Thanks Jeff. Re Item 4 in Jorge's report, do you have a draft Code of Conduct on SOIs? (I must have missed this.) Then just wanted to point out that re Item 8,, the trilateral re Urgent Requests took place recently and I think that topic will be scheduled for discussion in our GNSO work sessions. Personally, would love to see the community develop a GDPR Article 40 Code of Conduct on Urgent Requests that could be submitted for approval by the EU and would provide a safe harbor for contracted parties. Thanks so much for your past four years of service and for your report! Would love to see your follow-up on previous recommendations in bullet point form. Do you have a slide? Thank you! Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com On Wed, Nov 6, 2024 at 9:52 AM Jeff Neuman via council <council@icann.org> wrote:
All,
In preparation for our Council / GAC meeting, please find enclosed the attached talking points sent to us by the GAC. In addition, please find enclosed my final GAC / GNSO Liaison report which relates to topic 1. I am also sending this report to the GAC Point of Contact
____________________________________________________________________
*ICANN81 GAC/GNSO Bilateral (10 November 2024) | GAC Questions/Talking Points*
1. *Introduction* 1. Incoming GNSO Liaison to the GAC.
2. *State of cooperation between the GAC and GNSO Council*
Speaking points for Jorge Cancio as Point of Contact since January 2021:
1. *How the GAC and GNSO Council work together *
The experience over the last 4 years is one of increased cooperation in general, both in policy development processes as in other issues of shared interest in the community (e.g. SOIs). The information exchanged by both POCs as well as by both committees in periodic leadership and bilateral meetings (as well as in an increasing number of sub-constituency meetings) has increased exponentially, enhancing the level of understanding and trust, and focusing remaining disagreements to very specific instances, instead of having parallel and siloed processes where the two committees don’t know of each other’s work and don’t effectively talk to each other. In the instances of disagreement/divergence, such as on IGO names or closed generics, there has been a spirit of good cooperation, leading to shared solutions (like with IGOs) or shared understandings that the community as such was not ready for a solution (closed generics). The periodic dialogue also serves to highlight respective priorities, which are increasingly taken into account, e.g. DNS Abuse and the recent related contractual changes. But here it would be very interesting to open the floor to inputs from other GAC or GNSO Council members.
2. *Definition of potential improvements *
As possible improvements, what comes to my mind is, first, a more interactive dialogue, with more informal inputs (messages/questions) coming from the GNSO side, without the need of them being always curated 100% by the Council, i.e. also inputs from PDP WG Chairs or from other GNSO topic leads would be welcome, in order to foster a more substantive discussion; Second, I think the GAC would also welcome more frequent information from the GNSO (Council), e.g. drawing the GAC’s attention to GNSO Resolutions and other action items, where a GAC interest may be present. Thirdly, we may also consider the speed with which some GAC priorities are taken up by the Council, and, fourthly, whether some thought should be given to ways and means how the GAC may prompt certain actions, e.g. the start of a policy development process. Also here the views of other colleagues would be very welcome.
3.
*WHOIS - Data Accuracy *
- The GAC has on several occasions expressed its interest in the topic of accuracy of domain name registration data. In particular, in the last Communiqué the GAC reiterated that registration data accuracy is an important element in building trust for Internet users, as well as in law enforcement, cybersecurity, investigations to enforce Intellectual Property Rights, domain name registration management, and other legitimate third-party interests. - The GAC stresses the importance of stopping to defer the work on accuracy and hopes that, as soon as feedback is collected on the questions laid down by the recent GNSO scoping paper, the community can resume efforts towards scoping policy work on accuracy of domain name registration data. - Further GAC discussion is likely needed to develop well-considered responses to the GNSO's questions. The GAC can take this issue under further consideration. - For now, the GAC is interested in GNSO views on the utility of ICANN's proposed alternatives. - The GAC is also interested in what work the Accuracy Scoping Team would perform if it is restarted at this time, and in any other ideas from the community that might advance this topic.
4. *ICANN Community Participant Code of Conduct on SOIs and General Ethics Policy*
- The GAC has had first exchanges on the draft Participant Code of Conduct on SOIs, and would like to welcome the Board’s diligence in addressing this issue, of so much importance to ICANN’s transparency and credibility. After a first examination, the draft code of conduct seems to head into a positive and clear direction. The GAC is keen to listen to opinions and inputs from the community, and would therefore very much appreciate hearing about the first impressions coming from the GNSO Council members.
5. *New gTLD Program Next Round* 1. *Respective views on Board proposal on Contention Sets / Auctions *
The Board and GAC have reached consensus in the way that there shall be no private auctions. An innovative way of resolving string contention, including in the situation of IDNs shall be further explored and examined. The GAC would like to hear the GNSO’s opinion in this regard.
1. *Applicant Support Program and respective Outreach Activities *
The Board and GAC have been working on a compromised middle way solution in order to keep the expected efficiency of the ASP program while allowing more room and opportunity to promote awareness in less developed regions. The GAC would like to know whether GNSO is also agreeable to such a conclusion.
1. *Other remaining IRT issues of mutual concern*
The GAC submitted a *collective comment <https://gac.icann.org/dA/0fee668733/GAC%20Comments%20Re%20Second%20Proceeding%20for%20Proposed%20Language%20for%20Draft%20Sections%20of%20the%20Next%20Round%20Applicant%20Guidebook.docx.pdf?language_id=1>* on the second proceeding for proposed language on draft sections of the next round Applicant Guidebook (AGB), noting that the AGBlanguage on the topics for comment appear to align with SubPro PDP WG Recommendations. Does the GNSO Council have any further items to flag for discussion pertaining to IRT topics?
6. *Diacritics *
- The GAC welcomes an update from the GNSO Council on the Diacritics PDP approval vote and timelines for PDP.
7. *Privacy/Proxy Work*
- The GAC appreciates the efforts of the PPSAI IRT to explore whether the original PPSAI recommendations may still be implemented, in whole or in part. - The GAC notes that choices made by contracted parties as to how they implement proxy services, especially when they themselves operate “affiliated proxy services”, has broad and significant impact on community work such as the Registration Data Request Service (and successor systems). Thus, while the GAC continues to encourage registrars and requesters to participate in the trial RDRS, the GAC also reiterates its encouragement for registrars using an affiliated proxy service provider to consider making disclosure decisions in response to RDRS requests on behalf of their affiliated proxy service provider, providing information about their customer (and not their proxy). These steps will enhance the ability of the trial RDRS to generate useful data to inform next steps, including regarding Privacy and Proxy services.
8. *AOB*
- Urgent Requests
Regarding urgent requests for access to domain name domain registration data, the GAC has proposed to the ICANN Board two tracks of work that can be conducted in parallel to both explore possible mechanisms to authenticate emergency law enforcement requestors and determine an appropriate response time for authenticated Urgent Requests, while, at the same time, stressing that the re-commencement of Urgent Request policy work is not dependent upon the completion of authentication mechanisms. Do you have any reactions at this time, or updates on when we could schedule the Board's requested trilateral discussion on urgent requests with the GNSO Council and the GAC?
_______________________________________________ council mailing list -- council@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to 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.
