Versions Compared

Key

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

...

Deck of Cards
idUpdates


Card
defaulttrue
idDevelopments
labelSHOW ME

Developments in 2021-2024 on:


Card
idDiacritics
labelDiacritics in Latin Script

Diacritics in Latin Script

2024

  • 16 May: Council resolved to adopt the request for an an Issues Report, directs staff to create the Report. 
  • 18 Apr: Council discussed ICANN org's proposal which was that a solution could be incorporated through Council's deliberation of the Subsequent Procedures Supplemental Recommendations on Topic 24 String Similarity, and accordingly suggested that Council withhold those supplemental recommendations 24A, 24B and 24C for further work, instead of considering their approval and onward submission to the ICANN Board. Council determined that this was not feasible and instead agreed to request an Issue Report on diacritics in Latin script.

2023

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


Card
idPost_2023_ODA
labelNext Steps for New gTLD Round

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

2024

      *8 Jun: ICANN Board resolves during its regular Board Meeting to adopt a number of decisions related to the Next Round:

      • Resolved (2024.06.08.08), the ICANN Board determines that ICANN should exclude from the Next Round RAs any RVCs and other comparable registry commitments that restrict content in gTLDs.
      • Resolved, (2024.06.08.11), the Board adopts the June 2024 Scorecard: Subsequent Procedures Supplemental Recommendationsdated 8 June 2024 (Supplemental Recommendations Scorecard), consisting of:
        • Section A, which details the Supplemental Recommendations that the Board adopts.
          • Topic 17: Applicant Support (17.2) 
          • Topic 32: Limited Challenges and Appeals (32.1, 32.2 and 32.10)
        • Section B, which details the Supplemental Recommendations that the Board does not adopt, including a rationale.
          • Topic 9: Registry Voluntary Commitments / Public Interest Commitments (9.2)
          • Topic 18: Terms and Conditions (18.1 and 18.3)
      • Whereas, the Board has identified concerns with GAC Consensus Advice item 4.a.i (i.e. Washington, D.C. Communiqué includes advice concerning Topic 35, and, specifically, the use of auctions between commercial and noncommercial applications) including concerns regarding the feasibility of implementation from both a practical and legal standpoint.
      • Whereas, the Board has noted that GAC Consensus Advice item 4.a.i does not align with the relevant SubPro recommendations related to Topic 35, which call for the continued use of ICANN Auctions of Last Resort as a contention resolution mechanism.
      • Resolved (2024.06.08.17), the ICANN Board adopts all nine guidance recommendations as documented in the GGP for Applicant Support Final Report.
    • Next Round Funding
      • Whereas, the BFC has recommended that the Board approve funding from the New gTLD Program: 2012 Round Application Fees of up to US$23 million to cover further implementation costs for the New gTLD Program: Next Round through 31 March 2025.
      • Resolved (2024.06.08.19), the Board authorizes the ICANN Interim President and CEO, or her designee(s), to spend up to US$23 million from the New gTLD Program: 2012 Round Application Fees to fund the implementation work of the New gTLD Program: Next Round through 31 March 2025.
  • Circa 30 Apr: Council will send new work re: Topic 24 on String Similarity Review in respect of Singular/Plurals only to the GNSO Council Small Team Plus to consider a strawman proposal developed by Staff.  After evaluation of the proposal, the Small Team Plus will return to Council with its conclusions on whether this proposal is viable, and if so, provide draft (amendment) language on Topic 24 Supplemental Recommendation for Council to consider.
  • 18 Apr:Councilresolved to approve Supplemental Recommendations for the Non-Adopted New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Recommendations on Topic 9: Registry Voluntary Commitments / Public Interest Commitments, Topic 17: Applicant Support, Topic 18: Terms & Conditions, and Topic 32: Limited Challenge/Appeal Mechanism. Council also elected to pursue further amendments to the Supplemental Recommendations related to Topic 24: String Similarity Evaluations, and accordingly, removed the relevant Supplemental Recommendations from consideration during its April meeting.

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

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

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

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

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

2023 - Post ODA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Card
idConsensus_Policy
labelON MODIFYING GTLD CONSENSUS POLICIES

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

2022

2021


Card
idTRP
labelTransfer Policy Review PDP

Transfer Policy Review Policy Development Process (TPR-PDP)

2023

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

2022

2021

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


Card
idIDN
labelInternationalized Domain Names EPDP

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

2024

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

2023

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

2022

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

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

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

2021

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


Card
idRDA_Scoping
labelRegistration Data Accuracy Scoping Team

Registration Data Accuracy (RDA) Scoping Team

2023

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

2022

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

18 Nov 2021

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


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

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

2024

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

2023

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

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

2022

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

2021


...

2024 Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct 

2023 Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | Extra_May | May | Extra_Jun | Pre-ICANN77_Bilateral | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Bilateral@ICANN78 | Oct | Nov | Dec

...

