Resending with the corrected email subject header. Apologies for any confusion caused.

Kind regards,
Justine



On Tue, 18 Mar 2025 at 13:28, Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear all,


With the migration of the wiki to a new platform, I am no longer able to provide exact shortcut links. Instead you will need to navigate within my March 2025 entry using this link (hopefully!) within the ALAC Liaison to the GNSO workspace.


For your convenience, I am replicating my summary report on key issues discussed at the GNSO Council meeting of 12 March 2025 for your attention or information, below.


Special Summary Report of 12 Mar 2025 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 Mar 2025 Matters of Interest and/or from GNSO Council Mar 2025 Meeting Records.

1. Consent Agenda

  • Manju Chen and Ajith Francis were confirmed as Chair and Vice-Chair, respectively, of the GNSO Standing Committee on Continuous Improvement (SCCI) 
  • Acknowledgment of the appointment of Greg DiBiase to seat 13 on the ICANN Board.

2. Transfer Policy Review ("TPR")

  • The TPR PDP WG which Council initiated on 18 Feb 2021 to review the  Transfer Policy, the policy that governs the process of transferring a domain name from one registrar to another, was tasked to determine if changes to the policy are  needed to improve the ease, security, and efficacy of inter-registrar and inter-registrant transfers. 
  • The WG commenced work and on 21 June 2022, the WG published its Initial Report on Phase 1(a) of its work. 

  • On 1 August 2024, the WG published its consolidated Initial Report, which included responses to all of its charter questions. On 31 January 2025, the Transfer Policy Review Working Group reached Full Consensus on all of the forty-seven (47) final policy recommendations within its Final Report.

  • On 5 February 2025, the WG submitted its Final Report to Council for its consideration and review which Council has now approved, and recommends that the ICANN Board adopt, all forty-seven (47) final recommendations.

3. Registration Data Accuracy (RDA)

  • During Council’s July 2024 meeting, it was agreed that restarting the Scoping Team at this time is not recommended. However, during the August meeting, some Councilors suggested potentially convening a small team to discuss how to make progress on this topic. 
  • Council Leadership distributed a proposal of how to solicit additional feedback from ICANN org and GNSO groups with directed questions, in order to receive information from which Council can decide how to handle the important topic of accuracy. Following full Council review and feedback, the Council distributed these questions to Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees. 
  • Council received input on Assignment on Data Accuracy proposal from ICANN org, RySG, RrSG, NCSG, IPC, ISPCP, BC, ALAC, GAC.
  • Separately, Council Leadership sent a communication re: RDS-WHOIS2 Recommendation CC.1 from 2020. This recommendation deals with the accuracy of RDS data, particularly names suspended due to inaccurate data. The recommendation essentially recommends that registrars note in the RDS record that the name is suspended due to incorrect data and also recommends the name should not be “unsuspended” until the data is corrected. As this recommendation also falls under the topic of accuracy, Leadership noted that folding Recommendation CC.1 into the broader discussion of accuracy (when that takes place) may make sense. 
  • After discussing the feedback received and noting divergence, Council resolved to constitute a small team to determine next steps for making progress on registration data accuracy.

4. EPDP Phase 1 on the Temporary Specification - Implementation Question re: Billing Contact

  • Council continued its deliberation on the questions of:

    • Does Council confirm billing contact was in scope for the EPDP on the Temp Spec - Phase 1 Team? 

    • Does Council confirm:

      • the collection of billing contacts by registrars should continue to be required as per current RAA requirements because EPDP Phase 1, by being silent on this, did not mean to change this requirement, OR

      • the collection of billing contacts by registrars should become optional because EPDP Phase 1, by being silent on this, meant to change the RAA requirement?

  • Although discussion did not result in a clear conclusion, it did suggest compromise as a way forward, which will be acted upon in Council's April meeting.

