AT-LARGE GATEWAY

At-Large Website

ALAC

RALOs

At-Large Regional Policy Engagement Program (ARPEP)

At-Large Governance

At-Large Reports

Policy Comments & Advice

Working Groups

ICANN Meetings

At-Large Summit (ATLAS III)

At-Large Review Implementation Plan Development

ALAC and RALO Elections, Selections, and Appointments

At-Large FY25 Strategic Priority Activities

Versions Compared

Old Version 653

changes.mady.by.user Justine Chew

Saved on

compared with

New Version 654

changes.mady.by.user Justine Chew

Saved on

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

...

Deck of Cards
idUpdates


Card
defaulttrue
idDevelopments
labelSHOW ME

Developments in 2021-2024 on:


Card
idDiacritics
labelDiacritics in Latin Script

Diacritics in Latin Script

2024

  • 16 May: Council resolved to adopt the request for an an Issues Report, directs staff to create the Report. 
  • 18 Apr: Council discussed ICANN org's proposal which was 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 determined that this was not feasible and instead agreed to request an Issue Report on diacritics in Latin script.

2023

  • Since Nov, discussion was deferred to facilitate ICANN org exploring on a possible "light-weight" solution to allow an exceptional process by which the existing registry operators of ASCII TLDs to apply for and obtain the respective diacritic versions of their TLDs in the Next Round.
  • 25 Oct: 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.
  • 23 Sep: Council Chair addressed the issue of accents and diacritics in Latin languages that could be deemed confusingly similar to existing strings or other applications, and suggested chartering something with a narrow scope to ensure that this topic does not slide elsewhere into the string similarity discussion and ensure that solutions are found that match requirements imposed on variants.  ICANN org staff clarified that next steps from the staff perspective would be for Council to request an Issues Report.
  • 24 Aug: The GNSO Chair led the commentary on this issue which essentially concluded that the issue of .quebec (TLD) not being a variant of “.québec” did not require an immediate resolution and one that did not squarely sit in the remit of the IDNs-EPDP.
  • 17 Aug: GNSO Leadership circulated the 22 Jun 2023 letter from ALAC Chair to the GNSO Chair regarding the Latin script LGR and .québec issue
  • 14 Jul: GNSO Leadership received a communication from the IDNs-EPDP Chair regarding 4 public comments related to creating an exceptional process by which the existing registry operator for .quebec could apply “.québec” in a future gTLD round ("the .québec issue") being out of scope of the IDNs-EPDP and its Charter, and referred the comments to the GNSO Council for consideration and action as determined appropriate.


Card
idPost_2023_ODA
labelNext Steps for New gTLD Round

Next Steps for a New gTLD Round 2023-2024 (post Subsequent Procedures Operational Design Assessment (SubPro ODA))  

2024

  • Circa 30 Apr: Council will send new work re: Topic 24 on String Similarity Review in respect of Singular/Plurals only to the GNSO Council Small Team Plus to consider a strawman proposal developed by Staff.  After evaluation of the proposal, the Small Team Plus will return to Council with its conclusions on whether this proposal is viable, and if so, provide draft (amendment) language on Topic 24 Supplemental Recommendation for Council to consider.
  • 18 Apr:Councilresolved to approve Supplemental Recommendations for the Non-Adopted New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Recommendations on Topic 9: Registry Voluntary Commitments / Public Interest Commitments, Topic 17: Applicant Support, Topic 18: Terms & Conditions, and Topic 32: Limited Challenge/Appeal Mechanism. Council also elected to pursue further amendments to the Supplemental Recommendations related to Topic 24: String Similarity Evaluations, and accordingly, removed the relevant Supplemental Recommendations from consideration during its April meeting.

    *26 Mar: ICANN org initiates public comment proceeding for input on proposed Registry System Testing 2.0 Test Specifications and API.

    *13 Mar: ICANN org initiates public comment proceeding for input on proposed Draft Registry Service Provider (RSP) Handbook for the New gTLD Program: Next Round.

  • 6 Mar: GNSO SubPro Small Team held a community consultation session during ICANN79, on the SubPro Supplemental Recommendations.
  • 22 Feb: ICANN79 Prep Week session on the SubPro supplemental recommendations developed by the GNSO SubPro Small Team Plus.

     *7 Feb: ICANN org initiates public comment proceeding for input on proposed String Similarity Review Guidelines for the New gTLD Program: Next Round.

     *1 Feb: ICANN org initiates public comment proceeding for input on proposed language for 7 sections of the Applicant Guidebook (AGB) for the New gTLD Program: Next Round.

2023 - Post ODA

    *7 Dec: ICANN Board initiates Public Interest Commitments/Registry Voluntary Commitments Consultation, issuing their Draft Implementation Framework for Content-Related Registry Commitments.

