- council - lists.icann.org

ICANN Board's June 2024 decisions touching on SubPro
by Justine Chew 11 Jun '24

11 Jun '24

According to the announcement regarding the Board's 8 June meeting resolutions: *b. Approach for Handling Registry Commitments that Restrict Content and/or Usage of gTLDs in Next Round Registry Agreements* <https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-r…> Resolved (2024.06.08.08), the ICANN Board determines that ICANN should exclude from the Next Round RAs any RVCs and other comparable registry commitments that restrict content in gTLDs. *c. Supplemental Recommendations of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process Final Report* <https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-r…> Resolved, (2024.06.08.11), the Board adopts the June 2024 Scorecard: Subsequent Procedures Supplemental Recommendations <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/scorecard-subsequent-procedures…> , dated 8 June 2024 (Supplemental Recommendations Scorecard), consisting of: - Section A, which details the Supplemental Recommendations that the Board adopts. - Topic 17: Applicant Support (17.2) - Topic 32: Limited Challenges and Appeals (32.1, 32.2 and 32.10) - Section B, which details the Supplemental Recommendations that the Board does not adopt, including a rationale. - Topic 9: Registry Voluntary Commitments / Public Interest Commitments (9.2) - Topic 18: Terms and Conditions (18.1 and 18.3) *e. GNSO Guidance Process (GGP) for Applicant Support Guidance Recommendations* <https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-r…> Resolved (2024.06.08.17), the ICANN Board adopts all nine guidance recommendations as documented in the GGP for Applicant Support Final Report. Justine

1 0

Re: Meeting Agenda | GNSO Council Informal Meeting [C] | Tuesday, 11 June 2024 13:45 - 15:00 CAT (75 mins) | Room: MH 2 (GNSO)
by kurt kjpritz.com 11 Jun '24

11 Jun '24

Hi Everyone: I have some input on the third item. There isn’t remote participation for the call but hope a brief writing will be beneficial. I think the Board has the issue right: that the time to respond to emergency requests should be measured in minutes or hours but time for source verification and validating the issue is genuine will often push that out to a period of days. Since the contract obligation has to be sort of a “lowest common denominator,” it is not possible to generate a meaningful contractual requirement. The Board agrees that an effective cannot be written. Instead, we should concentrate on continual improvement measures: how do registries respond in their own jurisdiction, how verification tools can be developed, what jurisdictions might become “trusted.” Things like that. Without doubt, all contracted parties want to help In life threatening situation. What measures can be taken to facilitate that? Can there be a Policy without a corresponding contractual requirement? I think that is possible. A Policy to encourage, work on, and report on progress in this area would be an approach, including ICANN devoting certain resources towards it. That’s all I have. Thanks for listening. Kurt On 11 Jun 2024, at 7:14 pm, Terri Agnew via Ntfy-gnso-council <ntfy-gnso-council(a)icann.org<mailto:ntfy-gnso-council@icann.org>> wrote: Hello, This email has been sent to the closed council mailing list which does not allow response back. Here is the agenda for today’s GNSO Council Informal Meeting [C] (reminder - no remote, no zoom available) 13:45 – 15:00 CAT in room MH 2 (GNSO). Agenda: 1. Discuss voting items and determine if there are any questions or concerns (aspirational statement on the consent agenda & expiration items) 2. Potential next steps for the IPC RfR, including the identification of any further SG/C planned actions 3. Letter from ICANN Board - urgent requests 4. SG/C priorities that might NOT be on the ADR? Thank you. Kind regards, Terri Policy Team Supporting the GNSO _______________________________________________ Ntfy-gnso-council mailing list -- ntfy-gnso-council(a)icann.org<mailto:ntfy-gnso-council@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to ntfy-gnso-council-leave(a)icann.org<mailto:ntfy-gnso-council-leave@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.