5. Urgent Requests for Registration Data

  • ICANN org convened an Implementation Review Team to assist ICANN in implementing the EPDP on the Temporary Specification Phase 1 Final Report, 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 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].”
  • On 3 June 2024, the Board wrote to Council, noting concerns with the proposed urgent request timeline of business days as not fit for purpose, as truly urgent requests should be responded to within minutes or hours rather than business days. Recognizing this, the Board also noted there is no universal mechanism for registrars to authenticate law enforcement entities.  Council responded on 29 August 2024, agreeing with the Board’s concerns and suggesting a trilateral meeting between the Board,  Council, and GAC to discuss a potential path forward in light of the concerns. 
  • A trilateral meeting was held on 4 November 2024 and the Board, GAC, and GNSO Council discussed next steps, including potentially resuming discussions with the IRT. The Council discussed this issue in detail during its meeting on 19 December 2024 and responded to the GAC on 15 January 2025. A second trilateral meeting was held on 12 February 2025. 
  • Council continues to discuss this issue with the GAC and the Board on the following understanding:-
    • The GAC supports the PSWG's in developing an aggregated mechanism to accredit Law Enforcement Agency (LEA) personnel requesting for registration data in order to minimize time otherwise spent by registrar in confirming the identity of LEA requestors.
    • Registrars still require reasonable time to study requests for registration data and retain discretion to respond accordingly.
    • Parties to work on response timeline for urgent requests (those under the circumstances of immediate harm or threat to life etc) made by accredited requestors. 

Thanks for reading / considering.

Justine Chew
ALAC Liaison to the GNSO 

On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 at 15:27, Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear all,

Please find following the agenda for the GNSO Council's 12 March 2025 meeting during ICANN82. 

Owing to the ongoing migration work for the ICANN wiki, I am unable to point to the relevant wiki page per my usual practice. Instead, I am including highlights within this email.

GNSO Council Meeting #3 of 2025 held on 12 Mar 2025 
  • Item 1: Administrative Matters
    • Minutes of the GNSO Council Meeting on 09 January 2025 were posted on 26 January 2025.
    • Minutes of the GNSO Council Meeting on 13 February 2025 will be posted on 03 March 2025
  • Item 2: Opening Remarks / Review of Projects  Action List
    • 2.1 - Review focus areas and provide updates on specific key themes / topics, to include review of Projects List and  Action Item List    
  • Item 3: Consent Agenda
    • Confirm the GNSO Standing Committee on Continuous Improvement (SCCI) Leadership Team
    • Acknowledgment of the appointment of Greg DiBiase to seat 13 on the ICANN Board.

  • Item 4: COUNCIL VOTE - Final Report from the Transfer Policy Review (“TPR”) Policy Development Process (“PDP”) Working Group
    • The TPR PDP WG which Council initiated on 18 Feb 2021 to review the  Transfer Policy, the policy that governs the process of transferring a domain name from one registrar to another, was tasked to determine if changes to the policy are  needed to improve the ease, security, and efficacy of inter-registrar and inter-registrant transfers. 
    • Having started work in May 2021, the TPR PDP WG delivered a  comprehensive Initial Report, which it published on 1 August 2024, and delivered its Final Report  to Council in February 2025. 
      • The Initial Report covers all topics in the working group’s charter, including inter-registrar transfers, change of registrant, the Transfer Dispute Resolution Policy, ICANN-approved transfers, and others. 
      • The Final Report contains 47 policy recommendations.
      • The TPR Working Group introduced a new format to its Initial and Final Report, where it endeavors to indicate the “Policy Impact Level” of each policy recommendation. The Policy Impact Indicator is a new feature to help the reader understand the degree of change being proposed by the Working Group, i.e., how much does this recommendation differ from the current Transfer Policy? 
    • Council will vote on the Final Report (voting threshold: supermajority)

  • Item 5: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Next Steps for Registration Data Accuracy 
    • During Council’s July 2024 meeting, it was agreed that restarting the Scoping Team at this time is not recommended. However, during the August meeting, some Councilors suggested potentially convening a small team to discuss how to make progress on this topic. 
    • Council Leadership distributed a proposal of how to solicit additional feedback from ICANN org and GNSO groups with directed questions, in order to receive information from which Council can decide how to handle the important topic of accuracy. Following full Council review and feedback, the Council distributed these questions to Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees. 
    • Council received feedback from the following groups: ALAC, BC, GAC, IPC, ISPCP, NCSG, RrSG, and RySG.
    • Separately, Council Leadership sent a communication re: RDS-WHOIS2 Recommendation CC.1 from 2020. This recommendation deals with the accuracy of RDS data, particularly names suspended due to inaccurate data. The recommendation essentially recommends that registrars note in the RDS record that the name is suspended due to incorrect data and also recommends the name should not be “unsuspended” until the data is corrected. As this recommendation also falls under the topic of accuracy, Leadership noted that folding Recommendation CC.1 into the broader discussion of accuracy (when that takes place) may make sense. 
    • Council will discuss the feedback received and determine next steps for making progress on registration data accuracy.