Deck of Cards
idJul2024


Card
idShow_Jul2024
labelSHOW ME

GNSO Council Meeting #7 of 2024 held on 18 July 2024 


Card
idAgenda_Jul2024
labelAGENDA

GNSO Council Meeting #7 of 2024 held on 18 Jul 2024

Full Agenda  |  Documents  |  Motions

  • Item 1: Administrative Matters
  • Item 2: Opening Remarks / Review of Projects List and Action Item List. 
  • Item 3: Consent Agenda
    • GNSO PR Officer - Roles & Responsibilities
    • Confirmation of GNSO nominees to the Pilot Holistic Review
  • Item 4: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - EPDP on Temporary Specification Phase 1 Urgent Requests
  • Item 5: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Accuracy Check-in
  • Item 6: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - GNSO Review of GAC Communiqué
  • Item 7: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Update from Small Team Plus on Singulars/Plurals
  • Item 8: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - SubPro Small Team Supplemental Recommendations - Non-Adopted Recommendations
  • Item 9: COUNCIL UPDATE - Intellectual Property Constituency Request for Reconsideration
  • Item 10: Any Other Business
    • 10.1 - Aspirational Statement

    • 10.2 - SPS Actions Follow-up

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

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

Minutes of


Card
idMOI_Jul2024
labelMATTERS OF INTEREST

Matters of interest to ALAC/At-Large 

  • Item 1: Administrative Matters
    • Minutes of the GNSO Council Meeting on 16 May 2024 were posted on 01 June  2024.
    • Minutes of the GNSO Council Meeting on 12 June 2024 were posted on 01 July 2024.
  • Item 4: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - EPDP on Temporary Specification Phase 1 Urgent Requests
    • On 18 May 2019, the ICANN Board adopted the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data to enable contracted parties to continue to comply with existing ICANN contractual requirements and community-developed policies as they relate to registration directory services. GNSO Council initiated a one-year policy development process to confirm whether or not the Temporary Specification should become a consensus policy, and whether it provided an enduring framework for complying with the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). 
    • The EPDP Team sent its Phase 1 Final Report to Council on 20 February 2019, and Council voted to approve the Final Report on 4 March 2019. The Board subsequently adopted the Phase 1 Final Report on 15 May 2019, with the exception of Recommendation 1, Purpose 2, and Recommendation 12, which the Board did not adopt in full. The Board directed the ICANN President and CEO or their designee(s) to implement the policy recommendations. 
    • ICANN org convened an Implementation Review Team, which began meeting in May 2019. ICANN org published the draft Registration Data Policy for public comment on 24 August 2022. Several commenters expressed dissatisfaction with the implementation of Recommendation 18, specifically around the issue of the response timeline for urgent requests. The relevant portion of Recommendation 18 reads, “A separate timeline of [less than X business days] will considered [sic] for the response to ‘Urgent’ Reasonable Disclosure Requests, those Requests for which evidence is supplied to show an immediate need for disclosure [time frame to be finalized and criteria set for Urgent requests during implementation].”
    • Following the public comment period and subsequent discussion by the Implementation Review Team, the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) wrote to the Board about the topic of urgent requests on 23 August 2023. The Registrar Stakeholder Group wrote to the Board on 8 September 2023 in response to the GAC’s letter.
    • Following the receipt of these letters and further communication amongst Board members, the Board sent a letter to the GNSO Council on 3 June 2024, expressing its concerns with the text of Recommendation 18 related to urgent requests. 
    • Council will discuss the concerns raised in the Board’s letter and discuss next steps in light of the concerns.
  • Item 5: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Accuracy Check-in
    • The Registration Data Accuracy (RDA) Scoping Team was initiated by Council in July 2021 per the formation instructions. The Scoping Team was tasked with considering a number of accuracy-related factors such as the current enforcement, reporting, measurement, and overall effectiveness of accuracy-related efforts before making a recommendation to Council on whether any changes are recommended to improve accuracy levels, and, if so, how and by whom these changes would need to be developed (for example, if changes to existing contractual requirements are recommended, a PDP or contractual negotiations may be necessary to effect a change). 
    • The Scoping Team completed Assignment #1 (enforcement and reporting) and Assignment #2 (measurement of accuracy) and submitted its write up to Council on 5 September 2022. In its write up, the Scoping Team suggested moving forward with two proposals that would not require access to registration data, namely a registrar survey (recommendation #1) and a possible registrar audit (recommendation #2) that may help further inform the team’s work on assignment #3 (effectiveness) and #4 (impact & improvements), while it awaits the outcome of the outreach to the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) by ICANN org in relation to proposals that would require access to registration data (recommendation #3). 
    • On 19 October 2023, ICANN org provided an update on Registration Data Accuracy efforts, and Council discussed the update during its 16 November 2023 meeting. During that meeting, some Councilors noted that, barring (i) completion of the Data Processing Agreement, (ii) implementation of the NIS2 directive, or (iii) publication of the Inferential Analysis of Maliciously Registered Domains (INFERMAL) Study, it may not be the appropriate time to reconvene the Accuracy Scoping Team.  Council voted to extend the deferral of the Accuracy Scoping Team’s recommendations by another six months during its meeting on 15 February 2024. During this meeting, Council agreed to check in on the progress of these items during its June 2024 meeting.
    • Following the ICANN80 GNSO Council Wrap-Up, the GNSO Chair asked Councilors to consider the following questions: 