1 0

Re: [Ext] RE: Tuesday, 11 June 2024 | GNSO Council sessions | please join on time!
by Terri Agnew 11 Jun '24

11 Jun '24

Hey, thanks for reaching out! I just sent it thanks to your reminder All the best, Terri From: Susan Payne <susan.payne(a)comlaude.com> Date: Tuesday, June 11, 2024 at 10:59 AM To: Terri Agnew <terri.agnew(a)icann.org>, "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Cc: "gnso-secs(a)icann.org" <gnso-secs(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: Tuesday, 11 June 2024 | GNSO Council sessions | please join on time! Hi Terri, is there an agenda for the informal meeting this afternoon? Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy Com Laude T +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 Ext 255 [cid:image001.png@01DABBF0.9FEA5290] [comlaude.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/comlaude.com/__;!!PtGJab4!4wzfk2eTJfVly1…> 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: Terri Agnew via council <council(a)icann.org> Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2024 6:34 AM To: council(a)gnso.icann.org Cc: gnso-secs(a)icann.org Subject: [council] Tuesday, 11 June 2024 | GNSO Council sessions | please join on time! Dear councilors, A reminder, here are the council sessions being held today. Whether onsite or participating remotely, councilor presence is highly encouraged. Please join on time for sound checks and for the sessions to begin in a timely manner. Zoom access information will not be circulated on this list, please refer to your schedule [icann80.sched.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann80.sched.com/__;!!PtGJab4!4wzfk2eTJ…> on the ICANN80 website. Note, certain sessions are considered mandatory attendance for seated councilors, and are marked as such. Tuesday, 11 June 2024 * 09:00 - 10:15 - Joint GNSO Council & GAC - ( All councilors) * 13:45 – 15:00 - GNSO Council Informal meeting [closed] - ( All councilors) – not recorded and no zoom room * 19:30 - ? - GNSO Council dinner – GNSO Councilors & GNSO Staff support only - ( Only GNSO Councilors and GNSO Support Staff) Thank you. Kind regards, Terri Policy Team Supporting the GNSO ________________________________ 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 30 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 30 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 6181291 and registered office at 30 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!4wzfk2eTJfVly1…>

2 1

Tuesday, 11 June 2024 | GNSO Council sessions | please join on time!
by Terri Agnew 11 Jun '24

11 Jun '24

Dear councilors, A reminder, here are the council sessions being held today. Whether onsite or participating remotely, councilor presence is highly encouraged. Please join on time for sound checks and for the sessions to begin in a timely manner. Zoom access information will not be circulated on this list, please refer to your schedule<https://icann80.sched.com/> on the ICANN80 website. Note, certain sessions are considered mandatory attendance for seated councilors, and are marked as such. Tuesday, 11 June 2024 * 09:00 - 10:15 - Joint GNSO Council & GAC - ( All councilors) * 13:45 – 15:00 - GNSO Council Informal meeting [closed] - ( All councilors) – not recorded and no zoom room * 19:30 - ? - GNSO Council dinner – GNSO Councilors & GNSO Staff support only - ( Only GNSO Councilors and GNSO Support Staff) Thank you. Kind regards, Terri Policy Team Supporting the GNSO

3 2

ON NOW | Auditorium (GAC) | Re: Tuesday, 11 June 2024 | GNSO Council sessions | please join on time!
by Terri Agnew 11 Jun '24

11 Jun '24

Please make your way to the Auditorium (GAC) for the Joint GNSO Council & GAC session on now * 09:00 - 10:15 - Joint GNSO Council & GAC - ( All councilors) From: Terri Agnew <terri.agnew(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday, June 11, 2024 at 6:33 AM To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Cc: "gnso-secs(a)icann.org" <gnso-secs(a)icann.org> Subject: Tuesday, 11 June 2024 | GNSO Council sessions | please join on time! Dear councilors, A reminder, here are the council sessions being held today. Whether onsite or participating remotely, councilor presence is highly encouraged. Please join on time for sound checks and for the sessions to begin in a timely manner. Zoom access information will not be circulated on this list, please refer to your schedule<https://icann80.sched.com/> on the ICANN80 website. Note, certain sessions are considered mandatory attendance for seated councilors, and are marked as such. Tuesday, 11 June 2024 * 09:00 - 10:15 - Joint GNSO Council & GAC - ( All councilors) * 13:45 – 15:00 - GNSO Council Informal meeting [closed] - ( All councilors) – not recorded and no zoom room * 19:30 - ? - GNSO Council dinner – GNSO Councilors & GNSO Staff support only - ( Only GNSO Councilors and GNSO Support Staff) Thank you. Kind regards, Terri Policy Team Supporting the GNSO

1 0

Please read: Upcoming GNSO Council meeting prep 12 June 2024 at 13:45 CAT (11:45 UTC)
by Terri Agnew 11 Jun '24

