- Bc-gnso - lists.icann.org

Agenda for GNSO Council Meeting | Wednesday, 15 March 2023
by Steve DelBianco March 4, 2023

March 4, 2023

Please find below the final proposed agenda for the GNSO Council Meeting on 15 March 2023. Please note that all documents referenced in the agenda have been gathered on a Wiki page for convenience and easier access: https://community.icann.org/x/2QGjDQ GNSO Council meeting on Wednesday, 15 March at 18:15 UTC: https://tinyurl.com/y4naum35. (Wednesday) 11:15 Los Angeles; 14:15 Washington DC; 18:15 London; 19:15 Paris; 21:15 Moscow; (Thursday) 05:15 Melbourne GNSO Council Meeting Remote Participation: [Published 24 hours prior to meeting] Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if they will not be able to attend and/or need a dial out call. ___________________________________ Item 1: Administrative Matters (10 minutes) 1.1 - Roll Call 1.2 - Updates to Statements of Interest 1.3 - Review / Amend Agenda 1.4 - Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meetings per the GNSO Operating Procedures: Minutes<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2023/minutes/minutes-gnso…> of the GNSO Council meeting on 19 January 2023 were posted on 02 February 2023. Minutes<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2023/minutes/minutes-gnso…> of the GNSO Council meeting on 16 February 2023 were posted on 02 March 2023. Item 2: Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List (5 minutes) 2.1 - Review focus areas and provide updates on specific key themes / topics, to include 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 (5 minutes) TBD Item 4: COUNCIL VOTE - Adoption of the Council Committee for Overseeing and Implementing Continuous Improvement (CCOICI) Working Group Self-Assessment (WGSA) Recommendations Report (10 Minutes) The GNSO Council initiated<https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions/2020-current#202106> the GNSO Framework for Continuous Improvement Pilot Project on 16 June 2021, and, as part of this Framework, the Council established the Committee for Overseeing and Implementing Continuous Improvement (CCOICI). As part of the pilot, the CCOICI was tasked<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=170787421> to consider if/how the GNSO WG Self-Assessment could be improved and possibly enhanced with a periodic assessment and an exit interview, with the goal of giving interested parties an opportunity to help identify potential issues and potential future improvements the GNSO Council could consider. The CCOICI started the Working Group Self-Assessment assignment in October 2021 and concluded its work on this assignment in February 2022. However, the CCOICI deferred conducting the public comment until it could be combined with recommendations related to the GNSO Statement of Interest (SOI). The consolidated public comment proceeding<https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/updates-to-the-gnso-stat…> on Proposed Updates to the GNSO Operating Procedures was initiated on 09 September 2022 and closed on 14 November 2022. The CCOICI integrated public comments received as appropriate and submitted its Recommendations Report<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2023/correspondence/chen-…> to the Council on 5 January 2023. Here, the Council will vote to adopt the Working Group Self-Assessment (WGSA) Recommendations Report. 4.1 – Presentation of motion - (Manju Chen, Chair, Committee for Overseeing and Implementing Continuous Improvement (CCOICI)) 4.2 – Council discussion 4.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority) Item 5: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Next Steps for Consideration of Expired Domain Deletion Policy (“EDDP”) and Expired Registration Recovery Policy (“ERRP”) (15 minutes) The GNSO Council previously considered when to request a Policy Status Report (“PSR”) for the purpose of conducting a review of the two Expiration Policies, the EDDP and the 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. As 24 months have now passed, the Council is reconsidering whether now is an appropriate time to request a Policy Status Report. To that end, in July 2022, the 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. ICANN org shared a report<https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2022-November/026164.html> from Contractual Compliance colleagues on 1 November 2022, and GNSO Councilors from the Registrar Stakeholder Group shared feedback from registrars on previous Council calls. During its meeting on 17 November 2022<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Final+Proposed+Agen…>, representatives from ICANN org’s Contractual Compliance Team provided a briefing of the report<https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2022-November/026164.html>, and the Council briefly considered potential next steps. Following the meeting, Nacho Amodoz, Greg DiBiase, and Susan Payne volunteered to closely review the report<https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2022-November/026164.html> from ICANN org and determine if any of the issues raised warrant a PSR request. Here, the Council will receive an update on the small team’s recommendation. 5.1 – Introduction of topic (Greg DiBiase, GNSO Council Vice-Chair) 5.2 – Council discussion 5.3 - Next steps Item 6: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Review GNSO-owned projects that may impact SubPro timeline (10 minutes) During the Council’s Strategic Planning Session (SPS), a recurring theme emerged. The Council emphasized it should take care to ensure that any SubPro related work within its control should be carefully managed for timely delivery. The Council does not want its work to serve as an impediment to the timely implementation and launch of the next round of new gTLDs. In order to address this recurring theme, the Council agreed that it would like to receive frequent updates on the work that is connected to the next round of new gTLDs. Those projects include: 1. IDNs EPDP Phase 1 (top-level charter questions) 2. GNSO Guidance Process on Applicant Support 3. Closed Generics Facilitated Discussion 4. Yet to be formed Small Team to review SubPro recommendations likely pending Board action. Here, the Council will receive a brief update on the above-referenced projects. 6.1 – Introduction of topic (Steve Chan) 6.2 – Council discussion 6.3 – Next steps Item 7: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Continuation of Informal GNSO Council SubPro Discussion (20 minutes) On 12 September 2021 the ICANN Board directed<https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2021-09-12-en#1.a> the ICANN President and CEO to organize the resources required to begin work on the Operational Design Phase (ODP) for the GNSO’s New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Final Report<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/final-rep…> and the Affirmations, Recommendations, and Implementation Guidance contained in that report. On 20 December 2021, ICANN org announced<https://www.icann.org/en/announcements/details/icann-launches-new-gtld-subs…> that the SubPro ODP had formally launched, starting at the beginning of January 2022. The ODP Team has shared numerous updates to the community and sent several sets of assumptions/questions to the GNSO Council via the Council’s liaison to the ODP. While ICANN org published the SubPro Operational Design Assessment (ODA) on 12 December, the Council received a briefing during a webinar on 7 December. The Council formed a small team to review the ODA in detail and provided its input<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/ducos-to-sinha-20jan23…> to the ICANN Board on 20 January, in advance of the Board's workshop in January 2023. As discussed in the Chair's blog<https://www.icann.org/en/blogs/details/chairs-blog-recap-of-the-january-boa…>, the ICANN Board spent a full day reviewing the SubPro Outputs and ODA. On 28 February 2023, the Council and ICANN Board had a joint meeting<https://icann.zoom.us/rec/play/7rCLjaxCWtoD3dTl87DnB9A1WO-dHO5NFMqTOzmaxNAL…> on SubPro, and the Council had a follow-up informal discussion on 7 March 2023. Here, the Council will discuss the joint meeting with the Board and the informal discussion, and consider appropriate next steps. 7.1 – Introduction of topic (Sebastien Ducos) 7.2 – Council discussion 7.3 – Next steps Item 8: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Whois Disclosure System Next Steps (15 minutes) ICANN org published the Whois Disclosure System design paper<https://archive.icann.org/meetings/icann75/files/content=t_attachment,f_%22…> in September 2022 and presented it to the GNSO Council and the EPDP Phase 2 Small Team during ICANN75<https://archive.icann.org/meetings/icann75/meetings/wmhLk2gj2Dm6PQaz2.html>. The small team subsequently reviewed the design paper and continued its consultations with ICANN org, resulting in an addendum<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2022/correspondence/ducos…> to its preliminary report. The GNSO Council accepted the addendum and communicated to the ICANN Board its support for the request that the ICANN Board proceed with the implementation of the Whois Disclosure System, provided that the updates identified by the small team in the addendum are made. On 27 February 2023, the Board directed<https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-r…> ICANN org to develop and launch the Whois Disclosure System (System) as requested by the GNSO Council within 11 months from 27 February 2023. The Board also directed ICANN org to operate the System for up to two years from the date of launch, and collect and report on usage data. Furthermore, the ICANN Board has urged “the GNSO Council to consider a Policy Development Process or other means to require registrars to use the System”. During ICANN76, on 11 March 2023, the EPDP Phase 2 Small Team will meet with ICANN org to receive an update the status of implementation of the Whois Disclosure System and continue its consideration of some of the aspects identified as requiring further discussion in the addendum. In addition to receiving an update from the Small Team on its meeting with ICANN org, the Council will consider if/how the instructions to the Small Team should be updated to reflect the Council’s expectations of the Small Team during the implementation phase as well as post-implementation, in addition to the ask from the Board to consider a Policy Development Process or other means to require registrars to use the System. 8.1 Introduction of topic (Greg DiBiase) 8.2 Council Discussion 8.3 Next Steps Item 9: ANY OTHER BUSINESS (10 minutes) 9.1 GNSO Chair Election Timeline Announcement 9.2 Policy Status Report on Policy and Implementation Working Group Final Recommendations Report<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/filefield_47703/policy-implement…>