      1. Evaluation of Proposed Alternatives: In its write-up, ICANN noted limitations in processing data for the purpose of assessing accuracy and proposed two alternatives (analyzing historical audit data and engagement with Contracted Parties on ccTLD practices – see detail below). Is pursuing these alternatives worthwhile? If not, are there other alternatives for obtaining data Council should consider?
      2. Consideration of Scoping Team Restart: Given the limitations with respect to access to data, would there be value in restarting the Scoping Team at this time?
      3. Advancing the Topic: If restarting the Scoping Team at this time is not deemed advisable, what other ideas do you have to advance this topic given its importance to the ICANN community?
    • Council will discuss the above questions and determine next steps.
  • Item 7: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Update from Small Team Plus on Singulars/Plurals
    • In March 2023, the ICANN Board approved the majority of the recommendations contained in the Final Report on the new gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP, but also placed some recommendations into a pending status. Council convened a small team that worked collaboratively with the ICANN Board to resolve all pending recommendations. While the majority of the pending recommendations were able to be adopted by the ICANN Board, recommendations across six Topics were non adopted by the ICANN Board. 
    • Council tasked the Small Team Plus with developing Supplemental Recommendations on five of the six Topics, i.e., Registry Voluntary Commitments / Public Interest Commitments, Applicant Support, Terms and Conditions, String Similarity Evaluations, and Limited Challenge/Appeal Mechanisms. Based on the expected implementation as it relates to the Continued Operations Instrument (COI), the Small Team Plus determined it was unnecessary to develop a Supplemental Recommendation for Topic 22: Registrant Protections. The Small Team Plus developed Supplemental Recommendations for all five topics and shared them with the Council.

    • Because of information received just prior to Council consideration in April 2024, Council elected to defer consideration of the Supplemental Recommendation related to String Similarity Evaluations, or more specifically, singular/plurals. The new information received was a strawperson developed by ICANN org, which provided a potential path forward for singular/plurals. The Council asked to consider whether it felt that the strawperson was promising enough to task the Small Team Plus considering whether strawperson, or and amended version, could be agreed upon.

    • Council will receive an update from the  Small Team Plus on Singulars/Plurals
  • Item 8: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - SubPro Small Team Supplemental Recommendations - Non-Adopted Recommendations
    • As mentioned above, the ICANN Board had not adopted recommendations across six topics from the new gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP (i.e., Registry Voluntary Commitments / Public Interest Commitments, Applicant Support, Terms and Conditions, String Similarity Evaluations, and Limited Challenge/Appeal Mechanisms. Based on the expected implementation as it relates to the Continued Operations Instrument (COI)).
    • At Council's direction, the Small Team Plus developed Supplemental Recommendations for five topics and shared them with Council and on 18 April 2024, Council voted to approve these Supplemental Recommendations for the non-adopted SubPro recommendations. The Small Team Plus determined it was unnecessary to develop a Supplemental Recommendation for Topic 22: Registrant Protections.  
    • On 8 June 2024, the ICANN Board adopted the following scorecard, wherein it approved the Supplemental Recommendations related to Topic 17: Applicant Support and Topic 32: Limited Challenge/Appeal Mechanism. The Board did not adopt the Supplemental Recommendation 9.2 related to Topic 9: Registry Voluntary Commitments / Public Interest Commitments and Supplemental Recommendations 18.1 and 18.3 related to Topic 18: Terms & Conditions. 
    • Council will discuss whether any further actions should be pursued for any of the non-adopted Supplemental Recommendations.
  • Item 9: COUNCIL UPDATE - Intellectual Property Constituency Request for Reconsideration
    • On 22 November 2023, the Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC) filed a Request for Reconsideration  of the ICANN Board Resolutions 2023.10.26.11 and 2023.10.26.122, regarding (i) the actions and inactions that led to (a) the ICANN Board’s public comment of 6 December 2018 on the Initial Report of the Cross-Community Working Group on New gTLD Auction Proceeds (CCWG-AP), (b) the organization of the public comment phase on the Proposed Final Report of the New gTLD Auction Proceeds Cross Community Working Group, (c) the ICANN Board Resolutions 2022.06.12.13 to 2022.06.12.16 , and (ii) the actions and inactions involving the implementation of the ICANN Grant Giving Program.

    • During its meeting at ICANN80, a few GNSO Councilors volunteered to draft a letter to the Board regarding the Request for Reconsideration.

    • Council will hear an update on the draft letter and discuss potential next steps for the Council, if any.


