Justine Chew is currently serving as the ALAC Liaison the GNSO. She was selected by the ALAC in October 2021 and took on the role on Thursday, 28 October 2021 at the end of the ICANN72 AGM.

In January  2021, Hadia El Miniawi and Justine Chew agreed to shadow

...

ALAC Liaison to the GNSO

...

in preparation for appointments to be made in advance of the ICANN#72 AGM. 

Previously serving ALAC Liaisons to the GNSO Council:

In 2017, the ALAC re-appointed Cheryl Langdon-Orr served as the ALAC Liasion Liaison to the GNSO for the period a fifth and final term of office, between the 2017 2020 AGM to the 2018 AGM.
On 10 September 2016, the ALAC appointed 2021 ICANN#72 AGM, having been appointed on 10 September 2016.  Please read my farewell report

Olivier Crepin-Leblond served as the ALAC Liaison to the GNSO Council from March 7th, 2015, to the end of the AGM at the ICANN 54 meeting in Dublin 2015, and from September 22, 2015, through to ICANN 57 Hyderabad November 2016.

...

Alan Greenberg served as the GNSO Liaison for the following terms:  2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010, 2010-2011, 2011-2012, 2012-2013, 2013-2014.

Previously  Serving as ALAC Liaison:

*to the DNSO was Thomas Roessler  2002-2003 (in October 2003 the Names Council of the DNSO become the GNSO) and 2003-Feb 2005   

Bret Fausett 2005-2006

...

Anyone is welcome to listen to GNSO Council Meetings   

...

Listen in Option in

...

ZOOM     

GNSO Council Meeting Webinar Room**

https://icann.zoom.us/j/96826336141

...

**UNLESS Specified Differently in a Current Agenda (such as during ICANN Public Meetings)

...

Occasional News Updates.

Any Notes of relevance to the ALAC / At-Large from GNSO Council Meetings will be highlighted at

...

ALAC Meetings and here in colour from time to time.

...

Upcoming meetings of interest during ICANN 72 -  you must register to attend and receive the Zoom link details ... Remember the ICANN71GNSOPolicy Briefing document provides a snapshot of the status of GNSO Policy Development Process (PDP) working groups/teams, and information about other GNSO policy-related activities.

The meetings of the GNSO are archived and listed below with the most recent meetings first, with complete details including recordings from pages listed HERE by year (along with other GNSO Meeting records).

2021 meetings that are still to be held.

The proposed upcoming dates for the GNSO Council Meetings in 2021 are as follows. (dates removed as they are completed and detailed in the section below)          

18 November  1900 UTC

16 December   1900 UTC

Formal Minutes for the Council meetings per the GNSO Operating Procedures can be found below:

Special attention will be drawn verbally or by email, to any issues relating to the GNSO or the Liaison role at ALAC Meetings and those of the ALAC ALT+ and when needed for advice or action. These reports will constitute part of the ALAC meeting records.  resolutions of the Council (where relevant) and Recordings of meetings will be displayed where possible in advance of the formal Minutes being uploaded for ease of reference...

...

GNSO Council Meeting Agenda's and Records for 2021 will be listed  below when available:

27 October 2021 19:30 UTC, being held during ICANN 72

Participation Links

To help reduce session disruptions, please do not share Zoom participation links on social media. However, we encourage you to share YouTube Livestream links (when available) on social media.

Session Details

• Zoom participation links will be published 24 hours before the session starts. For more information on how to participate, visit: https://72.schedule.icann.org/participation-tools

GNSO Policy Briefing for ICANN72: https://go.icann.org/gnsobriefing

Agenda: https://community.icann.org/x/8gBmCg

Motions: https://community.icann.org/x/_gBmCg

Documents: https://community.icann.org/x/_ABmCg

A second part of this meeting will be held later that day at 2200 UTC  as a continuation of the earlier Council session that will deal mainly with administrative matters which include the seating of the new Council and the election of the chair and vice-chairs.

GNSO Policy Briefing for ICANN72: https://go.icann.org/gnsobriefing

Agenda: https://community.icann.org/x/9gBmCg

...

Please find below the audio recording, zoom recording (audio, visual, rough transcript) and zoom chat of the GNSO Council meeting held on Thursday, 23 September 2021 at 19:00 UTC.

Audio only: https://icann.zoom.us/rec/play/W1G4zJdqyfw3sy8KE2acYZzTnXl4uMAHRJZImqfUB5hFU7ZJS74JTFHDAa6lAMjSNd1iWTcBsfs1Z1zw.rDHaGFIrCMl1_7lt

Zoom Recording (includes chat and visual and rough transcript. To access the rough transcript, select the Audio Transcript tab): https://icann.zoom.us/rec/share/uHQW5GoIWsnnCcRE80IPW3Y8l_JNGibeiUFLvP6_yd_M8OpCOpWRSucieToBhMTw.IS9JXxE9v6onlWPC?startTime=1632423686000

Zoom Chat: https://icann.zoom.us/rec/sdownload/B7ktDEs91fasAbwVV0r7-K2OjmzqFFTsPmsVeFjETtXd2t-eWqpOqlkIi96HosHGlKuUHZm0mdD0lXji.qW8Qp4lcC8Q_d2Jr

Full MInutes will be added here when released.

GNSO Council Agenda 23 September 2021 

GNSO Council meeting held 19:00 UTC 

GNSO Council Meeting Remote Participation: https://icann.zoom.us/j/99190199531?pwd=UG0vRTYrS2VyK1hZNUtCWjRXYlo1QT09 [icann.zoom.us] 

Councillors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if they will not be able to attend and/or need a dial out call.

___________________________________

Item 1: Administrative Matters (10 mins)

1.1 - Roll Call

1.2 - Updates to Statements of Interest

1.3 - Review / Amend Agenda

1.4 - Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meetings per the GNSO Operating Procedures: 

Minutes [gnso.icann.org] of the GNSO Council meeting on 22 July 2021 were posted on 06 August 2021.

Minutes [gnso.icann.org] of the GNSO Council meeting on 19 August 2021 were posted on 04 September 2021.

Item 2: Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List (10 minutes)

2.1 - Review focus areas and provide updates on specific key themes / topics, to include review of Projects List [gnso.icann.org]and Action Item List. 

Item 3: Consent Agenda (10 minutes) 

 3.1 - Approval of the Chair for the Accuracy Scoping Team - Michael Palage (SOI)

3.2 - Approval of the updated role description [gnso.icann.org] for the GNSO liaison to the GAC

 3.3 - Approval of the 2021 Customer Standing Committee (CSC) Slate - In accordance

with Section 17.2 (d) of the ICANN Bylaw and per the CSC Charter, the full membership of the CSC must be approved by the GNSO Council. The Council approves the full slate of members and liaisons:

Members:

Frederico Neves, member re-appointed

Appointing Organization: ccNSO

Term: 2021 – 2023

Brett Carr (Vice-Chair) member

Appointing Organization: ccNSO

Expected Term: 2020 - 2022

Dmitry Burkov, member re-appointed

Appointing Organization: RySG

Term: 2021 - 2023

Gaurav Vedi, member

Appointing Organization: RySG

Expected Term: 2020 - 2022

Liaisons:

Holly Raiche, liaison re-appointed

Appointing Organization: ALAC

Term: 2021 - 2023

Milton Mueller, liaison re-appointed

Appointing Organization: GNSO (Non-Registry)

Term: 2021 – 2023

Lars-Johan Liman, (Chair)

Appointing Organization: RSSAC

Expected Term: 2020 – 2022

Laxmi Prasad Yadav

Appointing Organization: GAC

Expected Term: 2020 - 2022

Amy Creamer

Appointing Organization: PTI

Term: no term limit

SSAC has declined to appoint a liaison as of the 01 October 2021 slate.

Item 4: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - EPDP Phase 2A Final Report (35 minutes)

On 21 October 2020, the GNSO Council approved the initiation [gnso.icann.org]of EPDP Phase 2A, to examine the topics of legal/natural and feasibility of unique contacts. In doing so, the Council required that the GNSO Council Liaison to the EPDP report back to the GNSO Council on the status of deliberations. Accordingly, status updates were regularly provided to the GNSO Council over the course of the EPDP Phase 2A’s deliberations. The EPDP Team published its Initial Report for public comment on 3 June 2021, which included preliminary recommendations as well as questions for community input. The EPDP Team delivered its Phase 2A Final Report to the GNSO Council on 3 September 2021, which was updated on 13 September 2021 with the minority statements incorporated into the Final Report

The GNSO Council will receive a presentation on the Final Report, to better prepare the Council for a vote during the October meeting. While this agenda item is for discussion only, a draft motion was circulated to the GNSO Council on 13 September 2021 for discussion purposes. The Council will also consider the proposal contained in the Final Report, which recommends that the Council follow current and future legislative developments which may require further policy work.

Here, the GNSO Council will receive a presentation, as well as discuss the Final Report and the draft motion.

4.1 – Introduction of topic (Philippe Fouquart, GNSO Council liaison to EPDP Phase 2A)

4.2 –  Presentation on the Final Report

4.3 – Council discussion

4.4 – Next steps

Item 5: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - GDS Update on the Framework for the Policy Status Report Framework on the UDRP (30 minutes)

On 21 January 2021, the GNSO Council approved the recommendations from the Phase 1 Final Report of the GNSO Policy Development Process (PDP) on the Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in All gTLDs, covering RPMs applicable to gTLDs launched under the 2012 New gTLD Program. The Council has discussed the need to review the RPMs charter in advance of launching Phase 2 of the PDP, which is focused on the UDRP.

Council leadership had considered the best path forward to initiating this work and shared their thoughts [gnso.icann.org] for advancing this effort on 13 July 2021, which considers a Policy Status Report (PSR) as a possible next step. The Council discussed the approach during its July meeting and agreed that ICANN org should consider how to conduct the PSR and return to the Council to present their proposed framework for the PSR, in advance of initiating the actual work. ICANN org shared a presentation on 13 September 2021.

Here, the Council will receive a presentation and consider whether it agrees with the proposed approach for the PSR.

5.1 – Introduction of topic (Council leadership)

5.2 – Presentation (Antonietta Mangiocotti - ICANN org)

5.3 – Council discussion

5.4 – Next steps

Item 6: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - CCWG-Accountability WS2 Implementation - Next Steps for the GNSO Council (15 Minutes)

On 7 November 2019, the ICANN Board adopted [features.icann.org] all of the consensus recommendations contained within the WS2 Final Report. As part of the resolved clauses, ICANN Org was directed to begin implementation of those recommendations, in accordance with the WS2 Implementation Assessment Report. 

In 2020, the GNSO Council sought to get ahead of impending work it will eventually be asked to undertake for the implementation of WS2. In an effort to better understand the specific items that it will be tasked to complete, the Council performed an analysis (circulated on 20 January 2021)  of the recommendations and considered which might result in tasks for the Council to complete.

Since then, ICANN org has devoted additional staff resources to help assist the community to understand which recommendations may result in work for each of the respective Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees, and of particular interest to the GNSO, each of the Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies (which for the most part, are entirely separate from work the GNSO Council will undertake).

Here, the Council will receive an update from ICANN org on the latest efforts related to the WS2 implementation. 

6.1 – Update (Mary Wong - ICANN org)

6.2 – Council discussion

6.3 – Next steps

Item 7: ANY OTHER BUSINESS (10 minutes)

7.1 - SSAD Operational Design Phase

7.2 - Criteria for evaluating candidates for the SubPro ODP role, and want to provide some additional context for this item.

This EOI process has now closed, and the SSC will soon begin its selection process. The EOI lists the desired skills and experience and asks candidates to describe their own qualifications with respect to each.

The SSC is expected to evaluate the candidates according to the criteria in the EOI and may also take into account other relevant information available about the candidates in making its decision.

There is a high-qualified field of candidates for this role (see EOIs here). Council leadership wants to confirm whether there is any additional guidance that Council wants to provide to the SSC in making its recommendation, in particular:

• The EOI form includes a question about whether candidates have any type of material interest in the New gTLD Program and/or the outcomes of the SubPro ODP. Typically, within the GNSO community members are expected to disclose interests as a transparency measure (in particular, through the SOI), but disclosed interests do not disqualify individuals from serving in community volunteer roles. Extending this principle to the current process, the SSC would not consider any interests that candidates may have declared as a disqualifying or a negative factor in making their recommendation. Council leadership would like to confirm that this is also the understanding of the Council.
• All of the candidates for this EOI have other volunteer commitments/roles within the ICANN community. Are there any specific commitments/volunteer roles that the Council considers incompatible with serving in the ODP liaison role or problematic to the extent that it needs to be taken into account by the SSC in the selection process? If so, what guidance needs to be provided to the SSC?

_______________________________

...

Resolutions and recordings from the Meeting of August 19 2021.  Full Minutes uploaded below; 

20210819-2

To initiate the EPDP for Specific Curative Rights Mechanisms for IGOs

Submitted by Pam Little

Seconded by John McElwaine

Whereas:

1. The GNSO Council approved an Addendum to the Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) Policy Development Process (PDP) Charter in January 2020 that created an IGO Work Track to address concerns arising from Recommendation #5 of the IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protections PDP that Councilors had expressed during their discussion of the five recommendations in the Final Report;
2. The GNSO Council had approved the first four recommendations from the IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection PDP, but not Recommendation #5; which the GNSO Council decided to refer to the RPMs PDP, to consider as part of its Phase 2 work;
3. Taking into account that IGO representatives were eager to start the work and Phase 2 was anticipated to launch shortly after the completion of Phase 1, the GNSO Council launched the IGO Work Track in September 2020, during Phase 1 of the RPMs PDP;
4. Phase 1 of the RPMs PDP concluded with the GNSO Council’s approval of all its final recommendations in January 2021;
5. Due to concerns raised as to the scope of Phase 2, including from the Phase 1 Working Group’s feedback through its self-assessment exercise, the GNSO Council considered it necessary to review and revise the RPMs PDP Charter prior to launching Phase 2;
6. As Phase 2 will involve the first-ever comprehensive review of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, which has been an ICANN Consensus Policy since 1999, the time and effort involved in rechartering of Phase 2 of the RPMs PDP is likely to be significant;
7. The GNSO Council believes that the IGO Work Track has made substantial progress in its deliberations and that it is important to maintain the group’s momentum, so as to allow the community to attempt to reach consensus on a long-standing issue;
8. The scope of work for the IGO Work Track focuses on a specific and defined policy issue that has been substantively scoped previously, such that extensive, pertinent information already exists;
9. The GNSO Council therefore believes that initiating an Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP) to enable the policy work to continue without delay is the most appropriate procedural path forward. The GNSO Council recognizes that initiating this EPDP is entirely a procedural action and will not have a material negative impact; and
10. On 09 August 2021, in accordance with the EPDP Manual, Pam Little submitted an Initiation Request (document updated 18 August 2021) and a draft EPDP Charter to the Council for its consideration.

Resolved:

1. The GNSO Council hereby approves the Initiation Request for the EPDP and as such initiates the EPDP on Specific Curative Rights Protections for Intergovernmental Organizations (IGOs).
2. The GNSO Council hereby approves the EPDP Charter for Specific Curative Rights Protections for IGOs, which reflects the same scope of work as captured in the IGO Work Track Addendum and thus continues the work of the IGO Work Track, which is hereby disbanded.
3. The GNSO Council directs the Chair and members of the IGO Work Track to continue its work as the EPDP Team on Specific Curative Rights Protections for IGOs, and to deliver its reports and outcomes in accordance with the EPDP Charter and the work plan that was developed by the IGO Work Track and acknowledged by the Council on 22 April 2021 and amended by a Project Change Request on 22 July 2021.
4. The GNSO Council directs staff to communicate the results of this vote to the members of the IGO Work Track and all participating Supporting Organizations, Advisory Committees and GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies.

Vote results

*****

GNSO Council  Meeting  Minutes for 19 August 2021 at 1900 UTC

Audio only: https://icann.zoom.us/rec/play/57dzT0sVAhdZIAOUwMCk-OmO0hatPsXLLQ_6LeQGIYLgA3ZOkFiL7PeEDZQOBSTNkwUKdnmqHMGUdlPo.IPWRWglh6dXQW9vQ

Zoom Recording (includes chat and visual and rough transcript. To access the rough transcript, select the Audio Transcript tab): https://icann.zoom.us/rec/play/dq7m5umgRxNFnI7ftE2YJsDH-zdgOYyiPw9Qisp9VPI8Yu-COqjabznLPUf510oMPiuBsYHIbZidMt8.eS4HU-vscUuiBv1x

Zoom Chat: https://icann.zoom.us/rec/sdownload/Bjl5SMveL4KfgW1XjtaD0pHVCHz5uIrH6Pk5abTC6Z_Rtp99C8ctwgtJomc7vz_wSh0FfPzFLaDaPkip.PqTh6yXDzbOvNw8Q

Minutes of the GNSO Council Meeting 19 August 2021

AgendaandDocuments

Coordinated Universal Time: 19:00 UTC: ​​https://tinyurl.com/3u3fjdff

12:00 Los Angeles; 15:00 Washington; 20:00 London; 21:00 Paris; 22:00 Moscow; (Friday) 05:00 Melbourne

List of attendees:

Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): – Non-Voting – Olga Cavalli

Contracted Parties House

Registrar Stakeholder Group: Pam Little, Greg Dibiase, Kristian Ørmen

gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group: Maxim Alzoba, Kurt Pritz, Sebastien Ducos

Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Tom Dale

Non-Contracted Parties House

Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG): Marie Pattullo, Mark Datysgeld, Philippe Fouquart, Osvaldo Novoa, John McElwaine, Flip Petillion

Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG): Juan Manuel Rojas, Stephanie Perrin, Tatiana Tropina, Wisdom Donkor, Tomslin Samme-Nlar, Farell Folly

Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Carlton Samuels (apology sent, proxy to Stephanie Perrin)

GNSO Council Liaisons/Observers :

Cheryl Langdon-Orr– ALAC Liaison

Jeff Neuman– GNSO liaison to the GAC

Maarten Simon – ccNSO observer

Guests:

Chris Disspain – IGO WT Chair

ICANN Staff

David Olive -Senior Vice President, Policy Development Support and Managing Manager, ICANN Regional

Marika Konings – Senior Advisor, Special Projects

Mary Wong – Vice President, Strategic Community Operations, Planning and Engagement

Julie Hedlund – Policy Director

Steve Chan – Senior Director

Berry Cobb – Policy Consultant

Emily Barabas – Policy Manager

Ariel Liang – Policy Senior Specialist (apologies)

Caitlin Tubergen – Policy Director

Nathalie Peregrine – Manager, Operations Support (apologies)

Terri Agnew - Operations Support - GNSO Lead Administrator (apologies)

Julie Bisland – GNSO SO/AC Support

Zoom Recording

Transcript

Item 1: Administrative Matters

1.1 - Roll Call

Philippe Fouquart, GNSO Chair, welcomed all to the August 2021 Council meeting.

1.2 - Updates to Statements of Interest.

There were no updates to the Statements of Interest.

1.3 - Review / Amend Agenda

The agenda was accepted as presented.

1.4 - Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meetings per the GNSO Operating Procedures:

Minutesof the GNSO Council meeting on 16 June 2021 were posted on 03 July 2021.

Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting on 22 July 2021 were posted on 06 August 2021. 

​​Item 2: Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List

2.1 - Review focus areas and provide updates on specific key themes / topics, to include review of Projects List and Action Item List.

Berry Cobb, GNSO Policy Consultant, presented the more recent updates of the Portfolio Management Tool, the Action Decision Radar and the Project List.

Berry Cobb, GNSO Policy Consultant gave a heads up on the range of work approaching Council in the next few months.

He clarified that all the tools need to be viewed together. The ADR serves to provide visibility on items which will warrant Council action. The portfolio management tool attempts to create an inventory of everything that will touch the GNSO directly or

indirectly. This portfolio is a combination of very specific information (project plans) and more indirect information with educated guesses regarding timelines. He provided the example of a project with perfect Council visibility: the monthly project package destined to provide updated information. This was an output of PDP3.0. There is a new summary dashboard built in now, applied by Transfer Policy PDP, which is a collapsed view of tasks, durations of a project. It replaces the previous summary timeline. There is now greater connectivity between all tools in the portofolio.

He added as an example that it takes a standard of 3 months for the ICANN Board to review recommendations and 18 months if an Implementation Review Team (IRT) begins after that. Once the implementation of the IRT does take place, the tools will be updated accordingly.

The Action Decision Radar (ADR) is only as good as the information entered into the tool. The GNSO Council is working on several things right now as visible on the short term framework of the ADR (0 - 1 month) such as the Final Report on EPDP P2A and confirmation of the CSC Effectiveness Review slate of members, The Annual General Meeting (AGM) also adds items to the ADR which are visible in the 1 - 3 month framework such as the confirmation or selection of the GNSO Council Liaison to the GAC, election of the GNSO Chair, selection of the GNSO Representative to the Empowered Community, refresh the Standing Selection Committee (SSC) roster and confirm Chair, confirmation of the EPDP on IDNs work plan, GNSO Representatives to the Fellowship program, planning for Council Strategic Planning Session (SPS) and comments to be submitted for the FY2023 PTI/ IANA Budget and Operations Plan.

These tools are an improvement on program planning in comparison to the ones used previously.

Maxim Alzoba, Registries Stakeholder Group (RySG), asked if the EPDP P2A ODP timeframe has changed. Berry Cobb. GNSO Policy Consultant, explained that when the Board resolved to launch the ODP it was expected that it would conclude in 6 months time, so aiming for the end of September, it is still on track.

Jeff Neuman, GNSO Council liaison to the GAC, mentioned that SubPro & RPM IRTs are work still needed to be done. Could they be added to the ADR? Berry Cobb, GNSO Policy Consultant, clarified that the ADR’s scope is for Council action/ decision only. In the program management tool, however, there is a generic line item for the IRT which could possibly start in September, but is yet to be confirmed, as the Board needs to take action on it. The Board has not yet resolved to kick off the SubPro ODP either. When the Board actions are known, the items will be clarified on the program management tool.

Maxim Alzoba, RySG, asked whether the length of the lines on the program management tool be shortened for greater readability.

Kurt Pritz, RySG, it would be helpful to have further information from the Board, and in general, to plan even further ahead.

Philippe Fouquart, GNSO Chair, since these are guesstimates, for work items which are joint between different groups, the guesstimates ought to be aligned once the tools are aligned. He added that he distributed the document to his constituency, and that other councilors do too.

