September 2021 - council - lists.icann.org

Confirmation of GNSO Representative on the Empowered Community Administration
by Nathalie Peregrine 20 Oct '22

20 Oct '22

Dear John, Please find the attached a letter with the motion passed at the GNSO Council meeting on 29 November 2018. The Council confirmed the appointment of the GNSO Chair, currently Keith Drazek, representing the GNSO as the Decisional Participant on the Empowered Community Administration until the end of his term at ICANN66. The letter will be published on page: https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/correspondence<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_coun…> Thank you. Respectfully submitted. Nathalie Nathalie Peregrine Manager, Operations Support (GNSO) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org <nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org%20> Skype: nathalie.peregrine.icann Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<applewebdata://EB3A6F47-9760-400D-A39B-A7EFFC56B467/learn.icann.org/courses…> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gn…>

1 4

Letter to ICANN Secretary re interim appointment of the GNSO representative to the Empowered Community Administration
by Nathalie Peregrine 27 Oct '21

27 Oct '21

Dear all, Please find attached the letter informing John Jeffrey and the Empowered Community administration of the interim appointment of Philippe Fouquart as GNSO representative to the Empowered Community administration. The letter will be posted on the Correspondence page[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_corr…> of the GNSO website. Kind regards, Nathalie Nathalie Peregrine Manager, Operations Support (GNSO) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org <nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org%20> Skype: nathalie.peregrine.icann Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<applewebdata://EB3A6F47-9760-400D-A39B-A7EFFC56B467/learn.icann.org/courses…> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gn…>

1 1

Motions from Standing Selection Committee for January 2021 GNSO Council Meeting
by Carlton Samuels 20 Oct '21

20 Oct '21

Dear Councilors: I am submitting three motions to be considered in the 21 January 2021 meeting: 1. Appointment of a GNSO Non-Registry Liaison to the Customer Standing Committee; 2. Nomination of a Mentor for the ICANN Fellowship Program; 3. Appointment of a GNSO Representative to the Community Representatives Group that will nominate the Independent Review Process (IRP) Standing Panel. Kind regards, Carlton Samuels ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================

6 9

FW: ICANN72 Joint Session ICANN Board - Stakeholders
by philippe.fouquart＠orange.com 06 Oct '21

06 Oct '21

Dear Councilors, Please note the topic that will be discussed during the AGM, and provide inputs as you see fit before October 15th. Regards, Philippe From: Gnso-chairs [mailto:gnso-chairs-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Nathalie Peregrine via Gnso-chairs Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 2:55 PM To: gnso-chairs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-chairs@icann.org> Cc: gnso-secs(a)icann.org Subject: [gnso-chairs] ICANN72 Joint Session ICANN Board - Stakeholders Sent on behalf of Maarten Botterman, Chair, ICANN Board of Directors Dear Constituency and Stakeholder Groups Chairs, *Please reply no later than Friday 15 October 2021* After a few weeks of break, the Board is back into action and looking forward to meeting with you soon, albeit still virtually considering the ongoing pandemic situation. We certainly do hope that, in spite of these worldwide challenging circumstances, you managed to rest and spend quality time with your love ones. Ahead of our 23rd and second fully virtual AGM, ICANN72 (25-28 October), the Board and I would like to propose the following topic for discussion during our time together: Please provide input/comments on how you think we could efficiently identify and work more closely with Governments globally, as well as educate, train and interact when it comes to geopolitical issues relating to ICANN’s mission. As we are doing for a few years already, we would like to dedicate half of our time together to discuss this topic and half the time to discuss the topic of your choice or answer the questions you might have. We would therefore like to invite you to submit your single topic of interest and/or questions (please consider the limited time if you chose to submit multiple questions) to our Board Operations team (board-ops-team(a)icann.org<mailto:board-ops-team@icann.org>) no later than Friday 15 October 2021. Your suggested questions and/or topic for discussion will be published and circulated in the Policy digest, as always, which will facilitate transparency and allow the groups to deepen their own understanding of their peers’ point of views on different issues. We look forward to hearing your thoughts, questions or topics of interest and to exchange with you constructively and virtually. Best regards, Maarten Botterman Chair, ICANN Board of Directors _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you.

