Dear all,

Here is my report of the GNSO Council's 16 May 2024 meeting.

Council discussed some issues at length, but the most important decision for us is their resolution to request for an Issues Report for Diacritics in Latin Script and the direction to GNSO staff to create the Report.

There were also a couple of amendments to the agenda under AOB but I have concentrated on what I think are the key matters of interest to us. You can also read this report posted at the ALAC Liaison to the GNSO workspace, or simply using the links included below to navigate to the May 2024 entry.

Special Summary Report of 16 May 2024 Meeting to ALAC

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

1. Consent Agenda

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

2. Diacritics in Latin Script

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

• On 25 Oct 2023, Council received a detailed briefing on this issue and agreed to request a study from ICANN org to help inform the GNSO Council on the issue of diacritics in Latin Script. Prior to the request being made to ICANN org, the org volunteered to investigate what mechanism or mechanisms might be appropriate to address this issue. Since then, Council had for several months deferred discussing a way forward to address the issue as GNSO support staff had indicated that a proposal for a solution was being worked on which might alleviate the need for a study request which Council had been mooting earlier.

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

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

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

4. Deferral of Policy Status Report Request - Expiration Policies

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

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

  1. Registrars, who were asked to flag substantial issues with the policies that would warrant a near-term request for PSR and did not note any issues
  2. ICANN Compliance, who provided a write-up, noting confusion with key terms in the policy and persistent registrant confusion with the auto-renew grace period and aftermarket activities, et al.
  3. ICANN org Registrant Program, which provided a catalog of the available educational resources on domain name expiration and renewal (Brian Gutterman’s update at Council)
• Council then determined that the EDDP and ERRP seem to have been implemented as intended and imminent policy work is not needed at this time, and so, considered to pursue a PSR on the Expiration Policies in two years' time, or earlier, if a need is determined and it is requested.
• Primarily at an IPC Councilor's request, this decision for a deferral of the PSR was deferred yet again, to Council's Jun 2024 meeting. IPC's belief that the request for a PSR should proceed now since it would take some time for it to be actioned by ICANN org staff, and IPC wanted a bit more time to shore up its representation on this issue.  There was no objection to deferring the vote to Council's next meeting.