    *21 Nov: ICANN Board previews Public Interest Commitments/Registry Voluntary Commitments Consultation

    *26 Oct: ICANN Board resolves during its regular Board Meeting to adopt the Scorecard: Subsequent Procedures dated 26 October 2023 (the "October 2023 Scorecard"), comprising:

    • Section A, which details the recommendations that the Board adopts with the second Clarifying Statement.
    • Section B, which details the recommendations that the Board does not adopt (Recommendations 32.1, 32.2 and 32.10) because they are not in the best interests of the ICANN community or ICANN, including a Board statement and rationale for each of the Outputs, per Bylaws Annex A, Section 9.

and directed ICANN org, to commence the implementation work related to the recommendations adopted by the Board in Section A of the October 2023 Scorecard, and to consider the recommendations and the second Clarifying Statement jointly for the purpose of implementation and operation of the New gTLD Program: Next Round.

  • 21 Oct: GNSO Council transmitted to the ICANN Board its "New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Pending Recommendations - GNSO Council Second Clarifying Statement" (Second Clarifying Statement) developed by the SubPro Small Team to address the Board's concerns on 10 pending Outputs around the enforceability of Public Interest Commitments (PICs) and Registry Voluntary Commitments (RVCs).

   *10 Sep: ICANN Board resolves during its regular Board Meeting to adopt the Scorecard: Subsequent Procedures dated 10 September 2023 (the "September 2023 Scorecard"), comprising:

    • Section A which details the Outputs that the Board adopts: Recommendations 16.1, 18.4, 19.1, and 19.3; also input on implementation of Recommendations 30.4, 30.5 and 30.6 post discussion with GAC. 
    • Section B, which details the Outputs that the Board adopts with the "New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Pending Recommendations - GNSO Council Clarifying Statement" transmitted to the Board on 5 September 2023 that provide relevant context to these Outputs; Affirmation with Modification 3.1, Recommendations 3.2, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 6.8, 9.15, 26.9, 29.1, 34.12, 35.3 and 35.5.
    • Section C, which details the Outputs that the Board does not adopt, including a Board statement and rationale for each of the Outputs, per Bylaws Annex A, Section 9a, because they are not in the best interests of the ICANN community or ICANN: Recommendations 9.2, 17.2, 18.1, 18.3, 22.7, 24.3, and 24.5.
    • Section D, which details the recommendations that remain pending following this Board action, i.e. Recommendations 9.1, 9.4, 9.8, 9.9, 9.10, 9.12, 9.13, 30.7, 31.16, and 31.17 (all relating to the enforceability of PICs and RVCs), and  32.1, 32.2, and 32.10 (all relating to the proposed Challenge & Appeal mechanisms).

and directed ICANN org to commence the implementation work related to the Outputs adopted by the Board in Section A of the September 2023 Scorecard, taking into account the noted Board considerations regarding recommendations 18.4, 30.4 and 30.6.

See my 14 Jun 2023 Council Meeting summary report for a distillation of (selected) SubPro Output context and Board concerns

  • 5 Sep: GNSO Council transmitted to the ICANN Board its "New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Pending Recommendations - GNSO Council Clarifying Statement" (Clarifying Statement) developed by the SubPro Small Team to address the Board's concerns on the pending Outputs.

   *31 Jul: ICANN Board Chair announces the New gTLD Program: Next Round Implementation Plan which (re-)establishes a target for the the next Applicant Guidebook to be finalized in May 2025, and which then enables the application round to open in Q2 2026 (with the goal of April 2026), noting that any delays to the timeline of the Policy Implementation work stream will cause delays to the opening of the round.

  *27 Jul: ICANN Board resolves at a special meeting to acknowledges receipt of a draft New gTLD Program: Next Round Implementation Plan from ICANN org and plans to publish the plan on or before 31 July 2023.

  • 25 Jul: GNSO Council submitted to the ICANN Board an updated ICANN77 Deliverable Workplan & Timeline SubPro Related Activities to provide further clarity to its 15 Jun submission
  • 15 Jun: GNSO Council submitted to the ICANN Board its ICANN77 Deliverable Work plan & Timeline SubPro Related Activities as requested by the ICANN Board in its 16 Mar resolution
  • 5 Jun: GNSO Council holds extraordinary meeting to discuss completion of outstanding SubPro-related work.
  • 22 May: GNSO Council meets with the ICANN Board on pending SubPro recommendations.
  • 4 May: GNSO Council holds extraordinary meeting to discuss the Proposal of SubPro Small Team Triage Exercise and determine next steps on the 38 pending recommendations.
  • 23 Mar: GNSO Council received letter from GAC in respect of GAC input on GAC Priority Topics relative to SubPro Recommendations marked as "pending" 
  • 22 Mar: GNSO Chair sends letter to ICANN Board and Sally Costerton noting Council's appreciation on progress made during recent weeks and at ICANN76 towards "getting things done".
  • 21 Mar: GNSO Council constitutes a Council Small Team to conduct Council triage for the 38 Pending SubPro Outputs, comprising Anne Aikman-Scalese (NCA), Bruna Martins dos Santos (NCSG), Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to SubPro ODP), Justine Chew (ALAC Liaison to GNSO), Nacho Amados (RySG), Paul McGrady (NCA-NCPH), Sebastien Ducos (RySG), Stephanie Perrin (NCSG), Susan Payne (IPC) and Tomslin Samme-Nlar (NCSG).
  • 16 Mar: GNSO Council receives letter from ICANN Board in respect of Board's action on SubPro Final Report