3 4

Review of the GNSO job description for NomCom
by philippe.fouquart＠orange.com 04 Oct '21

04 Oct '21

Dear Councilors, Some of you may be aware that in recent years, the GNSO Council is invited on an annual basis to review the job description that the ICANN Nominating Committee uses in order to fulfil its appointments to the GNSO Council. The job description is a critical piece of guidance for the NomCom to ensure that it appoints GNSO Councilors that will succeed in their role. In an effort to try and make the job descriptions consistent across the various community organization, ICANN org made non-substantive updates to the job description structure. Council leadership has used this as the starting point for this review cycle. There is a window of opportunity for such a review, so we would like to use it lest this be deferred to a much later stage. The GNSO Council has made incremental improvements to the criteria each year, and it is with the goal to continually refine the guidance to the NomCom that Council leadership has made suggested redlines in the attached. You will see that the redlines focus primarily on the affiliation of candidates, where leadership believes that preference should be given towards non-affiliated candidates. This is of particular importance when the appointee will serve as a voting Councilor, where the balance of the Council needs to be considered; voting NomCom appointees may be in position to provide deciding votes, so it is important that they act independently. I want to stress that the suggested redlines are absolutely not in reaction to any particular appointees, recent or not, but rather a conclusion reached over the course of several cycles. Please review the attached document and provide feedback by the end of this week. Best regards, Philippe _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you.

6 9

[EPDP on IDN] Update and request for Input
by Farell FOLLY 30 Sep '21

30 Sep '21

Dear councillors, As the Council liaison to the EPDP WG on IDN, I would hereby like to share with you the project plan of the team and gather any comment or suggestion you might have. Of course, it will be discussed during our next Council meeting in October. In fact, per PDP 3.0, working groups are required to submit their proposed schedule of milestones and deliverable dates to the GNSO Council as the managers of the Policy Development Process. This primary intentions for this requirement are to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of working groups, ensure accountability of the working wroup, its leadership and support staff, as well as to increase predictability for managing current and future policy work in the GNSO’s pipeline. The proposed key milestone dates: December 2022 – Deliver Initial Report and publish for public comments March 2023 – Conclude working group review of public comments April 2023 – Deliver Final Report to the GNSO Council The first page of the PDF is a summary timeline and the remaining pages contain the expanded view of tasks, duration, dependencies, and target dates. Upon the GNSO Council’s receipt and acknowledgment of the project plan and deliverable dates, the EPDP on IDNs will produce monthly project packages as you have seen with other PDPs. All in all, no big issue has been identified so far. The first important update, as you have probably read on our mailing list, is that Edmon Chung has been appointed to the ICANN Board of Directors and the Council leadership team has conducted a process to select Donna Austin as the new chair effective from the first WG meeting in October. In terms of where the group is currently in its work, discussing the challenge processes and mechanisms around RZ-LGR determinations of valid/invalid gTLDs and variants. Last but not least, an update requesting input from the SO/ACs has been sent out and you should motivate you respective group to respond to it timely. Please feel free to share any comment, suggestion and questions on the list. Best, Farell @__f_f__ Best regards ____________________________________ Lt-Colonel Farell FOLLY, Ir GNSO Councillor linkedin.com/in/farellf

1 0

FW: [Ext] Thursday, 30 September 2021 | Now Available: ICANN72 Prep Week Schedule
by Julie Bisland 30 Sep '21