1 0

FILED: BC comment on implementing EPDP policy for registration data
by Steve DelBianco Dec. 5, 2022

Dec. 5, 2022

BC members, Attached (and here<https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/registration-data-consen…>) is the BC response to ICANN’s new Draft policy for gTLD Registration data. This is a major piece of work, and we owe a big thanks to drafters Margie Milam, David Snead, and Alex Deacon. This policy is to implement recommendations from EPDP Phase 1 recommendations<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/epdp-gtld…>, Phase 2 Priority 2 recommendations<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/epdp-phas…>, and Phase 1 GNSO Council Supplemental Rec 12 adopted<https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2022-02-24-en#2.b> by ICANN Board. The BC previously commented on these recommendations here<https://cbu.memberclicks.net/assets/docs/positions-statements/2022/2022_01J…>, here<https://cbu.memberclicks.net/assets/docs/positions-statements/2021/2021_09S…>, and here<https://www.icannbc.org/assets/docs/positions-statements/2019/2019_04April_…>. Thanks again to Margie, David, and Alex.

1 0

FILED: BC comment on charter for NPOC (Not-for-Profit Operational Concerns)
by Steve DelBianco Nov. 14, 2022

Nov. 14, 2022

Today we filed our commen<https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/not-for-profit-operation…>t on the NPOC charter amendments. Thanks again to Arinola and Samuel. From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org> Date: Friday, October 21, 2022 at 1:20 PM To: BC Private <bc-private(a)icann.org> Cc: Arinola Akinyemi (jolakin69(a)gmail.com) <jolakin69(a)gmail.com>, Samuel Dada <po(a)aficta.africa> Subject: FOR REVIEW by 12-Nov: BC comment on charter for NPOC (Not-for-Profit Operational Concerns) BC members, Thanks to Arinola and Samuel for drafting the attached BC comment on Amendments to charter<https://itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/generic-names-supporting-organization-co…> for the NCSG constituency of Not-for-Profit Operational Concerns (link<https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/not-for-profit-operation…>). The BC has long supported the NPOC having more say in the NCSG, since non-profit domain registrants are concerned about the same things as business registrants (security, preventing DNS abuse and fraud, registrant information, etc.). So we’d want to support amendments that give NPOC more legitimacy and power in the NCSG. Also, I understand that NPOC borrowed heavily from our own BC charter<https://www.icannbc.org/charter>. Please review and reply all with edits and questions, before 12-Nov. Thanks again to Arinola and Samuel.

1 0

Caroline's new post on DNS Abuse
by Steve DelBianco Nov. 7, 2022

Nov. 7, 2022

BC members – Based on her coverage of meetings in Kuala Lumpur, Caroline Lupetini posted this blog today: Gone Phishing: Fighting DNS Abuse in the Multistakeholder Community<https://netchoice.org/gone-phishing-fighting-dns-abuse-in-the-multistakehol…> Please take a look, and share it if you like. --Steve

1 0

POSTED: BC comment on Universal Acceptance Roadmap
by Steve DelBianco Oct. 17, 2022

Oct. 17, 2022

Thanks to Vivek Goyal and Olajide Segunfunmi for drafting the BC comment on the Universal Acceptance Roadmap<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/universal-acceptance-roadmap-re…> for Registry and Registrar Systems. The BC comment was filed and is attached.