   *16 Mar: ICANN Board resolves during its Board Meeting at ICANN76 to adopt the SubPro Outputs in Section A of its "Scorecard on Subsequent Procedures PDP" (Scorecard); marking 38 Outputs in Section B of the Scorecard as "pending" and noting ongoing community discussions relating to Topic 17: Applicant Support, Topic 23: Closed Generics, and Topic 25: Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs), as well as additional dependencies concerning specific Review Team Recommendations, the Name Collision Analysis Project Study 2 Report (NCAP2), and other items noted in Section C of the Scorecard; and directed ICANN org to commence implementation work related to Section A.


Card
idConsensus_Policy
labelON MODIFYING GTLD CONSENSUS POLICIES

ICANN Org Discussion paper on Modifying gTLD Consensus Policies –  TO MONITOR THIS and assess for ALAC input opportunities.

2022

2021


Card
idTRP
labelTransfer Policy Review PDP

Transfer Policy Review Policy Development Process (TPR-PDP)

2023

  • 11 Jan: In the course of Phase 1 work conducted to date, the WG discovered that certain Phase 2 topics must be addressed before Phase 1 recommendations can be fully developed. As a result, the PDP leadership team alerts Council to Project Change Request (PCR) to update its work plan to consolidate all work into a single phase and change the order in which topics are considered. This will impact the timeline for key deliverables.

2022

2021

  • 16 Dec: Council approved a Project Change Request (PCR) to update charter topics considered in Phase 1 of the TPR-PDP by moving the topic of NACK (rejection of transfer request) of an unauthorized transfer to Phase 1a scope from Phase 2.
  • May: WG begins meeting
  • Feb: Council initiated the two-phased Transfer Policy Review PDP


Card
idIDN
labelInternationalized Domain Names EPDP

Internationalized Domain Names Expedited Policy Development Process (IDNs-EPDP)

2024

  * 26 Mar: The ICANN Board calls for public comments to the IDNs EPDP Phase 1 Final Report.

2023

  • 21 Dec: GNSO Council adopts the IDNs EPDP Phase 1 Final Report containing 69 policy recommendations on topics related to top-level IDN gTLD definition and variant management.
  • 6-8 Dec: IDNs EPDP had their F2F workshop in Kuala Lumpur.
  • 8 Nov: GNSO Council receives the IDNs EPDP Phase 1 Final Report with a full consensus designation on all 69 recommendations on topics related to top-level IDN gTLD definition and variant management.
  • 14 Sep: GNSO Leadership relays GNSO Council Guidance Statement on ".québec” to the EPDP Team.
  • 24 Aug: At the GNSO Council meeting, the GNSO Chair led the commentary on this issue which essentially concluded that the issue of .quebec (TLD) not being a variant of “.québec” did not require an immediate resolution and one that did not squarely sit in the remit of the Expedited Policy Development Process on Internationalized Domain Names (EPDP on IDNs). The letter from the ALAC Chair to the GNSO Chair on this issue was referred to also.
  • 17 Aug: GNSO Leadership circulated the 22 Jun 2023 letter from ALAC Chair to the GNSO Chair regarding the Latin script LGR and .québec issue
  • 20 Jul: GNSO Council received a revised project plan  from the IDNs EPDP Working Group which shaves 13 months off the earlier timeline. The key milestones for this EPDP are now as follows:
    • Phase 1 Final Report remains expected to be delivered to Council in Nov 2023
    • Council then considers this Phase 1 Final Report and decides on the adoption of report and recommendations
    • Phase 2 Initial Report is expected to be published for public comment in Apr 2024 (vs May 2025 earlier)
    • Phase 2 Final Report is expected to be delivered to Council in Oct 2024 (vs Nov 2025 earlier)
    • Council then considers this Phase 2 Final Report and decides on the adoption of report and recommendations
    • Assumptions for this revised project plan must hold for the EPDP to meet the new milestone dates:
      • Progress to be achieved via multiple sessions during ICANN78 (similar to ICANN77)
      • A planned F2F workshop scheduled for early Dec 2023
      • No change to the EPDP Charter / scope of quarter questions
  • 14 Jul: GNSO Leadership received a communication from the EPDP Chair regarding 4 public comments related to creating an exceptional process by which the existing registry operator for .quebec could apply “.québec” in a future gTLD round ("the .québec issue") being out of scope of the IDNs EPDP and its Charter, and referred the comments to the GNSO Council for consideration and action as determined appropriate.
  • 14 Jun: GNSO Council received the latest project plan from the IDNs EPDP Working Group, which provides that:
    • Phase 1 Final Report is expected to be delivered to Council in Nov 2023
    • Council then considers this Phase 1 Final Report and decides on the adoption of report and recommendations
    • Phase 2 Initial Report is expected to be published for public comment in May 2025
    • Phase 2 Final Report is expected to be delivered to Council in Nov 2025
    • Council then considers this Phase 2 Final Report and decides on the adoption of report and recommendations
    • The IDNs EPDP WG is already taking steps to improve its timeline to expedite completion of its work well ahead of the Nov 2025 target 
  • 25 May: GNSO Council received a presentation from the EPDP Chair in response to the ICANN Board's request to Council noted in the Board's 16 Mar letter to Council.
  • 24 Apr: GNSO initiates call for public comments to the Phase 1 Initial Report of the IDNs-EPDP.
  • 16 Mar: GNSO Council receives letter from ICANN Board in respect of Board's action on SubPro Final Report; item 4 pertains to the work of the IDNs EPDP.

