July 2025 - council - lists.icann.org

GNSO Council Absence Notification Form: Farzaneh Badii
by Terri Agnew July 9, 2025

July 9, 2025

Full Name of Officer: Rafik Dammak Officer Email Address: Rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com Date Prepared: 09 July 2025 GNSO Organization: Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group Officer Position or Title: Chair Name of Absent Councilor: Farzaneh Badii Voting Remedy: Proxy Proxy Information Reason(s) for or condition(s) leading to the remedy: Farzaneh is attending a conference and might not be able to join Specific subject(s)/measure(s)/motion(s)/action(s) of the Council for which the remedy is being exercised: To vote on any matter before the council Date upon which the remedy will expire or terminate: 12 July 2025 I affirm that a voting position has been established on the matter(s) at issue pursuant to provisions contained in our Charter or Bylaws. Yes Our GNSO Councilor has been instructed on how to vote on the matter(s). Yes Full Name of GNSO Councilor Serving as Voting Proxy: Manju Chen By submitting my personal data, I agree that my personal data will be processed in accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy<https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>, and agree to abide by the website Terms of Service<https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos>. I Agree

1 0

Mailing List Reminder | GNSO Council mailing list
by Terri Agnew July 8, 2025

July 8, 2025

Hello GNSO Council members, As a reminder, for GNSO Council mailing list , please use: council(a)icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org> and do not use: council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>. Thank you. Kind regards, Terri Policy Team Supporting the GNSO

1 0

Re: Late Motion regarding Reviews for Consideration at Thursday's Council meeting
by Steve Chan July 8, 2025

July 8, 2025

Dear Councilors, Staff will update the agenda again. What stands now is agenda item 4, which was to be a vote to determine if there is support for the ALAC petition and then item 5 was focused on next steps for reviews. With the submitted motion, our understanding is that item 4 can be removed, item 5 becomes a voting item, and the first order of business is a vote on the item 5 Request for Consideration. If this does sound accurate, please let us know. Otherwise, stay tuned for the updated agenda. Best, Steve From: "Lawrence O. Olawale-Roberts via council" <council(a)icann.org> Reply-To: "lawrence(a)microboss.org" <lawrence(a)microboss.org> Date: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 at 11:25 AM To: Susan Payne <susan.payne(a)comlaude.com>, GNOS Council Mailing List <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Cc: IPC-Leadership <ipc-leadership(a)icann.org> Subject: [council] Re: Late Motion regarding Reviews for Consideration at Thursday's Council meeting Dear Council colleagues, Anne beat me to it, as I strove to second this motion. The BC has been discussing the possibility of supporting the ALAC petition (but for time, we are yet to arrive at a consensus) as we find it pertinent that the Board should not be permitted in continue floating requirements in her by-laws, especially where this has now lingered over a long span of time. Some within our fold view the ALAC's petition as a trigger that may help us arrive at a solution, but in the immediate I see value in the motion so recommended, whilst awaiting the BC's official position. Lawrence. Get Outlook for iOS [aka.ms]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/aka.ms/o0ukef__;!!PtGJab4!6ue-RhTi7HAA0G…> ________________________________ From: Susan Payne via council <council(a)icann.org> Sent: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 5:15 PM To: GNOS Council Mailing List <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Cc: IPC-Leadership <ipc-leadership(a)icann.org> Subject: [council] Late Motion regarding Reviews for Consideration at Thursday's Council meeting Dear Council colleagues Following my indication that the IPC would favour the GNSO supporting the ALAC Petition, Greg suggested that I put forward a Motion to that effect which would have to be considered as a late Motion under the procedure in our Operating Procedures at sections 3.3.2 a, b and c (extract copied below). Having subsequently seen the indication from Sam that the RySG also does not support the Petition, and discussed further with my Constituency, our conclusion is that such a Motion would have no prospect of passing at this time and Council’s time would be better spent on agreeing the path forward for reviews. The IPC would however like to put forward a proposed Motion for possible late consideration on Thursday, relating to the next steps on Reviews. We believe that it will send a much stronger message to the Board if the GNSO Council votes on a position, rather than simply sending a letter. Of the four options summarised by Greg for our consideration and discussion on Thursday, the IPC supports option 1, as expressed by Tomslin as follows: * The community to urgently propose a Bylaws amendment to the board that would amend the Bylaws to allow for a one-time review of all Reviews currently required by the Bylaws (with solutions for the issues we face today with reviews as output recommendations) and to suspend the conduct of all Reviews until this exercise is completed; * With the explicit safeguard of time frame and that if this is not done within a specified period, the current Reviews obligations come back fully into force. As we understand it, this was the proposal discussed in Prague during the SOAC Leaders’ meeting, which seemed to gain support. With that in mind, our proposed Motion envisages that the Council might vote to support option 1 and proposes that we convene a small team to develop a draft Bylaws amendment and a possible plan for the actual review of reviews. We appreciate that this is being proposed on very short notice – and we also appreciate that there is time on the Council agenda to discuss next steps on reviews. We would ask, therefore, that the Request for Consideration on Late Notice, required as a precursor, and, if supported, the subsequent consideration of the Motion is scheduled on our agenda to happen after the discussion item. This would allow Council the opportunity to vote, if we do reach agreement on this as a path forward. Of course, if a different path is agreed or any Councillors are not in a position to vote, it would be open to me to withdraw the Motion or for the Request for Consideration to be rejected (since it requires unanimity). The Motion could then be re-presented (amended as necessary) for either our August meeting or even, potentially, for a special meeting before then. The proposed Motion is being presented, therefore, to get something on the table for others to consider and see whether you might support it. The Request for Consideration on Late Notice, and the Draft Motion are attached, and also here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tHkxgi_2mvWWD8CNqe91kPSj132Y_q3HGRW--Pk… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1tHkxgi_2mvWW…> Many thanks for your consideration. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy [cid:image001.png@01DBF001.42E09690][comlaude.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/comlaude.com/__;!!PtGJab4!6ue-RhTi7HAA0G…> 28 Little Russell Street, London WC1A 2HN, UK T +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 Ext 255 comlaude.com [comlaude.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/comlaude.com__;!!PtGJab4!6ue-RhTi7HAA0G0O…> Follow us on LinkedIn [t-uk.xink.io]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/pRkAAFJfAADw…> and YouTube [t-uk.xink.io]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/bhkAAFJfAADw…> [cid:image002.png@01DBF001.42E09690][linkedin.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.linkedin.com/company/com-laude__;!!P…> [cid:image003.png@01DBF001.42E09690] [twitter.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/twitter.com/comlaude?lang=en__;!!PtGJab4…> [cid:image004.png@01DBF001.42E09690] [facebook.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.facebook.com/ComLaude/__;!!PtGJab4!6…> [cid:image005.png@01DBF001.42E09690] [youtube.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.youtube.com/@comlaude__;!!PtGJab4!6u…> [cid:image006.jpg@01DBF001.42E09690] [Image removed by sender.] ________________________________ The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that Com Laude Group Limited (the “Com Laude Group”) does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group is a limited company registered in England and Wales with company number 10689074 and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 6181291 and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176 and registered office at 15 William Street, South West Lane, Edinburgh, EH3 7LL Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, a corporation incorporated in the State of Washington and principal office address at Suite 332, Securities Building, 1904 Third Ave, Seattle, WA 98101; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan with company number 0100-01-190853 and registered office at 1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan; Com Laude Domain ESP S.L.U., a company registered in Spain and registered office address at Calle Barcas 2, 2, Valencia, 46002, Spain. For further information see www.comlaude.com [comlaude.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/comlaude.com__;!!PtGJab4!6ue-RhTi7HAA0G0…>

1 0

Late Motion regarding Reviews for Consideration at Thursday's Council meeting
by Susan Payne July 8, 2025

July 8, 2025

Dear Council colleagues Following my indication that the IPC would favour the GNSO supporting the ALAC Petition, Greg suggested that I put forward a Motion to that effect which would have to be considered as a late Motion under the procedure in our Operating Procedures at sections 3.3.2 a, b and c (extract copied below). Having subsequently seen the indication from Sam that the RySG also does not support the Petition, and discussed further with my Constituency, our conclusion is that such a Motion would have no prospect of passing at this time and Council's time would be better spent on agreeing the path forward for reviews. The IPC would however like to put forward a proposed Motion for possible late consideration on Thursday, relating to the next steps on Reviews. We believe that it will send a much stronger message to the Board if the GNSO Council votes on a position, rather than simply sending a letter. Of the four options summarised by Greg for our consideration and discussion on Thursday, the IPC supports option 1, as expressed by Tomslin as follows: * The community to urgently propose a Bylaws amendment to the board that would amend the Bylaws to allow for a one-time review of all Reviews currently required by the Bylaws (with solutions for the issues we face today with reviews as output recommendations) and to suspend the conduct of all Reviews until this exercise is completed; * With the explicit safeguard of time frame and that if this is not done within a specified period, the current Reviews obligations come back fully into force. As we understand it, this was the proposal discussed in Prague during the SOAC Leaders' meeting, which seemed to gain support. With that in mind, our proposed Motion envisages that the Council might vote to support option 1 and proposes that we convene a small team to develop a draft Bylaws amendment and a possible plan for the actual review of reviews. We appreciate that this is being proposed on very short notice - and we also appreciate that there is time on the Council agenda to discuss next steps on reviews. We would ask, therefore, that the Request for Consideration on Late Notice, required as a precursor, and, if supported, the subsequent consideration of the Motion is scheduled on our agenda to happen after the discussion item. This would allow Council the opportunity to vote, if we do reach agreement on this as a path forward. Of course, if a different path is agreed or any Councillors are not in a position to vote, it would be open to me to withdraw the Motion or for the Request for Consideration to be rejected (since it requires unanimity). The Motion could then be re-presented (amended as necessary) for either our August meeting or even, potentially, for a special meeting before then. The proposed Motion is being presented, therefore, to get something on the table for others to consider and see whether you might support it. The Request for Consideration on Late Notice, and the Draft Motion are attached, and also here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tHkxgi_2mvWWD8CNqe91kPSj132Y_q3HGRW--Pk… Many thanks for your consideration. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy [cid:image001.png@01DBF022.95C806B0]<https://comlaude.com/> 28 Little Russell Street, London WC1A 2HN, UK T +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 Ext 255 comlaude.com<http://comlaude.com> Follow us on LinkedIn<https://t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/pRkAAFJfAADw_RQA0> and YouTube<https://t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/bhkAAFJfAADw_RQA0> [cid:image002.png@01DBF022.95C806B0]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/com-laude> [cid:image003.png@01DBF022.95C806B0] <https://twitter.com/comlaude?lang=en> [cid:image004.png@01DBF022.95C806B0] <https://www.facebook.com/ComLaude/> [cid:image005.png@01DBF022.95C806B0] <https://www.youtube.com/@comlaude> [cid:image006.jpg@01DBF022.95C806B0] ________________________________ The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that Com Laude Group Limited (the "Com Laude Group") does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group is a limited company registered in England and Wales with company number 10689074 and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 6181291 and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176 and registered office at 15 William Street, South West Lane, Edinburgh, EH3 7LL Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, a corporation incorporated in the State of Washington and principal office address at Suite 332, Securities Building, 1904 Third Ave, Seattle, WA 98101; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan with company number 0100-01-190853 and registered office at 1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan; Com Laude Domain ESP S.L.U., a company registered in Spain and registered office address at Calle Barcas 2, 2, Valencia, 46002, Spain. For further information see www.comlaude.com<https://comlaude.com>