2 1

ICANN Org webinar on proposed Whois disclosure system
by Steve DelBianco Oct. 6, 2022

Oct. 6, 2022

As discussed on today’s BC call, ICANN Org is holding a webinar on the proposed Whois disclosure system ________________________________ The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) organization (org) will host two webinars on the WHOIS Disclosure System design paper<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/whois-disclosure-system-design-…>. The webinar dates are: Webinar #2: Tuesday, 11 October from 1:00-2:30 UTC ICANN org is hosting these webinars to expand on discussions at the ICANN75 Annual General Meeting and to respond to requests from the community, including from the Registrar Stakeholder Group, to learn more about the proposed design. All are welcome to join this session. The design paper outlines a system that would simplify the process for submitting and receiving requests for nonpublic generic top-level-domain (gTLD) registration data for both requestors and contracted parties. The paper includes assumptions and risks, system mockups, an estimated timeline for implementing the design, and associated costs. It is intended to inform ICANN discussions and Board consideration of the 18 recommendations<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/epdp-phas…> for creating a system for standardized access/disclosure, which were approved by the Generic Names Supporting Organization Council. The Expedited Policy Development Process on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data Phase 2<https://community.icann.org/display/EOTSFGRD> (EPDP Phase 2) team developed the recommendations. Since the publication of the design paper on 13 September, ICANN org has received requests from ICANN's contracted parties interested in understanding how the WHOIS Disclosure System would work, both for registrars who would receive disclosure requests, as well as potential requestors. All interested community members are invited to attend the webinars. Register in advance for the Tuesday, 11 October from 0100-0230 UTC webinar: https://icann.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_2o3LRXTST1eTdWLYKV5dFg If you would like to submit a question for the discussion period ahead of time, please send it to odp-ssad(a)icann.org<mailto:odp-ssad@icann.org>.

1 0

Policy Calendar for 18-Sep-2022 BC Open Meeting in Kuala Lumpur
by Steve DelBianco Sept. 17, 2022

