Dear all, Please find following the updated agenda for the GNSO Council's 19 December 2024 meeting followed by my summary report on what I think are the key issues for your attention or information. You can also read this report posted at the ALAC Liaison to the GNSO workspace, or by simply using the links included below to navigate to/around the December 2024 entry. *GNSO Council Meeting #12 of 2024 held on 19 Dec 2024 <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/GNSO+Liaison+Report%2C+post-Oct+2021#Dec2024-Agenda_Dec2024>* *Full Agenda <https://community.icann.org/x/E4DyEg> | Documents <https://community.icann.org/x/CICeFw> | Motions <https://community.icann.org/x/BoCeFw>* - *Item 1: Administrative Matters* - Item 2: Opening Remarks / Review of Projects List <https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/project> and Action Item List. <https://community.icann.org/x/RgZlAg> - *Item 3: Consent Agenda* - GNSO Review of the GAC Communiqué - *Recommendations Report for the Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP) on Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) Phase 2 * - Confirmation of GNSO Empowered Community Representative (Tomslin Samme-NIar) - Item 4: COUNCIL VOTE - Empowered Community Approval Action on Fundamental Bylaws Amendments to Article 4 Accountability and Review, 4.2 Reconsideration - *Item 5: COUNCIL VOTE - Charter for Policy Development Process on Latin Script Diacritics* - *Item 6: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - EPDP Temporary Specification Phase 1, Recommendation 18 - Urgent Requests* - *Item 7: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Request for Guidance from the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures / IDNs EPDP Phase 1 IRT* - *Item 8: COUNCIL UPDATE: EPDP Temporary Specification Phase 1 - Billing Contact* - Item 9: COUNCIL UPDATE - 2025 Council Strategic Planning Session (SPS) - Item 10: DISCUSSION ITEM - Request for Guidance from the Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP IRT on the Scope of Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) Recommendation 1 Moved to Jan 2025 meeting - Item 10: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - GNSO Council PR Officer Update - Item 11: Any Other Business - 11.1 - GNSO Liaison to the GAC update - 11.2 - ICANN82 - funded travel emails were sent out, please action as past deadline *Special Summary Report of 19 Dec 2024 Meeting to ALAC <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/GNSO+Liaison+Report%2C+post-Oct+2021#Dec2024-SumRep_Dec2024>* For brevity, I will just highlight a few things here. For some of the issues, you can glean a wider perspective from GNSO Council Dec 2024 Matters of Interest <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/GNSO+Liaison+Report%2C+post-Oct+...> and/or from GNSO Council Dec 2024 Meeting Records <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/GNSO+Liaison+Report%2C+post-Oct+...> . *1. Consent Agenda* - Council adopted the GNSO Review of the ICANN81 Istanbul Communiqué on Issues of Importance <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2024/presentation/final-gn...> (there was no GAC Advice provided for ICANN81) and this is to be communicated to the ICANN Board and the GAC. - Council approved the Recommendations Report to the ICANN Board regarding the Phase 2 Final Recommendations <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2024/presentation/epdp-idn...> from the EPDP on IDNs and this report is to be transmitted to the ICANN Board. - Council confirmed GNSO Vice-Chair Tomslin Samme-NIar as GNSO's Empowered Community Representative. *2. Latin Script Diacritics* - Council adopted the PDP WG charter <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2024/draft/draft-charter-p...> for Latin Script Diacritics, which included the following amendments: 1) limiting the scope of work; 2) adjusting the membership structure to make it an “Open Model”; 3) including the Global Public Interest (GPI) Framework <https://community.icann.org/display/prjxplrpublicint/GPI+Toolkit> and its checklist <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1uVOXywoowxvM1Hn5GuCkkinuZiMc4smc/edi...> as a reference for analysis when conducting the PDP, per the ICANN Board’s recommendation. - Next Steps for the Latin Script Diacritics PDP, following up on the Council’s adoption of the WG charter, a Call for Volunteers for Members and Chair will be published in the beginning of January for confirmation by the end of January. The WG plans to kick-off in February. *3. Han Script Single Characters as TLDs* - The New gTLD Subsequent Procedures (SubPro) PDP provided Recommendation 25.4 (approved by the ICANN Board) to allow single character gTLDs for ideographic scripts in the next round, *provided that they do not introduce confusion risks that rise above commonplace similarities*. The IDNs EPDP Phase 1 Final Report put forth important additional detail and limitations on Rec 25.4, prescribing that the single character gTLDs *be limited to the Han script* and that *applications must not be accepted until relevant guidelines are developed and put in place by the Chinese, Japanese, and Korean (CJK) Generation Panels (GPs)*. Alternatively, the IDN EPDP concluded that if the CJK GPs determine that additional guidelines beyond the RZ-LGR are not needed, then the single character applications should proceed. - Although the CJK GPs stated <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/proposed-han-script-single-chara...