2 2

Re: Late Motion regarding Reviews for Consideration at Thursday's Council meeting
by Terri Agnew July 8, 2025

July 8, 2025

Hello, We confirm receipt of the motion and will get it posted shortly on the motions wiki page.<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/PKifBg> GNSO Councilors, the motion will need a second, please email the GNSO Council mailing list to do so: council(a)icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org> Thank you. Kind regards, Terri Policy Team Supporting the GNSO From: Susan Payne via council <council(a)icann.org> Reply-To: Susan Payne <susan.payne(a)comlaude.com> Date: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 at 11:18 AM To: GNOS Council Mailing List <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Cc: IPC-Leadership <ipc-leadership(a)icann.org> Subject: [council] Re: Late Motion regarding Reviews for Consideration at Thursday's Council meeting Apologies – I forgot the extract from the OP: 3.3.2 Submission of Reports and Motions Reports and motions should be submitted to the GNSO Council for inclusion on the agenda as soon as possible, but no later than 23h59 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) on the day, 10 calendar days before the GNSO Council meeting. If a motion is submitted after the Submission Deadline, the GNSO Council shall consider the motion if the following requirements are met: a. The motion (including any report or other supporting documentation) is submitted to the GNSO Council at least 24 hours in advance of the GNSO Council meeting; b. The motion is accompanied by a request to consider the motion despite submission after the Submission Deadline (a “Request for Consideration”); c. A vote on the Request for Consideration shall be called as the first order of business for the agenda item that deals with the motion. The vote on the Request for Consideration must be unanimous (i.e., all Councilors or their proxies must vote and all votes cast must be in favor of considering the motion at such GNSO Council meeting) for the motion to be considered at such GNSO Council meeting. If these requirements are not met, the motion shall not be considered submitted for the next Council meeting. For the avoidance of doubt, if the motion is proposed again for a subsequent Council meeting, it shall not be considered a resubmitted motion under the rules for Resubmission of a Motion in these Operating Procedures. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy Com Laude T +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 Ext 255 [cid:image001.png@01DBEFFA.BA87B540] [comlaude.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/comlaude.com/__;!!PtGJab4!_Bfo-b5m_XPatP…> Follow us on LinkedIn [t-uk.xink.io]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/pRkAAGVfAADw…> and YouTube [t-uk.xink.io]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/bhkAAGVfAADw…> From: Susan Payne via IPC-Leadership <ipc-leadership(a)icann.org> Sent: 08 July 2025 17:11 To: GNOS Council Mailing List <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Cc: IPC-Leadership <ipc-leadership(a)icann.org> Subject: [IPC-Leadership] Late Motion regarding Reviews for Consideration at Thursday's Council meeting Dear Council colleagues Following my indication that the IPC would favour the GNSO supporting the ALAC Petition, Greg suggested that I put forward a Motion to that effect which would have to be considered as a late Motion under the procedure in our Operating Procedures at sections 3.3.2 a, b and c (extract copied below). Having subsequently seen the indication from Sam that the RySG also does not support the Petition, and discussed further with my Constituency, our conclusion is that such a Motion would have no prospect of passing at this time and Council’s time would be better spent on agreeing the path forward for reviews. The IPC would however like to put forward a proposed Motion for possible late consideration on Thursday, relating to the next steps on Reviews. We believe that it will send a much stronger message to the Board if the GNSO Council votes on a position, rather than simply sending a letter. Of the four options summarised by Greg for our consideration and discussion on Thursday, the IPC supports option 1, as expressed by Tomslin as follows: * The community to urgently propose a Bylaws amendment to the board that would amend the Bylaws to allow for a one-time review of all Reviews currently required by the Bylaws (with solutions for the issues we face today with reviews as output recommendations) and to suspend the conduct of all Reviews until this exercise is completed; * With the explicit safeguard of time frame and that if this is not done within a specified period, the current Reviews obligations come back fully into force. As we understand it, this was the proposal discussed in Prague during the SOAC Leaders’ meeting, which seemed to gain support. With that in mind, our proposed Motion envisages that the Council might vote to support option 1 and proposes that we convene a small team to develop a draft Bylaws amendment and a possible plan for the actual review of reviews. We appreciate that this is being proposed on very short notice – and we also appreciate that there is time on the Council agenda to discuss next steps on reviews. We would ask, therefore, that the Request for Consideration on Late Notice, required as a precursor, and, if supported, the subsequent consideration of the Motion is scheduled on our agenda to happen after the discussion item. This would allow Council the opportunity to vote, if we do reach agreement on this as a path forward. Of course, if a different path is agreed or any Councillors are not in a position to vote, it would be open to me to withdraw the Motion or for the Request for Consideration to be rejected (since it requires unanimity). The Motion could then be re-presented (amended as necessary) for either our August meeting or even, potentially, for a special meeting before then. The proposed Motion is being presented, therefore, to get something on the table for others to consider and see whether you might support it. The Request for Consideration on Late Notice, and the Draft Motion are attached, and also here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tHkxgi_2mvWWD8CNqe91kPSj132Y_q3HGRW--Pk… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1tHkxgi_2mvWW…> Many thanks for your consideration. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy [cid:image002.png@01DBEFFA.BA87B540][comlaude.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/comlaude.com/__;!!PtGJab4!_Bfo-b5m_XPatP…> 28 Little Russell Street, London WC1A 2HN, UK T +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 Ext 255 comlaude.com [comlaude.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/comlaude.com/__;!!PtGJab4!_Bfo-b5m_XPatP_…> Follow us on LinkedIn [t-uk.xink.io]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/pRkAAFJfAADw…> and YouTube [t-uk.xink.io]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/bhkAAFJfAADw…> [cid:image003.png@01DBEFFA.BA87B540][linkedin.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.linkedin.com/company/com-laude__;!!P…> [cid:image004.png@01DBEFFA.BA87B540] [twitter.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/twitter.com/comlaude?lang=en__;!!PtGJab4…> [cid:image005.png@01DBEFFA.BA87B540] [facebook.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.facebook.com/ComLaude/__;!!PtGJab4!_…> [cid:image006.png@01DBEFFA.BA87B540] [youtube.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.youtube.com/@comlaude__;!!PtGJab4!_B…> [cid:image007.jpg@01DBEFFA.BA87B540] ________________________________ The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that Com Laude Group Limited (the “Com Laude Group”) does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group is a limited company registered in England and Wales with company number 10689074 and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 6181291 and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176 and registered office at 15 William Street, South West Lane, Edinburgh, EH3 7LL Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, a corporation incorporated in the State of Washington and principal office address at Suite 332, Securities Building, 1904 Third Ave, Seattle, WA 98101; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan with company number 0100-01-190853 and registered office at 1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan; Com Laude Domain ESP S.L.U., a company registered in Spain and registered office address at Calle Barcas 2, 2, Valencia, 46002, Spain. For further information see www.comlaude.com [comlaude.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/comlaude.com/__;!!PtGJab4!_Bfo-b5m_XPatP…> ________________________________ The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that Com Laude Group Limited (the “Com Laude Group”) does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group is a limited company registered in England and Wales with company number 10689074 and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 6181291 and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176 and registered office at 15 William Street, South West Lane, Edinburgh, EH3 7LL Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, a corporation incorporated in the State of Washington and principal office address at Suite 332, Securities Building, 1904 Third Ave, Seattle, WA 98101; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan with company number 0100-01-190853 and registered office at 1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan; Com Laude Domain ESP S.L.U., a company registered in Spain and registered office address at Calle Barcas 2, 2, Valencia, 46002, Spain. For further information see www.comlaude.com [comlaude.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/comlaude.com/__;!!PtGJab4!_Bfo-b5m_XPatP…>

2 4

SSAC update added | Re: Accuracy Assignment Input
by Terri Agnew July 7, 2025

July 7, 2025

Dear GNSO Council Members, On behalf of the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC), please find attached SAC129: SSAC Comments on the GNSO Domain Name Registration Data Accuracy Concept Proposal. SSAC recognizes that their response is later than intended, and they greatly appreciate the GNSO’s consideration of their comments. This is posted on the small team wiki space found here: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/DQCiCg | Accuracy Assignment. Thank you. Kind regards, Terri Policy Team Supporting the GNSO From: Feodora Hamza via council <council(a)icann.org> Reply-To: Feodora Hamza <feodora.hamza(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, February 27, 2025 at 9:03 AM To: "council(a)icann.org" <council(a)icann.org> Subject: [council] Accuracy Assignment Input Dear GNSO Council Members, Thank you for sharing your valuable input on the accuracy assignment. [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/polic…> We have gathered the submitted input, which is now available for your reference at the following link: Accuracy Assignment Input<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/DQCiCg> The plan is to discuss next steps on this topic at ICANN82. Kind regards, Feodora Hamza Policy Development Support Manager (GNSO) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Mobile: +32 496 30 24 15 Email: feodora.hamza(a)icann.org<mailto:feodora.hamza@icann.org> Website: www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org>

1 0

FW: [Ext] NEW: Chair’s Blog: June Board Workshop and ICANN83 Recap
by Julie Bisland July 7, 2025