Sept. 17, 2022

Here’s the Policy Calendar for the BC Open meeting in Kuala Lumpur on 18-Sep (also in attachment “policy calendar.pdf”) Channel 1. BC participation in ICANN Public Comment process: On 2-Aug we submitted comment<https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/initial-report-on-the-tr…> on the Initial Report on the Transfer Policy Review - Phase 1(a). <https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/initial-report-on-the-tr…> Thanks to Zak Muscovitch and Arinola Akinyemi for serving on the Transfer Policy Review Working Group<https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/transfer-policy-review>, and thanks to Vivek, Howard Neu, and John Berard for helping draft our comment. Selected ICANN Public Comments<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_public-2…> and other opportunities for the BC to comment: 1. Universal Acceptance Roadmap<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/universal-acceptance-roadmap-re…> for Registry and Registrar Systems (link<https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/universal-acceptance-roa…>). Comments close 17-Oct. Universal Acceptance (UA) is the ability for applications & infrastructure to support internationalized domain names and email addresses (IDN) and TLDs of various lengths and types. The BC has long supported UA initiatives. Thanks to Vivek and Olajide for volunteering to draft a BC comment. 2. Draft Terms of Reference for a Holistic Review of ICANN (link<https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/pilot-holistic-review-dr…>). Comments close 20-Oct. The 3rd Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT3) recommended a new Specific Review, the Holistic Review. It’ll start as a pilot review with implications for community structures and groups. A team finished the draft ToR<https://community.icann.org/display/atrt/Holistic+Review+Pilot+Project?prev…> in Jun-2022 and this proceeding seeks community input. The BC commented on ATRT3<https://www.icannbc.org/assets/docs/positions-statements/2020/2020_07July_3…> in Jul-2020, thanks to Mason Cole and Susan Kawaguchi. We said: “The BC does believe now is a good time to examine the structure of the GNSO, however, with an eye toward making the structure fairer and less subject to capture and veto.” Thanks to Margie Milam for volunteering to draft a BC comment. 3. Proposed amendments to base gTLD Registry Agreement and RAA, to add RDAP obligations (link<https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/proposed-amendments-to-t…>). Comments close 24-Oct. Proposed operational requirements for providing Registration Data Directory Services (RDDS) via Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP), and to phase out obligations to provide RDDS via WHOIS protocols. We need volunteers to draft this BC comment. 4. Proposed updates to GNSO procedures (link<https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/updates-to-the-gnso-stat…>). Comments close 27-Oct. proposed updates: Working Group Self-Assessment; Statement of Interest Procedures. The Council Committee for Overseeing and Implementing Continuous Improvement (CCOICI) worked on this. Thanks to Imran Hossen for volunteering to participate in this Task Force (and hoping Imran will draft a BC comment) 5. Draft policy for gTLD Registration data (link<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/epdp-phas…>). Comments close 31-Oct. This is to implement recommendations from EPDP Phase 1 recommendations<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/epdp-gtld…>, Phase 2 Priority 2 recommendations<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/epdp-phas…>, and Phase 1 GNSO Council Supplemental Rec 12 adopted<https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2022-02-24-en#2.b> by ICANN Board. The BC previously commented on these recommendations here<https://cbu.memberclicks.net/assets/docs/positions-statements/2022/2022_01J…>, here<https://cbu.memberclicks.net/assets/docs/positions-statements/2021/2021_09S…>, and here<https://www.icannbc.org/assets/docs/positions-statements/2019/2019_04April_…>. Thanks to David Snead and Margie Milam for volunteering to draft BC comments 6. Draft IANA and PTI FY24 operating plan and budget (link<https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/draft-iana-and-pti-fy24-…>). Comments close 31-Oct. The BC commented on the FY23 docs<https://cbu.memberclicks.net/assets/docs/positions-statements/2021/2021_10O…> in Oct-2021, thanks to Tim Smith and Lawrence Olawale-Roberts. We need volunteers to draft this year’s BC comment. 7. Initial Report on the Second CSC Effectiveness Review (link<https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/initial-report-on-the-se…>). Comments close 8-Nov. 8. NIS2, followed closely by Andrew Bennett, Nik Lagergren, and Marie Pattullo. On 17-Jun, following a political agreement between the European Parliament and Member States on NIS2, we received the latest version of the agreed-upon text<https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-10193-2022-INIT/x/pdf>. There is still potential for changes to the text before it is officially adopted in European Parliament in Oct or Nov. The BC awaits the adoption of the final text and will advocate for strong transposition with Member States. Channel 2. Support for discussion and votes of our representatives on GNSO Council Marie Pattullo and Mark Datysgeld are our GNSO Councilors. Previous council meeting was 25-Aug. Agenda<https://community.icann.org/x/A4RJD> Transcript<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2022/transcript/transcrip…> Zoom Recording<https://icann.zoom.us/rec/share/kNPTxq_xKpVDxzLwsYeBkyDNK6lMfJWGIZwk4jRn-aO…> Minutes<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2022/minutes/minutes-gnso…> Council approved initiation of GNSO guidance process for subsequent rounds of new gTLDs (SubPro). See updated GGP request<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2022/draft/draft-subpro-g…>. Next Council meeting is 21-Sep at 13:15 Malaysian time. Agenda<https://community.icann.org/x/kIJJD> and Docs<https://community.icann.org/x/kIJJD> incl these items: Item 5: discuss Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team Assignments #1 (Enforcement and Reporting) and #2 (Measurement of Accuracy) Write Up. Also need to find a new team chair . Toba represents the BC on the Registration Data Accuracy WG. Thanks to Olajide for volunteering to join Mason on this scoping team. Accuracy under the current requirements, per the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) and Consensus Policies, is understood as syntactic accuracy of the registration data elements provided by the Registered Name Holder or Account Holder as well as the operational accuracy of either the telephone number or the email address. Item 6: discuss proposed updates to GNSO Operating Procedures: Working Group Self-Assessment; Statement of Interest Procedures. The Council Committee for Overseeing and Implementing Continuous Improvement (CCOICI) worked on this, and thanks to Imran Hossen for volunteering to participate in this Task Force. Item 8: Discuss SSAD Light<https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdpp2-smallteam/attachments/20220406/b…>, now called Whois Disclosure System Steve is on Council small