Card
idMeetDeets_Jul2024
labelMEETING DETAILS

GNSO Council Meeting #7 of 2024 held on 18 Jul 2024 at 13:00 UTC: https://tinyurl.com/mud7kn9k

06:00 Los Angeles; 09:00 Washington DC; 14:00 London; 15:00 Paris; 16:00 Moscow; 23:00 Melbourne

GNSO Council Meeting Remote Participation: https://icann.zoom.us/j/92283565389?pwd=QnlHK1JSbzdiSFFZSjRjamxMTkNGdz09

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


Card
idMeet_Jul2024
labelMEETING RECORD

Records of 18 Jul 2024 Meeting

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


Card
idSumRep_Jul2024
labelREPORT

Special Summary Report of 18 Jul 2024 Meeting to ALAC

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

1. Consent Agenda

2. EPDP on Temporary Specification Phase 1 Urgent Requests

  • The present concern is limited to the issue of urgent requests, stemming from Recommendation 18 of the Expedited Policy Development Process on Temporary Specifications' Phase 1 Final Report which has been adopted by the ICANN Board on 15 May 2019, and which had gone onwards for implementation by ICANN org through an Implementation Review Team (IRT).
    • Rec 18 reads, "A separate timeline of [less than X business days] will considered [sic] for the response to ‘Urgent’ Reasonable Disclosure Requests, those Requests for which evidence is supplied to show an immediate need for disclosure [time frame to be finalized and criteria set for Urgent requests during implementation].
  • Following the public comment period and subsequent discussion by the IRT, the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) wrote to the Board about the topic of urgent requests on 23 August 2023. The Registrar Stakeholder Group wrote to the Board on 8 September 2023 in response to the GAC’s letter.  Following the receipt of these letters and further communication amongst Board members, the Board sent a letter to the GNSO Council on 3 June 2024, expressing its concerns with the text of Rec 18 related to urgent requests, citing the following concerns and issues, and concluding that Rec 18 was not fit for purpose and must be revisited.
    1. To the extent that law enforcement needs registration data to respond to situations that pose an imminent threat to life, serious bodily harm, infrastructure, or child exploitation, the proposed timeline - whether one, two, or three business days - does not appear to be fit for purpose. To respond to truly imminent threats, a much shorter response timeline, i.e., minutes or hours rather than days, would seem to be more appropriate.
    2. At the same time, applicable law, regulation, and reasonable registrar policies will often require registrars to authenticate self-identified emergency responders and confirm the purpose(s) for which registrant data is sought prior to disclosing personal data. Even where not required by law or regulation, authentication will often be appropriate under globally accepted principles of fair information processing to protect the rights and freedoms of data subjects.
    3. Absent some authoritative, legally sufficient cross-border system for validating law enforcement/emergency responders, registrars will require time - almost certainly measured in business days rather than hours or minutes - to authenticate the source of urgent requests.
    4. To the best of the Board's knowledge, such an authoritative, legally sufficient cross-border system for authenticating emergency responders/law enforcement globally is not available to ICANN.
    5. In addition to the fact that the creation, operation, and maintenance of a legally sufficient authentication system would consume significant human and financial resources, such a mechanism cannot be created, operated, and/or maintained without the material, ongoing assistance of law enforcement, first responders, and governments.
  • Absent Bylaws provision and existing procedures account for "un-adopting" Board-adopted policy recommendations to address a situation where the Board concludes that a policy recommendation that it has previously approved should be revisited prior to implementation, the Board now refers the issue back to Council. 
  • Council considered several options in determining whether there is Council agreement to the Board's concerns and if so, what should Council do:
    1. Allow GAC and its Public Safety Working Group (PSGW) to provide a potential solution for an appropriate authentication measure;
    2. Just consider that Rec 18 has been implemented and move on since the IRT has considered a timeline but was unable to reach consensus on it;
    3. Support a new policy effort, such as a PDP or EPDP;
    4. Somehow reconsider this Rec 18, noting there is not an established mechanism to "un-adopted" a recommendation that has been adopted by the Board.  
  • Council leadership received a lot of input from Councilors and will consider next steps noting that more effort is required and that it should likely be the Board requesting for this.

3. Registration Data Accuracy

  • This is another long standing issue which has resulted in the Registration Data Accuracy (RDA) Scoping Team that initiated by Council in July 2021, being suspended for a number of rolling six-month periods now.
  • Background:
    • Per its formation instructions, the RDA Scoping Team was tasked with considering a number of accuracy-related factors such as the current enforcement, reporting, measurement, and overall effectiveness of accuracy-related efforts before making a recommendation to Council on whether any changes are recommended to improve accuracy levels, and, if so, how and by whom these changes would need to be developed (for example, if changes to existing contractual requirements are recommended, a PDP or contractual negotiations may be necessary to effect a change). 
    • The Scoping Team had completed Assignment #1 (enforcement and reporting) and Assignment #2 (measurement of accuracy) and submitted its write up to Council on 5 September 2022. In its write up, the Scoping Team suggested moving forward with two proposals that would not require access to registration data, namely a registrar survey (recommendation #1) and a possible registrar audit (recommendation #2) that may help further inform the team’s work on assignment #3 (effectiveness) and #4 (impact & improvements), while it awaits the outcome of the outreach to the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) by ICANN org in relation to proposals that would require access to registration data (recommendation #3). 
    • On 19 October 2023, ICANN org provided an update on Registration Data Accuracy efforts, and Council discussed the update during its 16 November 2023 meeting. During that meeting, some Councilors noted that, barring (i) completion of the Data Processing Agreement, (ii) implementation of the NIS2 directive, or (iii) publication of the Inferential Analysis of Maliciously Registered Domains (INFERMAL) Study, it may not be the appropriate time to reconvene the Accuracy Scoping Team.  Council voted to extend the deferral of the Accuracy Scoping Team’s recommendations by another six months during its meeting on 15 February 2024. During this meeting, Council agreed to check in on the progress of these items during its June 2024 meeting.
  • In basic terms, the delay stems from a lack of available data (legally permissible data due to GDPR legal basis principle and contractual limitations) by which to assess accuracy and determine the issues that may be suited for policy development.
  • Council leadership sought input on a couple of alternatives:
    1. As proposed by ICANN org staff, to look at historical audit data concerning the verification and validation processes currently in the RAA;
    2. To engage with Contracted Parties on ccTLD practices to see if their verification practices may inform the work of the RDA Scoping Team;
    3. Given there is an outstanding question on the definition of "accuracy" within the Scoping Team, would there be value in restarting the RDA Scoping Team at this time?
  • RrSG Councilor Prudence Malinki spoke to RrSG approach to registration data accuracy, highlighting there is no conclusive evidence that there is wide inaccuracies in registration data or that it would lead to a difference in combating DNS abuse, and the RrSG practice in regards to accuracy of data registration also involves issue of what ID document should be relied upon to verify registrant data, training of registrar staff on verification processes/documents, definition of "accuracy" of registration data, all of which contribute to the complexity of this topic as well as an inability to understand what concrete steps would be needed by the RDA Scoping Team if it were to be restarted now.
  • IPC Councilor Damon Ashcraft and RrSG Council Kurt Pritz also commented that more work, hopefully from all groups in GNSO, needs to be done prior to considering restarting the RDA Scoping Team. 
  • Council concluded that this topic should stay on Council's agenda and be revisited in its next meeting to check on progress.