July 7, 2025

FYI: From: ICANN Community Digest <digest(a)icann.ccsend.com> Reply-To: "policyinfo(a)icann.org" <policyinfo(a)icann.org> Date: Monday, July 7, 2025 at 10:04 AM To: Julie Bisland <julie.bisland(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] NEW: Chair’s Blog: June Board Workshop and ICANN83 Recap [https://danh45uab.cc.rs6.net/on.jsp?ca=625ca98c-e89d-4ee4-a32c-9e54190fb252…] Monday, 07 July 2025 ICANN Community Digest [https://files.constantcontact.com/304b3fd3501/31f30ab5-1445-45c3-aef7-c0ea4…] Click here to learn more about the New gTLD Program [danh45uab.cc.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/danh45uab.cc.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001OgvgBgv…> Applicant Support Program [danh45uab.cc.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/danh45uab.cc.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001OgvgBgv…> Registry Service Provider Evaluation Program [danh45uab.cc.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/danh45uab.cc.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001OgvgBgv…> The ICANN organization Policy Development Support function publishes this twice-weekly digest to help ICANN community groups track requests and follow updates. Do you have any ideas for improving the ICANN Community Digest? Write to us at policyinfo(a)icann.org!<mailto:policyinfo@icann.org> Table of Contents Information Sharing · NEW: Chair’s Blog: June Board Workshop and ICANN83 Recap Next Round · Next Round Outreach, Engagement, and Communications Snapshot · ICANN Materials Provide Prospective New gTLD Applicants Clarity on Key Topics · Next Round Champions Toolkit Available in the Six ICANN Languages 🚨 Action Items 🚨 · ICANN Opens Nomination Period for Dr. Tarek Kamel Award for Capacity Building · Call for ASP Mentors · ICANNWiki Seeking Volunteers Public Comment · ON WEEK FROM TODAY: Updated ICANN Community Participant Code of Conduct Concerning SOIs · Proposed Next Round Base gTLD Registry Agreement - Public Comment 1 of 2 · Final Proceeding for Proposed Language for the Draft Next Round Applicant Guidebook (AGB) · Root Zone Label Generation Rules Version 6 (RZ-LGR-6) · Maximal Starting Repertoire Version 6 (MSR-6) Events · These events occur in July 2025. Information Sharing NEW: Chair’s Blog: June Board Workshop and ICANN83 Recap Before the meeting, the ICANN Board gathered for a three-day workshop, where we discussed key issues. Read more. [danh45uab.cc.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/danh45uab.cc.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001OgvgBgv…> Next Round Next Round Outreach, Engagement, and Communications Snapshot We’re excited to introduce the Next Round Snapshot, a new monthly recap that highlights key updates shared during the IRT Outreach meetings. This report covers recent activities across the Applicant Support Program (ASP), Registry Service Provider (RSP) evaluation, regional and topical engagement, web traffic stats, and communications milestones. Developed in response to GAC feedback, this snapshot supports visibility and alignment across teams working on the New gTLD Program: Next Round. 📅 Published monthly following each IRT Outreach meeting 📎 Check out the inaugural April/May edition here [danh45uab.cc.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/danh45uab.cc.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001OgvgBgv…>. For questions, contact globalsupport(a)icann.org.<mailto:globalsupport@icann.org> ICANN Materials Provide Prospective New gTLD Applicants Clarity on Key Topics ICANN org is developing supplemental, complementary materials to aid prospective generic top-level domain (gTLD) applicants in understanding the Next Round application requirements, and how to navigate the application and evaluation processes. Blog [danh45uab.cc.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/danh45uab.cc.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001OgvgBgv…>. Key Topic Overview Documents. [danh45uab.cc.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/danh45uab.cc.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001OgvgBgv…> Next Round Champions Toolkit Available in the Six ICANN Languages ICANN is working with the community to identify potential Applicant Support Program (ASP) applicants – especially in regions that are currently under-represented in ICANN. If you are interested in helping to raise awareness among your own contacts or communities, please use the materials in the Next Round Champions Toolkit [danh45uab.cc.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/danh45uab.cc.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001OgvgBgv…>. To stay up to date on the New gTLD Program: Next Round and ASP, join the mailing list: nextroundinfo(a)icann.org. ASP leads, targets, and ideas can be sent to engagement.newgTLDprogram(a)icann.org<mailto:engagement.newgTLDprogram@icann.org>. Action Items ICANN Opens Nomination Period for Dr. Tarek Kamel Award for Capacity Building It recognizes ICANN community members for significant efforts in developing aptitude in areas related to ICANN's mission. Deadline: 31 July 2025 at 23:59 UTC Read more. [danh45uab.cc.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/danh45uab.cc.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001OgvgBgv…> Call for ASP Mentors ICANN is seeking volunteer mentors who would like to offer their expertise to supported applicants as part of the ASP in the new gTLD Program: Next Round [danh45uab.cc.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/danh45uab.cc.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001OgvgBgv…>. ICANN is looking for mentors who can share insights and experience across ICANN Languages (Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian, or Spanish) to support diverse gTLD applicants. Mentors may play a role in: advising applicants on navigating the gTLD application process and DNS industry; identifying resources; providing guidance; sharing experiences as appropriate; and helping supported applicants navigate the ICANN community and Public Meetings. If you or someone in your network might be interested, please refer to the mentor registration announcement [danh45uab.cc.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/danh45uab.cc.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001OgvgBgv…> for more information. Questions about the ASP or becoming a supported applicant Mentor can be sent to globalsupport(a)icann.org<mailto:globalsupport@icann.org>. ICANNWiki Seeking Volunteers ICANNWiki is seeking volunteers to assist with creating and editing articles and content for the site. Do you want to help? Getting started is as simple as requesting an account [danh45uab.cc.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/danh45uab.cc.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001OgvgBgv…>. Then, make sure to read the short content guide [danh45uab.cc.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/danh45uab.cc.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001OgvgBgv…> to get a feel for what belongs in the wiki. Also, feel free to take a look at some data source suggestions [danh45uab.cc.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/danh45uab.cc.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001OgvgBgv…> on where to find reliable data. Happy editing! Public Comment ON WEEK FROM TODAY: Updated ICANN Community Participant Code of Conduct Concerning SOIs [danh45uab.cc.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/danh45uab.cc.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001OgvgBgv…> Submissions Opening Date: Monday, 12 May 2025 Submissions Closing Date: Monday, 14 July 2025 Proposed Next Round Base gTLD Registry Agreement - Public Comment 1 of 2 [danh45uab.cc.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/danh45uab.cc.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001OgvgBgv…> Submissions Opening Date: Wednesday, 4 June 2025 Submissions Closing Date: Monday, 21 July 2025 Final Proceeding for Proposed Language for the Draft Next Round Applicant Guidebook (AGB) [danh45uab.cc.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/danh45uab.cc.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001OgvgBgv…> Submissions Opening Date: Friday, 30 May 2025 Submissions Closing Date: Wednesday, 23 July 2025 Root Zone Label Generation Rules Version 6 (RZ-LGR-6) [danh45uab.cc.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/danh45uab.cc.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001OgvgBgv…> Open for Submissions: 17 June 2025 Closed for Submissions: 29 July 2025 Maximal Starting Repertoire Version 6 (MSR-6) [danh45uab.cc.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/danh45uab.cc.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001OgvgBgv…> Open for Submissions: 17 June 2025 Closed for Submissions: 29 July 2025 See upcoming proceedings [danh45uab.cc.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/danh45uab.cc.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001OgvgBgv…>. See other public consultations [danh45uab.cc.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/danh45uab.cc.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001OgvgBgv…>. Events These events occur in July 2025. To learn more, please visit our community engagement calendar [danh45uab.cc.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/danh45uab.cc.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001OgvgBgv…>. · CANTO 2025 Conference · Africa Law Tech Festival 2025 · DNS Operations and DNSSEC Hands-On Workshop - Pakistan 2025 · AAU 16th Quadrienal General Conference · VNNIC Internet Conference 2025 · Asia Pacific Advanced Network Conference (APAN60) Volume 7, Issue 49 | Archive [danh45uab.cc.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/danh45uab.cc.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001OgvgBgv…> | Next Issue: Thursday, 10 July 2025 STAY INFORMED: Subscribe here [danh45uab.cc.rs6.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/danh45uab.cc.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001OgvgBgv…>

1 0

Re: Fwd: [ECAdmin] Petition for an EC Request Reconsideration on on the postponement of ATRT4
by Anne ICANN July 7, 2025