Item 3: Consent Agenda

· Confirmation of Olga Cavalli to serve as the Chair of the Council Committee for Overseeing and Implementing Continuous Improvement

Philippe Fouquart, GNSO Chair, thanked Olga for stepping up for the role.

The GNSO Council voted unanimously in support of the Consent Agenda item.

Vote results

Action Items:

Confirmation of Olga Cavalli to serve as the Chair of the Council Committee for Overseeing and Implementing Continuous Improvement

Item 4: COUNCIL VOTE - EPDP on Specific Curative Rights Protections for Intergovernmental Organizations (IGO)

Pam Little, GNSO Council Vice Chair, seconded by John McElwaine, submitted the motion to initiate the EPDP on Specific Curative Rights Protections for IGOs and approve the EPDP Charter.

Whereas:

The GNSO Council approved an Addendum to the Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) Policy Development Process (PDP) Charter in January 2020 that created an IGO Work Track to address concerns arising from Recommendation #5 of the IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protections PDP that Councilors had expressed during their discussion of the five recommendations in the Final Report;

The GNSO Council had approved the first four recommendations from the IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection PDP, but not Recommendation #5; which the GNSO Council decided to refer to the RPMs PDP, to consider as part of its Phase 2 work;

Taking into account that IGO representatives were eager to start the work and Phase 2 was anticipated to launch shortly after the completion of Phase 1, the GNSO Council launched the IGO Work Track in September 2020, during Phase 1 of the RPMs PDP;

Phase 1 of the RPMs PDP concluded with the GNSO Council’s approval of all its final recommendations in January 2021;

Due to concerns raised as to the scope of Phase 2, including from the Phase 1 Working Group’s feedback through its self-assessment exercise, the GNSO Council considered it necessary to review and revise the RPMs PDP Charter prior to launching Phase 2;

As Phase 2 will involve the first-ever comprehensive review of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, which has been an ICANN Consensus Policy since 1999, the time and effort involved in rechartering of Phase 2 of the RPMs PDP is likely to be significant;

The GNSO Council believes that the IGO Work Track has made substantial progress in its deliberations and that it is important to maintain the group’s momentum, so as to allow the community to attempt to reach consensus on a long-standing issue;

The scope of work for the IGO Work Track focuses on a specific and defined policy issue that has been substantively scoped previously, such that extensive, pertinent information already exists;

The GNSO Council therefore believes that initiating an Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP) to enable the policy work to continue without delay is the most appropriate procedural path forward. The GNSO Council recognizes that initiating this EPDP is entirely a procedural action and will not have a material negative impact; and

On 09 August 2021, in accordance with the EPDP Manual, Pam Little submitted an Initiation Request (document updated 18 August 2021) and a draft EPDP Charter to the Council for its consideration.

Resolved:

The GNSO Council hereby approves the Initiation Request for the EPDP and as such initiates the EPDP on Specific Curative Rights Protections for Intergovernmental Organizations (IGOs).

The GNSO Council hereby approves the EPDP Charter for Specific Curative Rights Protections for IGOs, which reflects the same scope of work as captured in the IGO Work Track Addendum and thus continues the work of the IGO Work Track, which is hereby disbanded.

The GNSO Council directs the Chair and members of the IGO Work Track to continue its work as the EPDP Team on Specific Curative Rights Protections for IGOs, and to deliver its reports and outcomes in accordance with the EPDP

Charter and the work plan that was developed by the IGO Work Track and acknowledged by the Council on 22 April 2021 and amended by a Project Change Request on 22 July 2021.

The GNSO Council directs staff to communicate the results of this vote to the members of the IGO Work Track and all participating Supporting Organizations, Advisory Committees and GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies.

Philippe Fouquart, GNSO Chair, introduced the motion, and explained that initiating the EPDP is a procedural remedy, with no impact on resources but it is intended to provide the WT with a robust procedural remit, and will not impact the scope of the group. The EPDP mechanism does not change how Council will review the outcome. In addition, this will not impact the momentum either of the WT. Council leadership appreciates that this was not the initial path chosen by Council previously but the context was different. Currently waiting for RPM Phase 2 to start has too many drawbacks. However a GNSO Council discussion is at this time welcome.

Pam Little, GNSO Council Vice Chair, presented the motion (Slide Deck) . It’s been three years since the IGO Curative Rights Final Report was delivered. Council then deliberated how to deal with the five recommendations from the group. Several months later, Council approved recommendations 1- 4 and referred recommendation 5 to RPMs Phase 2. Later, Council approved the IGO WT addendum to the RPMs Charter. The WT then kicked off a few months later, in September 2020, with a first meeting in September 2021. In January 2021, RPMs Phase 1 delivered the Final Report. Usually, after a Final Report, the group disbands, Now Council is in the process of deciding what to do with RPMs Phase 2, but the IGO WT does not have an umbrella group. The focus is on recommendation 5 on jurisdictional immunity to be specific. The problem statement included in the addendum for the WT is very technical, narrow and complicated. The charge to the WT was to see if an appropriate policy solution was possible, consistent with recommendations 1 - 4. Council approved these at the time, so the principle of the WT needs to be consistent. Regarding the deliverables under the current Addendum, Council contemplated that the RPM WG would have a chance to look at the WT initial Report and provide input, in an oversight role. Council also recognised that the WT would consist of subject matter experts, so the RPM WG would be expected to accept them as a formality, unless the WG raises specific objections not previously raised by

the IGO WT or in the public comments. This is an unusual situation, the WT has almost completed its Initial Report, in order to capture the momentum, it ought to be converted to an EPDP. Other options would be to wait for RPMs Phase 2 to launch, or reconvene Phase 1, but the work is important and must be completed. The main change in deliverables under the proposed EPDP Charter is the way in which the initial Report and Final Report will be delivered. The draft charter for the EPDP IGO has been created based on PDP3.0 guidelines, and in keeping with the addendum.

Tomslin Samme-Nlar, Non Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG), asked about the possible scope change. Philippe Fouquart, GNSO Chair, replied that there is no change of scope, moving to an EPDP is a procedural remedy.

Mark Datysgeld, Business Constituency (BC), stated that this topic has been taking a while, and asked whether the EPDP team will have the tools and information to do the work, as it does seem to be scattered amongst several groups. The work could be unrealistic or unfocussed.

Philippe Fouquart, GNSO Chair, clarified that the framework would take this into account, Council’s role is mainly procedural. Substantive explanations would be provided by the WT Chair.

Chris Disspain, WT Chair,replied that there are no guarantees that the WT can come to a reasonable conclusion, but that the work was going well. He raised the scope question with Council leadership when they were discussing finding a home for the WT, as some parts of the community could find some items of the WT concern out of scope. However there is full understanding within the WT that the work must stay within Council instructions/expectations, only community perception could be slightly different. The current work of the WT, and the preliminary recommendations are within scope and consistent with the Council’s approval of RPMs recommendations.

Philippe Fouquart, GNSO Chair, thanked Chris for his intervention, and added that having the WT Chair reassurance on the topic of scope was, for him, sufficient.

Tatiana Tropina, GNSO Council Vice Chair, recognised the scope issue had been unclear for her, and asked to confirm that the WT is not directed to change the scope now or before the preliminary report. Chris Disspain, WT Chair, confirmed her

interpretation of the current situation.

Kurt Pritz, RySG, asked if the EPDP can change the conclusion of a PDP or not, Pam Little, GNSO Vice Chair, responded that these are unchartered waters, however the language in the EPDP charter is consistent with that of the Addendum. Recommendations 1 - 4 have been approved by Council, not yet by ICANN Board, so they remain policy recommendations, which adds a little to the confusion but the Council instructions (regarding consistency with previous Recommendations 1-4, etc.) are reflected in the proposed EPDP Charter so if the Council decides to initiate the EPDP, the EPDP Team will be constrained by those instructions.

Maxim Alzoba, RySG, asked if there will be a PDP soon, as there are many EPDPs at the moment.

The GNSO Council voted unanimously in support of the motion.

Vote results

Action Items:

The GNSO Council directs staff to communicate the results of the vote on the EPDP on Specific Curative Rights Protections for Intergovernmental Organizations to the members of the IGO Work Track and all participating Supporting Organizations, Advisory Committees and GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies.

Item 5: COUNCIL VOTE: CSC Effectiveness Review Terms of Reference

Pam Little, GNSO Council Vice Chair, seconded by Maxim Alzoba, submitted a motion for Council to vote to approve both the method of review and the GNSO representatives for the team.

Whereas,

The Customer Standing Committee (CSC) was established as one of the post IANA Transition entities and conducted its first meeting on 6 October 2016.

The ICANN Bylaws, Section 17.3 (b) states, "The effectiveness of the CSC shall

be reviewed two years after the first meeting of the CSC; and then every three years thereafter. The method of review will be determined by the ccNSO and GNSO and the findings of the review will be published on the Website."

On 27 June 2018, in the process of adopting the amended CSC Charter as required by the ICANN Bylaws, Section 17.3 (c), the Councilresolved that it, "… notes the recommendation in the Final Report that the ccNSO and GNSO Councils conduct an analysis of the requirements of the IANA Naming Function Review and the CSC Effectiveness Review with a view to creating synergies and avoiding overlap, and has appointed two Councilors to conduct the recommended analysis in cooperation with two representatives from the ccNSO." 

Donna Austin and Philippe Fouquart, as the two appointed GNSO Councilors, and Debbie Monahan and Martin Boyle from the ccNSO, concluded that the most practical and efficient path forward was for the ccNSO and GNSO to each appoint two members to conduct the CSC Effectiveness Review that will consider the effectiveness of the CSC in performing its responsibilities as outlined in the CSC Charter.

On 27 September 2018, the GNSO Council approved the process for the first Customer Standing Committee (CSC) Effectiveness Review and appointed Donna Austin and Philippe Fouquart to serve as the GNSO representatives on that team.

That review team delivered its Final Report on 5 March 2019, where the team concluded that the CSC is operating effectively against 14 requirements from the CSC’s Charter; the GNSO Council approved the Final Report on 13 March 2019.

As per the Bylaws, Section 17.3 (b), the ccNSO and GNSO Councils will need to determine the method for conducting the second CSC Effectiveness Review before 1 October 2021.

The template to conduct the second CSC Effectiveness Review was conditionally approved by the ccNSO Council and was shared with the GNSO Council on 9 August 2021.

Thetemplatehas been reviewed and non-substantive changes recommended for the purposes of clarity and to make the timeline more achievable.

On 9 August 2021, Donna Austin and Jonathan Robinson were put forward to the GNSO Council as the GNSO appointees to serve on the second CSC

Effectiveness Review.

Resolved,

The GNSO Council approves the amended template for conducting the second CSC Effectiveness Review as suggested.

The GNSO Council appoints Donna Austin and Jonathan Robinson as the GNSO Council representatives of the second CSC Effectiveness Review.

The GNSO Council requests that the GNSO Secretariat notify ICANN Org no later than 30 September 2021 that the GNSO has approved of the method of review and GNSO representatives for the second CSC Effectiveness Review.

Philippe Fouquart, GNSO Chair, introduced the motion for template approval which has been approved by the ccNSO Council already. In addition, two GNSO representatives, Donna Austin and Jonathan Robinson, have been added to the motion. Minor amendments were suggested, which were accepted as friendly by Pam Little, GNSO Vice Chair, submitter of the motion.

The GNSO Council voted unanimously in support of the motion. Kurt Pritz, RySG, mentioned that he was in a personal relationship with Donna Austin and clarified that he was voting as directed by the RySG,

Vote results

Action Items:

The GNSO Secretariat notifies Donna Austin and Jonathan Robinson that the GNSO Council has appointed them as the GNSO Council representatives of the second CSC Effectiveness Review.

The GNSO Secretariat notifies ICANN Org no later than 30 September 2021 that the GNSO has approved of the method of review and GNSO representatives for the second CSC Effectiveness Review.

Item 6: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Planning for the Virtual AGM, ICANN72

Philippe Fouquart, GNSO Chair, presented the Draft GNSO ICANN72 schedule for ICANN72.

Jeff Neuman, GNSO Liaison to the GAC, raised that an hour for Board, GAC meeting prep, was maybe insufficient. He added that before ICANN71, topics of discussion and issues had been circulated between the GNSO and the GAC to allow for sufficient preparation time.

Action Items:

Item 7: ANY OTHER BUSINESS

7.1 - Strategic Planning Session Planning

Current leadership is working on this, new 2021-2022 Council leadership will pick up on the effort closer to the time. Schedule drafting is taking into account survey input from the previous SPS. The format will be similar to SPS 2020.

Marika Konings, ICANN org, added that this was a notice to Council that planning had started. Draft documents will be shared shortly, and invites sent out. The main difference with the previous SPS is that several introductory sessions would take place before the AGM. There will be fewer break out sessions on the SPS 2021 schedule. Councilor suggestions would be welcome.

Maxim Alzoba, RySG, suggested preparing PDFs with the items supported by the participants from the previous SPS and numbering them clearly, to narrow down the focus of the SPS.

Pam Little, GNSO Council Vice Chair, encouraged councilors to provide suggestions and feedback ahead of time to take ownership.

7.2 - Expressions of Interest process for the expected SubPro Operational Design Phase liaison

Leadership with staff will develop a request for an Expression of Interest for the liaison role.

7.3 - EPDP Phase 2a status update

Philippe Fouquart, GNSO Council liaison to EPDP Phase 2a, provided an update

on the team’s latest activities. EPDP Phase 2a is reviewing the public comments aiming for a Final Report in September, No Project Change Request (PCR) has been submitted. There is no agreement on the topic of legal vs natural, so the contracted parties may choose to differentiate between the two, but are not required to. The EPDP is working on updating its guidance for the contracted parties who choose to differentiate. For this, the team is working on the Initial Report recommendation 3 and a potential standardised data element which would differentiate between both, this would require adapting the RDAP protocol and a parameter for the system, the SSAD being one example of that. On feasibility of unique contact, the Initial Report raised the issue of if feasible should be a requirement. On this matter, there is no consensus for a recommendation/ If feasible but not a requirement, a preliminary recommendation is being proposed to the contracted parties.

Philippe Fouquart, GNSO Chair, reminded Council of the deadline for councilors comments on the August report from the SSAD ODP liaison, notably concerning recommendation 14. He also reminded the need for an Accuracy Scoping team Chair, deadline 25th August 2021.

Action Items:

Philippe Fouquart, GNSO Chair, adjourned the meeting at 20:54 UTC on Thursday 19 August 2021

_______________________________

...

Please find below the resolutions from the GNSO Council meeting on Thursday 22 July 2021 which will be posted shortly on the GNSO resolutions page.

20210722-1

CONSENT AGENDA

• Approval of the Chair for the EPDP on Internationalized Domain Names - Edmon Chung (SOI)
• Acknowledgment of the GNSO Council liaison to EPDP on Internationalized Domain Names - Farrell Folly
• Motion to adopt the GNSO Review of the GAC ICANN71 Virtual Policy Forum Communiqué for submission to the ICANN Board
  • Submitted by: Tatiana Tropina
  • Seconded by: Pam Little 
  • Whereas,

1. The Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) advises the ICANN Board on issues of public policy, and especially where there may be an interaction between ICANN's activities or policies and national laws or international agreements. It usually does so as part of a Communiqué, which is published towards the end of every ICANN meeting.
2. The GNSO is responsible for developing and recommending to the ICANN Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains.
3. The GNSO Council has expressed a desire to provide feedback to the ICANN Board on issues in the GAC Communiqué as these relate to generic top-level domains to inform the ICANN Board as well as the broader community of past, present or future gTLD policy activities that may directly or indirectly relate to advice provided by the GAC.
4. The GNSO Council’s review of the GAC Communiqué is intended to further enhance the co-ordination and promote the sharing of information on gTLD related policy activities between the GAC, Board and the GNSO.

Resolved,

1. The GNSO Council adopts the GNSO Council Review of the ICANN71 GAC Communiqué (see https://gac.icann.org/contentMigrated/icann71-gac-communique) and requests that the GNSO Council Chair communicate the GNSO Council Review of the ICANN71 GAC Communiqué to the ICANN Board.
2. The GNSO Council requests that the GNSO Liaison to the GAC also informs the GAC of the communication between the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board.

Vote results

20210722-2

Motion to confirm the formation of and instructions to the Accuracy Scoping Team

Submitted by Pam Little

Seconded by Olga Cavalli

Whereas,

1. The GNSO Council adopted a proposal on 21 October 2020 which recommended that a Scoping Team addresses the effects of GDPR on Registration Data accuracy requirements and the Whois Accuracy Reporting System (ARS), stating, “a scoping team would be tasked to, ‘facilitate community understanding of the issue; assist in scoping and defining the issue; gather support for the request of an Issue Report, and/or; serve as a means to gather additional data and/or information before a request [for an Issue Report] is submitted’.
2.     On 4 November 2020, GNSO SG/Cs as well as ICANN SO/ACs were informed of the Council’s intent to form a Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team and were requested to indicate if they would be interested in sending representatives to this effort.
3. At the same time, the GNSO Council also requested that ICANN org develop a briefing document that outlines both (i) existing accuracy requirements and programs and (ii) the corresponding impact that GDPR has had on implementing / enforcing these requirements and programs. This briefing paper was delivered to the Council in February 2021.
4. Following the Council discussion of the ICANN org briefing paper in April 2021, Council leadership put together a first proposal outlining possible instructions to the Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team.
5. As a result of input that was provided by different Council members on the first proposal, the Council decided at its May 2021 meeting to form a small team to further review and revise the instructions to the scoping team.
6.     The small team, consisting of one Council member from each GNSO Stakeholder Group or Constituency, two NomCom appointed Council members and the GNSO Liaison to the GAC (as an observer), submitted its recommendations in relation to the formation as well as the instructions for the Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team to the Council on 9 July 2021 for Council’s consideration

Resolved,

1. The GNSO Council adopts the Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team – Formation and Instructions

1. The GNSO Council instructs the GNSO Secretariat to request interested SO/AC/SG/Cs to confirm their representatives to the Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team as well as invite the Board and ICANN org to appoint a liaison noting that the first meeting of the Scoping Team is not expected to be scheduled until the EPDP Phase 2A delivers its Final Report. 
2. The GNSO Council instructs the GNSO Policy Staff Support Team to launch a call for expressions of interest for candidates to serve as the Chair of the Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team. Council leadership will review the applications received and make its recommendation to the GNSO Council.
3. The GNSO Council thanks the small team for its efforts.

Vote results

...

GNSO Council Agenda 22 July 2021  at 1900 UTC

Please note that all documents referenced in the agenda have been gathered on a Wiki page for convenience and easier access:  https://community.icann.org/x/cYL8CQ

This agenda was established according to the GNSO Operating Procedures v3.5, updated on 24 October 2019

For convenience:

• An excerpt of the ICANN Bylaws defining the voting thresholds is provided in Appendix 1 at the end of this agenda.

• An excerpt from the Council Operating Procedures defining the absentee voting procedures is provided in Appendix 2 at the end of this agenda.

GNSO Council meeting held 19:00 UTC 

Coordinated Universal Time: 19:00 UTC: https://tinyurl.com/ybavc84m

12:00 Los Angeles; 15:00 Washington; 20:00 London; 21:00 Paris; 22:00 Moscow; (Friday) 05:00 Melbourne 

GNSO Council Meeting Remote Participation: https://icann.zoom.us/j/99805526507?pwd=MlRKaTAzdDZIQ3Q1azJsc2JSWXRSZz09

Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if they will not be able to attend and/or need a dial out call.

___________________________________

Item 1: Administrative Matters (10 mins)

1.1 - Roll Call

1.2 - Updates to Statements of Interest

1.3 - Review / Amend Agenda

1.4 - Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meetings per the GNSO Operating Procedures: 

Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting on 20 May 2021 were posted on 03 June 2021.

Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting on 16 June 2021 were posted on 03 July 2021.

Item 2: Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List (10 minutes)

2.1 - Review focus areas and provide updates on specific key themes / topics, to include review of Projects List and Action Item List. 

Item 3: Consent Agenda (5 minutes) 

• Approval of the Chair for the EPDP on Internationalized Domain Names - Edmon Chung (SOI)

• Acknowledgment of the GNSO Council liaison to EPDP on Internationalized Domain Names - Farrell Folly

• Motion to adopt the GNSO Review of the GAC ICANN71 Virtual Policy Forum Communiqué for submission to the ICANN Board

Item 4: COUNCIL VOTE - Accuracy Scoping Team (15 minutes)

During its October 2020 meeting, the GNSO Council confirmed its intent to launch a scoping team on the topic of accuracy based on a proposal from the previous Council leadership team (see here for the proposal). On 4 November 2020, the GNSO Council wrote to ICANN org, requesting the preparation of a briefing document outlining both the existing accuracy requirements and programs as well as the impact that GDPR has had on implementing and enforcing the identified requirements and programs. This briefing is intended to inform an accuracy scoping team that the GNSO Council envisioned initiating, which would be tasked with furthering the community’s understanding of the issue and assist in scoping and defining the issue (see here). On 10 December 2020, ICANN org responded to confirm its understanding of the request and to commit to delivering that briefing by 26 February 2021. ICANN org timely delivered the briefing. In addition to the briefing providing an overview of accuracy requirements and programs and the impact of GDPR on these, ICANN org also included a suggestion that a study to measure accuracy of registration data might be beneficial. In parallel to the request for the briefing, ICANN SO/AC/SG/Cs were requested to start thinking about whether their groups would be interested to participate in a scoping team once created. At or around that time, the BC, ISPCP, RySG, IPC and GAC expressed an interest and identified potential volunteers with relevant knowledge and expertise. The Council discussed this briefing and potential next steps during its Extraordinary Meeting on 08 April 2021. Following the meeting, Council leadership, with the support of the GNSO Support Staff, worked together to develop a set of proposed next steps for dealing with the topic of accuracy, which was shared on 23 April 2021. 

Feedback was sought from Councilors by 07 May 2021 and the topic was discussed again during the Council’s May meeting. The Council agreed to convene a small team to refine the proposed next steps, particularly around clarifying the remit of the eventual scoping team. That small team met regularly to clearly document the remit of the scoping team and provided a brief update during the June Council meeting. The small team has reached agreement on the formation and instructions to the scoping team, which it shared with the Council on 9 July 2021.

Here, the Council will vote to confirm the formation and instructions to the Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team as developed by the Council small team.