4. SubPro Small Team Plus: Policy development on Singulars/Plurals of the Same Word in the Same Language as TLDs

  • This an ongoing discussion at the GNSO Subsequent Procedures Small Team Plus, which I have been reporting on and discussing extensively at CPWG (see CPWG 15 May 2024, 22 May 2024, 10 Jul 2024 and 17 Jul 2024)
  • Background:
    • In March 2023, the ICANN Board approved the majority of the recommendations contained in the Final Report on the new gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP, but also placed some recommendations into a pending status. Council convened a small team that worked collaboratively with the ICANN Board to resolve all pending recommendations. While the majority of the pending recommendations were able to be adopted by the ICANN Board, recommendations across six Topics were non adopted by the ICANN Board. 
    • Council tasked the Small Team Plus with developing Supplemental Recommendations on five of the six Topics, i.e., Registry Voluntary Commitments / Public Interest Commitments, Applicant Support, Terms and Conditions, String Similarity Evaluations, and Limited Challenge/Appeal Mechanisms. Based on the expected implementation as it relates to the Continued Operations Instrument (COI), the Small Team Plus determined it was unnecessary to develop a Supplemental Recommendation for Topic 22: Registrant Protections. The Small Team Plus developed Supplemental Recommendations for all five topics and shared them with the Council.

    • Because of information received just prior to Council consideration in April 2024, Council elected to defer consideration of the Supplemental Recommendation related to String Similarity Evaluations, or more specifically, singular/plurals. The new information received was a strawperson developed by ICANN org, which provided a potential path forward for singular/plurals. The Council asked to consider whether it felt that the strawperson was promising enough to task the Small Team Plus considering whether strawperson, or and amended version, could be agreed upon.

  • NCA Councilor Paul McGrady, Small Team Plus lead, reported that there is some agreement on the ICANN org strawperson around the public crowdsourcing in reporting incidences singular/plurals of the same word in the same language being applied for (regardless of if there is an existing TLD which is impacted) but that the small team plus has not yet been able to agree on an exceptions process.
    • By "exceptions process", we mean could an applicant whose applied-for string that has been caught in such a singular/plural report be able to explain how its string would not lead to consumer/end user confusion - as against an existing TLD or another applied-for singular/plural string - if it were allowed to delegated, and if so, how (ie what criteria could be used, new process, vs existing process).
    • Noting that such an exceptions process must not rely on 'intent of use' (an approach which the Board has rejected) but could rely on other grounds, such as registrant restrictions, so long as if any Registry Voluntary Commitments (RVCs) were involved then these RVCs must be enforceable under the ICANN Bylaws and as a practicable matter.
    • And it being unclear as to how much time the small team plus would be given to resolve its differences. in order not to impact the launch of the Next Round of New gTLDs.
  • Council concluded that the small team plus should continue its work and report back at Council's August 2024 meeting.

Action by ALAC Liaison

    •  Justine Chew to continue to update ALAC/CPWG on the progress of the Singular/Plurals issue.

