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 and Singular/Plurals
• 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 - IPC's IPC’s RFR decision and Council's  Council’s subsequent letter 

  • 10.2 - Update on ICANN80 planning and GNSO Draft schedule

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

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

    • Prep Week Session on RDRS: Wed, 29 May 2024 at 16:30 UTC
    • RDRS Standing Committee Meeting at ICANN80: Mon, 10 Jun 2024 at 10:45-12:25 (UTC +2)

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 VOTE - Deferral of Policy Status Report Request - Expiration Policies (DEFERRED TO MAY 2024)
  • 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 and Singular/Plurals

  • 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.

  • Separately, related to singular/plural strings, the Council was informed that the Board Caucus on SubPro has asked staff to explore possible alternative solutions that achieve the goal of the proposed Topic 24 Supplemental Recommendations. On 16 April 2024, the Council received an email that provided a high-level overview of the proposed approach that seeks to generally achieve the same outcomes that the Topic 24 Supplemental Recommendations are aiming for.
  • Council will receive an update from ICANN org on the status of the research and analysis, as well as discuss the high-level overview of the singular/plural compromise.
• 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, i.e. (i) Registry Voluntary Commitments / Public Interest Commitments, (ii) Applicant Support, (iii) Terms and Conditions, (iv) String Similarity Evaluations, and (v) 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 the 6th 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)

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 its Review of the GAC ICANN79 Communiqué
• Council resolved to adopt the updated Small Team Guidance Document
• Council confirmed the Standing Predictability Implementation Review Team (SPIRT) Charter Drafting Team Leadership (Chair - Nitan Walia; Vice-chair - Alan Greenberg; GNSO Council liaison - Anne Aikman-Scalese)

2. Diacritics in Latin Script

• Council had deferred for several months (since ICANN78 in Hamburg) on discussing a way forward to address the challenge affecting future applied-for strings in the Latin script containing diacritics that may be confusingly similar to ASCII strings and which are non-variants as GNSO support staff had indicated that a proposal for a solution was being worked on which might alleviate the need for a study request which Council had been mooting earlier.
• GNSO support staff suggested that a solution could be incorporated through Council's deliberation of the Subsequent Procedures Supplemental Recommendations on Topic 24 String Similarity, and accordingly suggested that Council withhold those supplemental recommendations 24A, 24B and 24C for further work, instead of considering their approval and onward submission to the ICANN Board.
• Council was also given a short briefing by Sarmad Hussain on the process and work of the (now disbanded) Latin Generation Panel (Latin GP) which resulted in the Latin Label General Rules (Latin LGR) that deemed strings in the Latin script containing diacritics and their ASCII "equivalents" as non-variants.
  • As an eg, due to the application of the Latin LGR in the Root Zone Label Generation Rule (RZ-LGR) as the authoritative source for determining the variants of a string, .québec (with diacritic) is not a variant of the already delegated .quebec (without diacritic), resulting in the likelihood that the existing registry operator of .quebec (or any other party) would not succeed in obtaining .québec due to the 2 strings being found confusingly similar.
  • The current New gTLD 'rules' dictate that an application for any string that are found to be confusingly similar to an existing gTLD would be disallowed, while an application for an applied-for string that is found to be confusingly similar with another one or more applied-for strings would result in the strings being placed in a contention set. 
• After much discussion, Council concluded that GNSO support staff's suggested way forward is neither feasible nor desirable, because:
  • The Topic 24 String Similarity recommendations only deal with singular/plurals and ought not be willfully expanded to resolve the diacritics challenge, i.e. Council should not shoehorn its Topic 24 supplemental recommendations Supplemental Recommendations to accommodate the diacritics challenge;
  • Resolving the diacritic challenge should undergo a proper policy development process per the GNSO's operating procedures; and
  • Resolving the diacritic challenge should not present as a condition to the implementation of the Next Round. 
• As a result, Council reverted to requesting GNSO support staff to prepare circulate work done on a study request that could be utilised as a foundation to an Issues Report for initiating an EPDP should Council decide so at a later date.

3. Singular/Plural gTLDs & String Similarity

• ICANN Org's Lars Hoffman (who is the lead for the Subsequent Procedures Implementation Review Team (SubPro IRT)) informed Council that ICANN org had been requested by the ICANN Board to propose an effective way to implement the intent of Supplemental Recommendations 24A, 24B, 24C with regards to singular/plurals without the added complications that Supplemental Recommendations 24A, 24B, 24C appear to carry, bearing in mind that the Board SubPro Caucus co-chairs had earlier indicated that the ICANN Board may still decline to adopt Supplemental Recommendations 24A, 24B, 24C because of the complications the Board members see.
• Council was amenable to consider Lars' proposition in-principle, subject to details being fleshed out further.
• On these bases, Council opted to remove withhold Supplemental Recommendations 24A, 24B, 24C from the slate of Supplemental Recommendations which its SubPro Small Team Plus had produced and which had gone through community consultations, most recently at ICANN79.   
• However, Council had yet to decide as to who would consider/discuss Lars' proposition in detail - whether it may be the SubPro Small Team (or Small Team Plus) or Council itself. There were differing views expressed by Councilors on this. 

4. Subsequent Procedures 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, i.e. (i) Registry Voluntary Commitments / Public Interest Commitments, (ii) Applicant Support, (iii) Terms and Conditions, (iv) String Similarity Evaluations, and (v) 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 the 6th Topic 22: Registrant Protections.
• On 1 April, an “Explainer” document was shared with Council that consolidates all of the Supplemental Recommendations and provides a brief explanation for each of them.
• Following Council's deliberation on the issues of Diacritics in Latin Script (item 2 above) and Singular/Plural gTLDs & String Similarity (item 3 above) which resulted in the withholding of Supplemental Recommendations 24A, 24B, 24C, Council proceeded to unanimously vote to approve the SubPro Supplemental Recommendations for (i) Registry Voluntary Commitments / Public Interest Commitments, (ii) Applicant Support, (iii) Terms and Conditions, and (iv) Limited Challenge/Appeal Mechanisms. These will now be submitted to the ICANN Board's consideration/approval.

5. Cross-Community Working Group on Auction Proceeds (CCWG-AP) 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.”
• Council 

6. Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Implementation (PPSAI)

6.