30 Sep '21

FYI From: ICANN Community Digest <david.olive(a)icann.org> Reply-To: "policyinfo(a)icann.org" <policyinfo(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, September 30, 2021 at 10:02 AM To: Julie Bisland <julie.bisland(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Thursday, 30 September 2021 | Now Available: ICANN72 Prep Week Schedule [https://r20.rs6.net/on.jsp?ca=73cabe87-2163-4021-98cf-08da81d5dd19&a=112202…] Thursday, 30 September 2021 ICANN Community Digest [https://files.constantcontact.com/304b3fd3501/31f30ab5-1445-45c3-aef7-c0ea4…] The ICANN org Policy Development Support function publishes this twice-weekly digest to help ICANN community leaders track requests and follow updates. How Domain Name System Policy is Developed, and How You Can Get Involved [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001zHjaY-FaSe4wS6RY…> Table of Contents ICANN72 Resources · Registration · Virtual Backgrounds Information Sharing · NEW: ICANN72 Prep Week Schedule Now Available · NEW: ICANN Signs a Memorandum of Understanding with NANOG · NEW: SSAD ODP Update: Timeline Extension and Next Steps · NEW: Overview of ICANN Org Risk Management Framework · REMINDER: SSAD ODP Project Update Webinar Recording Available Now · REMINDER: NextGen@ICANN Application Round for ICANN73 Now Open · REMINDER: ICANN Continues the Pandemic Internet Access Reimbursement Program Public Comment · Proposal for Latin Script Root Zone Label Generation Rule · Draft PTI and IANA FY23 Operating Plan and Budgets · Initial Report from the EPDP on Specific Curative Rights Protection for IGOs · Proposed Amendment 5 to the .name Registry Agreement · REMINDER: ICANN Launches Improved Public Comment Feature ICANN72 Resources Registration [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001zHjaY-FaSe4wS6RY…> Virtual Backgrounds [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001zHjaY-FaSe4wS6RY…> Information Sharing NEW: ICANN72 Prep Week Schedule Now Available The ICANN72 Prep Week schedule is now available. ICANN72 Prep Week will be 12-14 October 2021. The schedule features 12 sessions to prepare the ICANN community for the ICANN72 Virtual Annual General Meeting taking place 25-28 October 2021. Read more. [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001zHjaY-FaSe4wS6RY…> NEW: ICANN Signs a Memorandum of Understanding with NANOG ICANN announced the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the North American Network Operators' Group, Inc. [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001zHjaY-FaSe4wS6RY…> (NANOG). This agreement will help realize common objectives, promote two-way collaboration, strengthen both NANOG's and ICANN's community engagement initiatives, and build greater support for multistakeholder participation, the governance model of the Internet. Read more. [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001zHjaY-FaSe4wS6RY…> NEW: SSAD ODP Update: Timeline Extension and Next Steps Over the past six months, the System for Standardized Access/Disclosure [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001zHjaY-FaSe4wS6RY…> (SSAD) Operational Design Phase [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001zHjaY-FaSe4wS6RY…> (ODP) project team has been working to evaluate the potential risks, anticipated costs, resource requirements, timelines, and dependencies associated with the implementation of an SSAD. Read more. [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001zHjaY-FaSe4wS6RY…> NEW: Overview of ICANN org Risk Management Framework ICANN’s Risk Management function has prepared an overview [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001zHjaY-FaSe4wS6RY…> of the ICANN org Risk Management Framework which has been published to icann.org. To learn more, please join an explanatory session during ICANN72 Prep Week on 12 October at 21:30 UTC. During the session, we will cover the overview of the framework, which includes the background and development of the framework, risk management governance and accountability, risk identification, and risk appetite statement. REMINDER: SSAD ODP Project Update Webinar Recording Now Available Recording of the recent SSAD ODP Project Update webinar is now available. [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001zHjaY-FaSe4wS6RY…> Presentation and audio files are available. [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001zHjaY-FaSe4wS6RY…> REMINDER: NextGen@ICANN Application Round for ICANN73 Now Open Applications for the NextGen@ICANN program at ICANN73 are now being accepted. The deadline for applications is Monday, 25 October 2021. Read more. [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001zHjaY-FaSe4wS6RY…> REMINDER: ICANN Continues the Pandemic Internet Access Reimbursement Program Interested ICANN community members must apply in advance of ICANN72, and those who meet the eligibility requirements will be selected to participate. The application deadline is Friday, 08 October 2021 at 23:59 UTC. The application process opens today, and program details are available here [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001zHjaY-FaSe4wS6RY…>. The goal of this program is to facilitate participation in ICANN Public Meetings during the pandemic. It offers community members who have limited Internet capacity financial assistance to increase their Internet bandwidth. Read more. [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001zHjaY-FaSe4wS6RY…> Public Comment Proposal for Latin Script Root Zone Label Generation Rules [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001zHjaY-FaSe4wS6RY…> Open for Submissions Date: Thursday, 23 September 2021 Closed for Submissions Date: Tuesday, 23 November 2021 Draft PTI and IANA FY23 Operating Plan and Budgets [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001zHjaY-FaSe4wS6RY…> Open for Submissions Date: Wednesday, 15 September 2021 Closed for Submissions Date: Monday, 25 October 2021 Initial Report from the EPDP on Specific Curative Rights Protections for IGOs [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001zHjaY-FaSe4wS6RY…> Open for Submissions Date: Tuesday, 14 September 2021 Closed for Submissions Date: Sunday, 24 October 2021 Proposed Amendment 5 to the .name Registry Agreement [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001zHjaY-FaSe4wS6RY…> Open for Submissions Date: Friday, 10 September 2021 Closed for Submissions Date: Wednesday, 20 October 2021 REMINDER: ICANN Launches Improved Public Comment Feature The Information Transparency Initiative (ITI) has reached another important milestone with the release of an improved Public Comment feature. This enhanced feature is part of the ICANN organization's ongoing commitment to increase the findability and transparency of our information. Read more about the improvements! [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001zHjaY-FaSe4wS6RY…> See upcoming proceedings [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001zHjaY-FaSe4wS6RY…>. Infographic: What is Public Comment? [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001zHjaY-FaSe4wS6RY…> Step-by-Step Public Comment Submission Guidelines [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001zHjaY-FaSe4wS6RY…> Zoom Replay: Public Comment Submission Training [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001zHjaY-FaSe4wS6RY…> Zoom Replay: Public Comment User Experience Demonstration [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001zHjaY-FaSe4wS6RY…> Volume 3, Issue 72 | Archive [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001zHjaY-FaSe4wS6RY…> | Next Issue: Monday, 04 October 2021 STAY INFORMED: Subscribe here [r20.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001zHjaY-FaSe4wS6RY…>

