Olivier, Although I do not disagree with your overall message, I do note that you have several references to the Board not following ALAC Advice. The Board is not bound to follow ALAC Advice, but they are bound to consider it and explain why they are not following it in a timely manner.

Specifically, as per ICANN Bylaws 12.3 "The Board will respond in a timely manner to formal advice from all Advisory Committees explaining what action it took and the rationale for doing so.". This bylaw clause was added in response to efforts made by you and me (and others) on ATRT2.

Alan

On Sat, May 16, 2026 at 1:11 PM Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:

Dear Justine,

thank you for your follow-up and for forwarding full details of the sessions.

You mention that the ALAC, "sadly, aren't at the table at panelist".

If you don't ask, you don't get. 

What I mean is that there's still time to tell the GAC Chair that domain registration data accuracy is a *Key Issue* for end users and for the ALAC to ask a seat at the table.

We cannot defer, be sidelined and feel "sad" about not being at the table, or express regret of not being at the table - moreso, "informally express regret"! What are we at, the ALAC's funeral?

Kindest regards,

Olivier

On 16/05/2026 04:37, Justine Chew wrote:

Dear Olivier,

Please allow me to rephrase - I meant to say, as it stands, I do not see that we have an active role in either meetings, but still we should still pay attention to both.

As for the GAC-Board-GNSO trilateral meeting, it is an open session so although we, sadly, aren't at the table at panelist, some of us can still attend the meeting, noting that, again sadly, it clashes with the CPWG meeting.

ICANN86 - GAC Discussion on Registration Data Issues and GAC/ICANN Board/GNSO Trilateral Dialogue
11:45 CEST (UTC+2), 9 June 2026
09:45 UTC, 9 June 2026
FIBES 1 - Pabellon 3C (GAC)
ID# 18273
 
Session Details
11:45-12:30 - GAC Discussion on Registration Data. This session aims to discuss status and consider possible next steps for the GAC in relation to the WHOIS/Registration Data policy framework, taking into account relevant Data Protection law. The GAC will discuss latest developments and related policy concerns, in connection with:

• Status and next steps regarding the ongoing development of law enforcement requestor authentication mechanisms to enable implementation of the 24-hour timeline for Contracted Parties to respond to Urgent Requests for disclosure of registration data;
• Modification of the GNSO policy recommendations for a System for Standardized Access/Disclosure (SSAD) adopted in 2021 to reflect lessons learned and Community input from operations of the Registration Data Request Service (RDRS) to date;
• Expected progress of the implementation of the Privacy/Proxy Services Accreditation Policy Recommendations (PPSA) in the coming year.

12:30-13:15 - Trilateral Dialogue with ICANN Board. The GAC Chair requested the convening of trilateral dialogue between the GAC, the ICANN Board and the GNSO to address domain registration data accuracy, and specifically to address the gap between a domain’s registration and the point at which a registrar may validate the registrant’s contact information (also referred to as the “15-day timeline for registrars to validate and verify registrants contact information” in the ICANN85 Communiqué).

Kind regards,
Justine

On Sat, 16 May 2026 at 07:27, Alan Greenberg <greenberg.alan@gmail.com> wrote:

I am delighted by both of these efforts. That being said, I am disappointed that the GAC did not include us in the "trilateral" meeting. We may wish to (informally) express that regret to the GAC Chair.

I may not be available due to NomCom meetings, but we should to the degree possible at least be observers in these meetings if that will be allowed.

Alan

On Thu, May 14, 2026 at 3:52 AM Justine Chew via ALAC <alac@icann.org> wrote:

Dear ALAC colleagues,

Please find attached FYI, 2 letters from the GAC Chair to the GNSO Chair, and the GAC Chair to the Board Chair and GNSO Chair, respectively.

In brief, both have to do with the topic of RDA (domain registration data accuracy)
1. The first letter is about a pre-ICANN86 GAC Webinar to discuss with GNSO the 15-day timeline for registrars to validate and verify registrants contact information; and
2. The second letter is the GAC Chair's request to re-convene a GAC-Board-GNSO trilateral dialogue to address RDA during ICANN86, and to discuss policy prioritization in the longer term. 

We do not believe we have an active role in either meeting, but should, if possible, pay attention to both.

Kind regards,
Justine

------
Justine Chew
At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) Liaison to the GNSO
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
At-Large website: https://atlarge.icann.org/

------

_______________________________________________
ALAC mailing list -- alac@icann.org
To unsubscribe send an email to alac-leave@icann.org

At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
_______________________________________________
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.