2022

  • 17 Nov: Council approved the EPDP's Project Change Request (PCR). With this PCR, the EPDP seeks to facilitate the implementation planning of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures by bifurcating its work into two phases, with Phase 1 covering topics related to top-level IDN gTLD definition and variant management, and Phase 2 covering issues pertaining to second-level IDN variant management, which also requires a timeline extension due to the diversity and complexity of IDN issues, additional data collection needs, review of ICANN org input for draft recommendations, and public comment-related processes. The timeline now contemplated is:
    • Publish Phase 1 Initial Report for Public Comment by April 2023
    • Submit Phase 1 Final Report to the GNSO Council by November 2023
    • Publish Phase 2 Initial Report for Public Comment by April 2025
    • Submit Phase 2 Final Report to the GNSO Council by November 2025
  • 10 Oct: Council is alerted to an impending Project Change Request (PCR) which seeks significant changes to the EPDP's project plan. 

  * 22 Sep: ICANN Board has approved the IDN Guidelines version 4.1 except the deferred guidelines 6a, 11, 12, 13, 18 and associated Additional Notes, and directed these to be published as IDN Guidelines version 4.1 and to supersede version 3.0.

  • 20 Jan: Council to send letter to ICANN Board responding to the Board’s 20 Oct letter regarding the IDN Implementation Guidelines v4.0.

2021

  • 16 Dec: Council Leadership to draft a response to the ICANN Board’s 20 Oct letter regarding the IDN Implementation Guidelines v4.0.
  • 18 Nov: Council has yet to discuss its approach for the response to the ICANN Board’s 20 Oct letter regarding the IDN Implementation Guidelines v4.0.
  • Aug: The Expedited Policy Development Process on Internationalized Domain Names (EPDP on IDNs) commenced work on its Charter Questions.


Card
idRDA_Scoping
labelRegistration Data Accuracy Scoping Team

Registration Data Accuracy (RDA) Scoping Team

2023

  • 20 Jul: Council resolved to extend deferral of consideration of recommendations #1 and #2 of the Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team write up for another six months or at an earlier date if the DPA negotiations have been completed before six months have passed and/or there is feedback from ICANN org if/how it anticipates the requesting and processing of registration data will be undertaken in the context of measuring accuracy. 
  • 20 Apr: Council considered the RDA Scoping Team Survey Summary Results and ICANN org's 14 Mar input.
  • 14 Mar: ICANN org replies to Council's 1 Dec 2022 letter for an update on outstanding issues related to registration data accuracy and the pending work of the Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team.

2022

  • 1 Dec: Council sent letter to ICANN org requesting an update on outstanding issues related to registration data accuracy and the pending work of the Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team.
  • 17 Nov: Council adopted recommendation #3 and deferred consideration of recommendations #1 and #2 as contained in the Scoping Team's write up to the Council of 5 September 2022. For more specific details on the recommendations and action, refer to the 17 Nov Special Summary Report.
  • 10 Oct: The Scoping Team has completed Assignment #1 (enforcement and reporting) and Assignment #2 (measurement of accuracy) and submitted its write up to the Council on 5 September 2022. In the write up, the group is suggesting moving forward with two proposals that would not require access to registration data, namely a registrar survey (recommendation #1) and a possible registrar audit (recommendation #2) that may help further inform the team’s work on assignment #3 (effectiveness) and #4 (impact & improvements), while it awaits the outcome of the outreach to the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) by ICANN org in relation to proposals that would require access to registration data (recommendation #3). Council is seeking a new Chair for the Scoping Team.
  • 10 May: The RDA Scoping Team submitted a Project Change Request (PCR) to Council. 

18 Nov 2021

  • Council received notice that the ICANN Board has selected two Board members to serve as liaisons to this Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team. They are Becky Burr and Harald Alvestrand (alternate).
  • Council has acknowledged the Registration Data Accuracy - Scoping Team (RDA_ST) Project Plan


Card
idSSAD
labelTemp Spec for Registration Data / SSAD ODP / RDRS

Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data / System for Standardized Access/Disclosure Operational Design Phase (SSAD ODP);  See: https://www.icann.org/ssadodp for more official info / Registration Data Request Service (RDRS)

2024

  * 24/25 Jan:  ICANN runs webinars to provide usage data on the RDRS and answer any questions about the service which handles requests for access to nonpublic registration data related to generic top-level domains (gTLDs).