1 0

EPDP P2A Final report Rec#1
by philippe.fouquart＠orange.com 30 Sep '21

30 Sep '21

Dear Councilors, As per the action items from the Council meeting held at 19:00 UTC 23 September 2021, Council leadership has further reviewed and discussed the issue of scope pertaining to Recommendation 1 of the EPDP Phase 2A Final Report ("Rec #1") that was raised by Kurt Pritz, Council member from the Registries Stakeholder Group (RySG): "So as sort of a point of order, the RySG as a prerequisite to the Council vote on this set of recommendations requests that the Council first examine the RySG request that's in our minority statement that relates to Recommendation 1 which seeks GNSO council determination of whether the proposal contained in Recommendation 1, the creation of a mandatory data element, is out of scope with the GNSO instructions to the EPDP phase 2A team." (See Council meeting Transcript<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2021/transcript/transcrip…>) The GNSO Operating Procedures state that "a point of order is raised when there is an infraction of the GNSO Operating Procedures or improper decorum in speaking. The point of order must be raised as soon as possible after the error occurs." It is unclear to us whether the question of scope raised by the RySG in its minority statement is indeed a "point of order" to be dealt with under the GNSO Operating Procedures. Whilst we have no reason to consider that an infraction has been committed or improper characterization been made, we appreciate and understand the willingness to address the question in the first order of business, and the following is offered in this spirit. The Council leadership acknowledges the concern raised by the RySG. However, we believe it is within the purview of a PDP working group chair to determine/assess scope issues while a PDP WG is underway. We are also mindful that there are escalation procedures available if members of any WG disagree with the chair's determination (see ANNEX 1: GNSO Working Group Guidelines <https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-24oct19-en.pdf> to the GNSO Operating Procedures). After careful consideration of all relevant information and materials, the Council leadership agrees with the assessment by the EPDP Phase 2A Chair that Rec #1 is in scope: "It's my view that what we are discussing here as it relates to guidance is within the scope of the EPDP charter and guidance that was given to us, the questions that were given to us." (See EPDP Phase 2A team meeting 5 August 2021 Transcript<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2021/transcript/transcrip…>) We would like to share with you the following observations: * In determining whether Rec #1 is in scope, we believe a holistic approach and a broad interpretation of the charter language are warranted. To this end, we looked into the letter and intent of the original EPPD charter, how the EPDP evolved from Phase 1 to Phase 2A, the letter and intent of the Council instructions to the EPDP Phase 2A team and the discussions on this scope question within the EPDP Phase 2A team. * The original EPDP charter states: "As part of this determination, the EPDP Team is, at a minimum, expected to consider the following elements of the Temporary Specification and answer the following charter questions..." (Emphasis added). * Phase 2A work was a continuation of deliberations of the original charter questions related to the topic of differentiation between legal and natural person data: * h3) Should Contracted Parties be allowed or required to treat legal and natural persons differently, and what mechanism is needed to ensure reliable determination of status? * h4) Is there a legal basis for Contracted Parties to treat legal and natural persons differently? * h5) What are the risks associated with differentiation of registrant status as legal or natural persons across multiple jurisdictions? (See EDPB letter of 5 July 2018). * Following the completion of the phase 2 deliberations, the Council provided further instructions on this topic, asking the EPDP Phase 2A to answer the following questions: * Whether any updates are required to the EPDP Phase 1 recommendation on this topic ("Registrars and Registry Operators are permitted to differentiate between registrations of legal and natural persons, but are not obligated to do so") (Emphasis added); * ii. What guidance, if any, can be provided