4.1 – Presentation of motion (Pam Little, Council vice-chair)

4.2 – Council discussion

4.3 – Council vote (Voting Threshold: simple majority vote of each House)

Item 5: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Operational Design Phase (ODP) on the Standardized System for Access/Disclosure - Update from the GNSO Council Liaison (15 minutes)

On 25 March 2021, the ICANN Board launched the Operational Design Phase (ODP) for the System for the Standardized Access/Disclosure to Nonpublic Registration Data (SSAD) policy recommendations as set out in the SSAD ODP Scoping Document. 

As part of the general ODP process, it is recommended that a GNSO Council liaison be appointed, in order to serve as primary contact between the ODP team and Council to facilitate and streamline communications on identified issues that pertain to the intent or substance of the policy recommendations. On 12 April 2021, the Council received a letter from the Board, recommending the appointment of a Council liaison to the ODP. On 20 May 2021, the GNSO Council appointed Janis Karklins, the Chair of the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data Phase 2 Expedited Policy Development Process.

Here, the Council will receive an update from the Council liaison to the ODP.

5.1 - Presentation (Janis Karklins)

5.2 – Council discussion

5.3 – Next steps

Item 6: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDs (RPM) PDPPhase 2, Review of UDRP Next Steps (15 minutes)

On 21 January 2021, the GNSO Council approved the recommendations from the Phase 1 Final Report of the GNSO Policy Development Process (PDP) on the Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in All gTLDs, covering RPMs applicable to gTLDs launched under the 2012 New gTLD Program. The Council has discussed the need to review the RPMs charter in advance of launching Phase 2 of the PDP, which is focused on the UDRP.

Council leadership has considered the best path forward to initiating this work and has shared their thoughts for advancing this effort on [date], which considers a Policy Status Report (PSR) as a possible next step. The leadership team recognizes that a significant amount of time has passed since the 2011 UDRP Issue Report such that it will be helpful to know if new issues or information have emerged that could be relevant to a comprehensive policy review. Leadership also believes that a PSR will support a data-driven policy development effort and will result in a more tightly scoped Charter, that is consistent with the principles of PDP 3.0.

Here, the Council will discuss possible next steps, including a PSR for advancing RPMs Phase 2.

6.1 – Introduction of topic (Council leadership)

6.2 – Council discussion

6.3 – Next steps

Item 7: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - IGO Work Track Questions for Council (20 minutes)

On 18 April 2019, the Councilvotedto approve recommendations 1-4 of the Final Report from the  IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms PDP WG. The Council also resolved to not approve Recommendation 5 and, ”directs the Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDs (RPM) PDP to consider, as part of its Phase 2 work, whether an appropriate policy solution can be developed that is generally consistent with Recommendations 1, 2, 3 & 4 of the PDP Final Report and:

• accounts for the possibility that an IGO may enjoy jurisdictional immunity in certain circumstances;

• does not affect the right and ability of registrants to file judicial proceedings in a court of competent jurisdiction; 

• preserves registrants’ rights to judicial review of an initial UDRP or URS decision; and

• recognizes that the existence and scope of IGO jurisdictional immunity in any particular situation is a legal issue to be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction.”

In respect of that resolution, the GNSO Council prepared anAddendumto the RPMs PDP charter to support work related to Recommendation 5 andapprovedit during its January 2020 Council meeting. During its September 2020 Council meeting, the Council agreed to initiate both the Expressions of Interest process to identify a single, qualified Work Track Chair and issue a call for Members and Observers to join the IGO Work Track. Led by Chris Disspain as the Chair, the Work Track has been meeting since late February of 2021. The Work Track has sought to make meaningful progress within the bounds of the Addendum, with members recognizing that this foundational discussion will influence how the group will work and thus, what its work plan should look like. During its April meeting, the Council received a brief update and acknowledged the work track’s Work Plan (April package here). 

In chartering this work, the GNSO Council expected that the work should be completed in an efficient manner and that frequent updates to the Council would be helpful to ensure an effective outcome. The Council has already received updates during the April and May meetings.

The Work Track has made steady progress in evaluating recommendation 5 and determining an appropriate policy path forward. According to the work plan, the Work Track is expected to deliver its Initial Report for public comment in early August, but due to the need to migrate the current Public Comment platform on the ICANN org website to a substantially new feature that will be compliant with the Information Transparency Initiative and its requirements, ICANN org needs to impose a moratorium on launching Public Comment proceedings between late July and end August. The Work Track has submitted a Policy Change Request in light of this external factor.

With the Work Track nearing a stage where it will be able to publish its Initial Report, notwithstanding the moratorium, it is timely to bring two questions to the Council for their consideration. The first question relates to the fact that the IGO Work Track was originally convened under the auspices of the then-ongoing Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPM) Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group, which has since delivered its Final Report to the Council and subsequently approved; planning for Phase 2 of the RPM work is ongoing, which leaves the Work Track without a parent Working Group. The second question relates to the requirements imposed on the Work Track via the Addendum. The Work Track has kept Recommendation #5 (regarding IGO jurisdictional immunity) at the forefront in its work. However, it has concluded that a feasible and appropriate policy solution cannot be crafted simply by looking at that recommendation in isolation. Accordingly, the Work Track is seeking feedback to determine whether the approach and solution are in accordance with the limitations in the addendum. The Work Track leadership and staff have drafted a briefing document to support this agenda item.

Here, the Council will discuss the two questions and seek to reach agreement on answers/solutions.

7.1 – Update (John McElwaine, GNSO Council Liaison)

7.2 – Council discussion

7.3 – Next steps

Item 8: COUNCIL UPDATE - Update on the Customer Standing Committee and Next Steps for the Council (10 minutes)

The GNSO Council will soon have two responsibilities regarding the Customer Standing Committee, per the ICANN Bylaws. The first requirement is that, in accordance with Section 17.2 (d) of the ICANN Bylaw and per the CSC Charter, the full membership of the CSC must be approved by the GNSO Council. This is expected to occur no later than September of 2021.

The second responsibility relates to the Customer Standing Committee (CSC) Effectiveness Review, which would represent the second such review. The ICANN Bylaws, Section 17.3 (b) states, "The effectiveness of the CSC shall be reviewed two years after the first meeting of the CSC; and then every three years thereafter. The method of review will be determined by the ccNSO and GNSO and the findings of the review will be published on the Website." The Customer Standing Committee (CSC) was established and conducted its first meeting on 6 October 2016, so the first review needed to take place in 2018. As required, the GNSO and ccNSO established a process to conduct the review, which per the Council’s resolution “concluded that the most practical and efficient path forward is for the ccNSO and GNSO to each appoint two members to conduct the CSC Effectiveness Review that will consider the effectiveness of the CSC in performing its responsibilities as outlined in the CSC Charter and that the findings of the Review, as adopted by both the GNSO and ccNSO Councils, will become an input to the IANA Naming Function Review.” The Council approved this process in September of 2018. After completing an Initial Report and publishing it for public comment, the Final Report was delivered 05 March 2019; the Council adopted the Final Report on 13 March 2019.

With an October 2016 first meeting for the CSC, the time for the second review of the CSC is October 2021. The GNSO and ccNSO will need to establish the terms of reference for the second review, which may be able to highly leverage the ToR from the first review. At a minimum, this second review will need to include a determination whether the recommendations from the first effectiveness review were successfully implemented.

Here, the Council will discuss the expectations of the Council as it relates to the two CSC items.

8.1 – Introduction of topic (Council leadership)

8.2 – Council discussion

8.3 – Next steps

Item 9: ANY OTHER BUSINESS (5 minutes)

9.1 - Transfer Policy Review PDP - Review of Work Plan

...

GNSO Council Meetings at ICANN 71

10:30 - 12:30 UTC on Wednesday, 16 June

In this particular session, community members are invited to provide their input on the topics under discussion with the Council as it conducts its meeting.

ICANN71 GNSO Policy Briefing: https://go.icann.org/gnsobriefing

Agenda: https://community.icann.org/x/14G1CQ

Motions: https://community.icann.org/x/2YG1CQ

Documents: https://community.icann.org/x/1YG1CQ

Please find below the resolution from the GNSO Council meeting on Wednesday 16 June 2021 which will be posted shortly on the GNSO resolutions page.

Motion to initiate the GNSO Framework for Continuous Improvement Pilot Project

Submitted by Tatiana Tropina

Seconded by Kurt Pritz

Whereas,

1. Council leadership started conversations with the GNSO Council and GNSO community, via Stakeholder Group and Constituency Chairs, on how to address several items on the Council’s Action Decision Radar (ADR) 0-1 month timeframe dealing with process and procedural improvements such as Accountability Work Stream 2, Accountability and Transparency Review Team 3 and PDP 3.0.
2. This resulted in a proposed GNSO Framework for Continuous Improvement Oversight and Implementation. Following the circulation of an initial proposal in January 2021, Council leadership solicited feedback via email as well as a dedicated call with SG/C Chairs as well as Council. Taking into account the input received, an updated proposal was circulated to the Council and SG/C Chairs on 26 May 2021 (see https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2021-May/024730.html).
3. This updated proposal includes a proposed pilot which allows for a more limited roll out of the Framework from which lessons can be drawn and possible updates can be made, should the Council and GNSO community decide that it is worthwhile to continue.
4. The Council and SG/C Chairs reviewed this updated proposal.

Resolved,

1. The GNSO Council initiates the GNSO Framework for Continuous Improvement Pilot as outlined in section 4 of this document where step 4 of Section 4 is replaced with the third resolved clause below.
2. The GNSO Council requests the GNSO Secretariat to circulate the call for volunteers to form the Council Committee for Overseeing and Implementing Continuous Improvement.
3. Once formed, the GNSO Council expects regular updates from the Chair of the Council Committee to the Council as well as SG/Cs in relation to progress made.
4. Once the pilot completes, the Council, in close collaboration with SG/Cs as well as the Council Committee and Pilot Task Force, will review the functioning of the Framework and decide whether to continue with the other assignments as outlined in the updated proposal (see section 3), make modifications to the framework and continue with the other assignments, or, identify another path through which the assignments identified are to be addressed.
5. For the time being, the items that are expected to be addressed as part of the Framework (inlc. WS2, Policy & Implementation, PDP 3.0, Empowered Community, ATRT3, GNSO Review) will be moved to a section in the ADR with no timeframe associated with them as the timing will be determined as a result of the pilot. However, this does not prevent the Council from determining if one or more of these items need to be addressed in a different manner before the pilot concludes, for example, as a result of external factors or changes in the dependencies that were identified (see section 5).

Vote results

...

GNSO EPDP Phase 2A Community Update and Consultation

14:30 - 15:30 UTC on Thursday, 17 June

Session Details

The Expedited Policy Development Process ("EPDP") Phase 2A Team is expected to present an update on the status and content of its Initial Report and provide an opportunity for the ICANN Community to ask questions. The EPDP Phase 2A is tasked to review two issues: (i) whether any updates are required to the EPDP Phase 1 recommendation regarding legal vs. natural topic (“Registrars and Registry Operators are permitted to differentiate between registrations of legal and natural persons, but are not obligated to do so“), and (ii) whether it is feasible for unique contacts to have a uniform anonymized email addresses.

The EPDP Phase 2A also discussed what guidance can be provided to assist Contracted Parties who would like to (i) differentiate between legal and natural persons and/or (ii) implement uniform anonymized email addresses.

During this session, the EPDP Phase 2A Team will present its findings on the above questions and solicit community input on the recommendations as outlined in its Initial Report.

ICANN71 GNSO Policy Briefing: https://go.icann.org/gnsobriefing

Agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/koC1CQ

...

GNSO Council Wrap-Up

10:30 - 12:00 UTC on Thursday, 17 June

Session Details

The GNSO Council meets to discuss the input from the meetings during the week and plan ahead. The meeting is open to anyone interested.

Who should attend: All interested in gTLD policy issues.

ICANN71 GNSO Policy Briefing: https://go.icann.org/gnsobriefing

Agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/j4C1CQ

...

Minutes of the GNSO Council Meeting 16 June 2021

Agenda and Documents

Coordinated Universal Time: 10:30 UTC: https://tinyurl.com/4wy66z7y 03:30 Los Angeles; 06:30 Washington; 11:30 London; 12:30 Paris; 13:30 Moscow; 20:30 Melbourne

List of attendees: Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Non-Voting – Olga Cavalli Contracted Parties House Registrar Stakeholder Group: Pam Little, Kristian Ørmen, Greg DiBiase gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group: Maxim Alzoba, Kurt Pritz, Sebastien Ducos Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Tom Dale Non-Contracted Parties House Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG): Marie Pattullo, Mark Datysgeld, Philippe Fouquart, Osvaldo Novoa, John McElwaine, Flip Petillion Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG): Juan Manuel Rojas, Stephanie Perrin, Tatiana Tropina, Wisdom Donkor, Farell Folly, Tomslin Samme-Nlar Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Carlton Samuels GNSO Council Liaisons/Observers : Cheryl Langdon-Orr– ALAC Liaison Jeffrey Neuman– GNSO liaison to the GAC Maarten Simon – ccNSO observer
ICANN Staff David Olive - Senior Vice President, Policy Development Support and Managing Manager, ICANN Regional Mary Wong – Vice President, Strategic Community Operations, Planning and Engagement Julie Hedlund – Policy Director Steve Chan – Senior Director Berry Cobb – Policy Consultant Emily Barabas – Policy Manager Ariel Liang – Policy Senior Specialist Caitlin Tubergen – Policy Director Terri Agnew - Operations Support, Lead Administrator Nathalie Peregrine – Manager, Operations GNSO