2023

  * 28 Nov: ICANN launches theRegistration Data Request Service (RDRS)

  • 21 Sep: Council adopted the EPDP Phase 2 small team's proposed charter for a Registration Data Request Service (RDRS) Standing Committee, which is expected to replace the EPDP Phase 2 small team shortly.
  • 8 Sep: Council received the small team's proposed charter for aRegistration Data Request Service (RDRS) Standing Committeeto help inform the next steps on the SSAD policy recommendations.
  • 22 Mar: GNSO Chair sends letter to ICANN Board and Sally Costerton noting Council's appreciation on progress made during recent weeks and at ICANN76 towards "getting things done".
  • 15 Mar: GNSO Council instructed the small team to continue working with ICANN org on the implementation of the System as well as “provide the Council with a recommendation on the approach and format through which, following implementation of the system, data should be reviewed and analyzed to help inform subsequent decisions on how to proceed with the SSAD recommendations”.
  • 11 Mar: GNSO EPDP Phase 2 (SSAD) - Implementation of Whois Disclosure System at ICANN76 - Whois Disclosure System (WDS) now known as Registration Data Request Service (RDRS).
  • 6 Mar: Council receives ICANN Board's reply to Council's 17 Nov 2022 letter on Council’s recommendations for how to proceed with the WHOIS Disclosure System (WDS).
  • 27 Feb: ICANN Board adopted a resolution directing ICANN org to proceed to develop and launch the WDS as soon as possible. The Board also authorized the use of the Supplemental Fund for the Implementation of Community Recommendations to support this work. In addition, the Board has directed ICANN org to continue to engage with the Phase 2 Small Team throughout the development and operation of the System, and ensure periodic publication of the collected usage data, once operational.

2022

  • 17 Nov: Council sent letter to ICANN Board alerting on Council’s recommendations for how to proceed with the WHOIS Disclosure System (WDS).
  • 17 Nov: Council accepted the EPDP Phase 2 small team findings and recommendations as outlined in the small team's addendum and confirmed that pending the implementation and subsequent running of the Whois Disclosure System (WDS) for a period of up to two (2) years, the SSAD recommendations should remain paused for consideration by the ICANN Board.
  • Oct: Council is to further discuss next steps on the Whois Disclosure System (WDS) in November.
  • Sep-ICANN75: Attention on SSAD has now been redirected to ICANN Org's proposal for the Whois Disclosure System (WDS). Design for this WDS was published prior to ICANN75 and ICANN org provided a presentation of the system design to the EPDP Phase 2 small team during ICANN75. Subsequently, the small team and Council held initial discussions amongst themselves, as well as with the Board during their joint session on Tuesday. The Council discussed during its meeting on Wednesday and the small team met informally on Thursday of ICANN75.
  • 13 Sep: ICANN org published a WHOIS Disclosure System (System) Design Paper based on the "proof of concept" approach outlined by the Small Team.
  • Mar: Council Small Team seated (comprising Members: Paul McGrady, Sebastien Ducos, Marc Anderson, Stephanie Perrin, John McElwaine, Olga Cavalli, Thomas Rickert, Laureen Kapin (GAC- shared membership), Chris Lewis-Evans (GAC- shared membership), Alan Greenberg, Sarah Wyld, Steve DelBianco, Becky Burr, Steve Crocker, Philippe Fouquart (GNSO Council Observing) , Tomslin Samme Nlar  (GNSO Council Observing); and Alternates: Gregory DiBiase).
  • 1 Feb: GNSO Chair invited GNSO SG/Cs, ALAC, GAC to nominate their EPDP Phase 2 representatives for a Council Small Team led by Sebastien Ducos to analyse the SSAD ODA to develop recommendations on next steps.  On 4 Feb, the ALAC Chair nominated Alan Greenberg (being one of the 2 ALAC EPDP Phase 2 representatives) for this Council Small Team.
  • 27 Jan: Council and ICANN Board Consultation on SSAD ODP
  • 18 Jan: SSAD ODP Project Update Webinar #5
  • 12 Jan: A follow up discussion is held for Council and and GNSO-appointed EPDP Phase 2 members to discuss next steps ahead of Council's meeting with the ICANN Board on 27 January on concerns around financial sustainability of the SSAD (wiki)
  • 5 Jan: A 4 Jan 2022 summary paper was circulated to Council members ahead of a 12 Jan call

2021


...