July 7, 2025

Thanks Greg. Does Option 1 below include the second prong of the NCSG proposal? I believe that the breakfast meeting included specifying a time frame after which the existing ByLaws Specific Reviews requirements would kick back in if no alternative is developed in the "Review of Reviews". Option 1 now says, regarding the Review of Reviews, "until this exercise is completed". As far as I know, that differs from the breakfast meeting read-out and the NCSG proposal to the Council list. Thank you for clarifying, Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso(a)gmail.com On Wed, Jul 2, 2025 at 3:34 PM DiBiase, Gregory <dibiase(a)amazon.com> wrote: > Dear Councilors, > > > > In hopes of focusing our conversation re: Reviews and the pending ALAC > petition, Leadership has gathered several potential paths forward, based on > community discussions at ICANN83 and discussions amongst ourselves. It’s > worth noting that even if the Council agrees on a preferred option, the > path forward will be subject to ongoing Board discussion on this topic. > Councilors are encouraged to propose alternative paths (or viewpoints) for > discussion as well. > > > > Potential paths forward: > > > > 1. The ICANN Board amends the Bylaws to allow for a one-time review of > all Reviews currently required by the Bylaws (with solutions for the issues > we face today with Reviews as output recommendations) and to suspend the > initiation of all Reviews until this exercise is completed. (this option > was discussed by the SOAC leaders at ICANN83 and put forth by the NCSG on > list) > 2. The ICANN Board amends the Bylaws to change the cadence of mandated > Reviews to alleviate concerns about non-compliance with current Bylaws and > initiates a one-time review of all Reviews through other means (i.e., the > review of all Reviews is NOT outlined in a Bylaws amendment). > 3. The ICANN Board does not amend any Bylaws but continues to defer > Reviews while the Community initiates a review of all Reviews. (this option > is essentially the path envisioned in the Board’s resolution > <https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-r…>) > > 4. ATRT4 is convened with the mandate to conduct a review of Reviews > (although this would not be binding, and the ATRT 4 team would be able to > change scope as indicated in the relevant Bylaws text). > > > > When considering the options, it might be helpful to think about what we > are trying to accomplish. From what we have heard, these are the important > elements: 1. Getting ICANN back into compliance with the Bylaws; 2. > Initiating a review of Reviews sooner rather than later; and 3. Guardrails > to ensure that any review of Reviews is completed by a certain date. > > > > If, after discussion, Councilors believe there appears to be a way forward > (based on the options above) and it is not prudent to support ALAC’s > petition, our next step could be a letter to the Board with our thoughts. > > > > If, after discussion, Councilors believe joining the ALAC’s petition is > warranted, support can be gauged via a vote. From our understanding, the > next steps are guided by the ARTICLE 4, 4.3/ANNEX D, 4.2 Independent > Review Process > <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/article-4…> > documentation, which can be found on the GNSO Operating Procedures > <https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/procedures> page. It states that in > order to determine whether the GNSO will support a Community IRP, the > action ”will be put before the GNSO Council as a motion for consideration. > Threshold for approval is a simple majority vote of each house, which per > Section 11.3(i) of the ICANN Bylaws is the default voting threshold.” The > document also includes a draft motion that can be leveraged. > > > > Also of note: we’ve allocated additional time to this matter at Council > given the concerns cited by Anne and others. If a SG believes a special > meeting is also warranted, please let Leadership know as soon as possible. > > > > We hope this is helpful. Please let us know if you have questions. > > > > Thanks, > > Greg > > > > > > > > *From:* Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso(a)gmail.com> > *Sent:* Wednesday, July 2, 2025 2:14 PM > *To:* Susan Payne <susan.payne(a)comlaude.com> > *Cc:* Paul McGrady <paul(a)elstermcgrady.com>; DiBiase, Gregory < > dibiase(a)amazon.com>; Tomslin Samme-Nlar <mesumbeslin(a)gmail.com>; GNSO > Council List <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > *Subject:* RE: [EXTERNAL] [council] Re: Fwd: [ECAdmin] Petition for an EC > Request Reconsideration on on the postponement of ATRT4 > > > > *CAUTION*: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not > click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know > the content is safe. > > > > Many thanks Susan. This is extremely helpful. I think that given the > support expressed for Lori's draft, the IPC should ask for the special > meeting. We will also hopefully have a chance to consider a more definite > alternative proposal to the ALAC approach which Greg says he will be > sending. I share your concern that time is running out to request the > special meeting. > > > > The introduction of a late motion at Council appears quite complicated in > that it apparently must be accepted by all Councilors as appropriate for a > vote. Is that how you read 3.3.2? (It seems unlikely we could get that > agreement from all Councilors.) > > > > *I wonder whether the IPC should go ahead and ask for the special meeting > since there have been strong expressions of support for Lori's draft. It's > possible that vetting of Greg's anticipated proposal at said special > meeting could be persuasive to IPC members. A meeting early next week could > happen if we request it now.* > > > > Thank you, > > Anne > > Anne Aikman-Scalese > > GNSO Councilor > > NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 > > anneicanngnso(a)gmail.com > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 2, 2025 at 4:57 AM Susan Payne via council <council(a)icann.org> > wrote: > > Hi all > > I thought it would be helpful for us to have in mind the timing on this, > as we consider what the GNSO’s position is – I am not prejudging whether > the GNSO supports the Petition: > > > > *Thursday 19 June*: The ALAC’s Petition was delivered to the EC Admin. > Our time therefore runs from then, as Tomslin indicated. > > *Thursday 10 July at 11.59pm PDT*: The deadline for the GNSO, and other > EC Decisional Participants, to inform the ALAC if we support the Petition. > > *24 hours later*: If the GNSO supports, then within 24 hours of that > decision we must notify the EC Admin, other decisional Participants, and > the Secretary of that support. That notice must include certain required > information including a rationale, point of contact, and whether we would > like a public conference call before formal Community Forum. > > > > Our next Council meeting is on *10 July at 1300 UTC (0600 PDT)*. The > timing is very tight, but *if* we were to hold a vote on this at that > meeting and decide to support the ALAC it ought to be possible to meet the > midnight PDT deadline later that day, and to give the necessary notice > within 24 hours. We are past the documents deadline for our 10 July > meeting, but the Operating Procedures s3.3.2 do contain a process for > consideration and voting on a late-submitted Motion. > > > > The alternative if we need a formal vote, as Greg suggests, would be an > extraordinary meeting before 10 July, but given that the US is about to go > into a holiday weekend that may be challenging to organise. > > > > Damon and I hope to be able to share the IPC’s views shortly. > > > > Susan Payne > Head of Legal Policy > Com Laude > *T* +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 > *Ext* 255 > > > > <https://comlaude.com/> > > > > *Follow us on **LinkedIn* > <https://t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/pRkAAGVfAADw_RQA0> *and **YouTube* > <https://t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/bhkAAGVfAADw_RQA0> > > *From:* Paul McGrady via council <council(a)icann.org> > *Sent:* 02 July 2025 01:59 > *To:* DiBiase, Gregory <dibiase(a)amazon.com>; Tomslin Samme-Nlar < > mesumbeslin(a)gmail.com> > *Cc:* GNSO Council List <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > *Subject:* [council] Re: Fwd: [ECAdmin] Petition for an EC Request > Reconsideration on on the postponement of ATRT4 > > > > This seems sensible. Thanks Tomslin. > > > > Best, > > Paul > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Tomslin Samme-Nlar via council <council(a)icann.org> > *Sent:* Tuesday, July 1, 2025 6:47 PM > *To:* DiBiase, Gregory <dibiase(a)amazon.com> > *Cc:* GNSO Council List <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > *Subject:* [council] Re: Fwd: [ECAdmin] Petition for an EC Request > Reconsideration on on the postponement of ATRT4 > > > > Hi Greg, > > > > The NCSG will *NOT* be supporting the petition. NCSG instead supports the > following proposal: > > - The community to urgently propose a Bylaws amendment to the board > that would amend the Bylaws to allow for a one-time review of all Reviews > currently required by the Bylaws (with solutions for the issues we face > today with reviews as output recommendations) and to suspend the conduct of > all Reviews until this exercise is completed; > - With the explicit safeguard of time frame and that if this is not > done within a specified period, the current Reviews obligations come back > fully into force. > > > > Remain blessed, > > Tomslin > > > > > > On Thu, 26 Jun 2025 at 16:52, DiBiase, Gregory <dibiase(a)amazon.com> wrote: > > Hi All, > > > > Do other SGs have a position here? > > > > If other SGs support the ALAC petition then it may be worth having an > extraordinary meeting to determine if the GNSO as a whole supports (without > support from other SOs, this petition will expire at 06:59 UTC on 11 July > 2025, several hours after our next Council meeting). > > > > If there is not strong support for ALAC’s petition, I think we can forgo > an extraordinary meeting and prioritize discussion of next steps re: “ATRT4 > and Review of Reviews” in our next Council meeting. > > > > Thanks, > > Greg > > > > *From:* DiBiase, Gregory via council <council(a)icann.org> > *Sent:* Wednesday, June 25, 2025 8:48 AM > *To:* Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso(a)gmail.com>; Tomslin Samme-Nlar < > mesumbeslin(a)gmail.com> > *Cc:* GNSO Council List <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] [council] Re: Fwd: [ECAdmin] Petition for an EC > Request Reconsideration on on the postponement of ATRT4 > > > > *CAUTION*: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not > click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know > the content is safe. > > > > Hi All, > > > > Noting here that the RrSG understands and appreciates the ALAC concerns > but does not believe an EC petition is warranted at this juncture (dialogue > on how to best proceed is ongoing). > > > > Separately, Leadership will follow up shortly on next steps from a GNSO > Council perspective. > > > > Thanks, > > Greg > > > > *From:* Anne ICANN via council <council(a)icann.org> > *Sent:* Sunday, June 22, 2025 4:58 PM > *To:* Tomslin Samme-Nlar <mesumbeslin(a)gmail.com> > *Cc:* GNSO Council List <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] [council] Re: Fwd: [ECAdmin] Petition for an EC > Request Reconsideration on on the postponement of ATRT4 > > > > *CAUTION*: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not > click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know > the content is safe. > > > > I think the ALAC faced a deadline to preserve the community's > accountability position when there was no actual proposal in place for the > Board to rectify the situation in relation to an indefinite suspension of > Bylaws-mandated reviews. I don't see this as very different from action > taken by the IPC when it filed an RFR in relation to the Bylaws issue on > Auction Proceeds Recommendation 7. > > > > It is now incumbent on the Board and the Community to "get moving" on how > this will be addressed. > > > > To my mind, it is incumbent upon the GNSO Council, after consultations > with SOs and ACs, to write to the Board urging it to quickly address the > proposed Bylaws amendment that would rectify the current situation, state a > time frame and methodology for the Review of Reviews and a corresponding > time frame for ATRT4 and other reviews to be reinstated if no new solution > is forthcoming. (This is all as discussed in our Council wrap-up session in > Prague.) In this regard, I note that the Board has the ability to request > a GNSO Input Process and the Council has the ability to initiate one as > well. We all need to keep in mind that any Bylaws Amendment requires > sufficient support from the EC to be approved. > > > > Let's not drag our feet on this one. "Wait and see what the Board does" > is an unhealthy approach and is not consistent with the MSM we are > advocating in global fora (IGF is June 23-27.) > > > > Anne > > > > Anne Aikman-Scalese > > GNSO Councilor > > NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 > > anneicanngnso(a)gmail.com > > > > > > On Sat, Jun 21, 2025 at 8:33 PM Tomslin Samme-Nlar via council < > council(a)icann.org> wrote: > > Hi Paul, > > > > We are also blindfolded by this as I don't recall this option ever being > tabled. > > > > Personally, I am with you here on strategy. My view is that narrowly > focusing only on the sole issue of the bylaw violation (of not starting > ATRT4), and not the underlying problem of how reviews are done (including > timely implementation of recommendations that come out of each review cycle > before the next) is not the better strategy overall. > > > > I am aware ALAC argues that ATRT4 SHOULD be used for this purpose (of > reviewing the review strategy), but since per the bylaws, we cannot > pre-scope what ATRT4 can or can not do, I believe the risks outweigh the > benefits here, since nothing stops any ATRT4 member from asking for a wider > scope similar to ATRT3 or more, thereby putting us in the same position or > worse. > > > > The option to first put together a community group with a *predictable* *narrow > scope* to review the reviews strategy and how they are done, before > starting the next review cycle seems to me the better holistic option. > > > > Remain blessed, > Tomslin > > > > On Sat, 21 June 2025, 22:21 Paul McGrady, <paul(a)elstermcgrady.com> wrote: > > Thanks Tomslin. > > > > Anyone else feel blindsided by this? I thought the SO/AC leaders agreed in > Prague to quickly work with the Board to get bylaw amendments in place so > that we can kick off a review of reviews discussion while keeping bylaws > integrity in place? Does anyone have any intel on why the ALAC did a > complete 180 here? > > > > Frankly, I'm having trouble understanding the ALAC strategy - if it is to > get bylaws in place and really fix the freeway pileup of reviews, then this > was filed to make something happen that everyone already said they were in > agreement to do. If this was filed to permanently calcify the ATRT pileup > which isn't working, that is odd too since I don't hear anyone saying that > the permanent pileup is a winning strategy. > > > > Clearly, something needs to change in how we are doing reviews, so digging > in and taking the position "but that is how we have always done it" doesn't > seem like a winning strategy for the ALAC or the broader community. I > prefer our needle threading approach to this that we communicated to the > Board earlier which boils down to: take the space you need to get this mess > fixed, but let's get this fixed quickly and right. Attempting to spin up > the Empowered Community for the first time over what boils down to a > workflow issue seems a but much. > > > > Best, > > Paul > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Tomslin Samme-Nlar via council <council(a)icann.org> > *Sent:* Saturday, June 21, 2025 2:17 AM > *To:* GNSO Council List <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > *Subject:* [council] Fwd: [ECAdmin] Petition for an EC Request > Reconsideration on on the postponement of ATRT4 > > > > Dear Councilors, > > > > As you will find attached, ALAC has initiated a Community Reconsideration > Request Petition on the Board’s postponement of ATRT4. As a result, ALAC is > seeking support from other Decision Participants of the EC for this request. > > > > According ICANN Bylaws Annex D, Section 4.3, the GNSO as Decision > Parricipant has 21 days to decide if we support the request or not. This > period began on 19th June. > > > > I will discuss with leadership on how best we can address this request > within the time frame since our regular council meeting might be a bit late > for a discussion. In the meantime, please circulate with your SG/Cs. > > > > Remain blessed, > Tomslin > > > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: *Jonathan Zuck via ECAdmin* <ecadmin(a)icann.org> > Date: Fri, 20 June 2025, 02:17 > Subject: [ECAdmin] Petition for an EC Request Reconsideration on on the > postponement of ATRT4 > To: Alejandra Reynoso Barral via Soac-leadership < > soac-leadership(a)icann.org> > Cc: Christian Wheeler via ECAdmin <ecadmin(a)icann.org>, Justine Chew < > justine.chew.icann(a)gmail.com>, Claire C. Craig <claireccraig(a)gmail.com> > > > > Fellow EC Chairs and EC Administrator > > Please find attached the ALAC initiated petition for an EC Request for > Reconsideration on the matter of reviews. Please let me know if you have > any questions. > > > > Jonathan > > > > Jonathan Zuck > > Chair, ALAC > > > > _______________________________________________ > ECAdmin mailing list -- ecadmin(a)icann.org > To unsubscribe send an email to ecadmin-leave(a)icann.org > > _______________________________________________ > By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your > personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance > with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and > the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos) You can > visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or > configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or > disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. > > This email originated from outside the firm. Please use caution. > > _______________________________________________ > council mailing list -- council(a)icann.org > To unsubscribe send an email to council-leave(a)icann.org > > _______________________________________________ > By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your > personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance > with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and > the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos) You can > visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or > configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or > disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. > > This email originated from outside the firm. Please use caution. > ------------------------------ > > The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the > intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way > by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this > message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the > email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete > it. Please note that Com Laude Group Limited (the “Com Laude Group”) does > not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to > scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group > does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own > and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com > Laude Group is a limited company registered in England and Wales with > company number 10689074 and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, > London, WC1A 2HN England. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a > Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number > 5047655 and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN > England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with > company number 6181291 and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, > London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland > with company number SC197176 and registered office at 15 William Street, > South West Lane, Edinburgh, EH3 7LL Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude > USA and Valideus USA, a corporation incorporated in the State of Washington > and principal office address at Suite 332, Securities Building, 1904 Third > Ave, Seattle, WA 98101; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered > in Japan with company number 0100-01-190853 and registered office at 1-3-21 > Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan; Com Laude Domain ESP S.L.U., a > company registered in Spain and registered office address at Calle Barcas > 2, 2, Valencia, 46002, Spain. For further information see www.comlaude.com > <https://comlaude.com/> > > _______________________________________________ > council mailing list -- council(a)icann.org > To unsubscribe send an email to council-leave(a)icann.org > > _______________________________________________ > By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your > personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance > with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and > the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos) You can > visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or > configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or > disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. > >