Zoom Recording Transcript

Item 1: Administrative Matters
1.1 - Roll Call Philippe Fouquart, GNSO Chair, welcomed all to the June 2021 Council meeting. 1.2 - Updates to Statements of Interest. There were no updates to the Statements of Interest. 1.3 - Review / Amend Agenda The agenda was accepted as presented. 1.4 - Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meetings per the GNSO Operating Procedures: Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting on 22 April 2021 were posted on the 06 May 2021 Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting on 20 May 2021 were posted on 03 June 2021.
Item 2: Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List 2.1 - The review of the Projects List and Action Item List Berry Cobb, GNSO Policy Consultant, reminded councilors that progress is shared monthly on the GNSO Council mailing list, and thanked Maxim Alzoba, Registry Stakeholder Group (RySG) for his diligent monitoring of content. One of Maxim’s questions was in relation to the EPDP P2 SSAD recommendations that Council adopted and passed to the Board, and also in relation to the initiation of the Operational Design Phase (ODP) which will force a change of the program tool timelines. Berry Cobb, GNSO Policy Consultant, added that the program management tool was a complex document, and that he was always available to assist councilors should they wish.
Item 3: Consent Agenda: no item.
Item 4: COUNCIL VOTE - Initiation of the GNSO Framework for Continuous Improvement Pilot Project Tatiana Tropina, GNSO Council Vice Chair, Non Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) seconded by Kurt Pritz, Registry Stakeholder Group (RySG), submitted a motion to initiate the GNSO Framework for Continuous Improvement Pilot Project. Whereas, Council leadership started conversations with the GNSO Council and GNSO community, via Stakeholder Group and Constituency Chairs, on how to address several items on the Council’s Action Decision Radar (ADR) 0-1 month timeframe dealing with process and procedural improvements such as Accountability Work Stream 2, Accountability and Transparency Review Team 3 and PDP 3.0.
1. This resulted in a proposed GNSO Framework for Continuous Improvement Oversight and Implementation. Following the circulation of an initial proposal in January 2021, Council leadership solicited feedback via email as well as a dedicated call with SG/C Chairs as well as Council. Taking into account the input received, an updated proposal was circulated to the Council and SG/C Chairs on 26 May 2021 (see https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2021-May/024730.html). 2. This updated proposal includes a proposed pilot which allows for a more limited roll out of the Framework from which lessons can be drawn and possible updates can be made, should the Council and GNSO community decide that it is worthwhile to continue. 3. The Council and SG/C Chairs reviewed this updated proposal. Resolved, 1. The GNSO Council initiates the GNSO Framework for Continuous Improvement Pilot as outlined in section 4 of this document where step 4 of Section 4 is replaced with the fourth resolved clause below. 2. The GNSO Council requests the GNSO Secretariat to circulate the call for volunteers to form the Council Committee for Overseeing and Implementing Continuous Improvement. 3. Once formed, the GNSO Council expects regular updates from the Chair of the Council Committee to the Council as well as SG/Cs in relation to progress made. 4. Once the pilot completes, the Council, in close collaboration with SG/Cs as well as the Council Committee and Pilot Task Force, will review the functioning of the Framework and decide whether to continue with the other assignments as outlined in the updated proposal (see section 3), make modifications to the framework and continue with the other assignments, or, identify another path through which the assignments identified are to be addressed. 5. For the time being, the items that are expected to be addressed as part of the Framework (inlc. WS2, Policy & Implementation, PDP 3.0, Empowered Community, ATRT3, GNSO Review) will be moved to a section in the ADR with no timeframe associated with them as the timing will be determined as a result of the pilot. However, this does not prevent the Council from determining if one or more of these items need to be addressed in a different manner before the pilot concludes, for example, as a result of external factors or changes in the dependencies that were identified (see section 5).
Philippe Fouquart, GNSO Chair, reminded councilors there had been interactions with the Stakeholder Group (SG) and Constituency (C) Chairs on the matter, as well as several drafts of the proposed framework document circulated to the Chairs and to councilors. Kurt Pritz, Registry Stakeholder Group (RySG), had seconded the motion and submitted an amendment proposal on 14 June 2021. Tatiana Tropina, GNSO Council Vice Chair, Non Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) accepted the amendment as friendly. Tatiana Tropina, GNSO Council Vice Chair, NCSG introduced the motion outlining its direct relationship to the Council work on the Action Decision Radar (ADR), more specifically, the 0 - 1 month timeframe items which have been on the ADR for a long time. She clarified that this motion initiated a pilot project focussing on two small tasks as outlined in the framework document, which will be reviewed and
reassessed when the pilot is completed. The larger tasks in the 0-1 month timeframe would be moved to a section of the ADR with no associated timeframe. Comments about limited resources and representation were expressed by the SG/C Chairs, and were taken into account. Kurt Pritz, RySG, presented his amendment which requested that Council, and not the committee formed for the pilot, be the body deciding whether the committee would stay in place after the first efforts. He added that further time for discussion with the RySG would have been welcome, mainly on topics of representation and consensus, but that the SG did not want to delay the initiation of the pilot project. He raised concerns about the potential increase in administrative burden the pilot might trigger. He added that improving on the Policy Development Process (PDP), making better use of PDP3.0 and the Consensus Playbook, would also increase the efficiency of the GNSO Council work. Tatiana Tropina, GNSO Council Vice Chair, NCSG, thanked Kurt and clarified that consensus levels would be also revised during the pilot reassessment. John McElaine, Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC), raised that the IPC believed certain items assigned to the Framework for Continuous Improvement were outside of the GNSO’s remit and that there were other processes already in place that would serve the same goal. The IPC supports increasing the GNSO Council’s efficiency, but did not have time to discuss the amendment with the IPC membership as it was submitted too close to the GNSO Council meeting. Tatiana Tropina, GNSO Council Vice Chair, NCSG, confirmed that the items for consideration were of the GNSO’s remit. She added that whilst there were Council small teams formed to tackle certain issues, the lines surrounding the notion of ownership of issues were sometimes blurred between the Council’s remit and that of the SG and Cs. Olga Cavalli, NomCom Appointee (NCA) asked for further information regarding the pilot project and what could be the final Framework for Continuous Improvement. Tatiana Tropina, GNSO Council Vice Chair, NCSG, clarified that the pilot project was to allow for re-adjustment of resources, composition with the SGs and Cs and further discussion with the GNSO Council before moving onto a more definitive structure. Philippe Fouquart, GNSO Chair, accepted that the concern regarding administrative burden was a valid one. He expressed hope that using the consensus building decision process would alleviate concerns over composition. Flip Petillion, IPC, confirmed that he agreed with his fellow IPC councilor John McElwaine, regarding the lack of time for discussion with their constituency members. Kurt Pritz, RySG, offered to withdraw his amendment to allow for voting on the original motion. John McElwaine, IPC, declined the proposal, as the late amendment had impacted IPC discussions on the original motion. Councilors voted in favour of the amended motion. There were two abstentions (John McElwaine, Flip Petillion, IPC). Vote results
Action Items:
● The GNSO Secretariat to circulate the call for volunteers to form the Council Committee for Overseeing and Implementing Continuous Improvement. ● The Chair of the Council Committee to provide regular updates to the Council as well as SG/Cs in relation to progress made. ● Once the pilot completes, the Council, in close collaboration with SG/Cs as well as the Council Committee and Pilot Task Force, to review the functioning of the Framework and decide whether to continue with the other assignments as outlined in the updated proposal (see section 3), make modifications to the framework and continue with the other assignments, or, identify another path through which the assignments identified are to be addressed. ● Staff to move the items that are expected to be addressed as part of the Framework to a section in the ADR with no timeframe associated with them as the timing will be determined as a result of the pilot. ● Staff to update this document to reflect the change required in resolved clause 1 of the motion.
Item 5: COUNCIL DISCUSSION: Potential Next Steps for the Internationalized Domain Names (IDN) Operational Track Philippe Fouquart, GNSO Chair, introduced the topic reminding councilors that the IDN Implementation Guidelines are contractual requirements for both registries and registrars. The GNSO Council requested the deferral of IDN Guidelines 4.0 due to concerns around the process but also specific requirements. In May 2021, Council discussed these concerns taking dependencies into account. On 4 June 2021, the Contracted Parties House (CPH) suggested a path forward.
Kurt Pritz, RySG, presented the proposed path. He explained that the proposal was to reconsider the GNSO Council’s recommended approach for proceeding with an operational track as initially discussed. This operational track was intended to review issues that would have been raised with regard to the IDN Implementation Guidelines and to develop a path forward. In the meantime, Council initiated the IDNs Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP) which will consider some of the same issues addressed by the IDN Implementation Guidelines, so there is an overlap and the risk of contradicting results. Dennis Tan Tanaka, Chair of the IDN Charter Drafting Team, as well as the rest of the RySG, suggested pausing the operational track, given the issues raised would be better dealt with in the EPDP. There are no stability nor security issues being addressed within the IDN Guidelines v.4.0 so the pause would be of low impact. A draft letter from the RySG could begin the discussion on these issues. The ccNSO is also beginning a related PDP, collaboration between both Supporting Organisations (SOs) would be beneficial.
Tomslin Samme-Nlar, NCSG, asked if there were any other items within the operational track to be dealt with which wouldn’t be included in the IDN EPDP.
Dennis Tan Tanaka, Chair of the IDN Charter Drafting Team, confirmed that there were no issues left out pertaining to the operational track. The operational track was envisioned to look at issues raised by the RySG pertaining to the IDNs Guidelines v.4.0. Other items were not to be considered. V.3.0 of the IDN guidelines is in full force, and covers all security and stability concerns.
John McElwaine, IPC, asked for further information regarding the differences between the work, deliverables, resource, composition of the operational track and the IDN EPDP. He agreed pausing the operational track seemed like a good idea. Action Items: ● The RySG to provide further information to Council regarding the differences between the work, deliverables, resource, composition of the Operational Track and the IDN EPDP. ● The GNSO Council to defer the work of the IDN Guidelines v4.0 Operational Track. ● The GNSO Council to advise the Board that the Council will defer the work of the IDN Guidelines v4.0 Operational Track and recommend that the Board continue deferring the adoption of the IDN Guidelines 4.0 until the issues overlapping with the IDN EPDP can be fully deliberated and resolved by the IDN EPDP. Item 6: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Accuracy Scoping Team Pam Little, GNSO Council Vice Chair, RrSG, reminded Council a small team was convened to work on the set of instructions to be provided to the Accuracy Scoping Team. The work is still in progress, with all SGs & Cs bar the NCSG represented on the small team. The topic is challenging but there is agreement on the task and focus areas, staff help will be needed to update the document and submit before the July 2021 document deadline. Marie Pattullo, Business Constituency (BC), added the progress had been made, and that completion was close. The BC is very eager to begin the work, and is grateful to the Government Advisory Committee (GAC) for their input. Jeffrey Neuman, GNSO Liaison to the GAC, informed the Council that he was on the small team to improve GNSO/GAC relations, and not on the GAC’s behalf. Action Item: ● Staff to include the Accuracy Scoping Team as a topic on the agenda for the 22 July 2021 GNSO Council meeting. Item 7: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Interactions with the GAC Philippe Fouquart, GNSO Chair, introduced the topic which was in context of the annual confirmation or renewal of the GNSO Liaison to the GAC role. The 2020 GNSO Liaison to the GAC Annual Report referred to the need to evaluate the effectiveness of the role. Pam Little, GNSO Vice Chair, RrSG, added that this was a long overdue exercise, given the way in which the interactions between the two groups seem to have changed over the years. For example there is a higher GAC participation in the GNSO PDPs and regular interactions with the GAC during ICANN meetings. Previously there had been the need for mechanisms such as the Quick Look Mechanisms for the GAC to be informed of the content of Issue Reports, as well as the current GNSO Liaison to the GAC
role. The aim here is to improve on the quality of the GAC - GNSO interactions given the importance of the relationship between the two groups. Jeffrey Neuman, GNSO Liaison to the GAC, presented his update on interactions with the GAC. He agreed that the GNSO-GAC relations had changed over the years, and for the better. Previously the GAC communicated to the Board directly with little or no GNSO involvement. It was important to bring the GAC into GNSO processes earlier which is what he and Cheryl Langon-Orr, as New gTLD Subsequent Procedures (SubPro) PDP Working Group (WG) co-chairs, did frequently. He also emphasised that addressing GAC concerns does not necessarily imply adopting them as recommendations. He added that the main reason why the GAC is not active in all GNSO PDPs is generally due to lack of resources. However, certain GNSO PDP WG Chairs are invited to present updates to the GAC frequently. The role of the GNSO Liaison to the GAC has changed a lot: monthly meetings with the GAC point of contact the week after the GNSO Council meeting to discuss GNSO resolutions and outcomes, increased communication of GAC input to the GNSO Council, GNSO Council & GAC leadership prep meetings ahead of bilateral sessions. Jeffrey, as GNSO Liaison to the GAC, attends all possible GAC sessions during ICANN Public Meetings, but is not invited to intersessional meetings which are closed to non-GAC members. He added that he represents the policy work of the GNSO in a neutral manner and provides as much information as possible to ensure the GAC understands the GNSO position. He mentioned that an area of concern was the briefing on GNSO activity that the GAC receives from GAC Support staff prior to every ICANN Public Meeting, which would benefit from initial review by the GNSO Support staff to avoid misunderstanding. In addition, bringing back GNSO Council prep sessions for bilateral meetings with the GAC would be helpful. He suggested having GNSO topic leads invited to bilaterals to create better understanding and engagement as well as holding leadership bilaterals after ICANN meetings as well as before. He advocated for more honest tackling of issues during conversations with the GAC. Pam Little, GNSO Council Vice Chair, RrSG, clarified that this discussion was about the role itself and not about the person. She asked councilors to focus their attention on the GNSO Liaison to the GAC job description. Olga Cavalli, NCA, commended Jeffrey Neuman for his great work, and emphasised the importance of the GAC briefing materials which are highly valued by GAC members. Philippe Fouquart, GNSO Chair, added that he found the GNSO GAC bilaterals interesting and useful and that feedback had been positive. Stephanie Perrin, NCSG, joined the many in the chat congratulating Jeffrey on his active role, and on his recommendations to improve the relationship. She however noted that information provided seemed to be mostly in one direction, from the GNSO to the GAC. Action Item: ● The GNSO Council to continue discussion on the issue of its interactions with the GAC.
Item 8: COUNCIL UPDATE - Status Update Regarding EPDP Phase 2A Philippe Fouquart, GNSO Council Liaison to EPDP P2A, reminded councilors the team published the Initial Report for early Public Comment early June 2021. This Initial Report includes preliminary recommendations and a number of questions. The Public Comment period closes on 19 July 2021. He highlighted the tremendous effort put in by the EPDP P2A team. Action Item: none Item 9: COUNCIL DISCUSSION -EPDP Phase 1 Rec 27 (Wave 1.5) Philippe Fouquart, GNSO Chair, informed staff that the ICANN Org Global Domains Strategy (GDS) input on EPDP Phase 1 Rec 27 next steps had been received. Karen Lentz, ICANN Org, GDS, reminded councilors that EPDP P1 Rec 27 contemplated that some of the existing policies and procedures might need updating in light of the work in Phase 1. Both wave 1 and 1.5 identified possible areas of impact for Council to consider in determining whether any updates were needed to Proxy/Privacy or to Translation and Transliteration recommendations. In April 2021, the GNSO Council requested an estimated level of effort and an understanding from the former Implementation Review Team (IRT) members as to who would be willing to continue the work effort. Action item: ● Council leadership, with help from staff support team, to develop proposed response to ICANN org in relation to restarting PPSAI in line with Council's feedback during the wrap up session. Item 10: ANY OTHER BUSINESS 10.1 - Review of topics to discuss with the ICANN Board Proposed topics are: 1. New gTLDs Subsequent Procedures PDP WG (ODP Timeline & SAC114) 2. IDN Guidelines 4.0 3. DNS Abuse, potential next steps? Stephanie Perrin, NCSG, added that a discussion topic on accuracy would be helpful. Philippe Fouquart, GNSO Chair, asked that councilors submit additional comments on the GNSO Council mailing list. Action Item:
● The GNSO Council Chair to post the suggested topics to the GNSO Council mailing list for review. 10.2 - GNSO Council Liaison to IDNs EPDP Staff mentioned that one councilor had expressed interest in the Liaison role, and that staff were discussing the role requirements and responsibilities with the councilor. 10.3 - Open Microphone Martin Sutton, Brand Registry Group (BRG), informed the councilors of a BRG session held on 15 June 2021, where the BRG heard from future potential applicants and their frustrations at the perceived delay since the completion of the work of the SubPro PDP WG, worsened by uncertainty linked to the initiation of the SubPro ODP. He added that the community urged activities to move forward more efficiently and questioned the use of an ODP in this situation. Philippe Fouquart, GNSO Chair, took this as an item to be raised to the Board, and added that there were Board members attending the GNSO Council meeting, Susan Payne, IPC, raised concerns about GNSO Council levels of transparency especially regarding lack of feedback from certain Council small team efforts. She supported the small team structure wholeheartedly but wished to see more input on the work being undertaken on the GNSO Council public mailing list for all community members subscribed as observers to be able to follow. Philippe Fouquart, GNSO Chair, replied that members from the GNSO Community should rely on their councilors to, insofar as possible, join small team efforts, to be able to report back effectively to the community groups they represent. He then insisted on the importance of the Council’s representative model. He also appreciated that the disappearance of informal information channels made possible during face-to face events, implies information received currently is mainly only accessible on the Council mailing list. He acknowledged that the process could improve in efficiency. Maxim Alzoba, RySG Councilor, added that small team work is not possible via mailing lists as it focuses mainly on document editing. Once the document is ready, it is then circulated on the GNSO Council mailing list. He mentioned that the level of transparency expected of councilors should be reasonable. John McElaine, IPC Councilor, added that whilst the GNSO Council small team working on SAC114 has yet to provide any output, the SAC114 paper is listed as a discussion topic for the upcoming bilateral with the ICANN Board, Rafik Dammak mentioned that GNSO councilors needed to be able to cover different topics and that small teams were necessary to that process. There needs to be trust conveyed to councilors representing the different Constituency and Stakeholder Groups, these councilors should then be reporting back to
their groups accurately. Councilors should be allowed the necessary flexibility to complete their work as efficiently as possible. Amr Elsadr’s question posted in the chat in relation to agenda item 4 was read out: “Why is this being treated as a pilot program when there have been previous groups within the GNSO that have pretty much done this exact type of work, I’m thinking of the SCI and the GNSO Review Working Group.” Philippe Fouquart, GNSO Chair, replied that this question was considered in the initial stages of the discussion around the Framework for Continuous Improvement. The idea is not to replicate those past initiatives, as the remit in the pilot program is much more limited in scope. Action item: none Philippe Fouquart, GNSO Chair, adjourned the meeting at 12:30 UTC on Wednesday 16 June 2021

...

Minutes of the GNSO Council Meeting 20 May 2021

AgendaandDocuments

Coordinated Universal Time: 19:00 UTC:https://tinyurl.com/kd22xp43

List of attendees:

Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Non-Voting – Olga Cavalli

Contracted Parties House

Registrar Stakeholder Group: Pam Little, Kristian Ørmen, Greg DiBiase (apologies, temporary alternate Owen Smigelski), Owen Smigelski

gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group: Maxim Alzoba, Kurt Pritz, Sebastien Ducos

Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Tom Dale

Non-Contracted Parties House

Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG): Marie Pattullo, Mark Datysgeld, Philippe Fouquart, Osvaldo Novoa, John McElwaine, Flip Petillion

Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG): Juan Manuel Rojas, Stephanie Perrin, Tatiana Tropina, Wisdom Donkor, Farell Folly, Tomslin Samme-Nlar

Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Carlton Samuels

GNSO Council Liaisons/Observers :

Cheryl Langdon-Orr– ALAC Liaison

Jeffrey Neuman– GNSO liaison to the GAC

Maarten Simon – ccNSO observer

Guest speakers: Dennis Tan Tanaka (IDNs EPDP DT Chair, Rod Rasmussen and Jeff Bedser (SSAC speakers), Keith Drazek (EPDP P2A Chair)

ICANN Staff

David Olive - Senior Vice President, Policy Development Support and Managing Manager, ICANN Regional

Mary Wong – Vice President, Strategic Community Operations, Planning and Engagement

Julie Hedlund – Policy Director

Steve Chan – Senior Director

Berry Cobb – Policy Consultant

Emily Barabas – Policy Manager

Ariel Liang – Policy Senior Specialist

Caitlin Tubergen – Policy Director

Terri Agnew - Operations Support, Lead Administrator

Nathalie Peregrine – Manager, Operations GNSO

Zoom Recording

Transcript

Item 1: Administrative Matters

1.1 - Roll Call

Philippe Fouquart, GNSO Chair, welcomed all to the May 2021 Council meeting.

1.2 - Updates to Statements of Interest.

There were no updates to the Statements of Interest.

1.3 - Review / Amend Agenda

The agenda was accepted as presented.

1.4 - Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meetings per the GNSO Operating Procedures:

Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting on 08 April 2021 were posted on 22 April 2021.

Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting on 22 April were posted on the 06 May 2021

Item 2: Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List

2.1 - The review of the Projects List andAction Item List

In the interest of time, the item discussion is deferred to the GNSO Council mailing list.

Item 3: Consent Agenda

There was one item on the Consent Agenda for the GNSO Council to confirm.

Appointment of the GNSO Council liaison to the System for Standardized Access/ Disclosure Operational Design Phase - Janis Karklin

Philippe Fouquart, GNSO Chair, reminded council members of the proposed approach circulated by Council leads, namely to reach out to persons of interest for the role of GNSO Council liaison. Janis Karklin very kindly accepted to take on the additional responsibility.

Councilors voted unanimously in support of the Consent Agenda item.

Vote results

Action Item:

Staff will notify Janis Karklins & ICANN Board of the GNSO Council’s approval of his appointment as GNSO Council Liaison to the System for Standardized Access/Disclosure Operational Design Phase

Item 4: COUNCIL VOTE - Adoption of the motion for the GNSO Council response to GAC ICANN70 Communique

Philippe Fouquart, GNSO Chair, seconded by Tatiana Tropina, GNSO Council Vice Chair, Non Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG), submitted a motionto adopt the GNSO Council response to GAC ICANN70 Communique.

Whereas,

The Governmental Advisory Committee advises the ICANN Board on issues of public policy, and especially where there may be an interaction between ICANN's activities or policies and national laws or international agreements. It usually does so as part of a Communiqué, which is published towards the end of every ICANN meeting.

The GNSO is responsible for developing and recommending to the ICANN Board, substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains.

The GNSO has expressed a desire to provide feedback to the ICANN Board on issues in the GAC Communiqué as these relate to generic top-level domains to inform the ICANN Board as well as the broader community of past, present or future gTLD policy activities that may directly or indirectly relate to advice provided by the GAC.

The GNSO hopes that the input provided through its review of the GAC Communiqué will further enhance the co-ordination and promote the sharing of information on gTLD related policy activities between the GAC, Board and the GNSO.

Resolved,

The GNSO Council adopts the GNSO Review of theICANN70 Virtual Community Forum GAC Communiquéand requests that the GNSO Council Chair communicate the GNSO Review of the ICANN70 Virtual Community Forum GAC Communiqué to the ICANN Board.

The GNSO Council requests that the GNSO Council Chair also informs the GAC Chair of the communication between the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board.

After reviewing the process of sending the draft GNSO response to the GAC ICANN70 Communique to the Board - once reviewed by Council via the Council mailing list - in order to get it to the Board in time to assist their deliberations prior to the Council vote, councilors voted unanimously to approve the motion.

Philippe Fouquart, GNSO Chair, notedthe need for future improvement in terms oftiming and cadence for producing a timely response and to allow enough time for a proper review by the Council before being sent to the Board.

Vote results

Action Items:

The GNSO Council Chair will communicate the GNSO Council Review of the ICANN70 Virtual Community Forum GAC Communiqué to the ICANN Board.

The GNSO Council Chair will inform the GAC Chair of the communication between the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board.

Item 5: COUNCIL VOTE - Initiation of the Expedited Policy Development Process on Internationalized Domain Names and Approval of the EPDP Team Charter

Maxim Alzoba, Registry Stakeholder Group (RySG), seconded by Tomslin Samme-Nlar, NCSG, presented the motion for GNSO Council to vote to initiate the Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP) on Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) .

Whereas,

On 14 March 2019, the ICANN Board approved a set of recommendations developed by ICANN org on how to allocate Internationalized Domain Name (IDN) variant TLD labels. The ICANN Board requested that the GNSO and ccNSO take into account those IDN variant TLD recommendations while developing their respective policies to define and manage IDN variant TLDs for the current TLDs and future TLD applications, while keeping each other informed of the progress in developing the relevant details of their policies and procedures to ensure a consistent solution for IDN variant gTLDs and IDN variant ccTLDs.

On 26 June 2019, the GNSO Council established a Scoping Team to develop recommendations for the GNSO Council’s consideration on how to address the IDN variant TLD recommendations, as well as issues in the Final Proposed Draft version 4.0 of Internationalized Domain Name ("IDN") Implementation Guidelines (“IDN Guidelines v. 4.0”), for which the ICANN Board had agreed to the GNSO Council request [gnso.icann.org] to defer its adoption. The Scoping Team met between 15 August 2019 and 12 December 2019.

On 23 January 2020, the GNSO Council discussed the Final Report [gnso.icann.org] from the Scoping Team, which suggested tackling IDN related issues in two tracks: Operational Track and Policy Track. The Policy Track would be tasked to deliberate on: i) the definition and management of IDN variant TLDs, and ii) the change process of the IDN Guidelines and any policy issues related to the IDN Guidelines v. 4.0 identified by the Operational Track Team (consisted of members in the GNSO Contracted Parties House) and agreed upon by the IDN

Guidelines Working Group.

On 26 January 2020, the ICANN Board approved the Recommendations for the Technical Utilization of the RZ-LGR on how to employ the RZ-LGR to determine valid IDN TLDs and their variant labels. The ICANN Board requested that the GNSO and ccNSO take into account those RZ-LGR Technical Utilization recommendations while developing their respective policies to define and manage IDN variant TLDs for the current TLDs and future TLD applications.

On 21 October 2020, the GNSO Council agreed to establish a Drafting Team to develop both a draft charter and an Initiation Request for an EPDP on IDNs. The GNSO Council agreed with the Scoping Team’s suggestion that an Issue Report is likely not needed in order to initiate the Policy Track work, and an EPDP is the desired approach. The Drafting Team met between 8 December 2020 and 4 May 2021.

On 10 May 2021, the Drafting Team submitted the draft EPDP charter and the Initiation Request for the GNSO Council’s consideration.

On 20 May 2021, the Drafting Team Chair provided a briefing to the GNSO Council on the content of the draft charter prior to the Council vote to initiate the EPDP and adopt the charter.

RESOLVED,

The GNSO Council hereby approves the Initiation Request for the EPDP on IDNs and as such initiates the EPDP.

The GNSO Council approves the Charter of the EPDP on IDNs.

The GNSO Council directs staff to:

(a) communicate the results of this motion to the GNSO SG/Cs as well as ICANN SO/ACs and invite them to identify Members for the working group following the working group composition described in the Charter;

(b) communicate the results of this motion to the ICANN Org GDS Team and invite them to identify at least one (1) staff liaison for the working group;

(c) launch a call for expressions of interest seeking interested candidates to Chair the EPDP on IDNs; and

(d) solicit candidates for the GNSO Council liaison to the EPDP on IDNs.

Dennis Tan Tanaka, Chair of the IDN EPDP Drafting Team (DT), presented to the GNSO Council. He reminded councilors that ICANN Board had deferred the adoption of the IDN Implementation Guidelines v.4.0 in June 2019 and that the IDN Variant Scoping Team had been initiated by the GNSO Council in August 2019. In January 2020, the GNSO Council adopted the Scoping Team suggestion for Operational and Policy tracks. In October 2020, the GNSO Council established a Drafting Team (DT) for the Policy Track (IDN EPDP). The DT based its work on an existing body of work: SubPro recommendations under topic 25, Variant TLD Management Staff Paper, RZ-LGR Technical Study Group (TSG) and other IDN related studies. The IDN EPDP is expected to provide policy recommendations on: a definition of all TLDs and the management of variant labels as well as how the IDN Implementation Guidelines should be updated in the future. The mission and scope of this EPDP may be expanded as a result of the Operational Track. The DT agreed that the EPDP should not revisit SubPro recommendations in the context of future new gTLDs but will consider questions asking whether such recommendations would be extended to existing gTLDs. It also agreed that where SubPro does not have a recommendation that corresponds to the Staff Paper of TSG recommendation, include questions about the impact of such recommendations on future and existing gTLDs. Finally, it suggested that SubPro IRT and IDNs EPDP should coordinate on addressing implementation issues to achieve.

There are 48 charter questions divided into 7 groups by topic.

Topic A is about the consistent definition and technical utilization of RZ-LGR. Topic B deals with the “same entity” (as a registry operator) for the Top level Domain Name, Topic C deals with the ‘same entity” for the Second Level domain names. Certain items in Topic C overlap with items of concern in IDN Implementation Guidelines version 4.0 (same entity impact to the current rules for registry operators, mutually coherent second-level IDN tables, method for IDN table harmonisation) as identified by the RySG.

Philippe Fouquart, GNSO Chair, noted that there is an overlap between the Charter

questions and items 6, 11 and 13 of the IDNImplementation Guidelines v.04.

Kurt Pritz, RySG, clarified that there are two tasks: approve the charter and initiate the EPDP, and then discuss the collision between the operational track and the EPDP. The first task has no impact on the second.

Dennis Tan Tanaka, IDN EPDP DT Chair, continued onto topic D, which will focus on policies and procedures related to the domain name lifecycle, for example transfers. Topic E covers objections, string similarity, string contention. Topic F covers dispute resolution procedures and trademark protection mechanisms. Topic G focuses on the process to update IDN Implementation Guidelines. Regarding expected deliverables, the intention is for the working group to submit its work plan to the GNSO Council. The group may decide to break out the work in different phases and deliver in different pieces. At the minimum they need to deliver an Initial and Final Report. The completion date would be no later than 12 months after the EPDP first convenes, given the charter questions are tightly scoped, and that there is an existing body of work to serve as basis. However it will be up to the EPDP to decide, based on resources available, what their timeline will be.

Philippe Fouquart, GNSO Chair, agreed that the timeline seemed aggressive, but depended on the remit of the EPDP. He asked, given this timeline was in the charter, whether councilors were comfortable with it, or whether it should be removed and leave the timeline to the EPDP to decide.

Maxim Alzoba, RySG, mentioned that other timelines need to be determined prior to this EPDP determining its timeline. There will be an Operational Design Phase (ODP) for instance for New gTLDs Subsequent Procedures (SubPro) IRT, which has not begun yet. It would be good to change the charter language to something softer.

Philippe Fouquart, GNSO Chair, added that removing the timeline would make sense, and that the EPDP team would be directed to consider the timeline as a first point of focus.

Pam Little, GNSO Council Vice Chair, RrSG, agreed to not include the timeline, as anything in the Charter ought to be reasonable and achievable. She added that Maxim seemed to be advocating for a longer period, and given that there is also the proposal of  

an element of coordination between the SubPro Implementation track, there are uncertainties which would be challenging for the working group to meet the 12-month timeline. She reminded councilors that the Project Change Request (PCR) ought to only be a last resort.