Deck of Cards
idJun2024


Card
idShow_Jun2024
labelSHOW ME

GNSO Council Meeting #6 of 2024 held on 12 June 2024 


Card
idAgenda_Jun2024
labelAGENDA

GNSO Council Meeting #6 of 2024 held on 12 Jun 2024

Full Agenda  |  Documents  |  Motions

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


Card
idMOI_Jun2024
labelMATTERS OF INTEREST

Matters of interest to ALAC/At-Large (updated on 14 May)

  • Item 1: Administrative Matters
    • Minutes of the GNSO Council Meeting on 18 April 2024 were posted on 03 May 2024.
    • Minutes of the GNSO Council Meeting on 16 May 2024 were posted on ..... 2024.


Card
idMeetDeets_Jun2024
labelMEETING DETAILS

GNSO Council Meeting #6 of 2024 held on 12 Jun 2024


GNSO Council Meeting Remote Participation: refer to ICANN80 Schedule

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


Card
idMeet_Jun2024
labelMEETING RECORD

Records of 12 Jun 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


Card
idSumRep_Jun2024
labelREPORT

Special Summary Report of 12 Jun 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 Jun 2024 Matters of Interest and/or from GNSO Council Jun 2024 Meeting Records.

1. Consent Agenda


...

Deck of Cards
idMay2024


Card
idShow_May2024
labelSHOW ME

GNSO Council Meeting #5 of 2024 held on 16 May 2024 


Card
idAgenda_May2024
labelAGENDA

GNSO Council Meeting #5 of 2024 held on 16 May 2024 (updated on 14 15 May)

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 Liaison to the Governmental Advisory Committee
    • Council Response to Board Letter on CCWG Auction Proceeds Recommendation 7
  • Item 4: COUNCIL VOTE - Request for Preliminary Issue Report for Diacritics in Latin Script
  • Item 5: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Deferral of Policy Status Report Request - Expiration Policies
  • Item 6: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - GNSO Council Committee for Overseeing and Implementing Continuous Improvement (“CCOICI”) Pilot Survey Results
  • Item 7: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Intellectual Property Constituency Request for Reconsideration
  • Item 8: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Review of Action Decision Radar
  • Item 9: GNSO Council Aspirational Statement 

  • Item 10: Any Other Business

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


Card
idMOI_May2024
labelMATTERS OF INTEREST

Matters of interest to ALAC/At-Large (updated on 14 15 May)

  • Item 1: Administrative Matters
    • Minutes of the GNSO Council Meeting on 06 March 2024 were posted on 23 March 2024.
    • Minutes of the GNSO Council Meeting on 18 April 2024 were posted on 03 May 2024.
  • Item 4: COUNCIL VOTE - Request for Preliminary Issue Report for Diacritics in Latin Script
    • Council was made aware of a potential issue whereby future applied-for strings in the Latin script containing diacritics may be confusingly similar to ASCII strings, are non-variants, and the same entity wishes to operate both strings.
    • 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 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.

    • Following the discussion during its April 2024 meeting, Council discussed requesting a Preliminary Issue Report on diacritics in the Latin Script. On [date], the request for an Issue Report was circulated to the Council mailing list.

    • Council will vote to request ICANN org to deliver a Preliminary Issue Report on diacritics in the Latin Script.
  • Item 5: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Deferral of Policy Status Report Request - Expiration Policies
    • Council previously considered when to request a Policy Status Report (“PSR”) for the purpose of conducting a review of the two Expiration Policies, the Expired Domain Name Deletion Policy (“EDDP”) and the Expired Registration Recovery Policy (“ERRP”). In November 2020, given concerns about its capacity and no known issues with the policies, the Council agreed to delay the request for the Policy Status Report (PSR) for a period of 24 months. After 24 months had passed, the 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. 

    • In making its decision whether to request to a PSR at this time, Council consulted: 

      1. Registrars, who were asked to flag substantial issues with the policies that would warrant a near-term request for PSR and did not note any issues
      2. 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.
      3. 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)
    • Council then determined that the EDDP and ERRP seem to have been implemented as intended and imminent policy work is not needed at this time. Accordingly, the GNSO Council will reconsider a PSR on the Expiration Policies in two years time, or earlier, if a need is determined and it is requested.
    • Council will discuss whether to consider a PSR on the Expiration Policies in two years.
  • Item 7: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Intellectual Property Constituency Request for Reconsideration
    • On 22 November 2023, the Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC) filed a Request for Reconsideration  of the ICANN Board Resolutions 2023.10.26.11 and 2023.10.26.122, regarding (i) the actions and inactions that led to:
      • (a) the ICANN Board’s public comment of 6 December 2018 on the Initial Report of the Cross-Community Working Group on New gTLD Auction Proceeds (CCWG-AP),
      • (b) the organization of the public comment phase on the Proposed Final Report of the New gTLD Auction Proceeds Cross Community Working Group,
      • (c) the ICANN Board Resolutions 2022.06.12.13 to 2022.06.12.16 , and (ii) the actions and inactions involving the implementation of the ICANN Grant Giving Program.
    • Council will hear an update on the Request for Consideration and discuss potential next steps for the Council, if any.
  • Item 10: Any Other Business


Card
idMeetDeets_May2024
labelMEETING DETAILS

GNSO Council Meeting #5 of 2024 held on 16 May 2024 at 05:00 UTC: https://tinyurl.com/4dthynkr  

22:00 Los Angeles (Wednesday); 01:00 Washington DC; 22:00 London; 06:00 Paris; 08:00 Moscow; 15:00 Melbourne 

GNSO Council Meeting Remote Participation: Zoom link

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


Card
idMeet_May2024
labelMEETING RECORD

Records of 16 May 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


Card
idSumRep_May2024
labelREPORT

Special Summary Report of 16 May 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 May 2024 Matters of Interest and/or from GNSO Council May 2024 Meeting Records.

