Dear Councillors Please find below the plenary proposals for ICANN81 in order of submission. I assume we want our proposal to be the plenary at ICANN81, but before I confirm this I would like your input. Let me know your thoughts at your earliest convenience, before the end of the week. Best regards, Alejandra 1. *ccNSO Proposal* The ccNSO Council suggests a plenary session during the ICANN 81 meeting to be held in Istanbul in November 2024, on the topic of the WSIS+20 Review and what ICANN (the community and the organisation) can do to help advertise and preserve ICANN’s multi-stakeholder model, and the broader multi-stakeholder internet governance approach, during the Review. ICANN is working with the community to reflect on lessons learned in the GDC process during 2023-2024, and developing a strategy for the role ICANN and its community can play during the WSIS+20 review in 2024 and 2025. By the time ICANN81 rolls around, this strategy should be well developed, and it will be time to further mobilise the ICANN community around the role it can play in this important work. The main outcomes of such a session should be that: - The ICANN community is well informed about the strategic approach to the WSIS+20 Review, and what role individual organisations and communities can play - The ICANN community is mobilised to play the roles they can play as part of the Review A secondary outcome would be the sharing of greater insight about where the WSIS+20 review is at, though this can be covered in the Geopolitical session. 2. *IPC Proposal* *Working Title:* Reviewing ICANN’s Accountability Mechanisms *Aim:* To hold a general discussion across the community about the ICANN Accountability Mechanisms, particularly the Request for Reconsideration (RFR) and Independent Review Process (IRP) in order to elicit views on whether: - these mechanisms are fit for purpose - there are unintended outcomes resulting from the manner in which these mechanisms are set out in the Bylaws. For example: - do the standing and grounds requirements for either mechanism serve to exclude legitimate access by those that the community intended to have access, such as SO, AC, SG and Cs - Are these mechanisms available to any classes of complainant who were not intended by the community to have access to them - Is the EC IRP process sufficiently clear and unambiguous. - there are concerns sufficient to warrant review and potential revision of the relevant Bylaws provisions and, if so, whether there is a sufficient support from the community to convene a CCWG to work on this. *Brief Background:* On a number of occasions recently, including in meetings with the GNSO Council, ICANN Board Members have expressed the view that the IRP, as presently drafted, could be used by classes of potential claimant who were never intended to have access to this mechanism, such as an unsuccessful respondent to an ICANN RFP or tender process. Board Members have expressed the desire for a community discussion on this. At the same time, the GNSO’s Intellectual Property Constituency recently brought a RFR against a proposal by the Board that would have had the effect of changing a Fundamental Bylaws without following the Bylaws-mandated process for doing so. The IPC’s RFR was summarily dismissed as failing to demonstrate that the IPC was harmed by such a Board action. The intent of this session would not be to publicly debate the IPC’s ongoing disagreement with ICANN over the RFR, which is currently in the Co-Operative Engagement Process. Rather, we believe that both examples demonstrate that there are concerns, both on ICANN Org’s side and on the Community side, with these important accountability mechanisms which were revised as a result of the cross community work on Accountability in the context of the IANA Transition. We believe this is an appropriate time for a discussion on whether the mechanisms meet the community’s expectations, or whether they would benefit from a more formal review and revision. *3) At-Large/ ALAC Proposal* *Working Title*: Shifting Paradigms: Multistakeholderism, Geopolitics, International Law, and New Internet Infrastructures. *Objective/Aims*: To explore the intersections of geopolitics, international law, and emerging internet infrastructures. Key topics include the reshaping of the multistakeholder model, implications for new internet infrastructures, and data governance. The discussion will reference the 2024 United States International Cyberspace & Digital Policy Strategy, EU's GDPR, the AI Act, and NIS2. This session is crucial for end users, regulators, policymakers, technologists, legal experts, academics, and other stakeholders in the Internet governance community. It emphasizes the link between infrastructure governance and data management from the end user perspective, highlighting the importance of user-centric approaches in shaping the future of internet infrastructures. *Proposed Speakers*: - Vint Cerf, Internet Pioneer - Leon Sanchez, ICANN Board Member - Jorge Cancio, Deputy Head of the International Relations Team at the Federal Office of Communications (OFCOM); GAC Switzerland - Pari Esfandiari, ALAC/EURALO, Global TechnoPolitics Forum - Susan Chalmers, Internet Policy Specialist, US Department of Commerce, NTIA - Berna Akçalı Gür, Lecturer, CCLS Queen Mary University of London, Associate Research Fellow at UNU-CRIS Digital Cluster - John Crain, ICANN SVP & Chief Technology Officer *Moderator:* Joanna Kulesza, ALAC Liaison to the GAC *Scoping Questions*: 1. How should the multistakeholder model evolve to accommodate new internet infrastructures and the shift towards them in governance? 2. What are the primary governance challenges posed by the development of new internet infrastructures and governance models? 3. How do existing regulatory frameworks like GDPR, the AI Act, and NIS2 address the challenges and opportunities presented by new internet infrastructures and respective governance models? *Expected Outcomes*: - A comprehensive understanding of the challenges and opportunities presented by new internet infrastructures and the regulatory shift towards them - MSM implications. - Insight into how existing regulatory frameworks, including the MSM, can adapt to these emerging technologies. - Enhanced dialogue among stakeholders on the future of multistakeholder Internet governance. ******************************************* Work like you don't need the money. Love like you've never been hurt. Dance like nobody's watching. Sing like nobody's listening. And live like it's Heaven on Earth. *******************************************