Jeff Neuman, GNSO Council Liaison to the GAC, member of the Drafting Team, clarified that a year ago, ICANN Board sent a letter to Council about the fact the next round was contingent on the IDN work being completed. Any expectation of a longer timeframe would need to be communicated to the Board.

Philippe Fouquart, GNSO Chair, agreed that that specific dependency would explain the urgency, but added that he was hearing no objection to removing the timeline from the charter.

Mark Datysgeld, Business Constituency (BC), congratulated the team on its work, and underscored the importance of its effort, which has been delayed for too long.

Philippe Fouquart, GNSO Chair, suggested removing the timeline from the charter and going back to the DT and DT Chair with this proposed update to the charter, without delaying the creation of the EPDP team, and avoiding at all costs a PCR.

Dennis Tan Tanaka, IDN EPDP DT Chair, finished his presentation with the formation of the EPDP, which will be based on a representative and open model. Each community group will be able to assign up to 3 members, One Chair and one Vice Chair will make up the leadership team.

In the interest of time, the discussion about the overlap between EPDP work and the Operational Track was postponed. Kurt Pritz, RySG, formally requested that the discussion take place soon, with the ICANN Board informed of the development.

Vote results

Action Items:

Staff will revise the charter and the Initiation Request to remove the reference to the 12-month deadline for completion of the work as the first deliverable for the Working Group is to develop a work plan.

Staff will communicate the results of the adopted motion to the GNSO SG/Cs as well as ICANN SO/ACs and invite them to identify Members for the working

group following the working group composition described in the Charter;

Staff will communicate the results of the adopted motion to the ICANN Org GDS Team and invite them to identify at least one (1) staff liaison for the working group;

Staff will launch a call for expressions of interest seeking interested candidates to Chair the EPDP on IDNs; and

Staff will solicit candidates for the GNSO Council liaison to the EPDP on IDNs.

Item 6: COUNCIL BRIEFING - Briefing on SAC115

Rod Rasmussen and Jeff Bedser, SSAC, presented a briefing on SAC115 to the GNSO Council. Rod Rasmussen, SSAC Chair, thanked the Council for having them here today. Jeff Bedser, Work Party Chair, then introduced the topic. The report is based on the understanding that the reduction of DNS abuse leads to the reduction of Internet user victims. To achieve this, an interoperable approach based on universal standards is necessary. SSAC115 should act as a catalyst. DNS abuse in SAC115 refers to the use of domain names to perpetuate abusive activities, a definition commonly used in the ICANN community: malware, botnet, phishing, pharming, spam. Many other forms of DNS exist, new types of abuse are commonly created, but these are out of scope. There are entities to block and filter abuse, processes involving notifications and takedowns, leading efforts from various groups focussing on detecting DNS abuse, and reacting to notification. The framework for interoperable approach has a primary point of responsibility for abuse resolution, escalation paths, evidentiary terminology and standards, reasonable timeframes for action, availability and quality of contact information. Each incident of DNS abuse should have a reporting entry point in the DNS ecosystem where that abuse is resolved by policy and process. When a reporter either reports to the wrong party or does not get a response, there needs to be a documented and actionable escalation path. Reporters of abuse should have the responsibility of providing evidence and documentation. Setting objective standards of evidence to support action will enhance transparency and accountability for service providers. The timely mitigation of DNS abuse is extremely important to minimize victimization of the abuse. Remediation should be no longer than 96 hours. Accurate, thorough, and accessible contact information for entities in the DNS ecosystem is critical to establishing escalation paths and mitigating abuse. Lack of coordination leads to inconsistent approaches to DNS abuse management, there is therefore an

opportunity for a common abuse response facilitator. Recommendations from SAC115 suggest that the ICANN community continue to work together.

Rod Rasmussen, SSAC Chair, talked about findings regarding the common abuse response facilitator. Requirements would include a common space for convening among parties beyond ICANN ecosystem, evidentiary standards for people providing reports and those receiving them, ensuring the requirements are understood across the ecosystem, encouraging standardization of methodology, periodic reporting and education. He added that these recommendations are aimed at the community, not specifically ICANN Board.

Jeff Bedser, SSAC, acknowledged that not all actors will want to take part, but the facilitator’s role would be involved in helping approach a common ground.

Philippe Fouquart, GNSO Chair, praised the approach which spreads beyond ICANN.  

Action Item: none

Item 7: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - IGO Work Track Update

John McElwaine, GNSO Liaison to the IGO Work Track (WT), provided the update. The WT has made good progress and is currently on schedule for the delivery of the Initial Report by the mid-August deadline. The WT is still struggling with the narrow scope of the charter, but members are working around it and it is not hindering issues being discussed. Legal advice may be needed to look at different ways possible for IGOs to agree to certain jurisdictions and different ways to handle appeals.

Action Item: None

Item 8: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Status Update Regarding EPDP Phase 2A

Keith Drazek, Chair of the EPDP P2A, provided a status update to the GNSO Council. The group is on track at this stage to publish an Initial report for publication for public comment early June, as 31st May is an ICANN holiday. This is an important phase for the process to gather community input. At this time, there will be no consensus on new

consensus policy recommendations on differentiation on topics of legal vs natural as well as feasibility of unique contacts, but there will be agreement that voluntary guidance will be useful. There is one possible change to an existing EPDP P1 requirement which could result in the addition of a data element to the minimum public data set which was covered in recommendation 10. Timing is important, the expectation was that the group provided an update in March 2021, following public comments received and development of Final Report, the latter will be delivered August 2021.

Maxim Alzoba, RySG, mentioned that the expectation when the EPDP started was 3 months, with an extension possible when requested. When will there be a checkpoint to evaluate if consensus items have been found?

Keith Drazek, EPDP P2A Chair, replied that that was the original expectation, in March 2021, he provided the update that he thought there would be consensus on certain voluntary measures, and that is still the case. The next checkpoint should be following the publication of the Initial Report, once the group reconvenes to assess if there is a possibility for consensus on the Final Report.

Action Item: None

Item 9: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Accuracy Scoping Team

Pam Little, GNSO Council Vice Chair, RrSG, mentioned that this has been a longstanding topic within the Council. She provided a background of what has happened to date. It stemmed from EPDP P1 recommendation and a footnote about accuracy being further discussed. It did not however get discussed in EPDP P2, but Council had committed to address it in a separate effort. Late 2020, under the consent agenda, Council confirmed its intent to initiate the Scoping Team effort, and what the responsibilities would be. This discussion picked up from the previous Council leadership proposal following a then Council small team’s findings. February 2021, there was a briefing paper from ICANN Org, recommending a study on how to measure accuracy, among other things. The current Council leadership team gathered reactions and comments from various councilors following their proposed next steps:

#1Identify what problems if any are expected to be addressed and how

#2: Work with ICANN Org and contracted parties to identify how to gather additional data to assess accuracy and confirm problems

#3. Report back to council on 1) what problems have been identified and how these are expected to be addressed 2) how these problems can be quantified/ confirmed 3) propose next steps.

She added that in the 12 May 2021 Board resolution, the Board recognized the Council response to the GAC Advice and that the Board has been very explicit about their view of accuracy, they have a different understanding of the meaning of accuracy under GDPR.

Kurt Pritz, RySG, mentioned that #1 was extremely broad and would need honing. The next steps need to include a definition of accuracy.

Marie Pattullo, BC, stated that the BC is eager for the work to start as soon as possible. It is important to remember that this effort could be leading to a charter, but initiating a Scoping Team is the step prior. She agreed a definition would be essential, but given that data accuracy experts will be taking part in the effort, they will be the ones scoping where the problems are.

Kurt Pritz. RySG, agreed in most part, but insisted that the characterizing of the problems needs to be approached and would not necessarily restrain the group.

Philippe Fouquart, GNSO Chair, summarized that there would need to be a small team to further hone the paper, without necessarily going as far as providing a definition, at least clarifying the remit.

Stephanie Perrin, NCSG, recommended early external legal advice in the EPDP 1, regarding data protection. Bird&Bird should fully define and look into what accuracy means in GDPR terms and data protection more generally, before starting another PDP with disagreements on definition.

Jeff Neuman, GNSO Liaison to the GAC, mentioned that the GAC perception was that the various definitions of accuracy were irrelevant, what was important was how it was defined under the contract

Jeff Neuman, Marie Pattullo, John McElwaine, Carlton Samuels, Olga Cavalli, Owen

Smigelski and Kurt Pritz volunteered for the small team effort.

Action item:

Staff will form a Small Team to review the path forward document and suggest changes / edits to further guide the scoping team in its work. Volunteers are: Kurt Pritz, Marie Patullo, John McElwaine, Carlton Samuels, Olga Cavalli, Jeff Neuman and Owen Smigelski.

Item 10: ANY OTHER BUSINESS

10.1 - Presentation of GNSO Council sessions for ICANN71 and their set up

An email will be sent to the Council mailing list shortly.

10.2 - Next steps regarding the proposed Framework for Continuous Improvement

A meeting has been held with the SG/C Chairs to further work on the framework and launch a pilot with SG/C SMEs assisting the Council small committee working on specific topics, this will begin in June.

Action item:

GNSO Council leadership will send the revised proposal to the GNSO Council list.

10.3 - Next steps regarding Working Group Self Assessments drawing on results of RPMsandSubProsurveys

A call has been scheduled with the former leadership and liaisons for each of those PDPs, Council will be updated after the call.

Action item:

GNSO Council leadership will meet with the SubPro and RPMs PDP Co-Chairs to review the results.

Philippe Fouquart, GNSO Chair, adjourned the meeting at 21:06 UTC on Thursday 20 May 2021

...

Minutes of the GNSO Council Meeting 22 April 2021

AgendaandDocuments

Coordinated Universal Time: 19:00 UTC:https://tinyurl.com/53pezj7x

12:00 Los Angeles; 15:00 Washington; 20:00 London; 21:00 Paris; 22:00 Moscow; (Friday) 05:00 Melbourne

List of attendees:

Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Non-Voting – Olga Cavalli

Contracted Parties House

Registrar Stakeholder Group: Pam Little, Kristian Ørmen, Greg DiBiase (apologies, temporary alternate Owen Smigelski), Owen Smigelski

gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group: Maxim Alzoba, Kurt Pritz, Sebastien Ducos

Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Tom Dale

Non-Contracted Parties House

Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG): Marie Pattullo, Mark Datysgeld, Philippe Fouquart, Osvaldo Novoa, John McElwaine, Flip Petillion

Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG): Juan Manuel Rojas, Stephanie Perrin, Tatiana Tropina, Wisdom Donkor, Farell Folly (apology, proxy to Tatiana Tropina), Tomslin Samme-Nlar

Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Carlton Samuels

GNSO Council Liaisons/Observers :

Cheryl Langdon-Orr– ALAC Liaison

Jeffrey Neuman– GNSO liaison to the GAC

Maarten Simon – ccNSO observer

Guest speakers: Reg Levy, Brian Cimbolic, Jim Galvin from the Contracted Party House (CPH) DNS Abuse Group.

ICANN Staff

David Olive - Senior Vice President, Policy Development Support and Managing Manager, ICANN Regional

Mary Wong – Vice President, Strategic Community Operations, Planning and Engagement

Julie Hedlund – Policy Director

Steve Chan – Senior Director

Berry Cobb – Policy Consultant

Emily Barabas – Policy Manager

Ariel Liang – Policy Senior Specialist

Caitlin Tubergen – Policy Director

Terri Agnew - Operations Support, Lead Administrator

Nathalie Peregrine – Manager, Operations GNSO

Zoom Recording

Transcript

Item 1: Administrative Matters

1.1 - Roll Call

Philippe Fouquart, GNSO Chair, welcomed all to the April 2021 Council meeting.

1.2 - Updates to Statements of Interest.

There were no updates to the Statements of Interest.

1.3 - Review / Amend Agenda

The agenda was accepted as presented. It was noted item 5 on the agenda had been previously part of the Consent Agenda, but removed and added to the main agenda as a standalone item.

1.4 - Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meetings per the GNSO Operating Procedures:

Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting on 18 February 2021 were posted on 4 March 2021.

Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting on 08 April 2021 were posted on 22 April 2021.

Item 2: Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List

2.1 - The review of the Projects List andAction Item List

Philippe Fouquart, GNSO Chair, drew Council attention to the number of items in the Council’s pipeline and the connection with the Framework of Continuous Improvement.

Steve Chan, ICANN Org, reminded councilors about a communication from Berry Cobb, GNSO Policy Consultant, with updates to the program management documents. He then mentioned the Project List, the Action Decision Radar (ADR), and Program Management Tool which are all new tools. Focussing on the ADR, he pointed out there are a number of items which have been on the 0 to 1 month timeline for a while. This timeline can appear overwhelming. A different perspective could be to take a decision on stagnant items, without necessarily taking action to begin working on an item. The decision could be that something needs to be on hold because of external dependencies for instance and the item could be moved on the ADR or removed from it. Staff is currently reviewing the ADR range marker implications to allow Council to efficiently manage its workload.

Maxim Alzoba, Registry Stakeholder Group (RySG), reminded Council that from a program management perspective, this is not delaying the start of a project, it’s a managerial decision. If councilors were to start all the efforts, there would be a bandwidth problem.

Berry Cobb, GNSO Policy Consultant, added that the suite of tools still lacks a prioritization direction and a resource management component. He noted that the two rows of the ADR are dealing with the two Implementation Review Teams (IRTs) which are paused, and this is related to the decision Council needs to make. The Council decision on the ADR items needs to be made in reference to the Project List. These tools are to be used as a suite, and not in isolation.

He highlighted two changes: 1) the Project List used to be attached in an email to Council, but to monitor document views, they were posted on the wiki page, and the url posted to Council. Viewing numbers are dwindling, councilors are encouraged to review these documents prior to all Council meetings. 2) Project Management Framework is to be reviewed too for a broader understanding of the tools. To mark the consideration of an item, resolutions, consent agenda items, and minutes can be progress trackers as well as the shifting of an item to a later time-range. Completed items are also logged at the end of the ADR.

Maxim Alzoba, RySG, added that the Council’s goal is not only to make the ADR look better, but to take care of the whole Policy process.

Action Item:

GNSO Council leadership to propose by the 20 May 2021 GNSO Council

meeting how to address the items on the ADR in the 0-1-month range.

Item 3: Consent Agenda

There were two items on the Consent Agenda for the GNSO Council to confirm.

Acknowledgment of the GNSO Council liaison to Transfer Policy PDP - Greg Dibiase

Approval of the Chair for the Transfer Policy PDP - Roger Carney (SOI)

Philippe Fouquart, GNSO Chair, noted that one item had been removed from the Consent Agenda and was a stand alone item 4 on this meeting’s agenda, another was for discussion under Any Other Business.

Councilors voted in support of the Consent Agenda item.

Vote results

Action Item:

The GNSO Secretariat to notify by Friday, 23 April 2021 Roger Carney of the Council acknowledgement of Greg Dibiase as Liaison and of approval of Roger Carney as Chair of the Transfer Policy PDP.

Item 4: COUNCIL VOTE - Second GNSO Representative to the Community Representatives Group (CRG) to nominate the Independent Review Process (IRP) Standing Panel

Carlton Samuels, Non Contracted Party House (NCSP) NomCom Appointee, seconded by Marie Pattullo, Business Constituency councilor, submitted a motion to approve the second GNSO representative to the Community Representatives Group (CRG) to nominate the Independent Review Process (IRP) Standing Panel.

Whereas,

The SO/AC Chairs agreed to the formation of a Community Representatives Group (CRG) to select nominees for the Bylaws-mandated Independent Review Process (IRP) Standing Panel.

The GNSO has the opportunity to appoint up to two members to serve on the CRG, but only one application was received by the GNSO in response to the initialExpression of Interest process. The sole candidate, Heather Forrest, was considered and recommended by the GNSO Standing Selection Committee and subsequently appointed by the GNSO Council to serve as a GNSO representative to the CRG.

The SG/C Chairs agreed to initiate asecond Expression of Interest processto identify an additional GNSO representative to serve on the CRG. The process opened on 8 March 2021.

The GNSO SG/C Chairs and GNSO Council Leadership agreed that the SSC should be deployed to select the GNSO's second representative to the CRG.

The SSC reviewed the three applications received, taking into account the guidance provided by the SG/C Chairs.

The SSC submitted its full consensus recommendation to the GNSO Council on 12 April 2021, by way of submission of the relevant motion.

The GNSO Council considered the recommendations of the SSC.

Resolved,

The GNSO appoints Donna Austin to serve as a second GNSO representative to the Community Representatives Group that will nominate the Independent Review Process (IRP) Standing Panel.

The GNSO Council instructs the GNSO Secretariat to communicate resolved #1 to the SO/AC Chairs and ICANN.

The GNSO Council instructs the GNSO Secretariat to inform the nominated candidate of the Council's decision.

The GNSO Council requests the GNSO Secretariat to send a response to those applicants who were not nominated, noting that all three candidates were highly qualified, thanking them for their interest and willingness to step forward for this role, and encouraging them to apply for future opportunities as they arise.

Kurt Pritz, RySG, recused himself from the discussion as Donna Austin is his spouse, but Council received an RySG Voting Direction for his vote in favour of the motion.

Carlton Samuels, Chair of the GNSO Standing Selection Committee (SSC), reminded councilors Heather Forrest had already been selected as the first GNSO representative. There was an opportunity for a second representative, with criteria approved by Stakeholder Group (SG) and Constituency (C) Chairs. Three candidates presented themselves, and the SSC, as per procedure, held a poll on the candidates

submitted. The SSC then reviewed criteria and had a unanimous committee decision to recommendDonna Austin as the preferred candidate.

Flip Petillion, Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC), raised that he had been one of the three candidates to the role, but that it did not in any way taint his statement, wishing all the best to Donna Austin. However, he mentioned that a new criterion of representation from the Contracted Party House (CPH) had been added by the SSC during their deliberations, but it was not communicated during the call for Expressions of Interest. He wished this had been communicated beforehand. He added that it triggered the question of representation over the best skilled person for the task. Flip Petillion, IPC, has taken part in many Independent Review Processes (IRP) and often represents contracted parties.

Carlton Samuels, SSC Chair, responded that the SSC is a representative body, at a higher level, the GNSO is also a representative body. The topic of balance is not new within the GNSO. The EoI invited all those who had an interest in the role. However it is stated in the SSC Charter that when there are equal qualities in candidates, a more nuanced approach can then be taken by the SSC. In this case, it was useful for all the GNSO structures to be represented by having the second representative from the CPH.  

Maxim Alzoba, RySG, mentioned that the SSC decision was unanimous, and with that, the IPC supported it. The SSC also cares about the best combined team when it’s possible, as it is better for the process. He added that this was therefore possibly a personal comment by an IPC member.

Philippe Fouquart, GNSO Chair, agreed but also noted that councilors had the right to discuss the decision. In this case, the SSC had been spoiled with excellent candidates with an extremely difficult decision to take.

Pam Little, RrSG, stated that Council could have adjusted when the call for the second candidate was being prepared, and clarified that balance of representation was important. She mentioned that the Charter of the SSC was revised in May 2018, originally intended for various ICANN Review Team (RT) efforts, and that the SSC shall strive to achieve balance, representativeness, diversity and sufficient expertise appropriate for the applicable selection process.

Carlton Samuels, SSC Chair, agreed with Pam, on the point of the Charter requesting members striving for diversity and balance. He added that that point could have been clarified in the criteria for the role.

Flip Petillion, IPC, thanked Pam Little and Carlton Samuels for their acknowledgement that the process could have been improved on.

GNSO Councilors voted in support of the motion, with abstentions from Flip Petillion and John McElwaine, both IPC councilors. Flip Petillion provided his reasons at the start of the discussion and John McElwaine added that there had not been enough time to discuss with IPC members the vote of this motion following its removal from the Consent Agenda, un-related to the choice of representative.

Vote results

Action Items:

The GNSO Secretariat to communicate resolved #1 of themotionto the SO/AC Chairs and ICANN.

The GNSO Secretariat to inform Donna Austin of the Council's decision

The GNSO Secretariat to send a response to those applicants who were not nominated, noting that all three candidates were highly qualified, thanking them for their interest and willingness to step forward for this role, and encouraging them to apply for future opportunities as they arise.

Item 5: COUNCIL BRIEFING - Briefing from the CPH DNS Abuse Group

Pam Little, GNSO Council Vice Chair, Registrar Stakeholder Group, introduced the briefing. The DNS Abuse topic came to Council via the CCTRT recommendations which the Board passed through to the New gTLDs Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process Working Group (SubPro) and the SubPro Co-chairs then advised the Council to take a holistic approach. Currently there are many efforts on the topic, especially for the GNSO, in the CPH.

Jim Galvin, from the CPH DNS Abuse Group, presented to councilors. There are many groups within the CPH working the DNS Abuse Topic. There are many different processes by which it is being handled and they are all geared to combating abuse. Statistics on the matter must be taken at face value as DAAR reported in 2020 there was a downward trend in DNS, the US Federation Report showed an increase in the number of victims of DNS Abuse. The CPH acts on a certain area of abuse, which is mostly under control. The CPH does not control the existence of internet abuse and

therefore cannot be held accountable. The Framework for DNS Abuse, was a voluntary effort of registries and registrars launched in 2017 and drafted the DNS Abuse Definition which is endorsed by both registries and registrars. The definition covers five areas of harmful activity which align to the contracts of the CPH. There is a difference also between DNS abuse and website content abuse. Whilst some content abuse can fall under phishing and pharming, it is very clearly defined. Other parties are responsible in the DNS Abuse ecosystem: site operators, hosting providers, registrants. In the case of abuse, often the only option for the DNS Actors is to remove a domain name from the zone file. In this case, there will be collateral damage, which must be avoided.

Brian Cimbolic, CPH DNS Abuse Group, added that ofen the hosting provider can work with the registrant to solve the issue without the domain name being removed. In the RySG Abuse Group, the DAAR Working Group (WG) put together a report to improve DAAR and make it more useful for registries and the broader community. Outreach is intended to affect outputs here, with the aim of continuing community wide conversation. The group is working with the GAC, the Public Safety Working Group on the Framework for Registry Operators to respond to Security Threats and a new Framework to Address Malware and Botnets at Scale. Future endeavours will be working on a Framework on Trusted Notifiers and Evidentiary Guidelines for Reporting Abuse.

