGOs)/International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGOs)

    • New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP

  • In addition, during Prep Week, the ICANN Board held a community engagement session where a question was posed that is relevant to the GNSO Council: how do we handle situations where it becomes clear that community-developed gTLD policies adopted by the Board are superseded by subsequent events or are otherwise not able to, or can no longer, resolve the problems they were designed to address
  • Council will have an opportunity to discuss the update from ICANN org and ICANN Board engagement session to determine next steps, if any.
• VOTE - Deferral of Policy Status Report Request - Expiration Policies
  • In November 2020, given concerns about its capacity and no known issues with the policies, Council had agreed to delay the request for the Policy Status Report (PSR) for the Expiration Policies, the Expired Domain Name Deletion Policy (“EDDP”) and the Expired Registration Recovery Policy (“ERRP”) for a period of 24 months. After 24 months had passed, Council reconsidered whether it was an appropriate time to request a PSR. 
  • In July 2022, Council agreed that it would be helpful to consult with both registrars and ICANN org to help determine if there are any known issues or concerns with either of the two Expiration Policies which could warrant requesting a PSR.
  • Council subsequently consulted:
    • Registrars, who were asked to flag substantial issues with the policies that would warrant a near team request for policy status report and did not note any issues
    • ICANN Compliance, who provided a write-up, noting confusion with key terms in the policy and persistent registrant confusion with the auto-renew grace period and aftermarket activities, et.al.
    • ICANN org Registrant Program, which provided a catalog of the available educational resources on domain name expiration and renewal (Brian Gutterman’s update at Council)
  • In reviewing these materials, Council determined that the EDDP and ERRP seem to have been implemented as intended and imminent policy work is not needed at this time.
  • Accordingly, Council will vote to reconsider a PSR on the Expiration Policies in five years time, or earlier, if requested. (Simple majority to pass)
• Item 5: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Diacritics in Latin Script

  • Several parties had raised an issue to Council’s attention with regard to the challenge affecting future applied-for strings in the Latin script containing diacritics that may be confusingly similar to ASCII strings, and are non-variants.

  • For background, an applied-for IDN gTLD string in the Latin script containing diacritics, which is NOT an allocatable variant label of the base ASCII string (existing or applied-for) according to RZ-LGR, are sometimes seen as equivalents. In some instances however, the base ASCII string is seen as a workaround and not necessarily “correct”. The base ASCII string and the Latin diacritic string  may be determined to be confusingly similar (i.e., in which case, the strings would be placed in a contention set or if an existing gTLD is involved, the applied-for label would not pass the String Similarity Review).

  • During the GNSO Council Meeting at ICANN78 in Hamburg on 25 October 2023, Council received a detailed briefing on this issue and agreed to request a study from ICANN org to help inform the GNSO Council on the issue of diacritics in Latin Script. Prior to the request being made to ICANN org, the org volunteered to investigate what mechanism or mechanisms might be appropriate to address this issue.

  • Council will receive an update from ICANN org on the status of the research and analysis.
• Item 6: COUNCIL VOTE - SubPro Supplemental Recommendations
  • Having dealt with the pending Subsequent Procedures recommendation, Council tasked the SubPro Small Team Plus with an updated assignment form. The Small Team Plus has committed to a work plan to address the recommendations not adopted by the Board.
  • Following that plan, the Small Team agreed to Supplemental Recommendations on five of the six Topics, e.g., Registry Voluntary Commitments / Public Interest Commitments, Applicant Support, Terms and Conditions, String Similarity Evaluations, and Limited Challenge/Appeal Mechanisms. Based on the expected implementation as it relates to the Continued Operations Instrument (COI), the Small Team Plus determined it was unnecessary to develop a Supplemental Recommendation for Topic 22: Registrant Protections.
  • On 1 April, an “Explainer” document was shared with the Council that consolidates all of the Supplemental Recommendations and provides a brief explanation for each of them.
  • Council will vote on the SubPro Supplemental Recommendations developed by the Small Team Plus.
• Item 7: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - New gTLD Auction Proceeds Cross Community Working Group - Auction Proceeds (CCWG-AP) - Proposed Update to Recommendation 7
  • The CCWG-AP’s Recommendation 7 sets out limitations on the use of ICANN accountability mechanisms (namely, the Independent Review Process, IRP, and Reconsideration process) to challenge decisions made on individual applications within the Grant Program. The CCWG-AP offered this recommendation to minimize use of the proceeds for purposes other than grants, such as administrative costs or legal fees. The Board has noted it continues to support the CCWG-AP’s goal in making this recommendation. 
  • Recommendation 7 currently provides, “Existing ICANN accountability mechanisms such as IRP or other appeal mechanisms cannot be used to challenge a decision from the Independent Project Applications Evaluation Panel to approve or not approve an application. Applicants not selected should receive further details about where information can be found about the next round of applications as well as any educational materials that may be available to assist applicants. The CCWG recognizes that there will need to be an amendment to the Fundamental Bylaws to eliminate the opportunity to use the Request for Reconsideration and Independent Review Panel to challenge grant decisions.” (emphasis added)
  • In its 2 March 2024 letter, the Board notes it “has been considering whether there are further ways to meet the community’s broader intention with Recommendation 7. If the phrase ‘from the Independent Project Applications Panel’ is removed from Recommendation 7, many of the Board’s concerns that supported the October 2023 action would be addressed. The Board also notes that removal of that phrase would support what it has always understood to be the intention of the CCWG-AP in making Recommendation 7 - to preserve the auction proceeds for funding projects, not challenges. Therefore, the Board asks for the Chartering Organizations’ support in considering an update to the recommendation. Specifically, the Board asks for each Chartering Organization to the CCWG-AP to approve an update to Recommendation 7 that would remove the phrase ‘from the Independent Project Applications Evaluation Panel’ from the text of the recommendation. If the Chartering Organizations approve this update, the Board believes that there is a path to full implementation of the CCWG-AP’s Recommendation 7, including the ability to apply the restriction to third parties.”
  • The Board is asking for feedback by 17 May 2024. Council will consider this requested amendment to Recommendation 7 separately from the public comment on the Proposed Bylaws Updates to Limit Access to Accountability Mechanisms
• Item 9: Update on Status of Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Implementation