team<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=186779415> on SSAD ODA<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ssad-oda-25jan22-en.pdf>, who last met 6-Sep to review this proposed lightweight “ticketing system” without obligations for use or for disclosure. On 13-Sep ICANN staff released a design paper<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/whois-disclosure-system-design-…> and blog<https://www.icann.org/en/blogs/details/icann-org-publishes-whois-disclosure…>, and presents on Saturday in KL. Highlights: The paper includes assumptions and risks, system mockups ICANN org says development would take nine months; development and two-year maintenance would be $100,000 * It does not include central or governmental accreditation authorities. * It does not include accreditation of the requestors. * It does not include identity verification of requestors. * It does not include an abuse investigator. * It does not include a billing function or any fees to the requestor. * There is no obligation or expectation of automated processing of certain requests by contracted parties. The BC has asked, what are benefits to requestors and registrars, to motivate use of a “voluntary” system? ICANN: requesters get a single place to request –for any Rr, and there are templates to help form your request. No real benefit to Rrs. But if requesters could name registrars who ignore, delay, or always deny, then both would want to use it. We asked: will anyone inside ICANN be tasked with monitoring use of the ticketing system, incl requests that are ignored or universally denied? ICANN replied: the system will have a business owner within the organization and we'll be tracking activity and data, with a scheduled check-in to review the data. our compliance team will be prepared to review complaints that may come in regarding the system. Requestors could always complain to ICANN compliance about requests that are ignored, delayed, or denied. Under the interim policy/Temp Spec, registrars must provide reasonable access to registration data... in response to requests. So, requests sent via this system would be treated just like a request outside the system-if there was a complaint, Compliance would ask the registrar to demonstrate how it is meeting the currently applicable policy requirement. So, if a registrar is ignoring requests sent through this system, there may be grounds for Compliance enforcement action Please also see Steve Crocker’s questions<https://www.edgemoorresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/WHOIS-Disclosur…> submitted last week. Small team will advise Council about responding. If GNSO Council endorses this ticketing system in Oct (and Board approves), ICANN could begin development first half of 2023. Item 9: Update from the Universal Acceptance Steering Group. Expected topics for Council meetings with GAC and ALAC at ICANN75 ALAC has suggested the following topics: · The GNSO Council Small Team on DNS Abuse's work The following are potential topics for the GAC bilateral: · SSAD Light · Subsequent Rounds of New gTLDs · DNS Abuse · Accuracy Other Council activities: 1. DNS Abuse small team. Mark Datysgeld serves as co-lead. The team has a draft work plan<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1yfMsj9cv8YqU…> several phases: outreach to the community, understanding the current landscape of DNS abuse, considering which elements of DNS abuse appear inadequately mitigated AND are in scope for GNSO policy making (if any), making recommendations on next steps to the Council. Discussion of DNS Abuse at ICANN 74: Goran pointed us to DNS Security Facilitation Initiative Technical Study Group (DSFI-TSG)<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=132941525>. See their Final Report<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/176623416/DSFI-TSG-Final-R…>. GAC briefing<https://gac.icann.org/briefing-materials/public/icann74-gac-briefing-sessio…> and slides<https://gac.icann.org/presentations/public/ICANN74%20-%20DNS%20Abuse%20Miti…> presented in their Tue session. 2. Closed Generic gTLDs in the next round. following an invitation from the Board, GNSO and GAC will “formulate a workable framework to identify and handle closed generic applications for the immediate next round of new gTLDs”, and in this dialogue we will be joined by ALAC. Council leadership invited each Stakeholder Group to select a representative for this dialogue. This group is would ideally have a first informal meeting during ICANN 75. Thanks to Tim Smith for offering to do this. The attached document provides the guidance for this appointment. the framework discussion will focus on options other than the two endpoint positions (i.e. no closed generics at all; closed generics without restrictions) as per the Board’s Proposed Parameters for Dialogue the participants will "contribute as independent individuals, bringing their individual experiences and expertise, and not serve as representatives of their respective community organization(s). The participants must commit to focusing on successfully developing a framework for closed generics, even if the end product is inconsistent with the goals or priorities of the participant or the participant's SO/AC/SG/C.” (Council small team report) Channel 3. Supporting discussion/voting on matters before the Commercial Stakeholders Group (CSG) Tim Smith is the CSG Liaison for the BC. CSG ExComm met on August 25 and September 1 to complete planning for meetings during ICANN 75. Xavier Calvez has confirmed to attend the CSG Open meeting on September 20 for an update on Auction Proceeds and Planning Prioritization. Also on the agenda for discussion amongst the membership are the SSAD pilot and Data Accuracy. Also on September 20 is the CSG meeting with the ICANN Board. We will seek an update on the work of the Board DNS Abuse group and their impression of the various DNS abuse initiatives outside of ICANN. We will also seek their input on ODP process and whether they feel it is working. We are still working on how to address the Board topic of “What collaborative actions should the Community, Board and Org be undertaking to further progress achieving our strategic priorities?”. On September 22 CSG is scheduled for a meeting with CPH for which we have asked Goran Marby to attend for about 15 minutes because he had a conflict for the CSG open meeting. We will again ask for his input on auction proceeds and planning at ICANN. The remaining part of the CPH meeting will focus on common interest topics, such as DNS abuse. GNSO Council Chair and Vice Chair elections are on the horizon, and we have reached out to NCSG and CPH to determine their positions and potential nominees for these posts. Upcoming for ICANN 75 (Sep 17-22) Registration<https://events.icann.org/icann75/registration> for ICANN75<https://75.schedule.icann.org/> in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. The comprehensive schedule has been posted <https://75.schedule.icann.org/agenda#/?limit=20&skip=1&sortByFields[0]=star…> BC Membership Meeting - Sunday, 18-Sep at 15:00 MYT time (UTC +8) 07:00-08:00 UTC time CSG Membership Session – Tuesday, 20-Sep 10:30-12:00 MYT (UTC +8) | 02:30-04:00 UTC CSG meeting with ICANN Board – Tuesday, 20-Sep 13:15-14:30 MYT (UTC +8) 05:15-06:30 UTC CPH/CSG Meeting – Thursday, 22-Sep 16:30-17:30 MYT (UTC +8) 08:30-09:30 UTC --