Reg Levy, CPH DNS Abuse Group, covered the RrSG Abuse Work. The group has been active and have published guides for reporting various types of DNS Abuse, a breakdown for how registrars reacted to the Covid-19 crisis, DNS abuse is rarely linked to the domain name itself and evidence has been gathered to that point, The group also published a guide for previously requested Whois Data, a white paper on the Incentivisation Programs, Registrant Protections. A central resource for registrants dealing with DNS Abuse complaints is currently in the works. The RrSG and the RySG have formed the CPH DNS Abuse Outreach effort and have met with other ICANN SG groups. These sessions are in a Q&A format, to cover practices, approaches. A community questionnaire is being considered, as well as a DNS Abuse newsletter and a DNS Abuse “trifold” information pamphlet.

Jim Galvin provided comments on SAC115, two RySG members contributed to the

SSAC Work Party which produced this document, along with a Public Safety Working Group member. Comments: the SSAC115 took into account there are various definitions of DNS Abuse, which can be problematic. The discussion is often led from the point of view of the victim. There is a need for greater interoperability between all parties including the non-ICANN community. Actions being considered are evidentiary guidelines for abuse reporting, as further consistency is needed in this area, and a trusted notifier framework.

Mark Datysgeld, BC, welcomed the conversation taking place at a GNSO Council level. He added that he believed people looked at the CPH to solve the issue, as any given computer could become a host. Here, in the case of the CPH, the community is regulated, with known and accessible (for the ICANN community) players. He mentioned that it would be interesting to see how definitions on spam align, and to better understand where consensus lies within the CPH, in order to move the discussion forward.

Pam Little, GNSO Council Vice Chair, RrSG, thanked the speakers for their presentation and clarified that there are items within ICANN’s remit and constraints, there are only certain items which are for the CPH to take action. ICANN does not act on spam, but for the CPH, spam is taken into account when it serves as a delivery for malware and other abuse activities.

John McElwaine, IPC, thanked the presenters. He added that he would like to know more about the work on accuracy of registrant data within the CPH DNS Abuse group, and whether it had helped deal fairly and equitably with registrant complaints.

Reg Levy on behalf of the RrSG, answered that the data was not always accurate, but that it wasn’t always helpful in identifying any bad actors. Brian Cimbolic added that between the CPH and another constituency, there are going to be areas of alignment and misalignment, and there needs to be a discussion on the common ground. Given that, the group hasn’t yet discussed the privacy area as it relates to DNS Abuse. The path forward will be to work on engagement.

John McElwaine followed up and asked if there were any work streams that are not being tackled by the GNSO Council which would be useful to the CPH work on DNS

Abuse.

Jim Galvin, IPC, responded that the group has its own agenda and was now reaching out to others with successful output results, so there are no asks at this time of other groups. Reg Levy added that having the GNSO deal at this time with DNS Abuse would be superfluous, as outreach is the stage the work is at.

Pam Little, GNSO Council Vice Chair, RrSG, encouraged councilors to think about whether hearing other groups’ perspectives would be helpful.

Action Item:

GNSO Council Leadership to add DNS abuse as a discussion item for the agenda of the 20 May 2021 Council meeting.

Item 6: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - IGO Work Track and Council Acknowledgement of Work Plan

John McElwine, GNSO Council liaison to the Work Track, provided an update to Council: the IGO Work Track (WT) has been meeting on a weekly basis for 90 mins. The initial proposed timeline indicates a few more months of work, At this point, a revised work place should have been provided, but the group is not ready, without being off track, There is a slight struggle with the scope restriction of the charter but member are positive that recommendations will be made, to then be discussed at the Council level. There will be a more substantive update in May or June 2021.

Action Item: none

Item 7: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Status Update Regarding EPDP Phase 2A

Philippe Fouquart, GNSO Liaison to the EPDP Phase 2A, provided the update. The EPDP is 5 weeks away from the Initial Report, there has been a tremendous amount of work and effort on the two topics they’re chartered to work on. There is no stumbling block identified as such, but it's crunch time for the report. On the topic of feasibility of unique contacts, the group is considering the question of whether or not having a

uniformed anonymised email address is feasible and if yes, if it is a requirement or guidance to the CPH. The team is reviewing guidance from Bird&Bird on legal questions. On the legal vs natural distinction, the EPDP is reviewing various approaches from SG and Gs, as to whether there are any updates on the EPDP P1 recommendations. These approaches are building up from the report received by Council during the March meeting. The group is meeting twice a week and is hopeful to converge to consensus on the Final Report.

Maxim Alzoba, RySG, asked GNSO Council leadership if given that the Council granted an extension already, would that be the last extension, and if this is going to be the last phase of the EPDP, or will there be others?

Philippe Fouquart, GNSO Liaison to the EPDP Phase 2A, replied that it was too early to say, it depends on the conclusion of Phase 2A but also on the external elements, the evolution of the reglementary environment for instance related to personal data protection.

Pam Little, GNSO Council Vice Chair, RrSG, agreed to give the group its allocated time to end of May and let all decisions be made then.

Kurt Pritz, RySG, asked if there are any actions Council should prepare in advance of the May discussion. Will councilors be called upon to vote on the continuation of the EPDP P2A or does it depend on the EPDP P2 A Chair’s update?

Philippe Fouquart, GNSO Council to the EPDP Phase 2A, encouraged councilors to review Bird&Bird input.

Action Item: None

Item 8: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Wrap-up from the Extraordinary Meeting

In the interest of time, this item was postponed to the mailing list.

Action Item:

GNSO Council leadership to provide the wrap-up from the extraordinary meeting on the Council email list by Friday, 30 April 2021.

Item 9: ANY OTHER BUSINESS

9.1- Timeline for GNSO Chair election

The GNSO Chair election procedure starts with the announcement during the GNSO Council meeting: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/proposed-council-chair-08apr21-en.pdf

9.2 - GNSO Council liaison to the SSAD Operational Design Phase

Further information and a draft framework will be circulated shortly to the list.

Action item:

Council leadership to share its proposed framework for identifying the GNSO Council liaison to the SSAD ODP by the next GNSO Council meeting on 20 May 2021. [COMPLETED 23 April 2021]

9.3 - GNSO Review of ICANN70 GAC Communique

Jeff Neuman, GNSO Council Liaison to the GAC, along with Olga Cavalli, Tom Dale and Carlton Samuels, have been working on the GNSO Review, and have been running into difficulties given most team members are unfamiliar with the response process. Given that, having more volunteers from experienced council members would be helpful.

Philippe Fouquart, GNSO Chair, added that voting on the response would possibly take place electronically.

Action Item: none

Philippe Fouquart, GNSO Chair, adjourned the meeting at 21:06 UTC on Thursday 22 April 2021

...

During ICANN 70 - GNSO Council Meeting is on 24 March 2021 at 17:30 UTC.

GNSO Council Agenda 24 March 2021 

Please note that all documents referenced in the agenda have been gathered on a Wiki page for convenience and easier access: https://community.icann.org/x/jgxACQ

This agenda was established according to the GNSO Operating Procedures v3.5, updated on 24 October 2019

For convenience:

An excerpt of the ICANN Bylaws defining the voting thresholds is provided in Appendix 1 at the end of this agenda.

An excerpt from the Council Operating Procedures defining the absentee voting procedures is provided in Appendix 2 at the end of this agenda.

GNSO Council meeting held 17:30 UTC (12:30 local time)

Coordinated Universal Time: 17:30 UTC: https://tinyurl.com/2dc33d7k

10:30 Los Angeles; 13:30 Washington; 17:30 London; 18:30 Paris; 20:30 Moscow; (Thursday) 04:30 Melbourne 

GNSO Council Meeting Remote Participation: 

Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if they will not be able to attend and/or need a dial out call.

___________________________________

Item 1: Administrative Matters (10 mins)

1.1 - Roll Call

1.2 - Updates to Statements of Interest

1.3 - Review / Amend Agenda

1.4 - Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meetings per the GNSO Operating Procedures: 

Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting on 21 January 2021 were posted on 4 February 2021.

Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting on 18 February 2021 were posted on 4 March 2021.

Item 2: Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List (0 minutes)

2.1 - Review focus areas and provide updates on specific key themes / topics, to include review of Projects List and Action Item List. 

Item 3: Consent Agenda (5 minutes) 

Confirmation of the Recommendations Report to the ICANN Board regarding adoption of relevant Outputs from the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP.

Item 4: COUNCIL VOTE - IANA Naming Functions Contract Amendment (10 minutes)

The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Naming Function Review Team (IFRT) Final Report contains a recommendation that requires GNSO Council action. The IFR is an evaluation of Public Technical Identifiers (PTI) performance of the IANA naming function against the contractual requirements in the IANA Naming Function Contract and the IANA Naming Function SOW. The IFR Review Team's Recommendation 4 (page 5 of the IFR Final Report [PDF, 2.2MB]) calls for an amendment to Article 7, Section 7.1 (a) of the IANA Naming Function Contract. Pursuant to ICANN Bylaws Article 18.6 (iv), there must be "public comment on the amendments that are under consideration by the IFRT through a public comment period that complies with the designated practice for public comment periods within ICANN." In addition, Article 18.6 (b) requires that in order for the recommendation of the IFRT that amends the IANA Naming Function Contract or IANA Naming Function SOW to become effective, one of the requirements is for GNSO approval by a Supermajority.

The IANA Naming Function Contract currently states at Article VII, Section 7.1 (a): Audits:

“Contractor shall generate and publish via the IANA Website a monthly audit report identifying each root zone file and root zone “WHOIS” database change request and its status. The relevant policies under which the changes are made shall be noted within each monthly report. Such audit report shall be due to ICANN no later than 15 calendar days following the end of each month.”

The IFRT recommends that this statement, "The relevant policies under which the changes are made shall be noted within each monthly report" be removed from the contract.

Per the letter from the Co-chairs of the IANA Naming Function Review (IFR), “This section refers to the Root Operations Audit Reports (https://www.iana.org/performance/root-audit) which is published monthly by PTI. This statement, carried over from the contract between ICANN and NTIA, is no longer required; further, implementation of this requirement has long been recognised as being operationally impracticable, as a single change request cannot be traced back to a single relevant policy. The IFRT is satisfied that there is no value to this statement remaining in the IANA Naming Function Contract, as the referenced line adds no value to the reports.”

Here, the Council will vote to approve the IFRT Recommendation 4.

4.1 – Presentation of the Motion (TBD)

4.2 – Council discussion

4.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: supermajority)

Taking this action is within the GNSO’s remit as outlined in ICANN’s Bylaws, as a GNSO Supermajority is one of the required elements to allow for an amendment to either the IANA Naming Function Contract, IANA Naming Function SOW or CSC Charter, as set forth these Bylaws’ (Art.18.6).

Item 5: COUNCIL VOTE - Charter for the Transfer Policy PDP (10 minutes)

During its February Council meeting, the GNSO Council resolved to initiate a PDP on the Transfer Policy, while also determining that further time was needed to draft the charter. The Preliminary Issue Report included a draft charter, which was included in the public comment proceeding. That draft charter is also included in the Final Issue Report, Annex A. Comment on the draft charter was solicited from Councilors via a pre-recorded webinar prior to this Council meeting. A small team of Councilors was convened to refine the charter, focusing primarily on the membership structure. After receiving input from various communities, the small team proposed a representative structure that it believes allows for appropriate levels of participation.

Here, the Council will vote to approve the Charter.

5.1 – Presentation of the Motion (Pam Little, GNSO Council Vice-Chair)

5.2 – Council discussion

5.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: an affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House)

Taking this action is within the GNSO’s remit as outlined in ICANN’s Bylaws as the GNSO ‘shall be responsible for developing and recommending to the Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains and other responsibilities of the GNSO as set forth in these Bylaws’ (Art.11.1). Furthermore, this action complies with the requirements set out in Annex A: GNSO Policy Development Process of the ICANN Bylaws.

Item 6: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Nominating Committee Outreach Subcommittee Outreach (10 minutes)

The Nominating Committee (NomCom) initiated its application process on 25 January 2021 (with the deadline extended to 29 March 2021). For this cycle, the NomCom will be selecting two members of the GNSO Council, one representing the Contracted Parties House and one representing the Non-Contracted Parties House. The GNSO Council provided updated criteria to the NomCom in January 2021.

Here, the NomCom Outreach Subcommittee will provide information about the NomCom panel, about the positions being filled for the GNSO Council, and answer questions that the Council might have.

6.1 - Introduction of topic (NomCom Outreach Subcommittee)

6.2 – Council discussion

6.3 – Next steps

Item 7: COUNCIL DISCUSSION – Status Update Regarding EPDP Phase 2A (20 minutes)

On 21 October 2020, the GNSO Council approved the initiation of EPDP Phase 2A, to examine the topics of legal/natural and feasibility of unique contacts. In doing so, the Council required that:

"[a]t the latest 3 months after reconvening, the Chair of the EPDP Team and GNSO Council Liaison to the EPDP will report back to the GNSO Council on the status of deliberations. Based on this report, which is expected to include an update on progress made and the expected likelihood of consensus recommendations, the GNSO Council will decide on next steps, which could include providing additional time for the EPDP to finalize its recommendations or termination of the EPDP if it is clear that no progress is being made or consensus is unlikely).”

Here, the Chair of the EPDP Team and GNSO Council Liaison to the EPDP will provide an update to the Council.

7.1 – Introduction of topic (EPDP Team Chair, Keith Drazaek and GNSO Council Liaison to the EPDP, Philippe Fouquart)

7.2 – Council discussion

7.3 – Next steps

Item 8: COUNCIL UPDATE - EPDP Phase 1 Rec 27 (Wave 1.5) (10 minutes)

Recommendation 27 from the EPDP Phase 1 Final Report, “... recommends that as part of the implementation of these policy recommendations, updates are made to the following existing policies / procedures, and any others that may have been omitted, to ensure consistency with these policy recommendations as, for example, a number of these refer to administrative and/or technical contact which will no longer be required data elements.” In support of this recommendation, ICANN org prepared the Wave 1 report, an updated version of which was shared with the Council on 19 February 2020. ICANN org has performed additional analysis for recommendation 27, resulting in the Wave 1.5 Report that focuses on Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Issues (PPSAI) and Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information (T/T) policy recommendations, for which implementation has been started but not completed.

For the Wave 1 Report,  the staff support team conducted a first analysis of the report, identifying possible next steps for Council consideration that the Council subsequently reviewed to determine next steps. The Council may elect to follow a similar approach to the Wave 1.5 Report, to determine appropriate next steps.

Here, the Council will discuss the Wave 1.5 Report.

8.1 – Introduction of topic (Council Leadership)

8.2 – Council discussion

8.3 – Next steps

Item 9: Council Discussion - Debrief on the Consultation with the ICANN Board on the Financial Sustainability of the SSAD (15 minutes)

In the adoption of the Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP) on the Temporary Specification Phase 2 Final Report and Recommendations, the Council resolved that:

“Noting some of the questions surrounding the financial sustainability of SSAD and some of the concerns expressed within the different minority statements, the GNSO Council requests a consultation with the ICANN Board as part of the delivery of the GNSO Council Recommendations Report to the ICANN Board to discuss these issues, including whether a further cost-benefit analysis should be conducted before the ICANN Board considers all SSAD-related recommendations for adoption.”

The GNSO Council communicated its Recommendations Report to the Board 29 October 2020, in which the Council proposed, “to form a small team consisting of GNSO Council and ICANN Board members to develop a proposed approach and agree on expectations in relation to this consultation.” The ICANN Board responded on 1 December 2020, stating that it believed the Operational Design Phase (ODP) it envisioned, will help facilitate the consultation with the Council. The Council responded on 22 January 2021, suggesting that it is more important to agree upon the elements of the operational impact assessment, rather than relying on the ODP framework exclusively.

That consultation between the Board and the GNSO Council took place on 22 February 2021. The Council will meet with the Board again, connected with ICANN70, on 1 April 2021. There, the Operational Design Phase for the SSAD will be one of the topics for discussion. A small team of Councilors is preparing a letter to be sent to the Board, in advance of the 1 April 2021 meeting, which is expected to be available for this 24 March Council meeting.

Here, the Council will hold a debrief on the 22 February consultation and plan for the 1 April meeting.

9.1 – Introduction of topic (Council Leadership)

9.2 – Council discussion

9.3 – Next steps

Item 10: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Introduction to the Briefing Paper on Accuracy Requirements and Programs from ICANN’s Global Domains & Strategy (GDS) (5 minutes)

On 4 November 2020, the GNSO Council wrote to ICANN org, requesting the preparation of a briefing document outlining both the existing accuracy requirements and programs as well as the impact that GDPR has had on implementing and enforcing the identified requirements and programs. This briefing is intended to inform an accuracy scoping team that the GNSO Council envisioned initiating , which would be tasked with furthering the community’s understanding of the issue and assist in scoping and defining the issue. On 10 December 2020, ICANN org responded to confirm its understanding of the request and to commit to delivering that briefing by 26 February 2021. ICANN org delivered the briefing on the 26th. In addition to the briefing providing an overview of accuracy requirements and programs, ICANN org included a suggestion that a study to measure accuracy of registration data might be beneficial. In parallel to the request for the briefing, ICANN SO/AC/SG/Cs were requested to start thinking about whether their groups would be interested to participate in a scoping team once created. To date, the BC, ISPCP, RySG and GAC have expressed an interest and identified potential volunteers with relevant knowledge and expertise. 

Here, the Council will discuss next steps as it relates to the briefing as well as the scoping team.

10.1 – Introduction of topic (Council Leadership)

10.2 – Council discussion

10.3 – Next steps

Item 11: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - GNSO Council Consideration of SAC114 (5 minutes)

On 15 February 2021, the SSAC shared SAC114 with the GNSO Council, which are the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC)’s comments on the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP’s Draft Final Report, but are directed at the ICANN Board for its consideration. While the comments are directed at the ICANN Board, they pertain to the work of the GNSO and as a result, the Council may benefit from considering SAC114 and formulating its impressions of the recommendations.

Here, the Council will consider SAC114 and discuss next steps, if any.

11.1 – Introduction of topic (Council Leadership)

11.2 – Council discussion

11.3 – Next steps

Item 12: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - GNSO Framework for Continuous Improvement (5 minutes)

The GNSO Council has sought an approach to address work that focuses on GNSO structural, procedural and process improvement related work. The proposal from Council leadership is to create a GNSO Framework for Continuous Improvement that will help provide structure to manage the numerous non-PDP related efforts residing on the Council’s Action Decision Radar (ADR). An overview was developed and shared on 20 January 2021.

Based on initial feedback from Councilors and other GNSO stakeholders, a much more detailed draft document was prepared and shared on 2 March 2021, which provides additional information about the structure and potential work assignments. Input was sought from the Council and SG/C Chairs.

Here, the Council will consider whether the framework serves as an appropriate path forward, as well as relevant next steps.

12.1 – Introduction of topic (Council Leadership)

12.2 – Council discussion

12.3 – Next steps

Item 13: ANY OTHER BUSINESS (10 minutes)

13.1 - Open Microphone

...

GNSO Council Minutes

18 February 2021 1900 UTC

Please note that all documents referenced in the agenda have been gathered on a Wiki page for convenience and easier access: https://community.icann.org/x/QwtACQ

___________________________________

Minutes of the GNSO Council Meeting 18 February 2021

AgendaandDocuments

Coordinated Universal Time: 19:00 UTC: https://tinyurl.com/yxdh3opz

11:00 Los Angeles; 14:00 Washington; 19:00 London; 20:00 Paris; 22:00 Moscow; (Friday) 06:00 Melbourne

List of attendees:

Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Non-Voting – Olga Cavalli

Contracted Parties House

Registrar Stakeholder Group: Pam Little, Kristian Ørmen, Greg DiBiase

gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group: Maxim Alzoba, Kurt Pritz, Sebastien Ducos

Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Tom Dale

Non-Contracted Parties House

Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG): Marie Pattullo, Mark Datysgeld, Philippe Fouquart, Osvaldo Novoa, John McElwaine, Flip Petillion

Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG): Juan Manuel Rojas, Stephanie Perrin, Tatiana Tropina, Wisdom Donkor, Farell Folly, TomslinSamme-Nlar

Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Carlton Samuels

GNSO Council Liaisons/Observers :

Cheryl Langdon-Orr– ALAC Liaison

Jeffrey Neuman– GNSO liaison to the GAC

Maarten Simon – ccNSO observer

ICANN Staff

David Olive -Senior Vice President, Policy Development Support and Managing Manager, ICANN Regional

Mary Wong – Vice President, Strategic Community Operations, Planning and Engagement

Julie Hedlund – Policy Director

Steve Chan – Senior Director

Berry Cobb – Policy Consultant

Emily Barabas – Policy Manager

Ariel Liang – Policy Senior Specialist

Caitlin Tubergen – Policy Director

Terri Agnew - Operations Support, Lead Administrator

Nathalie Peregrine – Manager, Operations GNSO

Zoom Recording

Transcript

Item 1: Administrative Matters

1.1 - Roll Call

Philippe Fouquart welcomed all to the GNSO Council meeting.

1.2 - Updates to Statements of Interest.

There were no updates to the Statements of Interest.

1.3 - Review / Amend Agenda

Philippe Fouquart announced the removal of the IANA Naming Function Review Team (IFRT) item from the Consent Agenda as the approval of the item requires a supermajority vote. The vote will take place during the March 2021 GNSO Council meeting. The agenda was approved as presented.

1.4 - Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meetings per the GNSO Operating Procedures:

Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting on 17 December 2020 were posted on 3 January 2021.

Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting on 21 January 2021 were posted on 4 February 2021.

Item 2: Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List

2.1 - The review of the Projects List andAction Item List

Berry Cobb, GNSO Policy Consultant, provided the latest updates to the Action Decision Radar (ADR) , the Action items and the Project List to Council:

Today the GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process Working Group (SubPro PDP WG) Final Report will be voted on by

Council.

Confirmation of the EPDP P2A Project Plan will be considered under AOB.

The GNSO Standing Committee on Budget and Operations (SCBO) completed its drafting of comments on the GNSO Council FY22 Operating Plan and Budget Cycle. The comments were submitted on 15 February 2021. Berry Cobb thanked John McElwaine and the SCBO team for their efforts.

On the Action Decision Radar (ADR) the RPM Phase 1 recommendations were approved by the Council. A Recommendations Report is being voted by Council during this meeting and a Public Comment will open shortly. The EPDP Phase 1 IRT, on the topic of recommendation 27, will send the Wave 1.5 report to Council. It was reviewed by the IRT, staff is adjusting the report based on that feedback.

IGO Work Track will be holding its first meeting on the 22 February 2021.

The ICANN Org Briefing document on Registration Data Accuracy will be published on 26 February 2021.