1. Consent Agenda

...

  • Council resolved to adopt the revised Description of the role of GNSO Liaison to the Governmental Advisory Committee.
  • Council resolved to approved the ICANN Board’s Proposed Amendment to remove the phrase “from the Independent Project Applications Panel” from the Cross-Community Working Group on Auction Proceeds Recommendation 7.

2. Diacritics in Latin Script

  • The issue of diacritics in Latin script is not a new one. It first originated, resulting from the 2012 Round, when the registry operator for .Quebec opted to apply for the non-diacritic .quebec label in favour of the label with diacritic “.québec”, but they did not pursue any "formal" remedy to the challenge of also obtaining the “.québec” TLD until more recently, when 4 public comments were submitted in response to the GNSO Call for Public Comments to the Phase 1 Initial Report of the IDNs EPDP in Apr 2023.
  • In Jul 2023, GNSO Leadership received a communication from the IDNs-EPDP Chair regarding 4 public comments related to creating an exceptional process by which the existing registry operator for .quebec could apply “.québec” in a future gTLD round ("the .québec issue") being out of scope of the IDNs-EPDP and its Charter, and referred the comments to the GNSO Council for consideration and action as determined appropriate.
  • On 17 Aug 2023, GNSO Leadership circulated the 22 Jun 2023 letter from ALAC Chair to the GNSO Chair regarding the Latin script LGR and .québec issue.
  • On 24 Aug 2023, Council discussed this issue and, the then GNSO Chair essentially concluded that the issue of .quebec (TLD) not being a variant of “.québec” did not require an immediate resolution and one that did not squarely sit in the remit of the IDNs-EPDP.
  • On 23 Sep 2023, the then Council Chair again addressed the issue of accents and diacritics in Latin languages that could be deemed confusingly similar to existing strings or other applications, and suggested chartering something with a narrow scope to ensure that this topic does not slide elsewhere into the string similarity discussion and ensure that solutions are found that match requirements imposed on variants.  ICANN org staff clarified that next steps from the staff perspective would be for Council to request an Issues Report.

  • On 25 Oct 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. Since then, Council had for several months deferred discussing a way forward to address the issue 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.

  • The issue finally returned to Council's agenda in Apr 2024, where after much discussion, Council concluded that GNSO support staff's suggested way forward was neither feasible nor desirable (see my Apr 2024 report), and as a result, Council reinforced its agreement to request an Issue Report on diacritics in Latin script. Since this could only be actioned through a Council resolution, it was agreed that Council would vote on such a motion in its May 2024 meeting.
  • Hence at this meeting, Council resolved to adopt the request for an an Issues Report, directs staff to create the Report.

3. IPC's Request for Reconsideration (RfR) on the Board's Proposed Bylaws Updates to Limit Access to Accountability Mechanisms

  • This is regarding the Board Accountability Mechanisms Committee's (BAMC) dismissal of IPC's RfR on the basis that IPC was not a party harmed by the Board's Proposed Bylaws Updates to Limit Access to Accountability Mechanisms.
  • NOTE: While the GNSO Council did not support the Board's proposal but the ALAC did, the issue being contended here, is the principle that an ICANN community group can be found to have no standing (i.e. has been unable to show harm suffered) for something that has yet to be implemented.
  • Council discussed possible next steps to counter the BAMC dismissal, noting that the gravity and implications of grounds for this dismissal, including the possibility of involving other members of the ICANN Community in next steps.

4. Deferral of Policy Status Report Request - Expiration Policies

  • Council previously considered when to request a Policy Status Report (“PSR”) for the purpose of conducting a review of the two Expiration Policies, the Expired Domain Name Deletion Policy (“EDDP”) and the Expired Registration Recovery Policy (“ERRP”). In November 2020, given concerns about its capacity and no known issues with the policies, the Council agreed to delay the request for the Policy Status Report (PSR) for a period of 24 months. After 24 months had passed, the 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. 

  • In making its decision whether to request to a PSR at this time, Council consulted: 

    1. Registrars, who were asked to flag substantial issues with the policies that would warrant a near-term request for PSR and did not note any issues
    2. 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.
    3. 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)
  • Council then determined that the EDDP and ERRP seem to have been implemented as intended and imminent policy work is not needed at this time, and so, considered to pursue a PSR on the Expiration Policies in two years' time, or earlier, if a need is determined and it is requested.
  • Primarily at an IPC Councilor's request, this decision for a deferral of the PSR was deferred yet again, to Council's Jun 2024 meeting. IPC's belief that the request for a PSR should proceed now since it would take some time for it to be actioned by ICANN org staff, and IPC wanted a bit more time to shore up its representation on this issue.  There was no objection to deferring the vote to Council's next meeting.


