• 8.7 - Operational Design Phase Community Consultation Survey (deadline 27 Sept)

Special Summary Report of 19 Sep 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 Sep 2024 Matters of Interest and/or from GNSO Council Sep 2024 Meeting Records.

1. Consent Agenda

• Council resolved to replace Annex 6 in the GNSO Operating Procedures regarding Registries Stakeholder Group and Registrars Stakeholder Group Process to Select ICANN Board Seat #13 Candidates to offer continuity in the selection process, prevent potential gaming of the process, provide balance between the Stakeholder groups, and encourage the selection of a consensus candidate.
• Council approved the 2024 Customer Standing Committee (CSC) slate of Members and Liaisons. For the ALAC, Holly Raiche remained as member and Tjikeme Egbuogu as alternate as they had been previously appointed for the term: 1 October 2023 – 30 September 2025.

2. Supplemental Recommendation on Singulars/Plurals

• This pertains to the final Subsequent Procedures (SubPro) PDP recommendations (i.e. Rec 24.3 and 24.5) that were not adopted by the ICANN Board. This non-adoption triggers the option for Council to develop a Supplemental Recommendation in order to address the Board's concerns for non-adoption. This is the path that Council chose, delegating this task to its SubPro Small Team Plus.
• The Board had instructed ICANN org to propose a way forward on how to handle applied-for strings which were found to be the singular/plural versions of the same word in the same language. ICANN org proposed a strawman. (Please refer to Part B of the At-Large Workspace on SubPro Policy Implementation & Supplementary Recommendation Development for record of the discussions at CPWG on the months of deliberation including the several iterations of the strawman that were formulated and discussed.)
• After receiving Council's instructions to complete its work before this Sep Council meeting, the Small Team Plus finally proposed the Supplemental Recommendation for the non-adopted SubPro recommendations related to Topic 24 which Council has now approved. (This Supplemental Recommendation 24.3 is as discussed per Update #18, 5 Sep 2024 with CPWG).
• This Supplemental Recommendation 24.3 has been delivered to the ICANN Board along with the accompanying Plurality and Minority Statements.

3. Registration Data Accuracy (RDA) Scoping Team and Accuracy of Registration Data

• The Registration Data Accuracy (RDA) Scoping Team was initiated by the GNSO Council in July 2021 per the formation instructions. 
• 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 measuring the effectiveness of current accuracy requirements and determining if further policy work may be needed.
• On 19 October 2023, ICANN org provided an update on Registration Data Accuracy efforts, in which it noted limitations and concerns with proceeding with the Scoping Team’s recommendation #1 (voluntary registrar survey) and registrar audit (recommendation #2). Council then voted to extend the deferral of the RDA Scoping Team’s recommendations by another six months during its meeting on 15 February 2024.
• Following discussion during the meetings in June and July, Council discussed the limitations noted by ICANN org and determined there would be limited value in proceeding with the Scoping Team’s two recommendations (#1 and #2). However, given the importance of this issue of registration data accuracy within the ICANN community, it has remained on Council's agenda although Council had agreed on the limited value in restarting the RDA Scoping Team at this time due to limitations in access to data for the purpose of assessing accuracy. 
• During its August meeting, some Councilors suggested potentially convening a small team to discuss how to make progress on this topic, while other suggested that this work should not be undertaken until we have more clarity around the implementation of accuracy requirements in the Network and Information Security (NIS 2) Directive being implemented in the EU.
• At this September meeting:
  • Council has voted to again defer consideration of the RDA Scoping Team’s Recommendations #1 and #2 for an additional six months while it determines how to make meaningful progress on the topic. 
  • Council Leadership shared a proposal of how to solicit additional feedback from GNSO groups with directed questions, in order to receive information from which an eventual small team (if that is the Council’s chosen vehicle) can decide how to handle the important topic of accuracy.

