NOTES | ICANN74

Tuesday, 14 June 2022 | | 7:00-8:00 UTC | Block 1

Welcome by the respective chairs Alejandra and Philippe

>>> topic 1: What happens after PDP recommendations are accepted by either council?

Both groups are finding that post-PDP timelines lack predictability, particularly when extending well beyond the time invested in the PDP itself. Both SOs will share their approaches to remedy the issue and find potential mutually applicable solutions.

Alejandra: Long time since a ccPDP has been presented to the Board (2005). Now we have presented one (ccPDP3-Retirement) and have two in progress (ccPDP3-Mechanisms and ccPDP4-IDNs). Patricio Poblete will give us the first update on the Board consideration [regarding ccPDP3-retirement] at the ccNSO Council call on Thursday.

Philippe: refers to the context of the last 2 years. Informal exchanges were more difficult. Timezones etc. Council to think how improvements can be made. Council thought on how we could engage with the various stakeholders. Several avenues looked into. Working methods, concrete examples regarding implementation. Engaged with some board members, to see how we can improve our relationship with the board. To make sure that the recommendations are properly “understood”. Case of transfer of registration data. Took time to look into, with board members. Concrete actions? SSAD WHOIS disclosure system proof of concept, dialogue with staff on a paper on modifying consensus policies.

Stephen: Board’s responsibility regarding when they receive policy recommendations. Word “shall”. The board is not in compliance with the bylaw. They selectively adhere to the bylaws. Please consider.

Alejandra: council call on Thursday. Talk with Patricio. We submitted in September. Implementation requires action by Board, and this takes time. Various steps in the process. Assured there is no black hold

Stephen: GAC weighed in with formal approval. See action A. they shall promptly consider, this was not done. 6 months and counting.

Philip: indeed a “shall” in the bylaws. GNSO completed major PDP’s in the past few years. There is a learning curve. Things take time.

>>> topic 2 : DNS Abuse

Updates from both groups on our activities on this topic and our interactions with the rest of the community.
GNSO: Mark Daysgeld & Paul McGrady
ccNSO: Nick Wenban-Smith and Tatiana Tropina

Mark: see also my presentation to GAC yesterday. What does it mean to address abuse? What does it mean for the GNSO? Policy recommendations for the community? Strong contributions received. Review process. Preliminary results:

Community feels that we should be doing something well scoped. Addresses something concrete. Every group feels that this issue needs to be addressed. We met with icann compliance. Outreach part of our effort. Perhaps community has a different expectation of what the contracts mean.

Tatiana: Involvement in creation DNS Abuse Road Map (first see whether ccNSO had a role or not), and creation DASC, teaser regarding upcoming session. In future::m what happens and how will the interaction with other parts of the community be done. Important : messaging is important. cctld s are not gtlds. DASC is now in place.

Question Maxim Alzoba in zoom chat.

Alejandra: We share ccTLD experiences, but not up to ccNSO to tell other ccNSO’s what to do or what not to do. ccTLDs operate under local circumstances. One size does not fit all. Showcase the various approaches.

Tatiana: strict focus on ccTLDs. ccTLDs are sovereign. Differences polices. DAAR might be a no-go for some. Alignment. And external coordination is indeed needed. External pressure was indeed also a factor. Cctlds already do a lot, but external communication is important.

Pierre Bonis: reminder about ccnso DNS Abuse session on thursday, co-organised with the ccNSO Internet Governance Liaison Committee (IGLC).

Tatina: one element missed here. Clear messaging is a task of DASC. outreach and messaging is outreach.

Marc: respecting individual remits. Let’s stay in touch.

Thomas R: small comment. At this stage, seen pressure at regulatory level, we need to explain what we do, and work together with other parts of the industry. Also hosting provciders for instance. It is on all of us not to be seen as stubborn. But also info to cctlds that icann has its limitations. Definition of dns abuse. Limited mandate. We must not allow for icann to go beyond what icann can do. Must limit its narrow tech mandate. We work with local domestic law enforcement

>>> topic 3: EPDP Phase 2 SSAD and ODA

The GNSO would like to update the ccNSO on the latest developments of the EPDP Phase 2 – SSAD since the publication of the ODA on 25 January 2022, as the suggested direction may come of interest to certain ccTLDs in the future.

Sebastien Ducos: has been leading the team since a few months. Document that icann staff prepared last year, to study ops impact of the recommendations on the standardises system of access and disclosure. Local laws. Cctlds have a different mandate than gtlds. Few points of interest. ODA assess that the recommended tool to design and operate. Invites anyone in ccnso that is interested to reach out. Is more informational. Understanding the different context.

>>> topic 4: IDN

Both the ccNSO and GNSO have engaged in PDPs on IDNs and are expected to coordinate their efforts. Among others they each have appointed liaisons. The liaisons are invited to report on the latest developments in particular on the discussion on variants and management of variants and share their views on whether the efforts progress in a coordinated manner.

Anil: refers to alignment between the gTLD and ccTLD efforts. Subgroups for ccPDP4.

Dennis: communalities between the 2 groups. He is involved in both groups. Variant management and how do you define variants. Variant labels considered to be the same? How this is managed? Adds to Anil’s points on what is not common? Gtld policy process and ccnso policy processes are not the same. Example: idn guidelines for 2nd level implementation. Every registry operator. Mandatory for gtlds. But guidance for ccTLDs. ccPDP4 focus on how the recommendations affect top level

AOB by Alejandra.

August-September to approve the CSC Full Slate. Members and Liaisons. We will mandate our selection committee to do so. Jointly by GNSO and ccNSO.

Philip: we almost missed the CSC effectiveness review. But thanks for the reminder!

Thanks also for the opportunity. Good discussion.

Alejandra: thanks all.

Joke Braeken

joke.braeken@icann.org