11 Jun '24

Dear all, A few reminders of prep for the Council meeting 12 June 2024 at 13:45 CAT (11:45 UTC) 1. Please review the GNSO Council meeting Cheat Sheet <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1lQ9fqEjD-inZ…> in order to help you prepare for the session and also provide your input in suggestion mode. It is also attached to this email for your convenience. 1. All documents mentioned on the Council agenda<https://community.icann.org/x/B4DyEg> will be listed on the Document wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/igFkEw> for easy referral. If there are any topics you would like to see appear on future Council agendas, please do not hesitate to add them to the Council Topics Google doc. <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1FSNlAHTjbWAz…> 1. Please consult the Project Management Portfolio<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=150178769>, in particular the Action Decision Radar<https://community.icann.org/x/14vzC> and the Project List<https://community.icann.org/x/1YvzC> . 1. If you fear you may run into connectivity issues or may not make it on the call, please have an officer of your SG/C fill in the Council Absence Notification form<https://www.icann.org/forms/gnso_notification>. 1. ICANN80 schedule GNSO Council webpage: https://icann80.sched.com/event/1dr33/gnso-council-meeting - Zoom participation links will be published here 24 hours before the session starts. Thank you! Kind regards, Terri Policy Team Supporting the GNSO

1 0

Re: Proposed GNSO Council talking points - Joint meeting with GAC
by Anne ICANN 10 Jun '24