Action by ALAC Liaison
Justine to liaise with ALAC representative on RDA Scoping Team on next steps 

3. Latin Diacritics

• Council was informed that 41 public comments were received on the Preliminary Issue Report on Latin Diacritics:
  • 37 were in support of the initiation of a PDP on Latin Script Diacritics
  • 2 were in support but issued a strong caution on possible risks - impact on end users, create confusion, and make it difficult to distinguish between authentic and malicious websites
  • 1 was against the initiation of a PDP on this topic on the basis of maintaining a user-friendly and secure Internet
  • 1 was assessed as out of scope
• Council will determine whether to proceed with a PDP on this issue in an upcoming Council meeting, and if so, whether revisions are needed to the current draft charter.

Action by ALAC Liaison
Justine to report to ALAC if and when GNSO Council determines whether to initiate a PDP on Latin Script Diacritics and next steps

4. Contention Resolution

• GNSO Chair drew Council's attention to the receipt of a 13 Sep letter from Board Chair regarding Contention sets for the New gTLD Program: Next Round (Next Round); 
  • Board has determined that they are not allowing private resolutions, and intends to reverse its adoption of the SubPro Final Report recommendation 20.6 
  • Meaning that a JV meant to resolve a contention set could now be in violation of this principle
  • Asked councilors to consider what Council's response might be in context of the Board approval process per ICANN Bylaws Annex A Section 9.
  • In the interim, this will be on the agenda on Council's upcoming informal meeting with GNSO Board Members so more to come.

Action by ALAC Liaison
Justine to report to ALAC if and when GNSO Council determines what steps it will take on the 13 Sep letter from the Board Chair regarding Contention Resolution

5. Policy Status Report: GNSO Policy & Implementation Working Group Recommendations

• In July 2013, Council formed a Working Group, which was tasked to provide Council with a set of recommendations on a number of questions that specifically related to policy and implementation in a GNSO context.
• In June 2015, Council adopted the Policy and Implementation Working Group Final Report, followed by Board approval of the parts pertaining to the ICANN Bylaws in September 2015. These recommendations resulted in the establishment of a set of new mechanisms, including the Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP), Consensus Policy Implementation Framework (CPIF), and others. 
• As part of the GNSO Council resolution, it was recommended that “a review of these recommendations is carried out at the latest five years following their implementation to assess whether the recommendations have achieved what they set out to do and/or whether any further enhancements or changes are needed”. This PSR constitutes the first step in that review.

• The PSR discusses the contents of the Policy and Implementation Recommendations and their performance against stated objectives by the GNSO Council and the ICANN community, based on readily available data, staff observations, and analysis to date. The report is intended to serve as input to the GNSO Council’s review of the policy and implementation related efforts, including, for example: 

  • The GNSO Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP)
  • The GNSO Guidance Process (GGP)
  • The GNSO Input Process (GIP)
  • The Implementation Review Team (IRT) Principles & Guidelines
  • The Consensus Policy Implementation Framework (CPIF)
• Council received a presentation from the ICANN org staff who assisted in drafting the PSR.
  • In summary the PSR:
    • Concludes that the recommendations have proven effective in supporting and enhancing GNSO policy recommendation implementation efforts
    • But also identified a number of issues and possible improvements
  • Summarized the 5 comments received via the Public Comment Proceeding on GNSO Policy & Implementation Working Group Recommendations (to which ALAC submitted a comment) touching on a number of elements including needing to ensure "fitness of purpose" of policy recommendations (read policy recommendations that are no longer feasible) through to implementation, hence potential need for a mechanism to address/modify policy recommendations for relevant reasons; whether to retain the GIP and include learnings from use of Small Teams.  
• Council is to determine next steps after ICANN org submits its finalized PSR for Council's review, including:
  • PRSP Team's development of a research proposal to scope a research project to gather/analyze data on IRT time utilization to inform further options for streamlining
  • PRSP Team's proposal on CPIF updates.

6. Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Issues (PPSAI)

• Council received a report from Council's Liaison to the PPSAI that the IRT has held its kickoff meeting at ICANN80, followed by bi-weekly meetings through July. The IRT was tasked with reviewing the 21 policy recommendations and identifying implementation-related questions on feasibility, a sort of triage exercise on how to move forward on those recommendations. 
  • It seems there are opposing views within the IRT on whether many of the recommendations are still feasible versus many of them being salvageable to avoid as few as possible going back to Council for addressing. 
  • An IRT public meeting will be held during ICANN81