  • The Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP achieved full consensus on its recommendations and delivered its Final Report on 8 December 2015, with subsequent Council adoption of the Final Report on 21 January 2016. On 9 August 2016, the ICANN Board adopted all recommendations of the PPSAI PDP, directing ICANN org to begin implementation. After some initial preparatory work, the Implementation Review Team (IRT) first met on 18 October 2016.

  • Subsequently, as a result of potential conflicts and/or overlap of work between the PPSAI IRT and GDPR-related work, especially the EPDP on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data, ICANN org, in its letter to the GNSO Council, proposed to delay the implementation of PPSAI until the EPDP completes.
  • In its 4 March 2019 letter to GNSO Council leadership, ICANN org posed the following question to the GNSO Council, “whether ICANN org should continue to delay public comment and implementation of PPSAI or take additional steps pending completion of the EPDP in consultation with the PPSAI Implementation Review Team (IRT).” GNSO Council Leadership responded, “given the divergent views among Councilors and considering the respective roles of ICANN Org in leading implementation work of consensus policy recommendations and the PPSAI IRT in overseeing the implementation work, the GNSO Council considers it appropriate to defer the decision on this issue to ICANN org and the PPSAI IRT, taking into account the various views of the SOs and ACs.”
  • On 2 March 2021, ICANN org delivered the Wave 1.5 Report to the GNSO Council, which included a detailed analysis of the extent to which the EPDP Phase 1 recommendations may require modification to the PPSAI and Translation & Transliteration policies, which are in the policy implementation phase. Following review of the Wave 1.5 Report, the Council observed the following in its 1 July 2021 letter:On 2 March 2021, ICANN org delivered the Wave 1.5 Report to the GNSO Council, which included a detailed analysis of the extent to which the EPDP Phase 1 recommendations may require modification to the PPSAI and Translation & Transliteration policies, which are in the policy implementation phase. Following review of the Wave 1.5 Report, the Council observed the following in its 1 July 2021 letter:
    • The decision to pause the implementation of the PPSAI and Translation & Transliteration policy recommendations was a decision that was made by ICANN org, not the GNSO Council. As such, the Council is of the view that a decision to restart the implementation activities is not within the remit of the GNSO Council but for ICANN org to make. The Council would also like to point to its letter of February 2019 in which it also concluded that “considering the respective roles of ICANN Org in leading implementation work of consensus policy recommendations and the PPSAI IRT in overseeing the implementation work, the GNSO Council considers it appropriate to defer the decision on this issue to ICANN org and the PPSAI IRT, taking into account the various views of the SOs and ACs”. 
    • Should any policy issues arise during the implementation of these policy recommendations, there are processes and procedures that allow the Council to further consider these, but the Council is of the view that the respective Implementation Review Teams (IRTs) will be best placed to identify such possible issues.
    • The Council would also like to point to the letter that was sent to the Council in September 2019 in which it was noted that “following the completion of relevant EPDP work, ICANN org will reassess the existing draft PP materials in consultation with the PPSAI IRT and determine how to proceed with implementation of the Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Program”. From a Council’s perspective this still seems a relevant and timely next step.
  • Council will receive an update on the recent meeting of the PPSAI IRT.
• Item 10: ANY OTHER BUSINESS
  • 10.3 - Upcoming Sessions/Updates on the Registration Data Request System (RDRS)
  Item 9: ANY OTHER BUSINESS
  • 9.1 - GNSO Chair Election Timeline Announcement
  • 9.2 - Updated Small Team Guidelines
  • 9.3 - Standing Predictability Implementation Review Team (“SPIRT”) Charter Drafting Team Update

GNSO Council Meeting #4 of 2024 held on 18 Apr 2024 at 21:00 UTC: https://tinyurl.com/2xcnuymd 

14:00 Los Angeles; 17:00 Washington DC; 22:00 London; 23:00 Paris; 00:00 Moscow (Friday); 07:00 Melbourne (Friday)

GNSO Council Meeting Remote Participation: Zoom link

Non-Council members are welcome to attend the meeting or call as listen-only observers.

Records of 18 Apr 2024 Meeting

• Audio Recording
• Zoom Recording (includes chat and visual and rough transcript. To access the rough transcript, select the Audio Transcript tab)
• Transcript
• Minutes

Special Summary Report of 18 Apr 2024 Meeting to ALAC

For brevity, I will just highlight a few things here. For some of the issues, you can glean a wider perspective from GNSO Council Apr 2024 Matters of Interest and/or from GNSO Council Apr 2024 Meeting Records.

1. Consent Agenda

• Council resolved to adopt the Communications Small Team Final Report.