1 0

Policy Calendar for 16-Jun-2022 BC member meeting in The Hague
by Steve DelBianco June 15, 2022

June 15, 2022

Here’s the Policy Calendar for the open BC meeting on 16-Jun in The Hague (also in attachment “policy calendar.pdf”) Channel 1. BC participation in ICANN Public Comment process: On 20-Apr we wrote<mailto:https://cbu.memberclicks.net/assets/docs/positions-statements/2022/2…> to members of the European Parliament and EC on NIS2 Article 23 amendments. Thanks to Drew, Mason, Marie, Claire-Line, and Margie for drafting. On 19-Apr we commented<https://itp.cdn.icann.org/public-comment/proceeding/Policy%20Status%20Repor…> on the Policy Status Report<https://itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/consensus-policy/udrp-policy-status-repo…> for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). Thanks to drafters Andy Abrams, Zak Muscovitch, Marie Pattullo, Vivek Goyal, and John Berard Selected ICANN Public Comments<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_public-2…> and other opportunities for the BC to comment: While there are no open proceedings<https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment#open-public> at this time, Zak advises us that The Transfer Policy Working Group’s Initial Report will be published for Public Comment on June 20, 2022. (details below) The Initial Report will inter alia, make recommendations regarding the ‘Post-Creation Lock’ and the “Change of Registrar’ lock. BC Members who are interested in assisting with the BC’s Comment should advise Steve, Arinola, and Zak. The BC continues to work on advocacy on NIS2 and other regulatory developments with the European Union, led by Drew Bennett. On 3-Mar the BC provided this response<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcbu.membe…> to the EC initiative against counterfeiting<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fec.europa…>. On 20-Apr we wrote<mailto:https://cbu.memberclicks.net/assets/docs/positions-statements/2022/2…> to members of the European Parliament and EC on NIS2 Article 23 amendments. On 3-Jun, the European Parliament, Council and Commission held their final technical meeting on the draft NIS2 Directive and agreed on the final text. On 13-Jun Marie circulated the as-agreed draft NIS2 text (attached excerpt of registration data recitals and articles). Channel 2. Support for discussion and votes of our representatives on GNSO Council Marie Pattullo and Mark Datysgeld are our GNSO Councilors. Previous council meeting was 19-May. Agenda<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Final+Proposed+Agen…>, documents<https://community.icann.org/x/EhF1Cw>, Transcript<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2022/transcript/transcrip…>, Zoom recording<https://icann.zoom.us/rec/share/2PE0dSteXjgWbI2kwI_FHDwhrwzuzVMgyQujhPVlV4E…>. Council approved revised charter<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2022/correspondence/samme…> for GNSO Council Standing Selection Committee<https://community.icann.org/display/GSSC/GNSO+Standing+Selection+Committee+…>, where Arinola represents the BC. Next Council meeting is 15-Jun at 15:15 UTC. Agenda<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Final+Proposed+Agen…> highlights: Item 4: vote on Final Report from EPDP on Specific Curative Rights Protections for IGOs<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/epdp-spec…> (International Governmental Organizations). Jay Chapman represents the BC on this EPDP<https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/specific-crp-igo-epdp>, with help from Zak and Andy Abrams. Jay recommends the BC Councilors approve the final report<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/epdp-spec…>. Item 5: Discuss impact of “SSAD Light<https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdpp2-smallteam/attachments/20220406/b…>” on other work and ICANN Org resources. Steve is on a Council small team<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=186779415> to review SSAD ODA<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ssad-oda-25jan22-en.pdf>. On 24-Feb Steve submitted this response<https://www.icannbc.org/assets/docs/positions-statements/2022/2022_02Februa…>, drawing on Sep-2021 BC/IPC joint minority statement<https://www.bizconst.org/assets/docs/positions-statements/2020/2020_07July_…> on EPDP Phase 2 final report (where BC voted No). Small team recommended a Proof of Concept (PoC) for a centralized Ticketing System. ICANN Org sees 6-week effort to produce a Design Concept paper. Resources needed to produce that document are responsible for other areas of work so this work will delay the timelines by 1.5 months for SubPro ODP, CZDS 3.0, and EBERO and DEA improvements. The small team met on 25-May to consider next steps. (Zoom recording<https://icann.zoom.us/rec/share/WoID0ur3GZKalQ9Og2BF1ha271hro_Q1iaVq9Mx9J3Q…>). Steve brought up idea of emulating .MUSIC approach with Cyprus DPA, but Michael Palage responded that it is still too soon to know if his technical proposal and privacy impact assessment will be “approved” by the DPA. See Steve’s email note about Monday’s session on EPDP Phase 2 SSAD<https://74.schedule.icann.org/meetings/EsEMmLrkif6b52rJB#/?limit=10&sortByF…>. (Zoom Webinar Archive<https://icann.zoom.us/rec/share/UwNc0c-wTV-vVgopDzIzh2zFXJKOFJzb9UiKhr2QvL7…>): Org says they won’t retain requestor information for tickets CPH said they don’t want a centralized system if they have individual GDPR liability. No appreciation for implications of NIS2 Item 6: discuss subsequent rounds of new gTLDs (SupPro) Potential initiation request for a GGP<https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2022-May/025646.html> (GNSO guidance process) prior to starting implementation. Item 7: discuss subsequent rounds of new gTLDs (SupPro) Update, Question set #4<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1EQDDfNprHYWW…>. Item 8: discussion with Closed Generics Small Team Regarding the proposed Board framework<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2022/correspondence/gnso-…>, Council drafted an assignment form for Small Team<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/178587048/Small%20Team%20A…>. The small team provided<https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2022-June/025735.html> its recommendations<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2022/correspondence/gnso-…> to the Council on 11 June 2022. Item 9: discuss GNSO PDP improvements, per a staff discussion paper<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2022/draft/draft-gnso-pdp…>. Council will preview potential GNSO PDP Improvements tracker.<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2022/draft/draft-pdp-impr…> Other Council activities: 1. Zak Muscovitch and Arinola Akinyemi are on the Transfer Policy Review Working Group<https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/transfer-policy-review> (PDP Charter<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/draft-cha…>). See WG Timeline and Progress<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=164626481&preview=…>. The Transfer Policy Working Group’s Initial Report will be published for Public Comment on June 20, 2022. The Initial Report will inter alia, make recommendations regarding the ‘Post-Creation Lock’ and the “Change of Registrar’ lock. BC Members who are interested in assisting with the BC’s Comment should advise Steve, Arinola, and Zak. The next phase of the Working Group’s has just commenced, and will include a review of one of most important aspects of the Transfer Policy<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/transfer-policy-2016-06-01-en>, namely the ‘Change of Registrant’ lock. Currently the Transfer Policy contains the following convoluted provision regarding Change of Registrant locks: The Registrar must impose a 60-day inter-registrar transfer lock4<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/transfer-policy-2016-06-01-en#foot4> following a Change of Registrant, provided, however, that the Registrar may allow the Registered Name Holder to opt out of the 60-day inter-registrar transfer lock prior to any Change of Registrant request. When BC members previously discussed transfer locks on a dedicated call on March 31, 2022, BC members agreed on the following position regarding ‘Change of Registrant’ locks, which was subsequently shared with the Working Group: “Change of Registrant Lock The default rule should be a transfer lock following a change of registrant. However, a registrar should be required in a transparent manner, to enable a registrant, upon request to opt-out of the transfer lock or to reduce the transfer lock, rather then leave it to each registrar to decide whether they will generally permit opt-outs. Nevertheless, each registrar should retain discretion as to whether to permit a transfer even if the registrant has ostensibly opted out, for security reasons. A transfer lock should not prevent registrants and businesses from effecting bona fide transfers when necessary or desirable. There should be a fact-based rationale for the determination of the length of the default transfer lock, whether it is 60 or 30 days, for example.” 2. The Council Committee for Overseeing and Implementing Continuous Improvement (CCOICI) completed its assignment for the Task Force to review the existing Statement of Interest (SOI) requirements (see chapter 6 of the GNSO Operating Procedures [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/…>). Thanks to Susan Kawaguchi and Imran Hossen for volunteering to participate in this Task Force. 3. DNS Abuse small team. Mark Datysgeld serves as co-lead. The team has a draft work plan<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1yfMsj9cv8YqU…> several phases: outreach to the community, understanding the current landscape of DNS abuse, considering which elements of DNS abuse appear inadequately mitigated AND are in scope for GNSO policy making (if any), making recommendations on next steps to the Council. Lots of discussion of DNS Abuse at ICANN 74: Goran pointed us to DNS Security Facilitation Initiative Technical Study Group (DSFI-TSG)<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=132941525>. See their Final Report<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/176623416/DSFI-TSG-Final-R…> GAC briefing<https://gac.icann.org/briefing-materials/public/icann74-gac-briefing-sessio…> and slides<https://gac.icann.org/presentations/public/ICANN74%20-%20DNS%20Abuse%20Miti…> presented in their Tue session. 4. Steve represents the BC on a Council small team to review staff paper Modifying Consensus Policies<https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2021-October/025106.html>. The staff Discussion Draft<https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20211025/d6317a45/Discus…> suggests 6 ways to change GNSO procedures regarding existing policies. Calls on 14-Dec & 10-Jan focused on process for approving recommended changes to PDP Manual & templates, ODP, and implementation guidelines. We sent this letter<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lcqm-c9D0o3CIzWFkoZ0Eg4KCM666jds/edit> to Org and board. Held a call on 4-May-2022, where Steve suggested that Org staff could easily implement the 6 suggested improvements to PDP templates and processes (pages 10-14 here<mailto:https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/mo…>) 5. Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team Update Susan Kawaguchi and Toba represent the BC on the Registration Data Accuracy WG. Accuracy under the current requirements, as spelled out in the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) as well as Consensus Policies, is understood as syntactic accuracy of the registration data elements provided by the Registered Name Holder or Account Holder as well as the operational accuracy of either the telephone number or the email address. 6. Implementation Review Team for Registration data EPDP Phase 1 (Alex Deacon) After 3 years of work the EPDP Phase 1 IRT team has finally set a date of Aug- 2022 to publish the Phase 1 implementation specification (called the "OneDoc"). However this work is dependent on getting several data processing agreements (required by the approved policy) that ICANN org must "negotiate and enter into" with CPs, DRPs and Escrow providers. These negotiations have been ongoing for 2 years, including face to face discussions here in The Hague, and neither ICANN nor the CPs can say when (or even if) they will complete. It will be important that we understand the impact the lack of DPAs will have on the implementation of the Phase 1 policy (and whois in general). Assuming the IRT does publish its work for public comment in August, the BC will need to spin up a comment team. Alex is willing to lead the effort, but it will be important to form a deep bench of BC members to review, understand and draft our comments to the numerous IRT documents, including the many updates to existing consensus policy docs in the forms of "red lines". Channel 3. Supporting discussion/voting on matters before the Commercial Stakeholders Group (CSG) Tim Smith is the CSG Liaison for the BC. The Commercial Stakeholders Group is comprised of the Business Constituency, the intellectual Property Constituency and the Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers Constituency. The CSG advocates for issues of common interest. Priorities for 2022 are: * Having Coordinated action with GNSO on areas of common interest * Improving access to registration data * Helping to successfully mitigate DNS abuse CSG Membership last met on May 10. The topics discussed were: * Potential abuse-related RAA amendments * Accuracy scoping project * ICANN prioritization framework * SSAD and the ongoing Board/Council/small team conversations There was no meeting of CSG scheduled during ICANN 74 but we will be setting a date for a post-ICANN meeting in the weeks to come. On June 1, ICANN org provided an update on Planning Prioritization Framework Project Pilot<https://community.icann.org/m/mobile.action#page/192218168> during a Planning and Finance Update webinar<https://74.schedule.icann.org/meetings/eoKAM7x4Rh2bf9z34> during ICANN 74. At that point, and indeed during the Plenary Session: Who Sets ICANN's Priorities?<https://74.schedule.icann.org/meetings/ZP3ZHC242wXKnWRdP#/?limit=10&sortByF…> session on Tuesday, June 14, while the priorities of the outstanding Board Recommendations have been determined, we will not see Org’s assessment of dependencies or financial and staff resources with focus on FY23 for another couple of weeks. Planning for FY24 will commence at end of June and they will obtain input from community to enhance planning going forward.