The Action Item list is now empty (at the time of the call) for the first time. Moving forward, a log of all closed action items will be maintained for the period from the prior Council meeting to the current one. The Action Decision Radar has taken over certain Action items, the new Action item system is also proving efficient.

Philippe Fouquart asked about having a similar framework across the Supporting Organizations (SOs) and Advisory Committees (ACs). Berry Cobb agreed that it would be a desirable change, accompanied by an improvement in program management across all departments, with an increase in commonalities. The aim is to streamline the organisation of work across the SOs and ACs, with an internal program management framework which will also be flexible to accommodate differences across the different groups.

Item 3: Consent Agenda

There were three items on the Consent Agenda for the GNSO Council to confirm.

Confirmation of Philippe Fouquart to serve as the GNSO Council liaison to the EPDP 2A.

Non-objection from the Council for the EPDP Team to appoint a non-EPDP Team member as vice-chair.

Confirmation of theRecommendations Report to the ICANN Board regarding adoption of all recommendations from the Phase 1 Final Report of the Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in All gTLDs PDP.

In accordance with the ICANN Bylaw requirements of a supermajority vote, the approval of the IANA Naming Function Review Team (IFRT) recommendation requiring an amendment to the IANA Naming Function Contract was postponed to the March 2021 GNSO Council meeting.

Councilors voted unanimously in support of the Consent Agenda items.

Vote results

Action Items:

GNSO Staff to inform the EPDP 2A about Philippe Fouquart’s appointment as the GNSO Council Liaison and non-objection from the Council for the EPDP Team to appointment a non-EPDP Team member as vice-chair

GNSO Staff to send the RPM Phase 1 Recommendations Report to Board Ops in preparation for the Board review

Item 4: COUNCIL VOTE - Approval to Initiate a Two-Phased Policy Development Process on the Transfer Policy

Pam Little, seconded by Carlton Samuels, submitted a motion to initiate a two-phased PDP to review the Transfer Policy, as recommended in the Final Issue Report.

Whereas,

The GNSO Council issued a call for volunteers for a Transfer Policy Review Scoping Team on October 3, 2019. The Scoping Team was tasked with providing recommendations on the approach to a potential review and future policy work related to the Transfer Policy; composition of the review team or PDP working group; and scope of the review;

2. The Transfer Policy Review Scoping Team delivered a Transfer Policy Initial Scoping  

Paperon April 6, 2020 in which it recommended the GNSO Council instruct ICANN Policy staff to draft a Preliminary Issue Report, outlining, et. , the issues described within the Transfer Policy Initial Scoping Paper;

3. On 24 June 2020 the GNSO Council requested preparation of a Preliminary Issue Report, for delivery as expeditiously as possible, on the issues identified in theTransfer Policy Initial Scoping Paper, to assist in determining whether a PDP or series of PDPs should be initiated regarding changes to the Transfer Policy;

4. On 20 August 2020, the GNSO Council agreed to extend the timeline for delivery of the Issue Report to 10 October 2020;

5. ICANN staff published thePreliminary Issue Reporton a Policy Development Process to Review the Transfer Policy for public comment on 12 October 2020, with the public comment forum closing on 30 November 2020;

6. ICANN staff have reviewed thepublic commentsreceived, published aReport of Public Commentson 14 December 2020 and updated the Issue Report accordingly;

7. TheFinal Issue Reporton a Policy Development Process to Review the Transfer Policy was delivered to the GNSO Council on 12 January 2021;

8. The Final Issue Report includes a recommendation that the GNSO Council proceed with a two-phased Policy Development Process (PDP) that will address the following topic areas in sequence:

Phase 1(a): Form of Authorization (including Rec. 27, Wave 1 FOA issues) and AuthInfo Codes

Phase 1(b): Change of Registrant (including Rec. 27, Wave 1 Change of Registrant issues)

Phase 2: Transfer Emergency Action Contact and reversing inter-registrar transfers, Transfer Dispute Resolution Policy (including Rec. 27, Wave 1 TDRP issues), NACKing transfers, ICANN-approved transfers

9. The General Counsel of ICANN has indicated that the topics recommended for review are properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process and the GNSO.

RESOLVED:

1. The GNSO Council hereby initiates a two-phased PDP to Review the Transfer Policy which will determine if changes to the policy are needed to improve the ease, security, and efficacy of inter-registrar and inter-registrant transfers.

2. The GNSO Council requests that the PDP Working Group be convened as soon as possible after the adoption of the PDP Working Group Charter in order to fulfill the requirements of this PDP.

Philippe Fouquart reminded councilors the work started a year ago by the Transfer Policy Scoping Team. The motion suggests a two-phased, three-item approach.

Pam Little, submitter of the motion, provided background information to the motion and reminded councilors that a pre-recorded webinar had been circulated to the GNSO Council mailing list ahead of the February meeting. She highlighted that this is the second time the policy is being reviewed, as the first review took place almost 15 years ago. The impetus was also triggered by EPDP Phase 1 Recommendation 27. After receipt of the Final Issue Report, Council now needs to decide whether to initiate a PDP or not. The mission and scope of the PDP is to conduct a holistic Review of the Transfer Policy. She then outlined the sequence of milestones anticipated by the draft charter.

Kurt Pritz asked for confirmation as to whether the mission of the PDP was to bring theTransfer Policy and Registrar Accreditation Agreement RRA into line with GDPR and also why the draft charter PDP was broken up into phases. Pam Little replied to his first question that one of the broader goals of the PDP will be to review existing policies and that they serve the purpose as intended. Regarding the phases, it was a result of scoping and taking into consideration PDP3.0 efforts, in particular, ensuring the work is of a manageable size with accurate prioritization.

Greg Dibiase commented on the importance of the PDP, adding that the gaining Form of Authorisation cannot currently be done. Therefore part of the policy was rendered hard to use due to GDPR, here there will be a review of transfers to ensure they are as secure as possible under GDPR.

GNSO Councilors voted unanimously in support of the motion.

Vote results

Item 5: COUNCIL VOTE - Final Report and Outputs from the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP

Flip Petillion, seconded by Kurt Pritz, submitted a motion for Council to adopt the Final Report of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process

(SubPro PDP).

WHEREAS

On 17 December 2015 the GNSO Council resolved toinitiatea PDP to consider and analyze issues discussed in the Final Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures (SubPro PDP) to determine whether changes or adjustments to the existing policy recommendations in the Final Report on the Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains from 08 August 2007 are needed.

On 21 January 2016 the GNSO Council approvedthe Charter for the SubPro PDP and directed ICANN staff to issue a call for volunteers for the SubPro PDP Working Group.

After initiating a call for community comment in June of 2016 (Community Comment 1), the SubPro PDP divided its work into four Work Tracks culminating in a second call for community comment (Community Comment 2) in March of 2017, that provided an insight into the work of each of the initial four Work Tracks, and asked a series of questions of the community for further consideration.

In November of 2017, a fifth Work Track (WT5) was created solely for the purpose of examining the issues related to Geographic Names as the Top Level. In recognition of the broad interest in the topic and to encourage participation from the ICANN community, it was set up to include four WT5 leaders, one each from the GNSO, ccNSO, GAC and At-Large.

The SubPro PDP has followed the prescribed PDP steps as stated in the Bylaws, including the publication of the following Reports for public comment:

an Initial Reporton 08 July 2018 for public comment.

a Supplemental Initial Reporton 30 October 2018, covering certain issues not included in the Initial Report.

a Supplemental Initial Report on Geographic Names at the Top Level on 5 December 2018.

a Draft Final Reporton 20 August 2020.

On 18 January 2021, the SubPro PDP Working Group submitted its Final Report to the Council for its consideration.

On 21 January 2021, the GNSO Council received a high-level briefing of the Final Report by the GNSO Council Liaison to the SubPro PDP Working Group.

On 28 January 2021, the GNSO Council Liaison to the SubPro PDP Working Group and its Co-Chairs held a webinar, directed at the GNSO Council, to discuss the Final Report’s 41 Topics, which included hundreds of Affirmations, Recommendations and Implementation Guidance (Collectively referred to as “Outputs”) in more detail.

Each of the Outputs in the following topics obtained a Full Consensus designation (Topics 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28, 31, 32, 33, 36, 37, 38, 39, and 40).

Each of the following topics received an overall designation of Consensus, with all of the Outputs obtaining at least a Consensus designation (Topics 2, 3, 4, 9, 12, 15, 17, 18, 21, 24, 27, 29, 30, 34, and 41).

One Topic obtained a Strong Support but Significant Opposition designation (#35); However, within that one Topic, three of the five Outputs obtained a Consensus designation, and two of the five Outputs, Recommendations 35.2 and 35.4, obtained the designation Strong Support but Significant Opposition.

While not seeking to affirm that the status quo prevails in any particular instance, the GNSO Council notes that the Working Group operated under the assumption that, in the event the Working Group was unable to reach consensus in recommending an alternate course of action, the “status quo” should remain in place as a default position, with the status quo consisting of the 2007 policy, the final Applicant Guidebook, and any implementation elements that were put into practice in the 2012 application round.

The GNSO Council notes that Topic 23: Closed Generics was identified as an Output category of No Agreement, which did achieve Full Consensus. However, the GNSO Council believes No Agreement is functionally equivalent to the designation of Divergence as detailed in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, meaning that the Working Group was unable to reach consensus in recommending an alternate course of action. The GNSO Council further notes that especially as it relates to Topic 23: Closed Generics, there were diverging interpretations within the Working Group of what constitutes the “status quo”.

Given the large number of topics and the interdependency of many of the

subjects, the SubPro PDP Working Group recommends that all Outputs be considered as one package by the GNSO Council and subsequently the ICANN Board, notwithstanding any Outputs that did not achieve Consensus or Full Consensus.

RESOLVED

The GNSO Council approves, and recommends that the ICANN Board adopt, the Affirmations, Recommendations, and Implementation Guidance (Collectively referred to as “Outputs”) that were determined to have received either Full Consensus or Consensus designations as documented in the SubPro PDP Working Group's Final Report

Recognizing that nearly a decade has passed since the opening of the 2012 round of new gTLDs, the GNSO Council requests that the ICANN Board consider and direct the implementation of the Outputs adopted by the GNSO Council without waiting for any other proposed or ongoing policy work unspecific to New gTLD Subsequent Procedures to conclude, while acknowledging the importance of such work.

Further, the GNSO Council requests that the ICANN Board initiate an Operational Design Phase on the Final Report of the SubPro Working Group and its Outputs as soon as possible, to perform an assessment of GNSO Council recommendations in order to provide the Board with relevant operational information to facilitate the Board’s determination, in accordance with the Bylaws, on the impact of the operational impact of the implementation of the recommendations, including whether the recommendations are in the best interests of the ICANN community or ICANN.

The GNSO Council requests ICANN org to convene an Implementation Review Team to work on the implementation of these Outputs. The Implementation Review Team will be tasked with assisting ICANN org in developing the implementation details for the New gTLD Program, evaluating the proposed implementation of the Outputs as approved by the Board, and working with ICANN staff to ensure that the resultant implementation conforms to the intent of the approved Outputs. The Implementation Review Team shall operate in accordance with the Implementation Review Team Principles and Guidance

approved by the GNSO Council in June 2015.

The GNSO Council extends its sincere appreciation to the Co-Chairs, Cheryl Langdon-Orr and Jeffrey Neuman, as well as past Co-Chair AvriDoria, the SubPro PDP Work Track leaders, the SubPro Working Group members and support staff of the SubPro PDP for their tireless efforts these past five years to deliver this Final Report.

Philippe Fouquart reminded councilors that the Final Report was submitted to Council on 18 January 2021. A briefing followed on the January Council meeting, as well as a webinar after that. Early February, an initial motion was proposed by leadership, with subsequent amendments and revisions to the motion text on recommendations 35.2 and 35.4, as well as resolved clause 1. The amendments were submitted by the seconder, considered friendly by the proposer.

Flip Petillion, GNSO Council liaison to the SubPro PDP WG, introduced the motion. He reminded councilors that the Final Report is the result of the work of 5 years by WG members, headed by Jeff Neuman and Cheryl Langdon-Orr. He brought to Council’s attention that in the whereas clauses of the motion, there are “affirmations” rather than the distinctions of the term which were made in the Final Report. He pointed out the different outputs and designations (Full Consensus and Consensus for most). The WG leadership took a conservative approach to the designations of the outputs. He however pointed out that for three recommendations, there were particular values of designations: topic 23 (no agreement but consensus on the fact there was no agreement), whereas clause 12 on the status quo of 2012, recommendation of 35.2 and 35.4 (Strong Support with Significant Opposition). The Resolved clauses no longer mention these recommendations.

John McElwaineshared a statement from the Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC) on the topic of DNS abuse. The IPC supports as a whole the SubPro Final Report. The IPC was split on one of the recommendations on DNS Abuse. The SubPro WG was tasked with addressing DNS Abuse and determined itself that DNS Abuse should be handled in a holistic manner. DNS Abuse is the most pressing item on the Action Decision Radar, and high on the GAC’s list of issues in their communique, ICANN Org is also considering it of high importance. The IPC believes it is high and imperative the GNSO Council look at the issue of DNS Abuse. Not doing so would grant bad actors

more time. The IPC believes the security and stability of the Domain Name System will continue to be under attack, a solution needs to be worked on. The IPC asks the Council to begin a PDP on DNS Abuse as soon as possible.

Pam Little asked about resolved clause 4 and proposed to make a change from “The GNSO Council directs ICANN Org to convene an Implementation Review Team” to “The GNSO Council requests that ICANN Org convene an Implementation Review Team (IRT)”. This change was accepted as friendly by both proposer and seconder of the motion.

Jeff Neuman, GNSO Council Liaison to the GAC, shared the GAC’s communication to the GNSO Council on the Final Report. The GAC noted membership is still reviewing the Final Report, but are seeking clarification on aspects of the Final Report in view of GAC input which has not been fully considered: Public Interest Commitments, DNS Abuse mitigation, Safeguards for gTLDs in Highly Regulated Sectors, GAC Early Warnings and Advice, Next Rounds of new gTLDs (costs and benefits of new gTLD rounds), Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort / Private Resolution of Contention Sets. GAC Leadership intends to hold a preparatory webinar intersessionally on the SubPro PDP WG Final Report and next steps, and further discuss topics of priority to the GAC relative to Subsequent Procedures of New gTLDs at ICANN70.

Maxim Alzoba asked Jeff Neuman if he expected the GAC to deliver their consensus-based advice during ICANN70. Jeff Neuman replied that the GAC would only be able to pronounce itself during ICANN70 GAC sessions.

Councilors voted unanimously in support of the motion. Philippe Fouquart thanked the SubPro WG co-chairs and members for their efforts.

Vote results

Action item:

GNSO Staff to develop a recommendations report for the SubPro PDP Final Report for Council’s consideration as a consent agenda item during the March 2021 meeting

Item 6: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Charter for the Transfer Policy PDP

Philippe Fouquart informed councilors that the proposal of the representative model, resources available and timeline had been circulated to the SO/AC Chairs asking for their interest in the effort. The ccNSO will have no representative to put forward. The GAC, ALAC and SSAC indicated that they would have an interest from a registrant’s perspective with no representative to put forward at this time. Within the GNSO, the NCSG expressed their support for the initiative but will not have a member to put forward. The RrSG have a strong interest in this, and approve of the representative model, but will have a high number of members interested. The RySG are equally interested but will put forward fewer members.

Pam Little reminded councilors that now the initiation of the Transfer Policy PDP has just been approved, the next step will be to consider and vote on the draft charter. The draft charter included in the Final Issue Report still has open questions which need resolving prior to the document being ready for a Council vote. The Working Group composition (slide 23) proposed in the draft charter follows PDP3.0 recommendations. The draft charter is looking at the representative model for its membership structure. It was first used in the EPDP because of the unique nature of the work. It may not be the best one for the Transfer Policy PDP. There is also an open question about timing, given that two major PDPs have only just wrapped up their work, that EPDP Phase 2A is ongoing, soon to be launched RPM Phase 2 (review of UDRP) as well as Implementation Review Team efforts. This could be a heavy burden on the community as well as ICANN Org staff. The RrSG Chair indicated there would be 8 - 15 people assigned to the effort. The RySG Chair can put forward 2 - 5 people. Ideally, it should not exceed 30 people to allow for the group to function in the representative model.

Kurt Pritz mentioned that a group of 30 could be too large for the representative model. He added that it would be preferable that the RrSG group have more members than other groups, given the expertise of the group and the impact the change would have on it.

Pam Little clarified that the representative model, in this particular context, needs to reflect the diversity which exists even within the RrSG representation, there are very different business models within that very stakeholder group. She asked councilors for

assistance in finalising the remaining items: membership structure and timing. Pam Little added that this would help avoid the extra work a Charter Drafting Team would bring to Council.

Kurt Pritz highlighted the sense of urgency with which Council should approach this as several registrars were in violation of current policies. He added that a new PDP accompanies a new Form of Authorisation or new law and is therefore too cumbersome. He suggested that a PDP be worded in a more high level manner with mechanisms to tweak or adjust the implementation, to avoid having to create a new PDP each time.

Philippe Fouquart invited councilors to express their interest in joining a Council small team to finalize the charter on the Council mailing list.

Action Item:

GNSO staff to organize a Council small team to begin finalizing the proposed charter for the Transfer Policy PDP, with a specific focus on the composition of the working group and the timing to start the PDP

Item 7: COUNCIL UPDATE - Update from the Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) EPDP Charter Drafting Team

Dennis Tan, Chair of the IDNs EPDP Charter Drafting Team (DT), provided an update on the latest activities of the IDNs EPDP Charter DT. There are councilors, RySG, CSG and NCSG members. The main deliverables of the DT are to develop a draft charter along with the EPDP Initiation request. The DT started early January 2021, the initiation request and the draft charter ought to be delivered to Council by May 2021. This is a tentative timeline, but members are keen to stay on track. The DT agreed SubPro recommendations are generally consistent with the Staff Paper and the Technical Study Group (TSG) recommendations, SubPro did not address some of the recommendations from the Staff Paper and TSG. It was decided the EPDP should not revisit SubPro recommendations, as this would be dealt with in the SubPro IRT which may also address some of the implementation questions of the IDN EPDP. The DT also agreed that the GNSO Council would be likely to adopt all SubPro recommendations which would impact future rounds of new gTLDs and not existing ones. Therefore the charter should pertain to whether SubPro recommendations for future tLDs should be extended to the existing tLDs as well as to the TSG & Staff Paper recommendations not addressed by SubPro.

Maxim Alzoba insisted on the importance of the drafting of the charter for the registry world.

Dennis Tan presented the DT framework : when there is a consistent approach between SubPro, TSG and Staff paper, the question needs to be asked whether it’s consistent with the existing tLDs. If there is a gap, when there is no SubPro recommendation that corresponds to the Staff Paper/TSG findings the EPDP will address questions about the impact of such recommendation on both the future and existing gTLDs. The SubPro IRT and IDN EPDP will coordinate on addressing implementation issues relating to recommendations consistent with SubPro, Staff Paper and TSG findings. There have been bi-weekly meetings in the ccPDP4 for which GNSO Council appointed Dennis as liaison. The ccPDP4 has been focussing on the Policy proposals for IDN ccTLD String Selection Criteria, Requirements and Processes. The Variant Management subgroup will start in March 2021. The ccNSO will appoint a liaison to the GNSO IDNs EPDP.

Kurt Pritz asked about the risks in different policy outcomes between the ccNSO and the GNSO parallel work efforts which could confuse registrants.

Dennis Tan replied that the issues in variant tLDS fundamental questions between who controls and has operational control of them. If you deem twotLDs are the same, it ought to be the registry operator who has the control. It can also work at the second level. There are differences though in practices in the gTLD and ccTLD world to register tLD variants (emojis cannot be registered in gTLDs, but you can in ccTLDs) which can create confusion amongst registrants.

Philippe Fouquart thanked Dennis Tan for his presentation.

Item 8: ANY OTHER BUSINESS

8.1 - EPDP-P2A Project and Work Plan commitment

The EPDP P2A began in January 2021, focussing on the legal vs natural persons distinction and the feasibility of unique contacts. The EPDP initiated an EPDP P2A Legal sub-team chaired by Becky Burr, proposed definitions for consideration of liability issues for contracted parties as well as identifying policy questions. The work is driven through the Legal sub-team. Council may expect a request from the EPDP to extend the project and the timeline. End of May is planned for the Initial Report, prior to that Keith Drazek, EPDP P2A Chair will provide an update to Council. Maxim Alzobastated that as the efforts of this phase were initially time-limited, if no progress was made, the Council would need to take action after the update from the Chair.

8.2 - Update from the GNSO Council liaison to the GAC, including his discussion with the GAC point of contact, Jorge Cancio

Jeffrey Neuman: A month ago, the GAC appointed Jorge Cancio as GAC point of contact for the calendar year. This is a new position and covers the GNSO rather than the GNSO Council. Jorge and Jeff are meeting monthly, scheduled around GNSO Council meetings. Discussion will revolve around GAC issues, and increased dialogue and collaboration.

8.3 - ICANN70 GNSO sessions and agenda topics for bilateral sessions (ccNSO, GAC, ICANN Board)

Philippe Fouquart reminded councilors of the three scheduled meetings with the ccNSO, GAC and ICANN Board. For the meeting with the ccNSO, topics of discussion already raised are: IDNs, SubPro, cooperation between SCBO and SOPC on the ICANN budget, EC regulation and NIS 2 Directive and Digital Services Act, Empowered Community. Sebastien Ducos, GNSO liaison to the ccNSO, invited IDN EPDP DT colleagues to join the session to share their expertise. For the meeting with GAC, Jeff Neuman will liaise with Jorge Cancio. For the meeting with the ICANN Board, topics SSAD and Operational Design Phase (ODP), SubPro ODP.

Mark Datysgeld added that there had been discussion on the chat about DNS Abuse and would encourage the topic to be added to the GNSO Council agenda for a future meeting.

Philippe Fouquart adjourned the meeting at 21:02 UTC on Thursday18 February 2021 

...