5. SubPro Small Team Supplemental Recommendations - Non-Adopted Recommendations

  • Background:
    • As mentioned above, the ICANN Board had not adopted recommendations across six topics from the new gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP (i.e., Registry Voluntary Commitments / Public Interest Commitments, Applicant Support, Terms and Conditions, String Similarity Evaluations, and Limited Challenge/Appeal Mechanisms. Based on the expected implementation as it relates to the Continued Operations Instrument (COI)).
    • At Council's direction, the Small Team Plus developed Supplemental Recommendations for five topics and shared them with Council and on 18 April 2024, Council voted to approve these Supplemental Recommendations for the non-adopted SubPro recommendations. The Small Team Plus determined it was unnecessary to develop a Supplemental Recommendation for Topic 22: Registrant Protections.  
    • On 8 June 2024, the ICANN Board adopted the following scorecard, wherein it approved the Supplemental Recommendations related to Topic 17: Applicant Support and Topic 32: Limited Challenge/Appeal Mechanism. The Board did not adopt the Supplemental Recommendations related to Topic 9: Registry Voluntary Commitments / Public Interest Commitments and Topic 18: Terms & Conditions. 
  • Council has concluded that no further action is needed on the Board's decision on Supplemental Recommendations 9.2, 18.1 and 18.3 since the Board is clearly unmoved by Council's attempt to clarify those recommendations.

6. Intellectual Property Constituency Request for Reconsideration

  • This item was deferred to Council's next meeting as some follow-up work is pending with Council leadership.

7. Recommendations Report & Public Comment Review

  • These are 2 items arising from the last GNSO Council Strategic Planning Session (SPS) of Jan 2024.
  • Regarding the Recommendations Report:
    • Per the ICANN Bylaws, Annex A, the Recommendations Report is a required step of the PDP. GNSO staff also shared that per Section 13 of the GNSO Operating Procedures, the format is essentially a shared responsibility between the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board and that if changes are needed, the two parties should work together collaboratively.
    • One of the concerns raised in recent discussions is speculation that the Board may consider the Recommendations Report as a substitute for the Final Report. After looking into this issue with ICANN staff, Council leadership has not identified an instance in which this has occurred.
    • Another concern raised is that the Recommendations Report, which is sent at least one month after recommendations from an PDP/EPDP are approved by the Council, creates unnecessary delays. Council leadership understands that the Recommendations Report is managed concurrently with the Bylaws-mandated public comment period; since the duration of the public comment period is longer than the Recommendations Report process, it’s not clear that the Recommendations Report alone is creating delays.
    • Given Council leadership input to the concerns above, Councilors have been asked if any serious concerns remain by 15 August, failing which, the intention is to consider these SPS action items as completed.
  • Regarding the Public Comment Review:
    • GNSO staff did not identify significant process gaps or the need for additional mechanisms.  From the Council leadership perspective, the existing PDP public comment review process appears robust and fit for purpose.

8. Board Readiness to GNSO Policy Recommendations 

  • This is another item arising from the last GNSO Council SPS.
  • Background:
    • What does it mean for policy recommendations to be Board ready? 
      • The recommendation is likely to achieve board adoption, i.e. the recommendation has been approved by a GNSO Supermajority Vote and will most likely be considered by the Board to be in the best interests of ICANN Community and ICANN org.
    • GNSO staff collated points discussed by Council in June 2024.
    • RrSG Councilor Kurt Pritz presented some ideas on how to proceed, and factors to be considered.

Action by ALAC Liaison

    •  Justine Chew has joined the Council Small Team on Board Readiness; to consider what and when to update ALAC/CPWG on the progress of this small team.


Anchor
A-24-06
A-24-06
24-06 GNSO COUNCIL MEETING #6 (AT ICANN 80, JUN 2024)                         (go up to Directory) 

Deck of Cards
idJun2024


Card
idShow_Jun2024
labelSHOW ME

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


Card
idAgenda_Jun2024
labelAGENDA

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

Full Agenda  |  Documents  |  Motions

  • Item 1: Administrative Matters
  • Item 2: Opening Remarks / Review of Projects List and Action Item List. 
  • Item 3: Consent Agenda
    • GNSO Council Aspirational Statement (WITHDRAWN)
  • Item 4: COUNCIL VOTE - Request for Policy Status Report - Expiration Policies
  • Item 5: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Accuracy Check-in
  • Item 6: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Standing Predictability Implementation Review Team (“SPIRT”) Draft Charter
  • Item 7: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - ICANN org Implementation Update - Second-Level International Governmental Organizations (IGO) Protections
  • Item 8: COUNCIL UPDATE - Update on the Internet Governance Forum Support Association (“IGFSA”)
  • Item 9: COUNCIL DISCUSSION: Updated Work from Council Strategic Planning Session (“SPS”)
  • Item 10: Any Other Business