> that the work done in the Root Zone Label Generation Rules (RZ-LGRs <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/root-zone-lgr-2015-06-21-en>) sufficiently addresses the concerns around the risk of confusion for single character Han script gTLDs, the majority of the public comments <https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/seeking-input-on-han-scri...> on the CJK GPs’ statements opposed moving forward. Commenters from the Chinese community expressed concerns about the lack of alignment with China’s linguistic laws and regulations, the complexities of Chinese character ideographs, and end-user confusion due to multiple meanings of many single characters. One such comment received from a co-Chair of the CGP argues that the CGP should not be and was not involved in "risk of confusion" policy considerations related to single Han characters as TLDs. Many of the comments call for further community work prior to proceeding. Similar concerns were received through the public comment <https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/second-proceeding-for-pro...> on the relevant draft AGB sections. - This public comment was discussed with the Sub Pro IRT IDN Sub-Track which referred the matter to the main SubPro IRT. The main SubPro IRT was asked by ICANN staff whether Recommendation 25.4 should be modified as not implementable or whether the issue should be reviewed with Council for possible further work. - Council discussed options for next steps, including a recommendation from the IRT Liaisons to refer this complex matter to a GNSO Guidance Process to determine the guidance necessary to allow Han single characters to proceed, with an acknowledgement that the GGP could well determine that Recommendation 25.4 and IDN EPDP Recommendation 3.17 as approved may not be implementable. Due to time constraints, and the fact that both the SubPro and IDNs recommendations were conditional, Liaisons believe that the recommended GGP process should not hold up the next round. - A small group of Councilors will review this issue in more detail and suggest next steps for Council's consideration. *Action by ALAC Liaison* To provide an update on the Han Script Single Characters as TLDs as and when an update becomes available *4. EPDP Temporary Specification Phase 1, Recommendation 18 - Urgent Requests* - ICANN org convened an Implementation Review Team to assist ICANN in implementing the EPDP on the Temporary Specification Phase 1 Final Report <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/epdp-gtld-...>, which began meeting in May 2019. ICANN org published the draft Registration Data Policy for public comment <https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/registration-data-consens...> 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 of registration data*. - The relevant portion of Recommendation 18 reads, “A separate timeline of [less than X business days] will considered 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].” - A series of correspondence between the Board and Council (3 June 2024 <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2024/correspondence/tsinha...> and 29 August 2024 <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2024/correspondence/dibias...>) and between the GAC and the Board (15 October 2024 <https://gac.icann.org/contentMigrated/gac-follow-up-on-urgent-requests-gac-r...>) on this issue led to a trilateral meeting of Council - GAC - Board which was held on 4 November 2024 <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Dialogue+with+GAC%2C...> and which discussed next steps, including potentially resuming discussions with the IRT. - In *bref*, the GNSO and the Board's concerns revolved around whether disclosure of registration data was feasible when the requestor is not authenticated entity even if the requestor claims to be an LEA representative. The GAC then proposed the idea of starting work on an authentication method and for GNSO to start or continue policy work to support implementation of Recommendation 18. - Of note also is that the EPDP Phase 2 referred to a response timeline of one business day but not exceeding three calendar days in respect of the SSAD - System for Standardized Access/Disclosure (SSAD) but which also suffered the challenge of a lack of authentication mechanism for the requestor. - Further to the authentication mechanism aspect, any request would still be subject to other steps to determine its validity, regardless of the requestor, and whether the request is truly "urgent". Therefore authentication of the requestor does not automatically lead to disclosure of data to the requestor and does not necessarily imply any urgency associated with a request. - And finally, the timeline refers to a response by the relevant registrar and not necessarily completion of a disclosure. - Council discussed whether there needs to be additional policy work to be contemplated on the assumption that the authentication mechanism is in place. Council concluded that further clarification is needed and