to Registrars and/or Registries who differentiate between registrations of legal and natural persons. * The Initial Report was shared with the GNSO Council on 9 June and discussed during the Council meeting on 16 June. The Initial Report included in the form of a preliminary recommendation regarding the concept of adding an additional data element to facilitate differentiation. No concerns were raised at that point by any Council members with regards to the direction to which the EPDP Phase 2A was heading. * In its public comment submission, the RySG raised the question of scope, which was again raised and discussed at the EPDP Phase 2A meetings. We note during the 22 July 2021 meeting, the Chair specifically asked: "...if anybody has specific or concrete questions about scope, I'd ask that you write it up and send it to me, send it to the list, so it can help inform leadership and staff in terms of any possible conversations we might need to have with the council during our next update." * Rec #1 states: "that a field or fields MUST be created to facilitate differentiation between legal and natural person registration data and/or if that registration data contains personal or non-personal data". However, this part of the recommendation is directed to ICANN org to coordinate with the technical community to develop any necessary standards. It is understood that Rec #1 should be considered in conjunction with recommendation #2 which provides guidance for those Contracted Parties who want to differentiate for how to do this best. As part of this differentiation, a Contracted Party could then decide to use these additional fields to 'flag' the type of data it concerns (legal / natural and/or personal / non-personal data). We note and agree with the comments made by EPDP Phase 2A Chair that a distinction should be made between "something that would be a new consensus policy requirement through a formal PDP that would establish a new requirement on contracted parties versus something that is guidance where a contracted party, if they choose to differentiate, would do so in a certain way." (See EPDP Phase 2A team 2 July 2021 meeting transcript) * The Council learned during the Council call on 23 September, after delivery of the EPDP Phase 2A Final Report, that the Registry Stakeholder Group had raised concerns about scope with the EPDP Phase 2A Chair, Keith Drazek during the deliberations (EPDP Phase 2A meeting on Thursday 22 July). Keith noted in the chat during the Council meeting that "The scope issue was raised by RySG during the WG meetings, and I indicated that I thought it was sufficiently in scope and, if not, then the Council would make that determination." Based on the above, we are of the view that Rec #1 seems to be well in scope of the original charter questions as well the instructions that the Council provided as the creation of an additional data field(s) seems intended to facilitate differentiation for those Contracted Parties that decide to differentiate. Furthermore, Council leadership also notes that the EPDP Phase 2A Final Report and its recommendations (including Rec #1) have the consensus support of the EPDP Phase 2A team which indicates that most agree with Rec #1. This also seems to suggest that if the issue of scope would have been raised with the Council at an earlier stage, most would have agreed that the EPDP Phase 2A team should be permitted to consider the approach further. But having said that, no concerns were brought to the Council at any point during the EPDP Phase 2A deliberations, not at the time of the Initial Report nor thereafter. As such, we would like to suggest putting the question of scope aside so that the Council can move forward with consideration of the Final Report and its recommendations during our October meeting. As also indicated during the meeting, all recommendations have received the same consensus designation; as a result we plan to vote on these as a package. As a reminder, the Council is the manager of the PDP process, and in this role, the Council is expected to oversee and manage the process by which policy recommendations are developed. It is not our role to second guess the substance of recommendations that were developed by the community. We look forward to your feedback on our assessment and the proposed path forward. Philippe, on behalf of Council leadership _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you.