10 Jun '24

Hi Terri - this was sent from the ntfy address but I did have a comment in relation to this agenda. So I am copying Council. Comment is for Paul in relation to the Small Team Plus work - looks good in relation to the "intended registrant" approach that is under discussion for singulars and plurals but I'm confused about the note that says the team is comfortable with having the community determine what is singular and what is plural. As I understand the staff proposal, any community member can notify ICANN that it believes there is a string confusion singular or plural that has been applied for but then it would be up to ICANN staff to verify that designation via the dictionary approach (or other verifiable resource.) The notes make it sound as though there is no verification at the ICANN level. Also think it would be helpful here to emphasize that the later applicant would be required to adopt an RVC since the GAC is very familiar with that PIC process from the prior round and has provided advice to the Board to be sure RVCs are available. On a plane to Doha with spotty internet. Hope you are all having a great meeting! (I arrive Tuesday morning.) Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2024 anneicanngnso(a)gmail.com On Sun, Jun 9, 2024 at 9:41 PM Terri Agnew via Ntfy-gnso-council < ntfy-gnso-council(a)icann.org> wrote: > Dear Councilors, > > > > Below, please find the proposed GNSO Council talking points and proposed > speakers for the GNSO Council meeting with the GAC at ICANN80. > > > > *Joint session: GAC and GNSO Council 09:00 - 10:15 CAT (75 mins)* > > *Schedule webpage:* > *https://icann80.sched.com/event/1dr3d/joint-meeting-gac-and-gnso* > [icann80.sched.com] > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann80.sched.com/event/1dr3d/joint-meet…> > > > > > Agenda: > > 1. High Level Government Meeting (HLGM) June 9th: brief recap update > from GAC > > > - GAC Leadership to update the GNSO Council on the main take-aways > from the High Level Government Meeting (HLGM). > > > > 2. Statements of Interest (SOI)-Current state/update from GNSO > > GAC Talking Points > > > > · The GAC is very appreciative of the GNSO letter on SOI which > clearly articulates the current position of the different GNSO > constituencies and the status of the GNSO. The GAC is of the view that > highest standards of transparency are cornerstones for the accountability > and legitimacy of ICANN policy processes, and would like to explore how to > move forward on this dossier so that all participants in ICANN can, as > appropriate, give their affiliation or that (as required) of their > clients. The GAC looks forward to the Board taking action on this matter > in consultation with the whole community. > > > · What is the GNSO Council’s take on such Board plans? > > · Would the GNSO Council welcome a request from the Board to > introduce requirements on transparency consistent with the ICANN Bylaws? > > > > GNSO Designated Speaker: Greg > > Talking Points: > > · The GNSO Council does not have a unified position on this topic > but appreciates the opportunity to take questions. > > · Given the divergent views amongst the SG/Cs, as well as the > fact that SOIs are used more broadly than just in respect of GNSO WGs, the > Council would welcome leadership from the Board on this topic. > > > > 3. New gTLDs-Applicant Support Program (ASP)-Implementation Review > Team (IRT)-Resolution of contention sets; -Singular/plural small team plus > work-PICs/RVCs > > > > GAC Talking Points: > > a. *GNSO Council update on singular/plural issue* > > The GAC is aware of the recent progress in the pending SubPro > recommendation 24.3, wherein the ICANN organization has formulated a > preliminary approach (i.e., straw person text) to solicit additional input > for the GNSO's deliberation. The GAC is keen to learn the GNSO’s > perspective on the straw person proposal and the projected timeline for > developing an approach addressing the singular/plural matter. > > Furthermore, the GAC wishes to reiterate ICANN's objective of mitigating > string confusion. In light of this, the GAC seeks the GNSO's stance on the > following inquiries: Should ICANN disregard the potential for string > confusion resulting from the singular/plural issue in the absence of > objection or request? If so, what are the subsequent mitigation procedures > when a request is made long after both the singular and plural strings have > been adopted? If not, what measures will the GNSO implement to identify and > prevent the potential occurrence of the singular/plural issue? > > GNSO Designated Speaker: Paul > > Talking Points: > > · The Council’s small team is still actively discussing the > topic, but does believe that the straw person proposal has some promise. > While it does not match the level of depth of the original SubPro > recommendations, it does capture much of the intent. > > · The small team is still considering other elements that could > be appended to the straw person, such as a review mechanism that could > allow community identified singular/plural strings to both proceed if their > intended registrants (e.g., registration policies) will allow both > registries to operate without introducing undue registrant or end-user > confusion. > > · Looking at intended registrants allows for a level of nuance > and context that is otherwise unavailable in the strawperson. > > · Note, intended registrants should be considered distinctly > separate from intended use, which implies domain name content. > > · The small team will seek to complete its Supplemental > Recommendation(s) shortly after ICANN80. > > · In respect of the community being responsible for identifying > singular/plurals in the same language, the small team seems to be > comfortable with this prospect, even if the preference would be for ICANN > to be responsible for this process. > > · The small team recognizes that the costs of this review process > may be prohibitively expensive if ICANN is solely responsible, and all > costs are passed on to applicants. > > · Therefore, while the strawperson is not perfect, the small team > is currently comfortable with the prospect of the community identifying > singulars and plurals in the same language, which includes the prospect of > some pairs not being identified. > > > > b. *Implementation Review Team (IRT) update* > > > > The GAC is keen to continue engaging actively in the IRT, through its > Appointed Representative, Alternate, and participants. > > i. Will the proposed $92,000 RSP fee affect new entrants > ability to participate in the next application round for new gTLDs, and if > so, in what ways? > > > > GNSO Designated Speaker: Susan > > Talking Points: > > · The Council does not actively manage the implementation of its > policies recommendations and is generally only involved when a disagreement > arises, via the liaisons it assigns to IRTs. > > · At this stage, the Council has not been alerted of any > misalignment between implementation and intent of recommendations and as a > result, there is currently no Council position on this topic. > > · The Council does understand that there have been objections and > concerns to the fee and will be monitoring the situation carefully, via its > liaisons to the IRT. > > > > c. *Resolution of contention sets* > > The GAC is keen on hearing from the Board’s reaction to the GAC’s > Washington Consensus Advice on resolution of contention sets. While we > receive the Board’s reaction we would be interested in hearing the GNSO > Council’s views on alternative systems to resolve contention sets > (different to auctions) between commercial and non-commercial applications. > And we would also be interested in your views on the possibility of > effectively ruling out the use of “private auctions”. Does the GNSO Council > see an appropriate way forward regarding both aspects? > > GNSO Designated Speaker: Paul > > Talking Points: > > · The members in the SubPro PDP had diverging views on whether > private auctions should be allowed or not, which resulted in certain > recommendations not achieving consensus. > > · Those particular recommendations were not adopted by the > Council and subsequently, were not passed on for Board consideration. > > · The Council has not discussed the topic and