Dear all, Please find below the resolutions from the GNSO Council meeting on Thursday, 16 May 2024, which will be posted shortly on the GNSO Council resolutions <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions/2020-current__;!!PtGJab4!sLlCB4cV9KdvFnPD2LwSl2p7z4Gk6tPXTWpUAhoW8SCziUIjp5aHd47AEUpgcVkTCRcwggmgOcyz$> page. 20240516-1 Consent Agenda Motion to Adopt the Revised Description of the Role of the GNSO Liaison to the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) Submitted by: Greg Dibiase WHEREAS, 1. The GNSO Liaison to the GAC role was first piloted in FY15-16 (1 July 2014 to 30 June 2016) as part of a broader initiative of the GAC-GNSO Consultation Group to facilitate early engagement of the GAC in GNSO policy development activities. 2. Due to the success of the pilot, the GNSO Liaison to the GAC is now a permanent role and an integral part of communications between the GAC and GNSO. 3. On 23 September 2021, the GNSO Council decided to extend each term of the GNSO Council Liaison to the GAC to two years and to impose a term limit of two consecutive two-year terms. 4. At the ICANN79 GNSO Council Wrap-up Session, the Council agreed to review the description of the GNSO Liaison to the GAC role prior to initiating the Standing Selection Committee’s (SSC) process to open an Expression of Interest (EOI) and subsequently select a new liaison to assume the role at the 2024 Annual General Meeting (ICANN81). 5. Post ICANN79, the Council reviewed the liaison role description and suggested several revisions. 6. After allowing time for Council to review the revisions, staff incorporated them into a final clean version<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2024/draft/final-gnso-liaison-to-gac-16may24-en.pdf> as well as a redlined version<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2024/draft/redline-gnso-liaison-to-gac-16may24-en.pdf> for Council’s consideration at its meeting on 16 May. RESOLVED, 1. The GNSO Council adopts the revised description of the GNSO Liaison to the GAC role and directs staff to post it on the Council activities procedures page<https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/procedures>. 2. The GNSO Council directs staff to notify the GAC leadership of the revised description of the 3. GNSO Liaison to the GAC role. Vote results<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2024/vote-result/gnso-council-motion-recorder-16may24.pdf> 20240516-2 Consent Agenda Motion to Approve the ICANN Board’s Proposed Amendment to Cross-Community Working Group on Auction Proceeds Recommendation 7 Submitted by: Greg Dibiase WHEREAS, 1. On 2 March 2024<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-clemente-et-al-02mar24-en.pdf>, the ICANN Board wrote to the Chartering Organizations of the Cross-Community Working Group on Auction Proceeds (“CCWG-AP”), which includes the GNSO; 2. The CCWG-AP’s Recommendation 7 sets out limitations on the use of ICANN accountability mechanisms (namely, the Independent Review Process, IRP, and Reconsideration process) to challenge decisions made on individual applications within the Grant Program; 3. The CCWG-AP provided Recommendation 7 to minimize use of the proceeds for purposes other than grants, such as administrative costs or legal fees; 4. The ICANN Board noted that it supports the CCWG AP’s goal in making this recommendation, but ICANN org identified challenges in implementing Recommendation 7 as written; 5. The Board considered whether there are further ways to meet the community’s broader intention with Recommendation 7, and asked the relevant Chartering Organizations to consider the removal of the phrase “from the Independent Project Applications Panel” from Recommendation 7, noting that many of the Board’s concerns that supported the October 2023 action<https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/minutes-regular-meeting-of-the-icann-board-26-10-2023-en#section2.d> would be addressed. RESOLVED, 1. The GNSO Council accepts the Board’s suggestion to remove the phrase “from the Independent Project Applications Panel” from CCWG-AP Recommendation 7. The GNSO Council would like to clarify that this approval only applies to CCWG-AP Recommendation 7 and does not extend to the proposed new ByLaw restricting access to Accountability Mechanisms. 