1 0

ICANN72 GNSO Sessions - How to Get Organized / Remote Participation Details
by Julie Bisland 29 Sep '21

29 Sep '21

Dear all, ICANN72 is right around the corner! This email provides some information to help you prepare and organize. Please note: You will need to register for ICANN72 to access the meeting schedule. Mandatory Registration for ICANN72 * Sign into your ICANN Account, or create an account here<https://account.icann.org/login>. * Register for ICANN72 by selecting Meeting Registration and click on the ICANN72 Registration link. Click here<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2021/presentation/instruc…> for detailed instructions. Note: the schedule will be published on 04 October 2021. Access the ICANN72 Schedule * ICANN72 schedule: https://72.schedule.icann.org/ For security purposes, participation links will be posted 24-hours prior to the session start times. * ICANN72 GNSO Sessions have been grouped on the ICANN72 GNSO wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/CAFmCg>. Create your own schedule: * The ICANN Meeting website allows you to download all GNSO-related meetings to your inbox calendar in one go. For detailed instructions on how to create your personalized ICANN72 schedule and import your schedule to your calendar, click here<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2021/presentation/instruc…>. Review the Participation Tools and update Zoom * All sessions will use Zoom rooms. Access details are available 24hrs prior on the ICANN72 Meeting Schedule<https://72.schedule.icann.org/>. * Visit the Participation Tools page<https://72.schedule.icann.org/participation-tools> for links to download the latest version of Zoom for access to the ICANN72 sessions. * Please see the ICANN Meeting Virtual Participation How-To Guide<https://72.schedule.icann.org/attend#:~:text=virtual%20participation%20how-…> for more information on how to get the most out of the virtual meeting tools. Links to Bookmark ICANN72 Meeting Schedule<https://72.schedule.icann.org/> GNSO ICANN72 Wiki Page<https://community.icann.org/x/CAFmCg> GNSO Session agendas<https://community.icann.org/x/iIH8CQ> For all GNSO meeting-related queries (RP or others), please email us at: gnso-secs(a)icann.org and we will be more than happy to assist! Kind regards, GNSO SO/AC Support team -- Julie Bisland Policy Operations Sr. Coordinator (GNSO) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Skype ID: 79613b691cb8a6c1 Find out more about the GNSO by visiting: https://learn.icann.org/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__learn.icann.org_&d=DwM…> Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANN-5FGN…> Transcripts and recordings of GNSO Working Group and Council events are located on the GNSO Master Calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_grou…>

1 0

Comments re: GNSO Update on the Framework for the Policy Status Report on the UDRP
by Marie Pattullo - AIM 29 Sep '21