accordingly, does > not have any particular view on this topic. > > > > d. *RVCs / PICs* > > *(if applicable)* The GAC is concerned about not having heard from the > Board on this issue, not least as it is an outstanding issue for the Next > Round of New gTLDs. > > GNSO Designated Speaker: Paul > > Talking Points: *TBD – conditional GAC topic* > > 4. Diacritics work -Likely a new PDP / issue report - GNSO Vote in May > - update from GNSO > > · The GAC wishes to request a status update on the work being > done on Latin Script Diacritics in New gTLDs and specifically, the > “.quebec” issue as it relates to fostering a multilingual and inclusive > Internet, including a tentative timeline for decisions and actions. > > > > GNSO Designated Speaker: Greg > > Talking Points: > > · The Council had explored approaches to develop a solution to > allow for an ASCII and latin diacritic version of a gTLD to both be > delegated and operated by the same registry operator. One option proposed > by staff was to leverage non-adopted recommendations related to string > similarity, but concerns were raised by Councilors about the procedural > efficacy of doing so. > > · The Council instead elected to request that staff produce an > Issue Report on the topic of diacritics in the Latin script. > > · In terms of timeline, the staff is afforded 45 days to develop > the Preliminary Issue Report, though they can request an extension. > > · That Preliminary Issue Report is published for public comment > for 40 days, like usual. > > · Staff takes into account public comment and produces a Final > Issue Report, which generally includes a draft charter, assuming staff > recommends that a PDP is appropriate. > > · Once the Council is in receipt of the Final Issue Report, it > determines next steps, which could of course include a PDP, but may not if > that step is not warranted or appropriate. > > > 5. WHOIS (including urgent requests) + Accuracy > > GNSO Designated Speaker: Greg > > a. *Urgent Requests* > > The GAC would welcome a status update from the GNSO Council on where we > stand on this issue, based on the San Juan Communiqué in which the GAC > advises the Board to “to act expeditiously to establish a clear process and > a timeline for the delivery of a policy on Urgent Requests for domain name > registration data”. The GAC would particularly welcome some indications of > what the GNSO think would be the most relevant approach for restarting a > conversation on this topic given that the halt of the IRT work. > > > > · The GNSO received a message from the Board regarding the status > of urgent requests on Monday, 3 June 2024. > > · In its letter, the Board identified several concerns with Rec. > 18 specifically around a separate timeline for the resolution of urgent > requests (situations that pose an imminent threat to life, serious bodily > harm, infrastructure, or child exploitation). > > · Noted Board concerns include: > > · A proposed timeline involving business days is not fit for > purpose - for truly imminent threats, a much shorter response time would be > appropriate > > · Authentication of emergency responders would be appropriate to > protect data subjects > > · It takes time to authenticate emergency responders > > · There is not currently a vehicle with which to conduct this > type of authentication globally > > · The creation, operation, and maintenance of a system cannot be > created, operated, or maintained without the assistance of law enforcement. > > · The Board notes Rec. 18, specifically around urgent requests, > is not fit for purpose and must be revisited, however, there is not an > existing procedure to revisit a previously adopted recommendation when > concerns are identified after the recommendation has been adopted. > > · For reference, the relevant text of Rec. 18 provides, “A > separate timeline of [less than X business days] *will [be] considered* for > the response to ‘Urgent’ Reasonable Disclosure Requests, those Requests for > which evidence is supplied to show an immediate need for disclosure [time > frame to be finalized and criteria set for Urgent requests during > implementation].” (emphasis added) The IRT did *consider* both the > criteria and timeline for urgent requests, but ultimately did not agree. > (Note: the language of the recommendation does not say implemented.) > > b. *Accuracy* > > The GAC welcomes any updates from the GNSO on the status of the Data > Protection Specification (DPS) between ICANN and the Contracted Parties. > While the GAC understands that the GNSO views completion of the DPS as a > prerequisite to restarting the work of the Accuracy Scoping Team, the GAC > notes the Board’s recent comments that completion of the DPS will not grant > ICANN access to nonpublic registration data that would enable wide-scale > accuracy studies. Given this information, the GAC welcomes the GNSO’s views > on ICANN org’s Assessment of Registration Data Accuracy Scenarios (October > 2023), and in particular on the two proposed alternative approaches put > forward: providing historical data via ICANN’s audit program and engaging > with contracted parties on identity verification practices (including those > of ccTLDs). The GAC further welcomes GNSO Council’s estimation on a > concrete timeline for restarting the work of the Accuracy Scoping Team. > > > > > · The GNSO will be discussing the topic of accuracy during its > meeting on Wednesday, including the two proposed alternatives put forward > by ICANN org in its Assessment of Registration Data Accuracy Scenarios. > > · We will revert back to the GAC following this discussion. > > · The vote on whether to reconvene the Accuracy Scoping Team will > take place during the GNSO council meeting in August. That decision is > likely to be impacted by the level of progress, or lack thereof, from the > Council’s discussions beginning in June. > > 6. DNS Abuse-Update on experiences with amended contracts, and news > on potential policy work -Feedback from CPH Summit on DNS Abuse > > · The GAC welcomes a GNSO Council update on the Contracted > Parties House Summit and a summary of the output document developed > following the meeting. > > > > GNSO Designated Speaker: Greg > > Talking Points: > > · The Summit provided Contracted Parties an opportunity to engage > and address issues of mutual interest and importance. > > · As a result an output document was produced showing a > consolidated view on areas of importance and commitment. > > · The identified areas of importance include: Data Accuracy, DNS > Abuse, Multi-Stakeholder Model (MSM), and Privacy. > > · The main statements are: > > · Continuing to support and work through the*multistakeholder > approach* to Internet Governance. > > · Advancing efforts to better engage and share information with > the global Internet community. > > · Continuing *registration data* related efforts. > > · Continuing work aimed at combating *DNS Abuse*. > > · Continuing efforts to preserve and protect the *privacy rights*of > registrants. > > · The CPH offers this outcome document for consideration by the > ICANN Community as well as by governments and other Internet governance > related fora and entities. > > > > · During the CP summits, the ICANN organization informed the CP > of its plans to update the DNS abuse reporting framework. These reports > will offer historical trends and insights into DNS abuse and will include: > > · The number of complaints received > > · Types of abuse identified > > · Whether the domains were malicious > > · The origin of the notifications > > > > > · Concerns and Challenges: > > · Small registrars are receiving complaints for the first time > and need guidance on tools and methods for implementing and processing > notifications, including database formats. This information should be > accessible only to RrSG and RySG and coordinated by a potential third party. > > > > - The GNSO is currently evaluating how the DNS abuse metrics and measures > might influence policy development. > > > > > > Thank you. > > > > Kind regards, > > > > Terri > > Policy Team Supporting the GNSO > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ntfy-gnso-council mailing list -- ntfy-gnso-council(a)icann.org > To unsubscribe send an email to ntfy-gnso-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. >