2 1

Re: Fwd: [ECAdmin] Petition for an EC Request Reconsideration on on the postponement of ATRT4
by Demetriou, Samantha July 7, 2025

July 7, 2025

Hi everyone, I’m adding the RySG’s position to this thread for everyone’s awareness and consideration. The RySG does not support the GNSO signing onto the ALAC Petition as a supporting Decisional Participant. RySG members recognize the importance of Reviews in general, as well as the need for ICANN to abide by its Bylaws. We have been discussing the path forward initially proposed by the SO/AC leaders in Prague and will have more to share during our Council discussion of this matter next week. To that end, if there is any additional information or materials regarding that proposal or the idea for an interim amendment to the Bylaws and the “Review of Reviews” it contemplates that we can share with RySG members to review, that would be very much appreciated. Thank you, Sam From: Susan Payne via council <council(a)icann.org> Reply-To: Susan Payne <susan.payne(a)comlaude.com> Date: Thursday, July 3, 2025 at 3:29 PM To: "DiBiase, Gregory" <dibiase(a)amazon.com>, "Council(a)icann.org" <council(a)icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [council] Re: Fwd: [ECAdmin] Petition for an EC Request Reconsideration on on the postponement of ATRT4 Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I’m sure that will be fine Greg, thanks. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy Com Laude T +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 Ext 255 Follow us on LinkedIn and YouTube From: DiBiase, Gregory <dibiase(a)amazon.com> Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2025 8:21:06 PM To: Susan Payne <susan.payne(a)comlaude.com>; Council(a)icann.org <council(a)icann.org> Cc: Ashcraft, Damon <dashcraft(a)swlaw.com> Subject: RE: [council] Re: Fwd: [ECAdmin] Petition for an EC Request Reconsideration on on the postponement of ATRT4 Thanks for the update, Susan. Would the IPC be willing to submit the motion to vote on this matter at Council? Page 12 of this document contains a draft motion titled 6.2 [Section 4.2] Motion to Approve a Petition to Support a Community IRP that can serve as a template. More information re: requirements to support the petition is available here: https://www.icann.org/en/governance/bylaws#annexD . Leadership and staff stand ready to assist if the documentation is not clear. Staff will revise the Council agenda to include the voting item, and we will now allocate 40 minutes for discussion of this issue. We think that should be sufficient time and obviate the need for a special meeting (we could also go over time at Council meeting if necessary). Should the motion pass, we can proceed with notification procedures right after the Council meeting concludes (we're confident there is sufficient time). Does this work for the IPC? Thanks, Greg From: Susan Payne <susan.payne(a)comlaude.com> Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2025 10:04 AM To: DiBiase, Gregory <dibiase(a)amazon.com>; GNSO Council List <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Cc: Ashcraft, Damon <dashcraft(a)swlaw.com> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] [council] Re: Fwd: [ECAdmin] Petition for an EC Request Reconsideration on on the postponement of ATRT4 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Greg, All You asked councillors to indicate, where possible, whether or not our SG/Cs favour the GNSO supporting the ALAC Petition. Damon and my instructions are that the IPC does support this. The IPC considers that the ALAC’s concerns are important and pressing issues for the ICANN community. At this juncture in time, the IPC believes that the requested actions are warranted, given the serious nature of the governance issue. ICANN simply cannot ignore its bylaws for the sake of convenience. We take this position with the recognition that ICANN reviews are deeply backlogged and inherently flawed. There is the universally agreed-upon need for fixes to be implemented. The ALAC Petition provides an important safeguard if those fixes are not made swiftly, and the IPC urges the Board and the Community to implement fixes to the review processes with all due haste and upon an agreed, non-extendable timeline. To the extent that the reconsideration request may be paused to negotiate a remedy we would encourage this to happen, with the Petition remaining pending, with the aim of an expeditious, mutually agreed remedy. Insofar as the question of whether there should be a special Council meeting early next week, the IPC would support this as an opportunity for further discussion, to allow other SGs and Cs time, if needed, to reach a firm position on whether they favour the GNSO supporting the ALAC’s Petition. I note that the NCSG, RrSG, and now the IPC already have shared their positions. I also note that we do have 30 minutes allocated for discussion during our Thursday Council meeting. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy Com Laude T +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 Ext 255 Follow us on LinkedIn and YouTube From: DiBiase, Gregory <dibiase(a)amazon.com> Sent: 02 July 2025 23:35 To: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso(a)gmail.com>; Susan Payne <susan.payne(a)comlaude.com> Cc: Paul McGrady <paul(a)elstermcgrady.com>; Tomslin Samme-Nlar <mesumbeslin(a)gmail.com>; GNSO Council List <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] Re: Fwd: [ECAdmin] Petition for an EC Request Reconsideration on on the postponement of ATRT4 Dear Councilors, In hopes of focusing our conversation re: Reviews and the pending ALAC petition, Leadership has gathered several potential paths forward, based on community discussions at ICANN83 and discussions amongst ourselves. It’s worth noting that even if the Council agrees on a preferred option, the path forward will be subject to ongoing Board discussion on this topic. Councilors are encouraged to propose alternative paths (or viewpoints) for discussion as well. Potential paths forward: The ICANN Board amends the Bylaws to allow for a one-time review of all Reviews currently required by the Bylaws (with solutions for the issues we face today with Reviews as output recommendations) and to suspend the initiation of all Reviews until this exercise is completed. (this option was discussed by the SOAC leaders at ICANN83 and put forth by the NCSG on list) The ICANN Board amends the Bylaws to change the cadence of mandated Reviews to alleviate concerns about non-compliance with current Bylaws and initiates a one-time review of all Reviews through other means (i.e., the review of all Reviews is NOT outlined in a Bylaws amendment). The ICANN Board does not amend any Bylaws but continues to defer Reviews while the Community initiates a review of all Reviews. (this option is essentially the path envisioned in the Board’s resolution) ATRT4 is convened with the mandate to conduct a review of Reviews (although this would not be binding, and the ATRT 4 team would be able to change scope as indicated in the relevant Bylaws text). When considering the options, it might be helpful to think about what we are trying to accomplish. From what we have heard, these are the important elements: 1. Getting ICANN back into compliance with the Bylaws; 2. Initiating a review of Reviews sooner rather than later; and 3. Guardrails to ensure that any review of Reviews is completed by a certain date. If, after discussion, Councilors believe there appears to be a way forward (based on the options above) and it is not prudent to support ALAC’s petition, our next step could be a letter to the Board with our thoughts. If, after discussion, Councilors believe joining the ALAC’s petition is warranted, support can be gauged via a vote. From our understanding, the next steps are guided by the ARTICLE 4, 4.3/ANNEX D, 4.2 Independent Review Process documentation, which can be found on the GNSO Operating Procedures page. It states that in order to determine whether the GNSO will support a Community IRP, the action ”will be put before the GNSO Council as a motion for consideration. Threshold for approval is a simple majority vote of each house, which per Section 11.3(i) of the ICANN Bylaws is the default voting threshold.” The document also includes a draft motion that can be leveraged. Also of note: we’ve allocated additional time to this matter at Council given the concerns cited by Anne and others. If a SG believes a special meeting is also warranted, please let Leadership know as soon as possible. We hope this is helpful. Please let us know if you have questions. Thanks, Greg From: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso(a)gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 2, 2025 2:14 PM To: Susan Payne <susan.payne(a)comlaude.com> Cc: Paul McGrady <paul(a)elstermcgrady.com>; DiBiase, Gregory <dibiase(a)amazon.com>; Tomslin Samme-Nlar <mesumbeslin(a)gmail.com>; GNSO Council List <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] [council] Re: Fwd: [ECAdmin] Petition for an EC Request Reconsideration on on the postponement of ATRT4 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe. Many thanks Susan. This is extremely helpful. I think that given the support expressed for Lori's draft, the IPC should ask for the special meeting. We will also hopefully have a chance to consider a more definite alternative proposal to the ALAC approach which Greg says he will be sending. I share your concern that time is running out to request the special meeting. The introduction of a late motion at Council appears quite complicated in that it apparently must be accepted by all Councilors as appropriate for a vote. Is that how you read 3.3.2? (It seems unlikely we could get that agreement from all Councilors.) I wonder whether the IPC should go ahead and ask for the special meeting since there have been strong expressions of support for Lori's draft. It's possible that vetting of Greg's anticipated proposal at said special meeting could be persuasive to IPC members. A meeting early next week could happen if we request it now. Thank you, Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso(a)gmail.com On Wed, Jul 2, 2025 at 4:57 AM Susan Payne via council <council(a)icann.org> wrote: Hi all I thought it would be helpful for us to have in mind the timing on this, as we consider what the GNSO’s position is – I am not prejudging whether the GNSO supports the Petition: Thursday 19 June: The ALAC’s Petition was delivered to the EC Admin. Our time therefore runs from then, as Tomslin indicated. Thursday 10 July at 11.59pm PDT: The deadline for the GNSO, and other EC Decisional Participants, to inform the ALAC if we support the Petition. 24 hours later: If the GNSO supports, then within 24 hours of that decision we must notify the EC Admin, other decisional Participants, and the Secretary of that support. That notice must include certain required information including a rationale, point of contact, and whether we would like a public conference call before formal Community Forum. Our next Council meeting is on 10 July at 1300 UTC (0600 PDT). The timing is very tight, but if we were to hold a vote on this at that meeting and decide to support the ALAC it ought to be possible to meet the midnight PDT deadline later that day, and to give the necessary notice within 24 hours. We are past the documents deadline for our 10 July meeting, but the Operating Procedures s3.3.2 do contain a process for consideration and voting on a late-submitted Motion. The alternative if we need a formal vote, as Greg suggests, would be an extraordinary meeting before 10 July, but given that the US is about to go into a holiday weekend that may be challenging to organise. Damon and I hope to be able to share the IPC’s views shortly. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy Com Laude T +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 Ext 255 Follow us on LinkedIn and YouTube From: Paul McGrady via council <council(a)icann.org> Sent: 02 July 2025 01:59 To: DiBiase, Gregory <dibiase(a)amazon.com>; Tomslin Samme-Nlar <mesumbeslin(a)gmail.com> Cc: GNSO Council List <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] Re: Fwd: [ECAdmin] Petition for an EC Request Reconsideration on on the postponement of ATRT4 This seems sensible. Thanks Tomslin. Best, Paul From: Tomslin Samme-Nlar via council <council(a)icann.org> Sent: Tuesday, July 1, 2025 6:47 PM To: DiBiase, Gregory <dibiase(a)amazon.com> Cc: GNSO Council List <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] Re: Fwd: [ECAdmin] Petition for an EC Request Reconsideration on on the postponement of ATRT4 Hi Greg, The NCSG will NOT be supporting the petition. NCSG instead supports the following proposal: The community to urgently propose a Bylaws amendment to the board that would amend the Bylaws to allow for a one-time review of all Reviews currently required by the Bylaws (with solutions for the issues we face today with reviews as output recommendations) and to suspend the conduct of all Reviews until this exercise is completed; With the explicit safeguard of time frame and that if this is not done within a specified period, the current Reviews obligations come back fully into force. Remain blessed, Tomslin On Thu, 26 Jun 2025 at 16:52, DiBiase, Gregory <dibiase(a)amazon.com> wrote: Hi All, Do other SGs have a position here? If other SGs support the ALAC petition then it may be worth having an extraordinary meeting to determine if the GNSO as a whole supports (without support from other SOs, this petition will expire at 06:59 UTC on 11 July 2025, several hours after our next Council meeting). If there is not strong support for ALAC’s petition, I think we can forgo an extraordinary meeting and prioritize discussion of next steps re: “ATRT4 and Review of Reviews” in our next Council meeting. Thanks, Greg From: DiBiase, Gregory via council <council(a)icann.org> Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2025 8:48 AM To: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso(a)gmail.com>; Tomslin Samme-Nlar <mesumbeslin(a)gmail.com> Cc: GNSO Council List <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [council] Re: Fwd: [ECAdmin] Petition for an EC Request Reconsideration on on the postponement of ATRT4 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe. Hi All, Noting here that the RrSG understands and appreciates the ALAC concerns but does not believe an EC petition is warranted at this juncture (dialogue on how to best proceed is ongoing). Separately, Leadership will follow up shortly on next steps from a GNSO Council perspective. Thanks, Greg From: Anne ICANN via council <council(a)icann.org> Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2025 4:58 PM To: Tomslin Samme-Nlar <mesumbeslin(a)gmail.com> Cc: GNSO Council List <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [council] Re: Fwd: [ECAdmin] Petition for an EC Request Reconsideration on on the postponement of ATRT4 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe. I think the ALAC faced a deadline to preserve the community's accountability position when there was no actual proposal in place for the Board to rectify the situation in relation to an indefinite suspension of Bylaws-mandated reviews. I don't see this as very different from action taken by the IPC when it filed an RFR in relation to the Bylaws issue on Auction Proceeds Recommendation 7. It is now incumbent on the Board and the Community to "get moving" on how this will be addressed. To my mind, it is incumbent upon the GNSO Council, after consultations with SOs and ACs, to write to the Board urging it to quickly address the proposed Bylaws amendment that would rectify the current situation, state a time frame and methodology for the Review of Reviews and a corresponding time frame for ATRT4 and other reviews to be reinstated if no new solution is forthcoming. (This is all as discussed in our Council wrap-up session in Prague.) In this regard, I note that the Board has the ability to request a GNSO Input Process and the Council has the ability to initiate one as well. We all need to keep in mind that any Bylaws Amendment requires sufficient support from the EC to be approved. Let's not drag our feet on this one. "Wait and see what the Board does" is an unhealthy approach and is not consistent with the MSM we are advocating in global fora (IGF is June 23-27.) Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso(a)gmail.com On Sat, Jun 21, 2025 at 8:33 PM Tomslin Samme-Nlar via council <council(a)icann.org> wrote: Hi Paul, We are also blindfolded by this as I don't recall this option ever being tabled. Personally, I am with you here on strategy. My view is that narrowly focusing only on the sole issue of the bylaw violation (of not starting ATRT4), and not the underlying problem of how reviews are done (including timely implementation of recommendations that come out of each review cycle before the next) is not the better strategy overall. I am aware ALAC argues that ATRT4 SHOULD be used for this purpose (of reviewing the review strategy), but since per the bylaws, we cannot pre-scope what ATRT4 can or can not do, I believe the risks outweigh the benefits here, since nothing stops any ATRT4 member from asking for a wider scope similar to ATRT3 or more, thereby putting us in the same position or worse. The option to first put together a community group with a predictable narrow scope to review the reviews strategy and how they are done, before starting the next review cycle seems to me the better holistic option. Remain blessed, Tomslin On Sat, 21 June 2025, 22:21 Paul McGrady, <paul(a)elstermcgrady.com> wrote: Thanks Tomslin. Anyone else feel blindsided by this? I thought the SO/AC leaders agreed in Prague to quickly work with the Board to get bylaw amendments in place so that we can kick off a review of reviews discussion while keeping bylaws integrity in place? Does anyone have any intel on why the ALAC did a complete 180 here? Frankly, I'm having trouble understanding the ALAC strategy - if it is to get bylaws in place and really fix the freeway pileup of reviews, then this was filed to make something happen that everyone already said they were in agreement to do. If this was filed to permanently calcify the ATRT pileup which isn't working, that is odd too since I don't hear anyone saying that the permanent pileup is a winning strategy. Clearly, something needs to change in how we are doing reviews, so digging in and taking the position "but that is how we have always done it" doesn't seem like a winning strategy for the ALAC or the broader community. I prefer our needle threading approach to this that we communicated to the Board earlier which boils down to: take the space you need to get this mess fixed, but let's get this fixed quickly and right. Attempting to spin up the Empowered Community for the first time over what boils down to a workflow issue seems a but much. Best, Paul From: Tomslin Samme-Nlar via council <council(a)icann.org> Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2025 2:17 AM To: GNSO Council List <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] Fwd: [ECAdmin] Petition for an EC Request Reconsideration on on the postponement of ATRT4 Dear Councilors, As you will find attached, ALAC has initiated a Community Reconsideration Request Petition on the Board’s postponement of ATRT4. As a result, ALAC is seeking support from other Decision Participants of the EC for this request. According ICANN Bylaws Annex D, Section 4.3, the GNSO as Decision Parricipant has 21 days to decide if we support the request or not. This period began on 19th June. I will discuss with leadership on how best we can address this request within the time frame since our regular council meeting might be a bit late for a discussion. In the meantime, please circulate with your SG/Cs. Remain blessed, Tomslin ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Jonathan Zuck via ECAdmin <ecadmin(a)icann.org> Date: Fri, 20 June 2025, 02:17 Subject: [ECAdmin] Petition for an EC Request Reconsideration on on the postponement of ATRT4 To: Alejandra Reynoso Barral via Soac-leadership <soac-leadership(a)icann.org> Cc: Christian Wheeler via ECAdmin <ecadmin(a)icann.org>, Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann(a)gmail.com>, Claire C. Craig <claireccraig(a)gmail.com> Fellow EC Chairs and EC Administrator Please find attached the ALAC initiated petition for an EC Request for Reconsideration on the matter of reviews. Please let me know if you have any questions. Jonathan Jonathan Zuck Chair, ALAC _______________________________________________ ECAdmin mailing list -- ecadmin(a)icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to ecadmin-leave(a)icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos) You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. This email originated from outside the firm. Please use caution. _______________________________________________ council mailing list -- council(a)icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to council-leave(a)icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos) You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. This email originated from outside the firm. Please use caution. The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that Com Laude Group Limited (the “Com Laude Group”) does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group is a limited company registered in England and Wales with company number 10689074 and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 6181291 and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176 and registered office at 15 William Street, South West Lane, Edinburgh, EH3 7LL Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, a corporation incorporated in the State of Washington and principal office address at Suite 332, Securities Building, 1904 Third Ave, Seattle, WA 98101; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan with company number 0100-01-190853 and registered office at 1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan; Com Laude Domain ESP S.L.U., a company registered in Spain and registered office address at Calle Barcas 2, 2, Valencia, 46002, Spain. For further information see www.comlaude.com _______________________________________________ council mailing list -- council(a)icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to council-leave(a)icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos) You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that Com Laude Group Limited (the “Com Laude Group”) does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group is a limited company registered in England and Wales with company number 10689074 and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 6181291 and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176 and registered office at 15 William Street, South West Lane, Edinburgh, EH3 7LL Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, a corporation incorporated in the State of Washington and principal office address at Suite 332, Securities Building, 1904 Third Ave, Seattle, WA 98101; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan with company number 0100-01-190853 and registered office at 1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan; Com Laude Domain ESP S.L.U., a company registered in Spain and registered office address at Calle Barcas 2, 2, Valencia, 46002, Spain. For further information see www.comlaude.com The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that Com Laude Group Limited (the “Com Laude Group”) does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group is a limited company registered in England and Wales with company number 10689074 and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 6181291 and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176 and registered office at 15 William Street, South West Lane, Edinburgh, EH3 7LL Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, a corporation incorporated in the State of Washington and principal office address at Suite 332, Securities Building, 1904 Third Ave, Seattle, WA 98101; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan with company number 0100-01-190853 and registered office at 1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan; Com Laude Domain ESP S.L.U., a company registered in Spain and registered office address at Calle Barcas 2, 2, Valencia, 46002, Spain. For further information see www.comlaude.com