GNSO Council Minutes 21 January 2021 1900 UTC 

Minutes of the GNSO Council Meeting 21 January 2021

AgendaandDocuments

Zoom Recording

Transcript

List of attendees:

Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Non-Voting – Olga Cavalli

Contracted Parties House

Registrar Stakeholder Group: Pam Little, Kristian Ørmen, Greg DiBiase

gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group: Maxim Alzoba, Kurt Pritz, Sebastien Ducos

Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Tom Dale

Non-Contracted Parties House

Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG): Marie Pattullo, Mark Datysgeld, Philippe Fouquart, Osvaldo Novoa, John McElwaine, Flip Petillion

Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG): Juan Manuel Rojas, Stephanie Perrin, Tatiana Tropina, Wisdom Donkor, Farell Folly, TomslinSamme-Nlar

Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA): Carlton Samuels

GNSO Council Liaisons/Observers :

Cheryl Langdon-Orr– ALAC Liaison

Jeffrey Neuman– GNSO liaison to the GAC

Maarten Simon – ccNSO observer

ICANN Staff

David Olive -Senior Vice President, Policy Development Support and Managing Manager, ICANN Regional

Mary Wong – Vice President, Strategic Community Operations, Planning and Engagement

Julie Hedlund – Policy Director

Steve Chan – Senior Director

Berry Cobb – Policy Consultant

Emily Barabas – Policy Manager

Ariel Liang – Policy Senior Specialist

Caitlin Tubergen – Policy Director

Terri Agnew - Operations Support, Lead Administrator

Nathalie Peregrine – Manager, Operations GNSO

Item 1: Administrative Matters

1.1 - Roll Call

Philippe Fouquart welcomed all to the GNSO Council meeting.

1.2 - Updates to Statements of Interest.

Kristian Ørmen (SOI) raised he is no longer with the same employer but in a similar position to the previous one held. Maxim Alzoba (SOI) informed councilors that he is no longer the RySG representative to the GNSO Standing Selection Committee.

1.3 - Review / Amend Agenda

The agenda was approved as presented.

1.4 - Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meetings per the GNSO Operating Procedures:

Minutesof the GNSO Council meeting on 19 November 2020 were posted on 3 December 2020.

Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting on 17 December 2020 were posted on 3 January 2021.

Action item:

GNSO Secretariat to check whether Kristian Ormen’s and Maxim Alzoba’s SOIs reflect the update that they provided during the Council meeting

Item 2: Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List

2.1 - The review of the Projects List andAction Item List

Berry Cobb, GNSO Policy Consultant, provided the latest updates to the Action Decision Radar (ADR) , the Action items and the Project List to Council:

All tools are now located on the wiki, access is being tracked regularly.

The Transfer Policy Issue Report was sent to the Council and therefore moved into the Initiation phase.

Today the RPMs Phase 1 Final Report is being voted on by Council.

The Subsequent Procedures PDP WG has sent its Final Report to Council.

Councilors need to provide input on the NomCom role description document, the Additional Budget Request and the updated Operational Design Phase document.

On the Action Decision Radar (ADR), in February, Council needs to decide whether to initiate a PDP stemming from the Transfer Policy Issue Report. The EPDP Phase 2A will send its monthly project package, in February it will also include a notification of a project plan from EPDP P2A leadership holding it accountable for reaching milestones.

IGO Work Track will be holding its first meeting in February

EPDP Phase 1 IRT is providing feedback on the Wave 1.5 report and will send it to Council.

The Standing Committee on Budget and Operations (SCBO) will be submitting a final draft on the Public Comment for the close of FY22 draft documents around 11 February 2021 for Council consideration.

Org is expected to provide a briefing document on the registration data accuracy.  

Continued discussion around the Standing Committee on Continuous Improvements.

Item 3: Consent Agenda

There was one item on the Consent Agenda confirming three GNSO Standing Selection Committee (SSC) processes:

GNSO Non-Registry Liaison to the Customer Standing Committee (CSC) - Milton Mueller (motion)

2021 GNSO Appointed Mentor to the ICANN Fellowship Program - Farell Folly (motion)

GNSO’s Representative(s) to the Community Representatives Group that will nominate the Independent Review Process (IRP) Standing Panel - Heather Forrest (motion)

Councilors voted unanimously in support of the motion.

Vote results

Action Items:

GNSO Secretariat to inform: 1) the CSC about Milton Mueller’s appointment as the GNSO Non-Registry Liaison; 2) the ICANN Fellowship Program about Farell Folly’s appointment as the GNSO appointed mentor for three consecutive ICANN meetings, beginning with ICANN72; and 3) the Community Representatives Group about Heather Forrest’s appointment as the GNSO Representative

Item 4: COUNCIL VOTE - Affirm of intent of EPDP Phase 1 Recommendation 7 (EPDP 1 Rec 7)

Pam Little seconded by John McElwaine submitted a motion to affirm the intent of EPDP Phase 1 Recommendation 7. This motion was submitted in time for the 17 December 2020 meeting, but after Council discussion, was deferred to the GNSO Council meeting on 21 January 2021.

WHEREAS

The Thick RDDS (Whois) Transition Policy for .COM, .NET and .JOBS (Thick Whois Transition Policy) is an ICANN consensus policy resulting from the implementation of the policy recommendations in the Final Report on the Thick WHOIS Policy Development Process(“Thick Whois PDP”).

2. Section 16 of ANNEX 2: Policy Development Process Manual to the GNSO Operating Procedures v3.5 provides: “Approved GNSO Council policies that have been adopted by the ICANN Board and have been implemented by ICANN Staff may only be amended by the initiation of a new PDP on the issue.”

3. On 17 May 2018, the ICANN Board adopted the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data (“Temporary Specification”).

4. On 19 July 2018, the GNSO Council initiated an Expedited Policy Development Process (“EPDP”) and chartered the EPDP on the Temporary Specification for gTLD

Registration Data Team to determine if the Temporary Specification should become an ICANN consensus policy as is, or with modifications (emphasis added).

5. Recommendation #7 in the EPDP Phase 1 Final Report (“Final Report”) makes transfer of registrant contact information optional, depending on whether the registry operator in question has an appropriate legal basis to require the data and a data processing agreement is in place.

6. To the extent the Thick Whois Transition Policy is modified by Recommendation #7, the EPDP Team recommends the Thick Whois Transition Policy and other impacted consensus policies be updated to ensure consistency (see Recommendation #27 of the Final Report).

7. Recommendation #7 was developed in response to the questions in Section C of the EPDP Charter, with a consensus designation of “Full Consensus / Consensus” (see Annex E of the Final Report).

8. On 4 March 2019, the GNSO Council adopted all the policy recommendations in the Final Report, including Recommendation #7, with the required GNSO Supermajority.

9. On 15 May 2019, the ICANN Board passed a resolution adopting most of the policy recommendations contained in the Final Report, including Recommendation #7 and noting Recommendation #7 does not repeal or overturn the Thick WHOIS Policy [sic] and directed “ICANN org to work with the Implementation Review Team to examine and transparently report on the extent to which these Recommendations require modification of existing Consensus Policies, including the Thick WHOIS Transition Policy”.

10. Section 7 of Annex A-1 to the ICANN Bylaws provides: “Upon a final decision of the Board adopting the EPDP recommendations, the Board shall, as appropriate, give authorization or direction to ICANN staff to implement the EPDP Recommendations. If deemed necessary, the Board shall direct ICANN staff to work with the GNSO Council to create a guidance implementation plan, based upon the guidance recommendations identified in the Final EPDP Recommendation(s) Report.”

11. Section III. A of the Consensus Policy Implementation Framework provides: The GNSO Council may continue to provide input on the implementation of a policy, for example, if the GNSO Council believes that the implementation is inconsistent with the policy [recommendation]”.

RESOLVED

The GNSO Council confirms that the EPDP had the mandate to modify the Thick Whois Transition Policy under the EPDP

2. The GNSO Council determines that in light of the EPDP being chartered by the GNSO Council, among other things, to address the questions in Part 2(c) under “Mission and Scope” to specifically address the transfer of data from registrar to registry, the resulting recommendation #7 appropriately fulfills this purpose. Furthermore, the requirement of Section 16 of the PDP Manual is deemed satisfied for the purpose of amending the Thick Whois Transition Policy.

3. The GNSO Council determines, notwithstanding the absence of a clear statement, the intent of EPDP Phase 1 Recommendation #7 to modify the Thick Whois Transition Policy is implied, taking into account the history, background, context and purpose of the EPDP, the specific language of Recommendation #7 and the EPDP Phase 1 Final Report in its entirety.

4. The GNSO Council determines that the Recommendation #7 language, “must be transferred from registrar to registry provided an appropriate legal basis exists and data processing agreement is in place” should be included in the Registration Data Policy in order to conform with the intent of the EPDP Phase 1 Team’s policy recommendation and the subsequent GNSO Council adoption (“GNSO Council Input”).

5. The GNSO Council instructs the Council’s Liaison to communicate the GNSO Council Input to the Registration Data Policy Implementation Review Team pursuant to Section III.A of the Consensus Policy Implementation Framework.

6. The GNSO Council shall communicate the GNSO Council Input to the ICANN Board of Directors.

RATIONALE

The Thick Whois PDP Final Report anticipated that its recommendations might be affected by evolving privacy regulation. In particular, Recommendation 3 states,

“As part of the implementation process a legal review of law applicable to the transition of data from a thin to thick model … due consideration is given to potential privacy issues that may arise from the discussions on the transition from thin to thick Whois … Should any privacy issues emerge from these transition discussions that were not anticipated by the WG and which would require additional policy consideration, the Implementation Review Team is expected to notify the GNSO Council of these so that appropriate action can be taken.”

In addition, the implementation advice (“Other Observations”) mentions in part,

“...the increasing number of data protection and privacy laws and regulations around the world, as well as specific Whois-related concerns raised by the public. While recognizing that this exceeds the scope of our remit, we suggest that, as part of the development of the registration data directory system model currently in process, ICANN ensure that the ramifications of data protection and privacy laws and regulations with respect to Whois requirements be examined thoroughly.”

In effect, the Temporary Specification and the EPDP accomplished the legal review of the ramifications of data protection laws required by Recommendation 3 of the Thick Whois PDP Final Report .

The requirements set out in the Temporary Specification supersede and replace the contractual requirements in the Registrar Accreditation Agreement and the Registry Agreements, which incorporate by reference all ICANN consensus policies.

There is a conflict between the data processing principles under the Temporary Specification and the requirements under existing gTLD Registry Agreements as well as the Thick Whois Transition Policy. In other words, the Thick Whois Transition Policy was modified by the Temporary Specification and further modified by Recommendation #7 in the EPDP Phase 1 Final Report, as the EPDP Team was mandated to do.

While there is no explicit reference to the Thick Whois Transition Policy, this consensus policy and others that are affected by the GDPR and other relevant data privacy laws fell squarely within the scope of the Temporary Specification and hence they are also within the scope of the EPDP. The EPDP Charter states:

“Mission and Scope

This EPDP Team is being chartered to determine if the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data should become an ICANN Consensus Policy, as is or with modifications, while complying with the GDPR and other relevant privacy and data protection law. As part of this determination, the EPDP Team is, at a minimum, expected to consider the following elements of the Temporary Specification and answer the following charter questions. The EPDP Team shall consider what subsidiary recommendations it might make for future work by the GNSO which might be necessary to ensure relevant Consensus Policies, including those related to registration data, are reassessed to become consistent with applicable law.”

Specifically, Section C of the EPDP Charter contains a set of questions regarding “transfer of data from registrar to registry”:

c1) What data should registrars be required to transfer to the registry?

c2) What data is required to fulfill the purpose of a registry registering and resolving a domain name?

c3) What data is transferred to the registry because it is necessary to deliver the service of fulfilling a domain registration versus other legitimate purposes as outlined in part (a) above?

c4) Is there a legal reason why registrars should not be required to transfer data to the registries, in accordance with previous consensus policy on this point?

c5) Should registries have the option to require contact data or not?

c6) Is there a valid purpose for the registrant contact data to be transferred to the registry, or should it continue to reside at the registrar?

While the Final Report does not contain express language that the policy recommendations are intended to supersede the requirements in the existing ICANN consensus policies, in this case, the Thick Whois Transition Policy, such intent is implied (i.e., it goes without saying in light of the history, background, context and purpose of the EPDP).

The EPDP was conducted in an open and transparent manner with representatives from all GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, as well as some ICANN Advisory Committees. As such, Recommendation #7 cannot be considered to be a “shadow repeal” of the Thick Whois Transition Policy.

The recommendations contained in the Thick WHOIS PDP Final Report anticipated that the implementation of those recommendations might be affected by new privacy regulations and the GNSO should address such an occurrence. Therefore, while there is no “clear statement in new consensus policy recommendations that the new policy is intended to supersede(in whole or part) requirements in existing consensus policies,” claiming otherwise ignores the history, background, context, purpose of the EPDP as well as the Thick Whois PDP Final Report itself.

The intent and meaning of Recommendation #7 is clear. It is the role of the Implementation Review Team (IRT) to ensure that the implementation of Recommendation #7 conforms to the intent of the policy recommendation. The IRT is not a forum for opening or revisiting policy discussions (see III.A and III.B, Implementation Review Team (IRT) Principles and Guidelines https://www.icann.org/resources/files/1201611-2016-08-23-en).

The Policy Development Process Manual makes clear that “Approved GNSO Council policies that have been adopted by the ICANN Board and have been implemented by ICANN Staff may only be amended by the initiation of a new PDP on the issue.” It can therefore be concluded that where there is a conflict between an existing consensus policy and subsequent policy recommendation(s) on the same subject matter, the newer policy recommendation prevails. While the EPDP was scoped differently and under different circumstances than the Thick Whois PDP, it is undeniable that the two policy development processes overlapped in covering the same issue of transfer of Registration Data from registrar to registry, and therefore, the IRT should implement Recommendation #7 as written and intended.

Pam Little presented the motion, which seeks to affirm the intent of Rec 7 and clarify that the Thick Whois Transition Policy was modified as a result of the Rec 7. If there were to be a conflict, Rec 7 would prevail. The motion is presented in three parts: the Whereas where the background is set out, the Resolved Clauses and the Rationale. Usually there is no rationale, but given the complexity and importance of the matter, it was important to go into further detail. She noted that John McElwaine submitted proposed revisions to the motion.

John McElwainecirculated a proposed amendment to the motion on the Council mailing list on the 18 January 2021. He thanked Pam Little and mentioned they had made good progress in working the revisions. They were unable to reach a final agreement on resolved clause 4. He added that the changes in the document were not controversial. The statement which garnered agreement is that Rec 7 is a substantial revision to a prior and acted ICANN Consensus Policy: the Thick Whois Transition Policy. Nothing in the EPDP Phase 1 Charter instructed them to consider the Thick Whois Transition Policy however it was in the scope of the charter to address the transfer of data elements collected in the domain name registration process which would impact Thick Whois policy. Lastly, the labelling of particular data elements as optional creates an ambiguity: available to be chosen but not obligatory. What happens when it is obligatory when it’s a law, a contract between a registry and a registrar and considered mandatory by ICANN policy? The aim of the revision therefore of the amendment is to confirm that the Thick Whoispolicy was modified not repealed, and that modification of Thick Whois data elements was within the scope but not a clear mandate of the EPDP. It also clarified what the meaning was between mandatory and optional. He emphasized the importance of handling an issue where one PDP’s recommendation impacts an existing policy.

Pam Little, as proposer of the motion, did not consider the amendment as friendly. She raised that John and her had worked together but had hit a roadblock on the impact of Rec 7 on the Thick Whois Transition Policy. The fundamental difference is her interpretation of Rec 7 as an attempt to adhere to the data minimization principle under GDPR. The proposed amendments would maintain as much as possible the status quo, which would be inconsistent with the exercise of the EPDP. Going back to the EPDP Final Report and the history of the Thick Whois policy, the intentions of the EPDP team are not reflected nor consistent with the proposed amendments.

Kurt Pritzadded that the discussion about the wording of the amendment was difficult because conversations with Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies were had virtually, via text mainly. The difficulty is enhanced by the fact EPDP efforts are still ongoing. He agreed the contracted parties could be put in difficulty by the proposed amendments.

A first GNSO Council vote on the proposed amendment failed to pass.

A second vote on the original motion passed with objections from the BC (statement) and the IPC (statement).

Vote results

Philippe Fouquart thanked Pam Little and John McElwaine for the efforts. Pam Little expressed her regrets at not having reached agreement with John McElwaine and thanked him for his collaboration.

Action Items:

Sebastien Ducos to communicate the GNSO Council input to the Registration Data Policy Implementation Review Team per the resolved clauses of themotion regarding the EPDP Phase 1 Rec 7.

GNSO Council leadership to communicate the GNSO Council input to the ICANN Board of Directors per the resolved clauses of themotion regarding the EPDP Phase 1 Rec 7.

Item 5: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Final Report and Recommendations From the Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in All gTLDs PDP WG

John McElwaine, seconded by Maxim Alzoba, submitted a motion for Council to approve the recommendations from the Phase 1 Final Report of the GNSO Policy Development Process (PDP) on the Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms

(RPMs) in all gTLDs, covering RPMs applicable to gTLDs launched under the 2012 New gTLD Program.

WHEREAS:

On 18 February 2016, the GNSO Council resolved to initiate a two-phased Policy Development Process (PDP), to review all existing rights protection mechanisms (RPMs in all gTLDs.

On 9 March 2016, the GNSO Council approved the PDP Charter, thereby initiating Phase One of the PDP that focused on the RPMs developed for the 2012 New gTLD Program.

The PDP Working Group has followed all the necessary steps and processes required by the ICANN Bylaws, the GNSO PDP Manual and the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, including the publication of an Initial Report for public comment (on 18 March 2020) and consideration of the public comments received thereto.

On 24 November 2020, the PDP Working Group submitted its Final Report to the GNSO Council for its review and action.

The PDP Working Group has reached Full Consensus for thirty-four (34) out of the thirty-five (35) final recommendations documented in the Final Report, and Consensus for the remaining one (1) final recommendation (concerning Final Recommendation #1 for the Trademark Clearinghouse).

RESOLVED:

The GNSO Council approves, and recommends that the ICANN Board adopt all thirty-five (35) final PDP recommendations as documented in the PDP Working Group’s Final Report.

Should the PDP recommendations be adopted by the ICANN Board, the GNSO Council requests that ICANN org convene an RPM Implementation Review Team, to assist ICANN org in developing the implementation details for the PDP recommendations and ensure that the resultant implementation conforms to the intent of the approved recommendations. The Implementation Review Team shall  

operate in accordance with the Implementation Review Team Principles and Guidance approved by the GNSO Council in June 2015.

The GNSO Council thanks all the various Co-Chairs and members of the PDP Working Group for their commitment and hard work in completing Phase One of this PDP.

Philippe Fouquart introduced the topic reminding council members they had attended a webinar on the topic earlier in the month.

John McElwaine, GNSO Council liaison to the PDP, raised that he had received no negative feedback from the community. The PDP received full consensus on 34 out of 35 final recommendations.

Jeff Neuman asked if the motion would allow Council to join this RPM IRT with a potential SubPro IRT.

Stephanie Perrin raised that the dissenting report on the recommendation on Work Marks was troubling. It suggests that by accepting this policy, Council would in this case be getting ahead of law and it would be worth bringing this to ICANN Board’s attention. She agreed to have this captured in the accompanying letter to the Board.

Kurt Pritz disagreed with amending any of the resolutions to combine RPM IRT and SubPro IRT, but to encourage the Board to look at ways to improve the efficiencies in the accompanying letters. He thanked PDP members and John McElwaine’s liaison efforts. He added that the joint experience of the PDP group and members needed to be put to use in keeping with PDP3.0.

Philippe Fouquart agreed with Kurt, that the experience should not be allowed to fade away.

Maxim Alzoba disagreed with combining the IRTs as SubPro is for the next round and RPMs is for ensuring the Rights Protections, it would be consensus policy combined with policy.

Mary Wong, Org, added that a combined IRT would not be prohibited by the motion. To Stephanie Perrin’s point, a group submitted a minority statement, without lacking support for the overall recommendation. It was therefore not considered dissent.

After the GNSO Council discussion, councilors voted in full support of the motion.

Vote results

Action items:

GNSO Staff to inform the RPM PDP WG on the GNSO Council approval of all its thirty-five (35) Phase 1 Final Recommendations as documented in the PDP WG’s Final Report.

GNSO Staff to prepare the Recommendations Report for the RPM Phase 1 Final Report for voting at the Council meeting in February 2021.

Item 6: COUNCIL BRIEFING - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures (SubPro) PDP Final Report

Flip Petillion, GNSO Council liaison to the SubPro Working Group (WG), presented a brief report on the topic. The PDP was chartered in early 2016. The Final Report includes final recommendations, implementation guidance and other outputs on more than forty topics within the WG Charter. There were several Public Comments and GAC, ALAC, ccNSO had leadership roles in the Geographic Names at Top Level Work Track. Topics in the Final Report are ordered in groupings. There are five types of output: affirmations, affirmation with modification, recommendations, implementation guidance and no agreement. The latter applies to one case only. All but one topic received the designation of full consensus (25), consensus (16), strong support but significant opposition (1). Annex C provides details about the consensus designations.

Four topics require further discussion: Topic 9 (mitigating DNS Abuse) which the WG referred back to the GNSO Council and did not make recommendations on. Topic 9 (Public Interest commitments and Registry Voluntary Commitments), ICANN Board raised questions, which the WG believes should be answered by the Board itself and the broader community (not a PDP). Topic 23 received full consensus that the WG could not come to an agreement on what, if anything, should be done in respect to Closed Generics in subsequent rounds. Expertise in competition law, public policy and economics would be needed to move the discussion forward. Topic 35 (Mechanisms of Last Resort/ Private Resolution of Contention Sets), the only topic with Strong Support

but Significant Opposition. There was no consensus on whether private auctions should be allowed in future rounds, whether auctions of last resorts and private auctions should be allowed to resolve contention.

A webinar on the topic will take place on 28 January 2021.

Action Item:

Item 7: COUNCIL UPDATE - Update from the Standing Committee on Budget and Operations (SCBO)

John McElwaine, Chair of the SCBO, provided an update on the latest activities of the SCBO. The committee is made of councilors and subject matter experts from across the community. The remit is to review ICANN’s Strategic Plan and the ICANN Fiscal Year Budget. They have been meeting weekly and have prepared budget comments on PTI and IANA. The Fiscal Year 2022 ICANN plan has been released and the SCBO is drafting comments. ICANN is now using the same format for the Operations and Financial Plan as well as Operations and Strategic Plan, sections are similar, it enabled the committee to track where the SCBO comments have been taken into account. Now the SCBO can analyse how things have changed and how to lay down markers. Various members have been assigned to issues. The SCBO will meet with the ccNSO counterparts (ccNSO’s Strategic and Operational Standing Committee (SOPC) to further discuss issues. A draft comment will be available in February for the GNSO Council.