3 6

Board-GAC Discussion on RVCs
by Jeff Neuman 10 Jun '24

10 Jun '24

All, The ICANN Board has determined that they cannot have RVCs in Registry Commitments at all if they restrict content. In other words, the ICANN Board believes that it will violate their bylaws even if a registry outsources the enforcement of RVCs, if the RVC is documented in the Registry Agreement. Apparently, this is in a resolution passed by ICANN this past weekend. The Board believes that Registries can work out their own regimes to enforce content restrictions, but they cannot be in the ICANN Agreement. I am not sure what this means even in connection with sensitive strings. We will have to talk to the Board about this. I am also not sure what this means if the GAC provides advice against a string that involves content. How will that be resolved? Sincerely, Jeff Neuman GNSO Liaison to GAC [cid:6ebb7207-49d8-4294-bba0-3d05e0119d8f]

1 0

Update from Board-GAC Meeting re: GNSO Statements of Interest
by Jeff Neuman 10 Jun '24

10 Jun '24

Dear Council, The ICANN Board just provided an update to the GAC stating: 1. They agree with the GAC that transparency is required in the multi-stakeholder model and that you need to know who you are talking to and who they represent. "We are on the same Page with the GAC." 2. ICANN Board has asked the ICANN Org to draft an Ethics Policy" to address this topic and bring it to the community for discussion. Becky Burr stated that this was progress from the Puerto Rico meeting where the ICANN Board was considering whether it was appropriate to have an ethics policy. Now they have determined that an Ethics Policy is a good idea. No information on the timing of this policy or what it will say other than what is said above. I hope this helps with our discussions with the GAC this week. Sincerely, Jeff Neuman GNSO Liaison to GAC [cid:d89c4f86-2b51-4ed4-bfd1-f6443c9599c6]

1 0

Monday, 10 June 2024 | GNSO Council
by Terri Agnew 10 Jun '24

10 Jun '24

Dear councilors, Welcome to Kigali, I hope trip over all was good. I will send daily emails with council sessions being held that day. Whether onsite or participating remotely, councilor presence is highly encouraged. Please join on time for sound checks and for the sessions to begin in a timely manner. Zoom access information will not be circulated on this list, please refer to your schedule<https://icann80.sched.com/> on the ICANN80 website. Note, certain sessions are considered mandatory attendance for seated councilors, and are marked as such. Monday, 04 March * None for GNSO Council. Make sure to check the schedule for PDP, EPDP, IRT, Standing Committee, SG/C & Plenary meetings, etc. Thank you. Kind regards, Terri Policy Team Supporting the GNSO

1 0