2 1

Updated agenda | Proposed Agenda | GNSO Council Meeting | Thursday, 10 July 2025
by Terri Agnew July 3, 2025

July 3, 2025

Dear GNSO Council, There have been updates to the 10 July 2025 GNSO Council agenda. Changes: * Added Item 4: COUNCIL VOTE - GNSO Support - Community Reconsideration Supporting Decisional Participant (15 minutes) * Item 5 adjusted placement on the agenda: Board deferral of Bylaws-mandated Reviews and steps needed for Community Input (25 minutes) * Differing this item until August 2025 meeting: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Outcome of Transfer Policy Review PDP Human Rights Impact Assessment (15 minutes) All changes can be seen on the wiki agenda page: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/KKafBg **Updated agenda GNSO Council Agenda 10 July 2025 Please note that all documents referenced in the agenda have been gathered on a Wiki page for convenience and easier access: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/4KefBg This agenda was established according to the GNSO Operating Procedures<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/op-proced…> v3.5, updated on 15 March 2023. For convenience: * An excerpt of the ICANN Bylaws defining the voting thresholds is provided in Appendix 1 at the end of this agenda. * An excerpt from the Council Operating Procedures defining the absentee voting procedures is provided in Appendix 2 at the end of this agenda. GNSO Council meeting on Thursday, 10 July 2025 at 13:00 UTC: https://tinyurl.com/58frfr46 06:00 Los Angeles; 09:00 Washington DC; 14:00 London; 15:00 Paris; 16:00 Moscow; 23:00 Melbourne GNSO Council Meeting Remote Participation [Published 24 hours prior to meeting]: https://icann83.sched.com/event/246XL/gnso-council-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 (5 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/2025/minutes/minutes-gnso…> of the GNSO Council Meeting on 15 May 2025 were posted on 02 June 2025. Minutes<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2025/minutes/minutes-gnso…> of the GNSO Council Meeting on 11 June 2025 were posted on 30 June 2025 Item 2: Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List (0 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) * Confirmation of the GNSO-appointed Member for the Universal Acceptance (UA) Expert Working Group (EWG) * GNSO Council Review of GAC Communiqué Item 4: COUNCIL VOTE - GNSO Support - Community Reconsideration Supporting Decisional Participant (15 minutes) On 19 June 2025, the ALAC initiated a petition<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/alac-to-eca-19jun25-en…> for an Empowered Community (EC) Request for Reconsideration related to the ICANN Board’s resolution<https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-r…> related to ICANN’s Reviews Program. According to ICANN’s Bylaws Annex D, Section 4.3, the GNSO as a Decision Participant has 21 days to decide if it supports the request. This Council Vote item was not originally included in this agenda and as such, did not meet the motion submission deadline (i.e., 10 calendar days before the GNSO Council meeting). As such, it is subject to the procedures detailed in section 3.3.2 of the GNSO Operating Procedures<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/op-proced…> (emphasis added). a. The motion (including any report or other supporting documentation) is submitted to the GNSO Council at least 24 hours in advance of the GNSO Council meeting; b. The motion is accompanied by a request to consider the motion despite submission after the Submission Deadline (a “Request for Consideration”); c. A vote on the Request for Consideration shall be called as the first order of business for the agenda item that deals with the motion. The vote on the Request for Consideration must be unanimous (i.e., all Councilors or their proxies must vote and all votes cast must be in favor of considering the motion at such GNSO Council meeting) for the motion to be considered at such GNSO Council meeting. Here, if the Request for Consideration passes, the Council will vote to determine whether it wishes to support the ALAC’s Community Reconsideration Request. 4.1 - Presentation of motion<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/gnsocouncilmeetings/pages…> (Susan Payne, IPC Councilor) 4.2 - Council discussion 4.3 - Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority) Item 5: Board deferral of Bylaws-mandated Reviews and steps needed for Community Input (25 minutes) On 27 May 2025<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-holen-et-al-2…>, the Board wrote to SO/AC Leaders with an update on the ICANN Reviews. Specifically, following input from the community, the Board informed SO/AC leaders that it took the following actions related to reviews during its 19 May meeting: 1. Continue the deferral of Organizational Reviews until the completion of one CIP cycle (estimated at 3 years). 2. Conclude the Pilot Holistic Review and following the completion of the CIP cycle, consider whether to rename and re-charter an effort focused solely on designing a review of the CIP. 3. Continue the community dialogue to support a broader discussion on reviews. This will include an engagement session at ICANN84 focused on the purpose and essential subject areas for reviews. 4. Continue the deferral of the fourth Accountability and Transparency Review (ATRT4) to support the community’s capacity to participate in the dialogues, and any related activities that may result from such discussions. Please see the relevant Board Resolution<https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-r…> for further information. During its May meeting, the Council had agreed to send correspondence to the Board, sharing its thoughts on next steps for ICANN Reviews. With the Board’s suggested approach generally in line with sentiments shared during the Council’s May meeting, it seems that circumstances may have overtaken the need to send correspondence in the context of that action item. During ICANN83, the SO/AC Chairs met with ICANN org to discuss a potential path forward. During the Council’s Wrap-Up<https://icann83.sched.com/event/246XW/gnso-council-wrap-up> session, GNSO Chair Greg DiBiase shared a high-level overview of that approach, asking that Councilors begin socializing the approach with their respective groups. Additional options were subsequently circulated to the GNSO Council. Here, the Council will continue its discussion from ICANN83, discuss feedback from SG/Cs on the potential options, and determine next steps (e.g., send correspondence to the ICANN Board regarding any input the Council may have). 5.1 - Introduction of Topic (Greg DiBiase, GNSO Chair) 5.2 - Council Discussion 5.3 - Next Steps Item 6: COUNCIL BRIEFING - Second IANA Naming Function Review Team (IFR2) Draft Report (20 minutes) The IANA Naming Function Review is an accountability mechanism created as part of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) stewardship transition to ensure that ICANN’s IANA work through Public Technical Identifiers (PTI) meets the needs and expectations of its naming customers. Under the ICANN Bylaws, the ICANN Board must convene an IFR no less frequently than every five years, measured from the date the previous IFR was convened. The board convened<https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-r…> the first IFR on 16 September 2018. The second IFR team (IFR2) conducted the review in accordance with the scope specified in the ICANN Bylaws<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#article18>. The review focuses on PTI’s performance of the IANA naming function against the contractual requirements in the IANA Naming Function Contract and the IANA Naming Function Statement of Work<https://www.icann.org/iana_pti_docs/151-iana-naming-function-contract-v-30s…>. The naming functions under review include management of the DNS root zone, a critical function for the ongoing operation of the Internet. The IFR2 recently sought public comments<https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/second-iana-naming-funct…> on its Draft Report, which contained findings and recommendations in three key areas: * Presence of specific Domain Name System Security Extensions (DNSSEC) policy details in the IANA Naming Function Contract * Transparency and availability of Contract amendments * Frequency of reviews After considering public comment received and making adjustments as appropriate, the IFR2 team is working to reach consensus on its Final Report. The Draft Report included two recommendations that will amend the IANA Naming Function Contract; neither recommendation received objections during the public comment period. However, Section 18.6 (b) of the Bylaws reads that any recommendations by the IFR that would amend the IANA Naming Function Contract shall only become effective if: (i) The IFR Recommendation has been approved by the vote of (A) a supermajority of the ccNSO Council (pursuant to the ccNSO's procedures or, if such procedures do not define a supermajority, two-thirds (2/3) of the ccNSO Council's members) and (B) a GNSO Supermajority;” Here, the Council will hear an update on the status of the IFR2 Report and expected next steps from the GNSO Council. 6.1 - Introduction of Topic (Ashley Heineman and Peter Koch, IFR2 Co-Chairs) 6.2 - Council Discussion 6.3 - Next Steps Item 7: COUNCIL UPDATE - Privacy Proxy Services Accreditation Issues Implementation Work (15 minutes) On 9 August 2016, the ICANN Board approved the Final Report<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/filefield_48305/ppsai-final-07de…> of the Privacy Proxy Services Accreditation Issues (PPSAI) Working Group, which contains 21 policy recommendations. ICANN org convened an Implementation Review Team (IRT) in 2016 and worked on the implementation of the policy recommendations until 2019 when the implementation work was paused due to overlapping issues around the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), data processing, and the Temporary Specification<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/gtld-registration-data-specs-en/#temp…>. In June 2024, ICANN org reconvened the PPSAI IRT and has been refining a set of overarching threshold questions that require input from the GNSO Council in order for ICANN org to, in consultation with the IRT, move forward on implementation of the 21 policy recommendations from the Final Report<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/filefield_48305/ppsai-final-07de…>. ICANN org will soon be sending the threshold questions to the GNSO Council for further guidance. The threshold questions currently under discussion are: 1. Are there any policy questions or items the IRT already wants to bring to the GNSO Council for guidance? 2. Implementation Model: Accreditation Program or Alternative Implementation: a. Can an implementation model without a new standalone accreditation program remain consistent with the policy recommendations? 1. Disclosure Frameworks (Intellectual Property and Law Enforcement) a. Are there specific areas to revisit under new law/policy? b. Can these frameworks be aligned with existing work on the Registration Data Request Service (RDRS), Registration Data Policy, and other existing procedures and remain consistent with the policy recommendations? Here, the Council will receive an update on the anticipated timeline of work for the Council. 7.1 - Introduction of Topic (Paul McGrady, GNSO Council Liaison to the PPSAI IRT) 7.2 - Council Discussion 7.3 - Next Steps Item 8: COUNCIL UPDATE: GNSO Council Small Team on Accuracy Draft Report (10 minutes) During the Council’s March 2025 meeting<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/gnsocouncilmeetings/pages…>, the Council agreed to form a dedicated small team on accuracy, which would be tasked with: * Reviewing the written input received on the Council’s threshold questions; and * Providing a detailed summary of the input received, taking into consideration the potential other sources that can inform the discussion - i.e. (but not limited to) INFERMAL study, EU NIS2 cooperation group, recommendation CC.1, and provide a recommendation to the Council on how to best make progress on the topic of registration data accuracy, e.g., relaunch scoping team with updated assignment, request Issues Report, request additional study (including the recommended form and aim of the study), etc. The Small Team, led by Paul McGrady, began meeting on 15 May 2025 and has been drafting recommendations for the Council’s consideration related to: * Examining the current timeline for validation and verification of registration data under the 2024 RAA * Assembling a diverse and representative group of interested stakeholders who could work together on producing clear and user-friendly registrant educational materials related to the importance of accurate registration data * Further work on a previously-approved Whois2 Review Team recommendation (CC.1) related to the inclusion of a notation in the RDDS record that the domain name is suspended due to incorrect data Here, the Council will discuss the Small Team’s draft report in preparation for acceptance during its August meeting. 8.1 - Introduction of Topic (Paul McGrady, Small Team Lead) 8.2 - Council Discussion 8.3 - Next Steps Item 9: COUNCIL UPDATE: GNSO Council Small Team on DNS Abuse (10 minutes) The Council’s small team on DNS abuse began meeting on 15 May 2025, working on its Assignment Form<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2025/draft/assignment-for…>. The assignment form includes the review and analysis of DNS Abuse mitigation efforts across the broader ICANN ecosystem, the impact of the RA and RAA amendments, the INFERMAL study, as well as other data sources. The goal of the small team was to determine, after reviewing available data sources, whether or not gaps remain in mitigating DNS abuse. The small team quickly came to the conclusion that there are indeed gaps remaining and have worked diligently to catalogue the issues. In developing that catalogue of issues, the small team also solicited input from SG/C/SO/ACs. The small team expects to put forward a recommendation to the GNSO Council that an Issue Report be requested during its August meeting, based upon the catalogue of issues the small team has developed. Here, the Council will be provided with an overview of the small team’s progress, including a high-level understanding of the catalogue of issues that are envisioned to be analyzed in the Issue Report; the purpose of this update is to better ensure that the Council is able to vote to request the Issue Report in August. 