1 0

Policy Calendar for 8-Mar-2022 Open BC member meeting
by Steve DelBianco March 8, 2022

March 8, 2022

Here’s the Policy Calendar for the open BC meeting on 8-Mar at 18:30 UTC (also in attachment “policy calendar.pdf”) Channel 1. BC participation in ICANN Public Comment process: On 1-Mar we supported<https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/icann-bylaws-amendments-…> the Proposed ICANN bylaws change to let IDN ccTLDs join the ccNSO<https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/icann-bylaws-amendments-…>. On 24-Feb we responded<https://www.icannbc.org/assets/docs/positions-statements/2022/2022_02Februa…> to Board questions about next steps with SSAD Operational Design Analysis (ODA), drafted by Steve. On 7-Feb we filed comment<https://cbu.memberclicks.net/assets/docs/positions-statements/2022/2022_02F…> on the ICANN Draft FY23-27 Operating and Financial Plan and Draft FY23 Operating Plan and Budget<https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/draft-fy23-27-operating-…>. Thanks to Tim Smith, Lawrence, and Jimson. Selected ICANN Public Comments<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_public-2…> and other opportunities for the BC to comment: 1. Name Collision Analysis Project (NCAP) Study<https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/name-collision-analysis-…> has 2 new SSAC documents for comment, by 18-Mar. Goal is to understand the root cause of most name collisions, and the impact of name collisions. A Perspective Study of DNS Queries for Non-Existent Top-Level Domains<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/study-dns-queries-non-existent-…> Case Study of Collision Strings<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/case-study-collision-strings-26…> We commented on NCAP Study 1 back in Mar-2020, thanks to Mark Svancarek and Steve. We need volunteer(s) to comment on these 2 new reports. 2. Policy Status Report: Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). Comments close 19-Apr. This report<https://itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/consensus-policy/udrp-policy-status-repo…> will frame the charter for Phase 2 WG on a PDP to review all ICANN Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs). ICANN seeks comments on: 1. Efficiency: Does UDRP provide trademark holders with a quick / cost-effective way to resolve domain name disputes? 2. Fairness: Does UDRP allow all relevant rights and interests of the parties to be considered and ensure procedural fairness for all concerned parties? 3. Addressing Abuse: Has the UDRP effectively addressed abusive registrations of domain names? We need volunteer(s) to draft comment on this report, drawing on experience using the UDRP. 3. BC advocacy on NIS2 with the European Parliament, led by Drew Bennett. On 3-Mar the BC provided input to the EC initiative against counterfeiting<https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/1…> (attached). Channel 2. Support for discussion and votes of our representatives on GNSO Council Marie Pattullo and Mark Datysgeld are our GNSO Councilors. Previous council meeting was 17-Feb. See Agenda<https://community.icann.org/x/ftEGCw>, Transcript<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2022/transcript/transcrip…>, and Zoom recording<https://icann.zoom.us/rec/share/C1oXBZgMETIrtefWOl1GsAIH7KO1QNqfhTpRmnZycvU…>. No resolutions were adopted, other than an appointment for Fellowship Program. Discussions most relevant to BC included: Pages 39-48 of the Transcript<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2022/transcript/transcrip…> show a discussion of Standardized Access/Disclosure (SSAD). ICANN Org Presentation<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ssad-odp-discussion-gnso-counci…> on 20-Dec. On 4-Jan staff circulated this paper on options to proceed<https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20220104/8ace70e8/EPDPPh…>. On 12-Jan Council organized a webinar<https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2022-January/025322.html> for EPDP Phase 2 members. On 24-Jan the ICANN Board wrote this letter to Council<https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20220125/81d60ddc/2022-0…>, regarding EPDP Phase 2 Next Steps. On 25-Jan ICANN published the Operational Design Assessment (ODA)<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ssad-oda-25jan22-en.pdf>, including this: “ICANN org’s analysis of the EPDP Phase 2 recommendations shows that the recommendations appear to be in the public interest. However, the ICANN Board will have additional considerations before deciding if the recommendations are within the best interests of ICANN and the ICANN community, which could call other aspects of the public interest into question.” On 27-Jan Council met with the Board to discuss ODA Steve represents BC on a Council small team<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=186779415> to review SSAD ODA<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ssad-oda-25jan22-en.pdf>. Our assignment<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/178587048/Small%20Team%20A…> is to respond to the Board’s 24-Jan Letter to Council<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2022/correspondence/botte…>. On 16-Feb, the small team had its second call. Staff compiled questions<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ip89qpS6D8bRWyA_rVFeT1ZCVEO3CQwr/edit> in order to gather input to council and surface any “common threads”. On 24-Feb Steve submitted this response<https://www.icannbc.org/assets/docs/positions-statements/2022/2022_02Februa…>, drawing on Sep-2021 BC/IPC joint minority statement<https://www.bizconst.org/assets/docs/positions-statements/2020/2020_07July_…> on EPDP Phase 2 final report (where BC voted No). Next Council meeting is 9-Mar at 16:30 UTC. Highlights from Agenda<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Final+Proposed+Agen…> and documents<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Documents+2022-03-09>: Consent Agenda: CPH reappoints Becky Burr to ICANN Board seat 13. Item 5: Discuss response from small team on Operational Design Assessment<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ssad-oda-25jan22-en.pdf> (ODA) for a System for Standardized Access/ Disclosure (SSAD). The BC submitted this response<https://www.icannbc.org/assets/docs/positions-statements/2022/2022_02Februa…> to the small team on 24-Feb. Item 6: discuss SubPro Operational Design Phase (ODP), for final report<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/final-rep…> on subsequent rounds of new gTLDs. Item 7: discuss DNS Abuse Small Team, with co-leads Mark Datysgeld and Paul McGrady. Item 8: dialogue with ICANN Org global domains and strategy department (GDS). Other Council items: 1. Zak Muscovitch and Arinola Akinyemi are on the Transfer Policy Review Working Group<https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/transfer-policy-review> (PDP Charter<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/draft-cha…>). See WG Timeline and Progress<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=164626481&preview=…>. On 10-Feb, Zak and Arinola provided a presentation and summary of the work of the Transfer Policy Working Group and the BC had a discussion of transfer locks, beginning at 22:00 of our Zoom replay<https://icann.zoom.us/rec/play/MjYHrKiQvyBUEwNdoN9jvfOmN_k_EYsNbkQg_PvuqDxS…>. Due to time constraints, only the Post-Creation transfer lock was discussed. Howard Neu suggested that a shorter post-creation lock could be desirable in order to facilitate earlier transfers, however it was noted that intra-registrar pushes could likely still be effected during a Post-Creation lock. Susan Kawaguchi suggested that a longer Post-Creation lock would be desirable in order to assist with brand enforcement efforts. A further call with interested BC members is advisable to have a fuller discussion. On the following Transfer Policy WG call, Zak and Arinola shared a brand owner’s perspective with the BC, as captured by WG Staff’s notes: “The Business Constituency had a brief discussion on locks and wanted to share some feedback from brand owners in the BC: Desire to keep the 60-day post-creation day lock; if too short could compel the brand owner to redo the UDRP. From a brand perspective was that the 60-day lock for post creation could prevent having to redo UDRP enforcement.” BC members interested in Transfer Policy WG call on 15-Feb can listen to it here<https://icann.zoom.us/rec/play/-LE_j1xtn54HI1UtK-A_denOrQot49PkCr64eQ8n0-mf…>, and follow the Wiki page<https://community.icann.org/collector/pages.action?key=TPRPDP>. 2. The Council Committee for Overseeing and Implementing Continuous Improvement (CCOICI) completed its assignment for the Task Force to review the existing Statement of Interest (SOI) requirements (see chapter 6 of the GNSO Operating Procedures [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/…>). Thanks to Susan Kawaguchi and Imran Hossen for volunteering to participate in this Task Force. 3. Suzan Kawaguchi represents the BC on the Registration Data Accuracy WG. 4. Steve represents the BC on a small team to review the staff paper Modifying Consensus Policies<https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2021-October/025106.html>. The staff Discussion Draft<https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20211025/d6317a45/Discus…> suggests 6 ways to change GNSO procedures regarding existing policies. Calls on 14-Dec & 10-Jan focused on process for approving recommended changes to PDP Manual & templates, ODP, and implementation guidelines. We drafted this letter<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lcqm-c9D0o3CIzWFkoZ0Eg4KCM666jds/edit> to send to Org and interested board members. Channel 3. Supporting discussion/voting on matters before the Commercial Stakeholders Group (CSG) Tim Smith is the CSG Liaison for the BC. Since the BC last met on 24-Feb, we have held these meetings to discuss CSG common interests. CSG Membership with GNSO Appointed Board Members on Tuesday 1 March at 16:00 UTC. CSG representatives from IPC, ISPCP and BC were joined by Matthew Shears, Avri Doria and Becky Burr. During this one hour informal session, CSG sought input from Board members on the EC’s recently published Study on DNS Abuse and inquired about the Board’s DNS abuse working group, which they described as a critical issue and on the agenda for the weekend meeting in advance of ICANN 73. Also discussed were the ongoing collaborative exchanges between GNSO Council and the Board on SSAD ODA which thy felt was productive. The topic of prioritization of work within ICANN and how to address backlog of recommendations and implementation was our final topic, during which we were advised that CSG will be invited to assign a representative to meet with Org and other SO/ACs for 4-5 meetings in the coming month with the goal of finalizing the prioritization pilot that is planned to launch in the coming months. GAC PSWG and CSG Call on Thursday 3 March at 15:00UTC. This regularly scheduled session enables CSG to engage with the GAC Public Safety Working Group to discuss issues of common concern and progress that is being made on such matters. The EC Study on DNS Abuse was presented as the latest input on addressing online abuse generally and the value of access to WHOis for a variety of stakeholders. The topic of malicious vs. compromised domains was also discussed and while the GAC has not discussed this issue in detail, it was noted that compromised domains result in an additional victim – the registrant. CSG finds these regular exchanges to be valuable and will continue to schedule these to coincide with future ICANN meetings. Joint Session – ICANN Board and CSG on Tuesday 8 March at 1630 UTC This meeting was held just prior to the BC Open Membership meeting at ICANN 73 during which discussion topics were led separately by each of the CSG constituency groups. Registration<https://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001D_0kLMgA2M3AtmvjFPvFkcvNIZD3XBPmc5kdPqUGxBF…> for ICANN73 is required to join online sessions on the schedule<https://73.schedule.icann.org/agenda#/?limit=20&skip=12&sortByFields[0]=sta…>. See GNSO Policy Briefing ICANN73 Edition<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2022/briefing/policy-brie…> and ICANN73 Policy Outlook Report<https://meetings.icann.org/en/remote73/icann73-policy-outlook-report-16feb2…>