  • Item 6: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - EPDP Phase 1 on the Temporary Specification - Implementation Question re: Billing Contact
    • During the ICANN81 GNSO Council Wrap-Up, Thomas Rickert provided an update regarding the implementation of EPDP Temp Spec Phase 1 recommendations. Thomas is the current GNSO Council Liaison to the EPDP Temp Spec Phase 1 Implementation Review Team (IRT). Thomas noted that the IRT expressed the view that the absence of a reference to billing contact data was a drafting error, and the EPDP Team intended for the collection of billing contact data to be optional and not mandatory.
    • The Registration Data Policy was published on 21 February 2024, and the policy has an effective date of 21 August 2025. The EPDP Phase 1 policy recommendations do not reference billing contact data, and the Registration Data Policy also makes no reference to billing contact data.
    • In the interest of transparency, Thomas requested that all Councilors consult with their respective groups to ensure that others are properly informed and agree with the interpretation raised by the IRT. Accordingly, Councilors were asked to consult with their groups. Council discussed this topic during its meeting on 19 December 2024 and asked for additional background information on the topic. 

    • During its February meeting, the Council considered the questions below:

    1. Does the Council confirm billing contact was in scope for the EPDP on the Temp Spec - Phase 1 Team? 
    2. Does the Council confirm:
a.  the collection of billing contacts by registrars should continue to be required as per current RAA requirements because EPDP Phase 1, by being silent on this, did not mean to change this requirement, OR
b. the collection of billing contacts by registrars should become optional because EPDP Phase 1, by being silent on this, meant to change the RAA requirement?
    • Council will continue discussing at ICANN82 options for resolving this Billing Contact question.

  • Item 7: COUNCIL DISCUSSION: Update on Trilateral Meeting on Urgent Requests 
    • ICANN org convened an Implementation Review Team to assist ICANN in implementing the EPDP on the Temporary Specification Phase 1 Final Report, 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 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].”
    • On 3 June 2024, the Board wrote to Council, noting concerns with the proposed urgent request timeline of business days as not fit for purpose, as truly urgent requests should be responded to within minutes or hours rather than business days. Recognizing this, the Board also noted there is no universal mechanism for registrars to authenticate law enforcement entities.  Council responded on 29 August 2024, agreeing with the Board’s concerns and suggesting a trilateral meeting between the Board,  Council, and GAC to discuss a potential path forward in light of the concerns. 
    • A trilateral meeting was held on 4 November 2024 and the Board, GAC, and GNSO Council discussed next steps, including potentially resuming discussions with the IRT. The Council discussed this issue in detail during its meeting on 19 December 2024 and responded to the GAC on 15 January 2025. A second trilateral meeting was held on 12 February 2025. 
    • Council will hear an update from that trilateral meeting and discuss next steps.

  • Item 8: COUNCIL DISCUSSION: Outcomes of Strategic Planning Session

  • Item 9: Any Other Business 

    • 9.1 - GNSO Chair Election Timeline Announcement
    • 9.2 - Update from the GNSO Informal Internet Governance Tracking Group\
    • 9.3 - Accuracy Scoping Deferral Expiration
    • 9.4 - Open Mic

This Council meeting will take place on 12 March at 20:15 UTC: https://tinyurl.com/ym7f48uc for 2 hours and is open to observers either in-person ICANN registered participants, or remotely in listen-only mode via Zoom (except for the Open Mic session). Please check https://icann82.sched.com/event/1vpbt/gnso-council-meeting for the designated meeting room and the Zoom room link. The Zoom room link will only be published 24 hours prior to the meeting.


Thanks for reading / considering.

Justine Chew
ALAC Liaison to the GNSO