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


Card
idMOI_Jun2024
labelMATTERS OF INTEREST

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

  • Item 1: Administrative Matters
    • Minutes of the GNSO Council Meeting on 18 April 2024 were posted on 03 May 2024.
    • Minutes of the GNSO Council Meeting on 16 May 2024 were posted on 01 June  2024.
  • Item 4: COUNCIL VOTE - Request for Policy Status Report - Expiration Policies
    • Council previously considered when to request a Policy Status Report (“PSR”) for the purpose of conducting a review of the two Expiration Policies, the Expired Domain Name Deletion Policy (“EDDP”) and the Expired Registration Recovery Policy (“ERRP”). In November 2020, given concerns about its capacity and no known issues with the policies, the Council agreed to delay the request for the Policy Status Report (PSR) for a period of 24 months. After 24 months had passed, the Council reconsidered whether it was an appropriate time to request a PSR. 
    • Before voting whether to further defer the request, Council agreed that it would be helpful to consult with both registrars and ICANN org to assist in determining whether there are any known issues or concerns with either of the two Expiration Policies which could warrant requesting a PSR. 
    • During its 16 May 2024 meeting, Council discussed the option of adding the PSR request to ICANN org’s queue of work instead of deferring the request for two years, noting the PSR analysis should be completed but not as an urgent priority.
    • Council will vote to request ICANN org to deliver a PSR in one (1) year or to confirm that work on the PSR has begun and deliver an updated estimate on when the PSR should be delivered, in one (1) year. (voting threshold: simple majority)
  • Item 5: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Accuracy Check-in
    • The Registration Data Accuracy (RDA) Scoping Team was initiated by Council in July 2021 per the formation instructions. The Scoping Team was tasked with considering a number of accuracy-related factors such as the current enforcement, reporting, measurement, and overall effectiveness of accuracy-related efforts before making a recommendation to Council on whether any changes are recommended to improve accuracy levels, and, if so, how and by whom these changes would need to be developed (for example, if changes to existing contractual requirements are recommended, a PDP or contractual negotiations may be necessary to effect a change). 
    • The Scoping Team completed Assignment #1 (enforcement and reporting) and Assignment #2 (measurement of accuracy) and submitted its write up to Council on 5 September 2022. In its write up, the Scoping Team suggested moving forward with two proposals that would not require access to registration data, namely a registrar survey (recommendation #1) and a possible registrar audit (recommendation #2) that may help further inform the team’s work on assignment #3 (effectiveness) and #4 (impact & improvements), while it awaits the outcome of the outreach to the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) by ICANN org in relation to proposals that would require access to registration data (recommendation #3). 
    • On 19 October 2023, ICANN org provided an update on Registration Data Accuracy efforts, and Council discussed the update during its 16 November 2023 meeting. During that meeting, some Councilors noted that, barring (i) completion of the Data Processing Agreement, (ii) implementation of the NIS2 directive, or (iii) publication of the Inferential Analysis of Maliciously Registered Domains (INFERMAL) Study, it may not be the appropriate time to reconvene the Accuracy Scoping Team.  Council voted to extend the deferral of the Accuracy Scoping Team’s recommendations by another six months during its meeting on 15 February 2024. During this meeting, Council agreed to check in on the progress of these items during its June 2024 meeting.
    • Council will discuss the status of accuracy discussions and consider ICANN org’s proposed next steps for addressing the charter topics and informing further community discussions, factoring in the legal as well as resource limitations that exist. Specifically, ICANN org suggested (1) providing historical data via ICANN’s existing audit program and (2) engaging with contracted parties on current European ccTLD identity verification practices.
  • Item 6: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Standing Predictability Implementation Review Team (“SPIRT”) Draft Charter
    • Council enlisted a Drafting Team to develop a draft charter for the SPIRT, which is a standing implementation review team recommended in the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Final Report. 
    • When relevant issues arise during the course of the New gTLD Program that may need to be addressed, the Standing Predictability Implementation Review Team (“SPIRT”) will utilize the Predictability Framework. The GNSO Council shall be responsible for oversight of the SPIRT.

    • In developing the draft charter, the Drafting Team considered elements such as the composition of the SPIRT, how issues are raised to the SPIRT procedurally, the operating principles and decision-making of the SPIRT, et.al. The New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Final Report included an annex that provides detailed guidance on how the SPIRT should operate. 
    • Council will receive a presentation on the draft charter from its liaison to the Charter Drafting Team.
  • Item 8: COUNCIL UPDATE - Update on the Internet Governance Forum Support Association (“IGFSA”)
    • The Internet Governance Forum Support Association is an independent membership association established in September 2014 to support the United Nations Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and to provide financial and other support for National and Regional IGFs (NRIs) around the world. 
    • The IGFSA will provide an overview of its mission and recent work to Council.


Card
idMeetDeets_Jun2024
labelMEETING DETAILS

GNSO Council Meeting #6 of 2024 held on 12 Jun 2024 at 11:45 UTC: https://tinyurl.com/yeykc7fm 

04:45 Los Angeles; 07:45 Washington DC; 12:45 London; 13:45 Paris; 14:45 Moscow; 21:45 Melbourne

GNSO Council Meeting Remote Participation: refer to ICANN80 Schedule - Zoom link to be shared 24 hours in advance

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


Card
idMeet_Jun2024
labelMEETING RECORD

Records of 12 Jun 2024 Meeting


Card
idSumRep_Jun2024
labelREPORT

Special Summary Report of 12 Jun 2024 Meeting to ALAC

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

1. Consent Agenda

  • The agenda item (along with a vote) on the GNSO Council Aspirational Statement was withdrawn.