2 2

CircleID: Ukraine asks ICANN to revoke Russia's ccTLDs
by Steve DelBianco March 2, 2022

March 2, 2022

See this CircleID report<https://circleid.com/posts/ukrainian-representatives-to-icann-ask-russias-d…>: A letter sent to ICANN and IANA by a Ukrainian representative to ICANN’s Government Advisory Council (GAC) asks for urgent and strict sanctions against the Russian Federation in “the field of DNS regulation.” The letter<https://circleid.us15.list-manage.com/track/click?u=71b27c0808a16ff6f58bfc4…> urges ICANN to permanently or temporarily revoke Russia’s top-level domains “.ru”, “.рф” and “.su” and to shut down DNS root servers located in Saint Petersburg and Moscow. ICANN is also asked to assist in revoking SSL certificates for the Russian domains. A separate request is also being sent to RIPE NCC asking it to “withdraw the right to use all IPv4 and IPv6 addresses by all Russian members of RIPE NCC (LIRs - Local Internet Registries), and to block the DNS root servers that it is operating.” Ukrainian representative said the “atrocious crimes” that have been made possible are mainly due to the Russian propaganda machinery using websites continuously spreading disinformation, hate speech, promoting violence and hiding the truth regarding the war in Ukraine. “Ukrainian IT infrastructure has undergone numerous attacks from the Russian side impeding citizens’ and government’s ability to communicate.” Regional Internet Registry for Europe, the Middle East and parts of Central Asia (RIPE NCC) has so far taken a neutral stance<https://circleid.us15.list-manage.com/track/click?u=71b27c0808a16ff6f58bfc4…> and stated that it “does not take positions with regard to domestic political disputes, international conflicts or war.” “[I]t would be a terrible idea if ICANN were to intervene and start pulling down entire domain extensions due to this sort of demand,” notes Michele Neylon, CEO and founder of Blacknight, an Irish domain registrar and hosting company. He writes<https://circleid.us15.list-manage.com/track/click?u=71b27c0808a16ff6f58bfc4…>: “The internet is used by everyone—whether they are supporters of a regime or not, denying everyone in Russia access to it would be a terrible idea for many many reasons. If nothing else it would also play into Putin’s narrative about the west and embolden him and others to push forward with plans for alternatives to the current internet. And that is not a good thing at all.”

2 1