Anchor
A-24-04
A-24-04
24-04 GNSO COUNCIL MEETING #4 (APR 2024)                        (go up to Directory) 

Deck of Cards
idApr2024


Card
idShow_Apr2024
labelSHOW ME

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


Card
idAgenda_Apr2024
labelAGENDA

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

Full Agenda

...

Deck of Cards
idApr2024
Card
idShow_Apr2024
labelSHOW ME

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

Card
idAgenda_Apr2024
labelAGENDA

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 RFR decision and 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


Card
idMOI_Apr2024
labelMATTERS OF INTEREST

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 the 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

    • 10.1 - IPC’s RFR decision and Council’s subsequent letter 

    • 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)


Card
idMeetDeets_Apr2024
labelMEETING DETAILS

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.


Card
idMeet_Apr2024
labelMEETING RECORD

Records of 18 Apr 2024 Meeting


Card
idSumRep_Apr2024
labelREPORT

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

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 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 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.

Action by ALAC Liaison

    •  Justine Chew to update ALAC/CPWG after the GNSO Council's May 2024 meeting on any direction taken with regards to resolving the Diacritics issue.

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 what Supplemental Recommendations 24A, 24B, 24C are attempting to achieve with regards to singular/plurals while addressing the Board's subsisting concerns with the supplemental recommendation language, 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 already shared concerns.
    • ICANN Org's proposition is to essentially remove the singular/plurals assessment out of String Similarity Review altogether and rely on an 'objection-like' approach without it becoming a formal objection process, which would still place burdens on the community to take action to prevent the singular/plurals from being approved if there was a concern. 
  • Council was amenable to consider Lars' proposition in-principle, subject to details being fleshed out further.
  • On these bases, Council opted to 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. Council will review this question in May 2024.

Action by ALAC Liaison

    •  Justine Chew to update ALAC/CPWG when GNSO Council has decided on whether and how the Supplemental Recommendations 24A, 24B and 24C on String Similarity might be reworked further based on the intervention of the Board and ICANN org.

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 for consideration/approval.

Action by ALAC Liaison

    •  Justine Chew to update ALAC/CPWG on GNSO Council's adoption of the SubPro Supplemental Recommendations for 4 topics.

5. Cross-Community Working Group on Auction Proceeds (CCWG-AP) Recommendation 7

  • 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 agreed to reply to the 2 Mar letter expressing support for the Board's suggestion to remove the phrase ‘from the Independent Project Applications Evaluation Panel’ from the text of the recommendation.

6. Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Implementation (PPSAI)

  • The issue with PPSAI is it is in 'rather unique' situation in that there is a gap between when the policies were adopted but implementation was subsequently delayed, and when work is now planed to resume again, those policies may no longer be fit for purpose due to new legislation coming into effect and other factors.
  • Council was informed that ICANN Org has been working on an implementation plan and planning to reengage with its Implementation Review Team (PPSAI IRT) at ICANN80. A fresh call for volunteers will be issued prior to ICANN80 to constitute a refreshed PPSAI IRT with an open + rep model. 
  • There are currently 4 "threshold questions" for the refreshed IRT's consideration:-
    • Are there any policy questions or items the IRT already wants to bring to Council for guidance?
    • Can an implementation model without a formal accreditation program remain consistent with policy recommendations?
    • Are there specific areas to revisit under new law/policy (Org to share assessment, IRT to review)?
    • Can these frameworks be aligned with existing work on RDRS, Registration Data Policy, etc and remain consistent with policy recommendations?
  • It was noted that this PPSAI IRT could be seen not as a conventional IRT but rather as a scoping team for issue identification based on the first question.

Action by ALAC Liaison

    •  Justine Chew to update ALAC/CPWG when the call for volunteers to refresh the PPSAI IRT is made.

7. IPC's Request for Reconsideration (RfR) on the Board's Proposed Bylaws Updates to Limit Access to Accountability Mechanisms

  • IPC received a response from the Board Accountability Mechanisms Committee (BAMC) rejecting IPC's RfR on the basis that IPC was not a party harmed by theBoard's Proposed Bylaws Updates to Limit Access to Accountability Mechanisms
  • NOTE: While the GNSO Council did not support the Board's proposal and the ALAC did, the issue being contended here, as explained to Council by an IPC Councilor, is the principle that an ICANN community group can be found to have no standing (i.e. has been unable to show harm suffered) for something that has yet to be implemented.

Action by ALAC Liaison

    •  Justine Chew to liaise with IPC on next steps to the BAMC's rejection of IPC's RfR on the Board's Proposed Bylaws updates to limit access to Accountability Mechanisms, if so instructed by ALAC-LT/ALAC.


...