29 Sep '21

Thanks for all the work on this. On reading the slides, I have a number reactions so for efficiency, I set them out below prior to our meeting later. Slide 4 “The Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy") is an ICANN consensus policy that went into effect on 24 October 1999.” * It was written by WIPO. That’s relevant not just for history, but for understanding WIPO’s granularity of expertise - knowledge about where it came from and how it works. “The UDRP was created to provide a quick, efficient and more cost-effective way to facilitate trademark protection at the second level of the DNS.” * Yes, but its end goal is to protect users and consumers from cybersquatting and related fraud. TM protection alone reads as “just protecting companies” – that is absolutely not the case. Slide 6 “…assess effectiveness of the UDRP in terms of its overarching goals as identified in the 2011 Final Issue Report: ■ ii) Addressing abuse” * It’s not abuse (wide) it’s abusive registrations (narrow). The original WIPO Report said “The scope of the procedure would be limited to cases of abusive registrations (or cybersquatting)”. We need to be careful here not to suggest it’s about broader DNS abuse. “Share general data on case filings, decisions, etc.”. * What does this mean? Data that there were x cases filed and y decisions? On what basis, what was the reason for bringing the case, were the parties first timers or multiple applicants/defendants, what was the justification for the decision, does language play a part… This formulation misses both nuance and the bigger picture: the UDRP is the tip of the iceberg (private acquisitions being a big way names are reclaimed) and there are various reasons why brand owners use other available tools that would never feature in such statistics (for example, compare the defensive portfolios of 100 random brands vs the number of UDRP case they have filed – the latter is not even in the same ballpark as the former). “High level statistics of data collected for each UDRP goal” * I’m not sure what this means? And how do you assess efficiency and fairness through stats? Slide 7 “Review of UDRP cases filed per year. Continued growth in UDRP filings worldwide helps demonstrates that the UDRP remains a popular/effective tool to combat cybersquatting.” * It also demonstrates that cybersquatting isn’t going away. (The Charter could consider whether we need some form of Notice & Suspension front-end bolt-on to the existing UDRP?) “Community views concerning effectiveness” * Effectiveness for whom? TM owners don’t want others squatting their names (and thus duping users/consumers, and/or leading to unfair trading practices necessitating expensive purchases and defensive registrations, which have no wider societal or public interest benefit and serve only to clog the DNS with parked names). Domainers want to buy/sell all names. CPs want to register all names. Non-commercials want everyone to have the chance to register any name. (Often there are free speech concerns cited, yet free speech features in a tiny percentage of UDRP cases and the UDRP itself already codifies free speech as a defence - numerous cases have found in favour of legitimate free speech). Brand owners’ views on the “effectiveness” of core aspects of (e.g.) Registrars’ business would not likely be given equal weight as that of the CPH. So effectiveness for whom? Analysis of duration/fees * OK but – what’s the goal? Who will tell you the fees for litigation – so how can you analyse that? It’s case-by-case/jurisdiction relevant, surely? Do we include the $$$$ paid by brands to develop and pursue a UDRP with the 0.0001$ paid by a squatter? What is this supposed to show, how would you get those figures and from whom? Slide 8 “Overview of whether the UDRP is impartial/fair for trademark holders and domain name registrants” * This is the only part of the slide that refers to fairness for TM holders – the rest seems weighted to assumptions that they are somehow the ones being “unfair”. * What about fairness for users and consumers? Should we not protect them from being - deliberately - duped/defrauded? * What is the cost on both sides? How much does it cost (monitoring the entire DNS = money + resources; + duped consumers + reputational damage; x repeat offenders x false registrant details + unknown (redacted…) details; vs registering one DN & running away? “Forum Shopping - Analysis of complaint win percentage for each UDRP provider” * This is rather loaded – again, an assumption that TM owners – alone – must be in the wrong. Analyses of this conducted by WIPO also show that the stats on success rates across main providers were remarkably similar. “Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH)” * This is about 0.5% of all cases. Of course it should be addressed, but let’s not make it bigger in theory than it is in reality. Slide 9 “UDRP Goal: Addressing Abuse” * Again – the goal is addressing cybersquatting, i.e. abusive registrations. Not all abuse. This is an important distinction. “Analysis of yearly panel decisions published by each provider on their website (e.g., transfer/cancellation rates, complaints rejected, split decisions)” * So stats only with no reasons why the cases went that way? “Summary of UDRP-related data from ICANN org departments” * This will be a very incomplete picture as most cases do not need to be escalated to ICANN. “.CL project” * If we include this, should we not also look at assistance (filing tips, fees etc.) to micro, small and medium-sized companies who face cybersquatting but simply cannot afford the $$$$ to take a UDRP forward? Again, why are we looking at only one side of the coin? Slide 11 All of this strikes me as a waste of staff’s scarce resources when we have a massive dataset already - the WIPO Jurisprudential Overview and its (online) stats page: would it not make more sense to start there and ask the other providers to add their data? Slide 14 With this timeline, I really don’t see how staff can (although I know they will do their best to do so!) produce something comprehensive and thus useful in practice. I return to what I said in July: we all know we need a better Charter and if we want it to be built on reality and experience, I can’t see why we’re not utilising this Bylaws provision: Section 13.1. EXTERNAL EXPERT ADVICE (a) Purpose. The purpose of seeking external expert advice is to allow the policy-development process within ICANN to take advantage of existing expertise that resides in the public or private sector but outside of ICANN. In those cases where there are relevant public bodies with expertise, or where access to private expertise could be helpful, the Board and constituent bodies should be encouraged to seek advice from such expert bodies or individuals. We have WIPO (who wrote it in the first place and do it every single day). They’re global, independent, and expert. We have the other providers. Should we not be asking the experts for what actually happens and asking them to produce this PSR, or at the very least have a working group of them and staff? Looking forward to discussing this later, Marie From: council <council-bounces(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org>> On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund via council Sent: Tuesday, 14 September 2021 02:50 To: council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] Resend Re: FOR COUNCIL DISCUSSION: Agenda Item 5 -- GNSO Update on the Framework for the Policy Status Report on the UDRP Dear all, Please see the corrected attached version of the slides per below. Kind regards, Julie From: council <council-bounces(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of Julie Hedlund via council <council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Reply-To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> Date: Monday, September 13, 2021 at 6:39 PM To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>" <council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: [council] FOR COUNCIL DISCUSSION: Agenda Item 5 -- GNSO Update on the Framework for the Policy Status Report on the UDRP Dear GNSO Councilors, Per the following item from the agenda below, please see the attached slides for your consideration. Item 5: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - GDS Update on the Framework for the Policy Status Report Framework on the UDRP (30 minutes) Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

2 1