should be sought at the next trilateral meeting, including: - How is the work on GAC's proposed authentication mechanism progressing and what role could GNSO have in it (if at all); - A better understanding of what policy development work is contemplated by the GAC per its request; - Whether the issue of timeline could be within the remit of the IRT to resolve (assuming the authentication mechanism is in place) instead of any need to take on more policy development work. - It was decided that Council leadership would take on the task of rationalizing the clarifications needed, formulate a correspondence to set the agenda for the next trilateral meeting. Council will discuss this output at its January 2025 meeting. *5. EPDP Temporary Specification Phase 1 - Billing Contact* - This is another issue arising from the EPDP Temp Spec Phase 1 Implementation Review Team (IRT) deliberations which that of a view that the EPDP Team had intended for the collection of billing contact data to be optional and not mandatory. - The EPDP Phase 1 policy recommendations <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/epdp-gtld-...> do not reference billing contact data, and the Registration Data Policy <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/registration-data-policy-2024-02-21-en> published on 21 February 2024, which has an effective date of 21 August 2025, also makes no reference to billing contact data. However, the collection of and placement in escrow of billing contact data is an obligation under the 2013 RAA. And hence, in short, Council is being asked which position should be authoritative, in other words: - 1) Should billing contact data no longer be required, i.e, that it is optional - 2) Is this the case despite the fact that the EPDP Phase 1 policy recommendations makes no mention of billing contact either being optional or required. - 3) Noting that billing contact data is not something that is transferred as part of the RDDS or RDAP, but is instead separately collected under the registration data escrow specification, and it is not going to be included in a response to RDAP or RDDS - Council decided to ask staff to provide more extensive background information for Council's better understanding. Thanks for reading / considering. Justine Chew ALAC Liaison to the GNSO GNSO Liaison Report Workspace <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/GNSO+Liaison+Report%2C+post-Oct+...> On Tue, 10 Dec 2024 at 11:20, Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear all,
Just a note to inform you that the agenda for the GNSO Council meeting 19 December 2024 is out.
For a curated version of the highlighted agenda items, please visit this link <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/GNSO+Liaison+Report%2C+post-Oct+...> .
*GNSO Council Meeting #12 of 2024 held on 19 Dec 2024 <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/GNSO+Liaison+Report%2C+post-Oct+2021#Dec2024-Agenda_Dec2024>*
*Full Agenda <https://community.icann.org/x/E4DyEg> | Documents <https://community.icann.org/x/CICeFw> | Motions <https://community.icann.org/x/BoCeFw>*
- *Item 1: Administrative Matters* - Item 2: Opening Remarks / Review of Projects List <https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/project> and Action Item List. <https://community.icann.org/x/RgZlAg> - Item 3: Consent Agenda - GNSO Review of the GAC Communiqué -
Recommendations Report for the Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP) on Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) Phase 2 - Confirmation of GNSO Empowered Community Representative (Tomslin Samme-NIar) - Item 4: COUNCIL VOTE - Empowered Community Approval Action on Fundamental Bylaws Amendments to Article 4 Accountability and Review, 4.2 Reconsideration - *Item 5: COUNCIL VOTE - Charter for Policy Development Process on Latin Script Diacritics* - *Item 6: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - EPDP Temporary Specification Phase 1, Recommendation 18 - Urgent Requests* - *Item 7: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Request for Guidance from the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures / IDNs EPDP Phase 1 IRT* - Item 8: COUNCIL UPDATE: EPDP Temporary Specification Phase 1 - Billing Contact - Item 9: COUNCIL UPDATE - 2025 Council Strategic Planning Session (SPS) - *Item 10: DISCUSSION ITEM - Request for Guidance from the Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP IRT on the Scope of Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) Recommendation 1 * - Item 11: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - GNSO Council PR Officer Update -
Item 12: Any Other Business - 12.1 - GNSO Liaison to the GAC update - 12.2 - ICANN82 - funded travel emails were sent out, please action as past deadline
This Council meeting will take place on 19 December at 19:00 - 21:00 UTC and is open to observers remotely in listen-only mode via Zoom. If you would like to observe the meeting, please check this link <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/GNSO+Liaison+Report%2C+post-Oct+...> for details.
Thanks for reading / considering.
Justine Chew ALAC Liaison to the GNSO GNSO Liaison Report Workspace <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/GNSO+Liaison+Report%2C+post-Oct+...> ------