9.1 - Introduction of Topic (Jennifer Chung, Small Team Lead) 9.2 - Council Discussion 9.3 - Next Steps Item 10: Any Other Business (15 minutes) 10.1 - ccNSO Council Update (Desiree Miloshevic) 10.2 - Customer Standing Committee (CSC) Effectiveness Review Deferral 10.3 - Celebration of Greg DiBiase, Outgoing GNSO Chair _______________________________ Appendix 1: GNSO Council Voting Thresholds (ICANN Bylaws, Article 11, Section 11.3(i)) See https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#article11. Appendix 2: GNSO Council Absentee Voting Procedures (GNSO Operating Procedures, Section 4.4) See https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/op-proced… References for Coordinated Universal Time of 13:00 UTC Local time between March and November in the NORTHERN hemisphere See https://www.timeanddate.com/time/change/ for Dates for Daylight Saving Time and Clock Changes ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PDT) UTC-7 06:00 San José, Costa Rica (CST) UTC-6 07:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EDT) UTC-4 09:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina (ART) UTC-3 10:00 Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo (WAT) UTC+1 14:00 Paris, France (CEST) UTC+2 15:00 Moscow, Russia (MSK) UTC+3 16:00 Singapore (SGT) UTC+8 21:00 Melbourne, Australia (AEST) UTC+10 23:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com<http://www.timeanddate.com/> and https://tinyurl.com/58frfr46 Thank you. Kind regards, Terri Policy Team Supporting the GNSO From: Terri Agnew <terri.agnew(a)icann.org> Date: Monday, June 30, 2025 at 3:07 PM To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org>, "liaison6c(a)icann.org" <liaison6c(a)icann.org> Cc: GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs(a)icann.org> Subject: Proposed Agenda | GNSO Council Meeting | Thursday, 10 July 2025 Dear all, Please find below the agenda for the GNSO Council Meeting on 10 July 2025 at 13:00 UTC This will be posted on the agenda wiki page<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/KKafBg> shortly. Thank you. Kind regards, Terri Policy Team Supporting the GNSO GNSO Council Agenda 10 July 2025 Please note that all documents referenced in the agenda have been gathered on a Wiki page for convenience and easier access: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/4KefBg This agenda was established according to the GNSO Operating Procedures<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/op-proced…> v3.5, updated on 15 March 2023. For convenience: * An excerpt of the ICANN Bylaws defining the voting thresholds is provided in Appendix 1 at the end of this agenda. * An excerpt from the Council Operating Procedures defining the absentee voting procedures is provided in Appendix 2 at the end of this agenda. GNSO Council meeting on Thursday, 10 July 2025 at 13:00 UTC: https://tinyurl.com/58frfr46 06:00 Los Angeles; 09:00 Washington DC; 14:00 London; 15:00 Paris; 16:00 Moscow; 23:00 Melbourne GNSO Council Meeting Remote Participation [Published 24 hours prior to meeting]: https://icann83.sched.com/event/246XL/gnso-council-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 (5 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/2025/minutes/minutes-gnso…> of the GNSO Council Meeting on 15 May 2025 were posted on 02 June 2025. Minutes<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2025/minutes/minutes-gnso…> of the GNSO Council Meeting on 11 June 2025 were posted on 30 June 2025 Item 2: Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List (0 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) Tomslin * Confirmation of the GNSO-appointed Member for the Universal Acceptance (UA) Expert Working Group (EWG) * GNSO Council Review of GAC Communiqué Item 4: COUNCIL BRIEFING - Second IANA Naming Function Review Team (IFR2) Draft Report (20 minutes) The IANA Naming Function Review is an accountability mechanism created as part of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) stewardship transition to ensure that ICANN’s IANA work through Public Technical Identifiers (PTI) meets the needs and expectations of its naming customers. Under the ICANN Bylaws, the ICANN Board must convene an IFR no less frequently than every five years, measured from the date the previous IFR was convened. The board convened<https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-r…> the first IFR on 16 September 2018. The second IFR team (IFR2) conducted the review in accordance with the scope specified in the ICANN Bylaws<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#article18>. The review focuses on PTI’s performance of the IANA naming function against the contractual requirements in the IANA Naming Function Contract and the IANA Naming Function Statement of Work<https://www.icann.org/iana_pti_docs/151-iana-naming-function-contract-v-30s…>. The naming functions under review include management of the DNS root zone, a critical function for the ongoing operation of the Internet. The IFR2 recently sought public comments<https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/second-iana-naming-funct…> on its Draft Report, which contained findings and recommendations in three key areas: * Presence of specific Domain Name System Security Extensions (DNSSEC) policy details in the IANA Naming Function Contract * Transparency and availability of Contract amendments * Frequency of reviews After considering public comment received and making adjustments as appropriate, the IFR2 team is working to reach consensus on its Final Report. The Draft Report included two recommendations that will amend the IANA Naming Function Contract; neither recommendation received objections during the public comment period. However, Section 18.6 (b) of the Bylaws reads that any recommendations by the IFR that would amend the IANA Naming Function Contract shall only become effective if: (i) The IFR Recommendation has been approved by the vote of (A) a supermajority of the ccNSO Council (pursuant to the ccNSO's procedures or, if such procedures do not define a supermajority, two-thirds (2/3) of the ccNSO Council's members) and (B) a GNSO Supermajority;” Here, the Council will hear an update on the status of the IFR2 Report and expected next steps from the GNSO Council. 4.1 - Introduction of Topic (Ashley Heineman and Peter Koch, IFR2 Co-Chairs) 4.2 - Council Discussion 4.3 - Next Steps Item 5: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Outcome of Transfer Policy Review PDP Human Rights Impact Assessment (15 minutes) During its 12 March 2025<https://icann.zoom.us/rec/play/c9JJyD0XyDGkIJUQWGMtr1CETstmof0VoboRyhXT6AAE…> meeting, the GNSO Council voted to approve all 47 recommendations of the Transfer Policy Review Working Group’s Final Report. While the Working Group’s Charter<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2023/correspondence/novoa…> did not include a Human Rights Impact Assessment (HRIA), the Council agreed to conduct an HRIA following the vote on the Final Report. Farzaneh Badii, the GNSO Councilor who volunteered to lead the HRIA effort, met with Roger Carney, the chair of the Transfer Policy Review PDP, on 16 April 2025. Farzaneh presented the outcome of the HRIA discussion to the Council during its meeting on 15 May 2025<https://icann.zoom.us/rec/play/Vew12tHCU11uhBpXCbzCcht0hmEzbE14Ollr8GfOcC4-…>. Here, the Council will discuss the outstanding items from the HRIA and determine if further action is needed or if additional items need to be added to the continued discussion of the Council’s prioritization of work. 5.1 - Introduction of Topic (Farzaneh Badii, GNSO Councilor) 5.2 - Council Discussion 5.3 - Next Steps Item 6: COUNCIL UPDATE - Privacy Proxy Services Accreditation Issues Implementation Work (15 minutes) On 9 August 2016, the ICANN Board approved the Final Report<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/filefield_48305/ppsai-final-07de…> of the Privacy Proxy Services Accreditation Issues (PPSAI) Working Group, which contains 21 policy recommendations. ICANN org convened an Implementation Review Team (IRT) in 2016 and worked on the implementation of the policy recommendations until 2019 when the implementation work was paused due to overlapping issues around the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), data processing, and the Temporary Specification<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/gtld-registration-data-specs-en/#temp…>. In June 2024, ICANN org reconvened the PPSAI IRT and has been refining a set of overarching threshold questions that require input from the GNSO Council in order for ICANN org to, in consultation with the IRT, move forward on implementation of the 21 policy recommendations from the Final Report<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/filefield_48305/ppsai-final-07de…>. ICANN org will soon be sending the threshold questions to the GNSO Council for further guidance. The threshold questions currently under discussion are: 1. Are there any policy questions or items the IRT already wants to bring to the GNSO Council for guidance? 2. Implementation Model: Accreditation Program or Alternative Implementation: a. Can an implementation model without a new standalone accreditation program remain consistent with the policy recommendations? 1. Disclosure Frameworks (Intellectual Property and Law Enforcement) a. Are there specific areas to revisit under new law/policy? b. Can these frameworks be aligned with existing work on the Registration Data Request Service (RDRS), Registration Data Policy, and other existing procedures and remain consistent with the policy recommendations? Here, the Council will receive an update on the anticipated timeline of work for the Council. 6.1 - Introduction of Topic (Paul McGrady, GNSO Council Liaison to the PPSAI IRT) 6.2 - Council Discussion 6.3 - Next Steps Item 7: COUNCIL UPDATE: GNSO Council Small Team on Accuracy Draft Report (10 minutes) During the Council’s March 2025 meeting<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/gnsocouncilmeetings/pages…>, the Council agreed to form a dedicated small team on accuracy, which would be tasked with: * Reviewing the written input received on the Council’s threshold questions; and * Providing a detailed summary of the input received, taking into consideration the potential other sources that can inform the discussion - i.e. (but not limited to) INFERMAL study, EU NIS2 cooperation group, recommendation CC.1, and provide a recommendation to the Council on how to best make progress on the topic of registration data accuracy, e.g., relaunch scoping team with updated assignment, request Issues Report, request additional study (including the recommended form and aim of the study), etc. The Small Team, led by Paul McGrady, began meeting on 15 May 2025 and has been drafting recommendations for the Council’s consideration related to: * Examining the current timeline for validation and verification of registration data under the 2024 RAA * Assembling a diverse and representative group of interested stakeholders who could work together on producing clear and user-friendly registrant educational materials related to the importance of accurate registration data * Further work on a previously-approved Whois2 Review Team recommendation (CC.1) related to the inclusion of a notation in the RDDS record that the domain name is suspended due to incorrect data Here, the Council will discuss the Small Team’s draft report in preparation for acceptance during its August meeting. 7.1 - Introduction of Topic (Paul McGrady, Small Team Lead) 7.2 - Council Discussion 7.3 - Next Steps Item 8: COUNCIL UPDATE: GNSO Council Small Team on DNS Abuse (10 minutes) The Council’s small team on DNS abuse began meeting on 15 May 2025, working on its Assignment Form<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2025/draft/assignment-for…>. The assignment form includes the review and analysis of DNS Abuse mitigation efforts across the broader ICANN ecosystem, the impact of the RA and RAA amendments, the INFERMAL study, as well as other data sources. The goal of the small team was to determine, after reviewing available data sources, whether or not gaps remain in mitigating DNS abuse. The small team quickly came to the conclusion that there are indeed gaps remaining and have worked diligently to catalogue the issues. In developing that catalogue of issues, the small team also solicited input from SG/C/SO/ACs. The small team expects to put forward a recommendation to the GNSO Council that an Issue Report be requested during its August meeting, based upon the catalogue of issues the small team has developed. Here, the Council will be provided with an overview of the small team’s progress, including a high-level understanding of the catalogue of issues that are envisioned to be analyzed in the Issue Report; the purpose of this update is to better ensure that the Council is able to vote to request the Issue Report in August. 8.1 - Introduction of Topic (Jennifer Chung, Small Team Lead) 8.2 - Council Discussion 8.3 - Next Steps Item 9: Board deferral of Bylaws-mandated Reviews and steps needed for Community Input (25 minutes) On 27 May 2025<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-holen-et-al-2…>, the Board wrote to SO/AC Leaders with an update on the ICANN Reviews. Specifically, following input from the community, the Board informed SO/AC leaders that it took the following actions related to reviews during its 19 May meeting: 1. Continue the deferral of Organizational Reviews until the completion of one CIP cycle (estimated at 3 years). 2. Conclude the Pilot Holistic Review and following the completion of the CIP cycle, consider whether to rename and re-charter an effort focused solely on designing a review of the CIP. 3. Continue the community dialogue to support a broader discussion on reviews. This will include an engagement session at ICANN84 focused on the purpose and essential subject areas for reviews. 4. Continue the deferral of the fourth Accountability and Transparency Review (ATRT4) to support the community’s capacity to participate in the dialogues, and any related activities that may result from such discussions. Please see the relevant Board Resolution<https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-r…> for further information. During its May meeting, the Council had agreed to send correspondence to the Board, sharing its thoughts on next steps for ICANN Reviews. With the Board’s suggested approach generally in line with sentiments shared during the Council’s May meeting, it seems that circumstances may have overtaken the need to send correspondence in the context of that action item. During ICANN83, the SO/AC Chairs met with ICANN org to discuss a potential path forward. During the Council’s Wrap-Up<https://icann83.sched.com/event/246XW/gnso-council-wrap-up> session, GNSO Chair Greg DiBiase shared a high-level overview of that approach, asking that Councilors begin socializing the approach with their respective groups. Here, the Council will continue its discussion from ICANN83, discuss feedback from SG/Cs on the suggested approach, if available, and determine next steps. 9.1 - Introduction of Topic (Greg DiBiase, GNSO Chair) 9.2 - Council Discussion 9.3 - Next Steps Item 10: Any Other Business (15 minutes) 10.1 - ccNSO Council Update (Desiree Miloshevic) 10.2 - Customer Standing Committee (CSC) Effectiveness Review Deferral 10.3 - Celebration of Greg DiBiase, Outgoing GNSO Chair _______________________________ Appendix 1: GNSO Council Voting Thresholds (ICANN Bylaws, Article 11, Section 11.3(i)) See https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#article11. Appendix 2: GNSO Council Absentee Voting Procedures (GNSO Operating Procedures, Section 4.4) See https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/op-proced… References for Coordinated Universal Time of 13:00 UTC Local time between March and November in the NORTHERN hemisphere See https://www.timeanddate.com/time/change/ for Dates for Daylight Saving Time and Clock Changes ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PDT) UTC-7 06:00 San José, Costa Rica (CST) UTC-6 07:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EDT) UTC-4 09:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina (ART) UTC-3 10:00 Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo (WAT) UTC+1 14:00 Paris, France (CEST) UTC+2 15:00 Moscow, Russia (MSK) UTC+3 16:00 Singapore (SGT) UTC+8 21:00 Melbourne, Australia (AEST) UTC+10 23:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com<http://www.timeanddate.com/> and https://tinyurl.com/58frfr46

1 0