2. Registration Data Accuracy

  • The Registration Data Accuracy (RDA) Scoping Team was initiated by Council in July 2021 per the formation instructions. The Scoping Team was tasked with considering a number of accuracy-related factors such as the current enforcement, reporting, measurement, and overall effectiveness of accuracy-related efforts before making a recommendation to Council on whether any changes are recommended to improve accuracy levels, and, if so, how and by whom these changes would need to be developed (for example, if changes to existing contractual requirements are recommended, a PDP or contractual negotiations may be necessary to effect a change). 
  • The Scoping Team completed Assignment #1 (enforcement and reporting) and Assignment #2 (measurement of accuracy) and submitted its write up to Council on 5 September 2022. In its write up, the Scoping Team suggested moving forward with two proposals that would not require access to registration data, namely a registrar survey (recommendation #1) and a possible registrar audit (recommendation #2) that may help further inform the team’s work on assignment #3 (effectiveness) and #4 (impact & improvements), while it awaits the outcome of the outreach to the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) by ICANN org in relation to proposals that would require access to registration data (recommendation #3). 
  • On 19 October 2023, ICANN org provided an update on Registration Data Accuracy efforts, and Council discussed the update during its 16 November 2023 meeting. During that meeting, some Councilors noted that, barring (i) completion of the Data Processing Agreement, (ii) implementation of the NIS2 directive, or (iii) publication of the Inferential Analysis of Maliciously Registered Domains (INFERMAL) Study, it may not be the appropriate time to reconvene the Accuracy Scoping Team.  Council voted to extend the deferral of the Accuracy Scoping Team’s recommendations by another six months during its meeting on 15 February 2024. During this meeting, Council agreed to check in on the progress of these items during its June 2024 meeting.
  • Council considered the status of accuracy discussions and the need to better inform the ICANN community, especially the GAC, on the factors around the legal as well as resource limitations that are holding Council from future action. 
  • Councill will revisit action needed in the short term.

3. Standing Predictability Implementation Review Team (“SPIRT”) Draft Charter 

  • The formation of the Standing Predictability Implementation Review Team (SPIRT, pronounced as 'SPIRIT') is the result of Recommendation 2.1 of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Final Report, a recommendation that the Board has since adopted.
  • The role of the SPIRT is to serve as the body responsible for reviewing potential issues which may arise during the course of the New gTLD Program (Next Round and beyond) application and evaluation processes AFTER the next Applicant Guidebook (AGB) has been approved by the Board, by conducting analysis utilizing the Predictability Framework, and to recommend the process/mechanism that should be followed to address those issues. The Predictability Framework is found in Annex E of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Final Report and it provides detailed guidance on how the SPIRT should operate.
  • Council received a presentation on the draft charter from its liaison to the Charter Drafting Team which touched on several key aspects being discussed by the Drafting Team working group: composition of the SPIRT, how issues are raised to the SPIRT procedurally, the operating principles and decision-making of the SPIRT, etc, while considering the Predictability Framework.
  • Work continues at the Drafting Team working group level.

4. Deferral of Policy Status Report Request - Expiration Policies

  • Council had previously considered when to request a Policy Status Report (“PSR”) for the purpose of conducting a review of the two Expiration Policies, the Expired Domain Name Deletion Policy (“EDDP”) and the Expired Registration Recovery Policy (“ERRP”). In November 2020, given concerns about its capacity and no known issues with the policies, the Council agreed to delay the request for the Policy Status Report (PSR) for a period of 24 months. After 24 months had passed, Council reconsidered whether it was an appropriate time to request a PSR.
  • In July 2022, Council agreed that it would be helpful to consult with both registrars and ICANN org to help determine if there are any known issues or concerns with either of the two Expiration Policies which could warrant requesting a PSR. 
  • In making its decision whether to request to a PSR at this time, Council consulted: 

    1. Registrars, who were asked to flag substantial issues with the policies that would warrant a near-term request for PSR and did not note any issues
    2. ICANN Compliance, who provided a write-up, noting confusion with key terms in the policy and persistent registrant confusion with the auto-renew grace period and aftermarket activities, et al.
    3. ICANN org Registrant Program, which provided a catalog of the available educational resources on domain name expiration and renewal (Brian Gutterman’s update at Council)
  • Council then determined that the EDDP and ERRP seem to have been implemented as intended and imminent policy work is not needed at this time, and so, considered to pursue a PSR on the Expiration Policies in two years' time, or earlier, if a need is determined and it is requested.
  • Primarily at the request of IPC, this decision for a deferral of the PSR was deferred yet again, to Council's Jun 2024 meeting. IPC's belief that the request for a PSR should proceed now since it would take some time for it to be actioned by ICANN org staff, and IPC had wanted a bit more time to shore up its representation on this issue.
  • After much deliberation, Council has now resolved to request ICANN org to deliver a PSR in one (1) year or to confirm that work on the PSR has begun and deliver an updated estimate on when the PSR should be delivered, in one (1) year. 

5. Internet Governance Forum Support Association (“IGFSA”)

  • Council received a presentation on the mission and work of the Internet Governance Forum Support Association which is an independent membership association established in September 2014 to support the United Nations Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and to provide financial and other support for National and Regional IGFs (NRIs) around the world. 
  • This is an outreach by the IGFSA, asking for Councilors to help create awareness of IGFSA to garner support for its activities and to grow IGFSA's organisational and individual membership.
  • Note: The At-Large will receive a similar outreach presentation at the ICANN80 At-Large Leadership Wrap Up Session.


...