2. The GNSO Council requests the GNSO Secretariat to inform the Board of its acceptance of the Board’s suggestion for CCWG-AP Recommendation 7. Vote results<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2024/vote-result/gnso-council-motion-recorder-16may24.pdf> 20240516-3 **WITHDRAWN UNTIL JUNE 2024** Motion to Defer Request for Policy Status Report on Expiration Policies Submitted by: Greg Dibiase Seconded by: Tomslin Samme-Nlar WHEREAS, 1. In October 2020, the GNSO Council considered the timing to request a Policy Status Report (PSR) to conduct a review of the two Expiration Policies, the Expired Domain Deletion Policy<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/registars/accreditation/eddp-en> (EDDP) and the Expired Registration Recovery Policy<https://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/consensus-policies/errp> (ERRP) and <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2020/minutes/minutes-gnso-council-21oct20-part1-en.pdf> agreed to defer<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2020/minutes/minutes-gnso-council-21oct20-part1-en.pdf> consideration for 24 months given concerns about capacity; 2. In July 2022, the Council revisited the question of when to request a PSR and <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2022/minutes/minutes-gnso-council-21jul22-en.pdf> agreed<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2022/minutes/minutes-gnso-council-21jul22-en.pdf> that, prior to proceeding with a PSR or deferral, the GNSO Council should consult with registrars and ICANN Compliance to determine if there are any known issues or concerns with the two Expiration Policies that could warrant requesting a PSR; 3. On 1 November 2022, ICANN org provided a <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2022-November/026164.html> report<https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2022-November/026164.html> on the Expiration Policies and presented the report to the GNSO Council during its <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2022/minutes/minutes-gnso-council-17nov22-en.pdf> November 2022 meeting<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2022/minutes/minutes-gnso-council-17nov22-en.pdf>; 4. Following discussion of the ICANN org <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2022-November/026164.html> report<https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2022-November/026164.html>, a small team of Councilors reviewed the report and the previous feedback from registrars and presented its <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zxxyIsg7HVGtAK7HsaTfw3nMX_zZfY3hUrdiDoaiPa0/edit> recommendation<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zxxyIsg7HVGtAK7HsaTfw3nMX_zZfY3hUrdiDoaiPa0/edit> to the GNSO Council during its <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2023/minutes/minutes-gnso-council-15mar23-en.pdf> March 2023 meeting<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2023/minutes/minutes-gnso-council-15mar23-en.pdf>; 5. The GNSO Council agreed to the small team’s recommendation to request additional information from ICANN org regarding what expiration-related educational materials are currently published and whether additional information can be provided; 6. On 14 February 2024, ICANN org delivered a <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2024-February/027778.html> summary<https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2024-February/027778.html> of the current educational materials on domain name renewal and expiration and presented it during the February 2024 meeting<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Final+Proposed+Agenda+2024-02-15>; 7. Having considered (i) the input from the Registrar Stakeholder Group, who was asked to flag substantial issues with the policies that would warrant a near team request for policy status report and did not note any issues, (ii) the <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2022-November/026164.html> report<https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2022-November/026164.html> from ICANN org, which noted confusion with key terms in the policy and registrant confusion with the auto-renew grace period and aftermarket activities, et.al<http://et.al>., and (iii) the <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2024-February/027778.html> catalog<https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2024-February/027778.html> of available