Council colleagues,
Please find below the Business Constituency's feedback on outreach
related to art28 NIS2, as well as a relevant attachment.
*Input follows*:
The BC registers its objection to the direction the council is taking
with regard to governmental outreach. It is clear that the management of
these relationships is the remit of the GAC, not the GNSO. The council
is not a governmental lobbying organization and should not behave as such.
Discussions with governments are the remit of the GAC – not the GNSO
Council. The GNSO’s role is to propose new polices, leaving government
engagement to the GAC. Under ICANN bylaws, the GNSO’s role definition is
to be “responsible for developing and recommending to the Board
substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains.” That of the
GAC is “activities of ICANN as they relate to concerns of governments,
particularly matters where there may be an interaction between ICANN’s
policies and various law and international agreements or where they may
affect public policy issues.” Let’s be clear about that intentional
separation. What is proposed for the Council to undertake has little to
do with “recommending to the Board policies relating to generic
top-level domains.”
The BC has been calling for WHOIS policy to be updated in response to
NIS2 (see attached chart – so far, the Council has not acted). It is
therefore premature to reply to Europe to assure EU authorities that
“all is well” until that work has been completed. Note further that the
Council has not developed – or even begun to develop – updated standards
related to NIS2’s verification and accuracy requirements. Indeed, the
Council elected to delay any work in these areas until the conclusion of
the accuracy scoping work (which left off with a yet-to-be-employed
survey of registrars before work was suspended indefinitely).
Should council representatives disagree with ICANN bylaws and elect to
forge ahead, and due to the focus here being multistakeholder processes
and roles, we respectfully suggest that any outreach be done only with
full feedback and approval from each constituency or stakeholder group
represented through the GNSO. This would ensure that there is full
buy-in and true reflection of constituency or stakeholder group
positions with any representation of unanimity in a communication from
the Council. The BC will strongly object to representations otherwise by
a Council letter or outreach that doesn’t fully include such feedback
from each constituency or stakeholder group represented within the GNSO.
This is an important matter, both procedurally and as represented by the
potential content of a council communication. The BC's Councilors are
happy to work with colleagues to arrive at a procedure that meets the
needs of all groups making up the GNSO.
--
Mark W. Datysgeld [markwd.website <https://markwd.website>]
Director at Governance Primer [governanceprimer.com
<https://governanceprimer.com>]
ICANN GNSO Councilor
Dear All,
Following the Council’s discussion on possible outreach to the GAC / European Commission / EU Member States in relation to implementation of art28 NIS2, I reached out to Elena Plexida, Vice President, Government and IGO Engagement, to share with her the Council’s discussion and ask whether any outreach has been undertaken in this regard by ICANN org. She shared that:
“ICANN org has been in contact with the European Network Information Security Agency (ENISA) which is supporting the EU Member States coordination in the context of the NIS Cooperation Group, including coordination in view of the implementation of art.28 of the NIS2 Directive. (It is noted that ENISA recently published DNS Identity, a report that provides a view of authentication and verification of domain name owners in the context of domain name registration (see https://www.enisa.europa.eu/publications/dns-identity) The objective of this outreach is to ensure that the work of the multistakeholder model in this area and existing requirements are recognized and understood. ENISA is eager to take ICANN org’s input on board and is expecting further details on the existing requirements so that existing ICANN policies and procedures can be taken into consideration. In order to avoid duplication in outreach efforts, the Council may want to consider coordinating with ICANN org on any further outreach it may want to undertake.”
Elena has indicated that she is available to share more information on the outreach to date and engage with those that were interested to pursue a possible communication to make sure any outreach is complementary to efforts already underway.
If those that were interested in working on a possible letter together with Thomas and Greg, can indicate so on the mailing list by Friday 28 July? Following that, the staff support team can send out a doodle to find a date / time for the drafting team to meet with Elena to discuss possible next steps.
Best regards,
Marika