educational resources on domain name expiration and renewal, the GNSO Council determined that the Expiration Policies present no urgent need for policy work, and, accordingly, the Council will revisit the timing for a PSR request in two years, or sooner if the Council is informed that further policy work is needed before the conclusion of two years. RESOLVED, 1. The GNSO Council adopts the motion to defer consideration of a Policy Status Report (PSR) for the Expedited Domain Deletion Policy (EDDP) and Expedited Registration Recovery Policy (ERRP) for two years, noting, however, that if the Council is informed that further policy work is needed before the conclusion of two years, the Council will reconsider the PSR request at that time. 2. The GNSO Council leadership directs GNSO Policy Support Staff to notify ICANN org Global Domains & Services of the deferral of the PSR request on the Expiration Policies. Vote results<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2024/vote-result/gnso-council-motion-recorder-16may24.pdf> 20240516-4 (Updated with the friendly amendment proposed by Kurt Pritz and Manju Chen, accepted by Greg DiBiase and Tomslin Samme-Nlar) Motion to Request an Issue Report for Diacritics in Latin Script with Friendly Amendment Submitted by: Greg DiBiase Seconded by: Tomslin Samme-Nlar WHEREAS, 1. The GNSO Council agreed during the 18 April 2023 meeting<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2024/transcript/transcript-gnso-council-18apr24-en.pdf> to request an Issue Report on diacritics in Latin script. 2. Per the ICANN Bylaws Section 11.3(i)(i)<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#article11>, the request for an Issue Report will require an affirmative vote of more than one-fourth (1/4) vote of each House or majority of one House. 3. The GNSO Council was made aware of a potential issue whereby future applied-for strings in the Latin script containing diacritics may be visually confusingly similar to American Standard Code for Information Interchange (ASCII) strings, are non-variants, and the same entity wishes to operate both strings. 4. During the GNSO Council Meeting at ICANN78 in Hamburg on 25 October 2023<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2023/minutes/minutes-gnso-council-part1-25oct23-en.pdf__;!!PtGJab4!9vAu0I8b4oOJJy_Dlr1_VT4PKsAlUjOzBpDBDGb1GIublDVlgPsOwMVf_6cOz2BHuIDrz1rEpfRDQkAtMMAoBH0$>, the GNSO Council received a detailed briefing on this issue and agreed to request a study from ICANN org to help inform the GNSO Council on the issue of diacritics in Latin Script. Prior to the request being made to ICANN org, the org volunteered to investigate what mechanism or mechanisms might be appropriate to address this issue. 5. Following the discussion during its April 2024 meeting<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann.zoom.us/rec/play/NSXhHFF5NVqRpg6rURgSTvIcv2SWS6N92WoiEZ6p_7LBY3RlMEwHGIkz4Hqo8fMtfu92lnxs8mY5qIVQ.cdpok-x9FFk8JDaf?canPlayFromShare=true&from=share_recording_detail&startTime=1713474063000&componentName=rec-play&originRequestUrl=https*3A*2F*2Ficann.zoom.us*2Frec*2Fshare*2FpNzOb50IRhU01eMSlNtJOH_3vppmsiidy6-4Qk5yyjkURfb769C2_CaaR7_j6G_o.BcYhF_QcQLFI16O4*3FstartTime*3D1713474063000__;JSUlJSUlJSU!!PtGJab4!9vAu0I8b4oOJJy_Dlr1_VT4PKsAlUjOzBpDBDGb1GIublDVlgPsOwMVf_6cOz2BHuIDrz1rEpfRDQkAt4OImgyE$>, the Council discussed requesting an Issue Report on diacritics in the Latin Script. On 06 May 2024, the request for an Issue Report<https://lists.icann.org/hyperkitty/list/council@icann.org/thread/C33MSZ3YSGJWSVAOPGGQVJGI3E5EX4ZX/> was circulated to the Council mailing list. 6. During these discussions the Council came to understand that a set of clear rules exists regarding the delegation of TLDs including diacritics, resulting from the considered work of the Latin LGR panel, and the Council sought to learn more concerning the rationale for those conclusions and the scope of authority of the LGR Panels and of the GNSO in considering these questions. RESOLVED, 1. The GNSO Council adopts the request for an Issue Report and directs staff to create the Report. 2. The GNSO Council requests that the GNSO Liaison to the GAC notifies the GAC Secretariat of this request. Vote results<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2024/vote-result/gnso-council-motion-recorder-16may24.pdf> Thank you. Kind regards, Terri Policy Team Supporting the GNSO