Dear Councilors,

Please find below the confirmed agenda for the GNSO/GAC meeting on 16 June 2021.  I have also enclosed some notes on each of the topics from the GAC perspective so that we can all prepare our thoughts for the meeting.

Agenda (confirmed)

• Follow-up to ICANN 70:
• EPDP/SSAD and Phase 2A;
• Accuracy;
• DNS Abuse;
• CCT-Review and GNSO take on pending recommendations (especially those passed by the Board to GNSO) and potential common ask to Board re common tracking tool of all Review Team recommendations
• SubPro and/or issues coming out of GNSO Council
• AOB

Notes from the GAC

1. EPDP/SSAD

• Regarding the SSAD, the GAC has asked ICANN Org to provide an update on the status of the ODP. 

• Regarding the implementation of the policy recommendations adopted by the GNSO in Phase 1 of the EPDP, the GAC is interested in the resumption of implementation of the Privacy/Proxy Accreditation policy recommendation (PPSAI). This is consistent with GAC Advice in the ICANN64 Kobe Communiqué, and subsequent follow-up on that advice in the ICANN65 Marrakech and ICANN66 Montréal Communiqués.

2. Phase 2A

GAC representatives in the EPDP Phase 2A  have raised several process observations following the recent publication of the Initial Report:

• Timeline constraints have not been helpful in supporting the EPDP’s work
• There were too many substantive changes at the end of the drafting process of the Initial Report and not enough time for the EPDP team to review the proposed edits. Brand new questions, and changes with short turnaround times before publication, as low as 24 hours 24h, should not be allowed.
• A document management system should be adopted to avoid too many documents being created too frequently. The number of documents should be reduced and their access centralized. This is deemed to directly impact the effectiveness of the EPDP Team’s work.

3. Accuracy Scoping Effort

As I have expressed within the small team efforts, the GAC is concerned with the accuracy of domain name information as opposed to the definition of accuracy under GDRP or any other potential legislation.  Their interest is in ensuring that the information provided by a registrant allows that registrant to actually be identified and contacted as envisaged under the respective agreements.   

In that context, the focus of further studies on this matter, if any, should concentrate on the accuracy of the domain name information.

4. DNS Abuse

The GAC would welcome an update from the GNSO about what Community work it envisions to conduct on these issues in light of the recent SAC115 Report and SSR2 Review Team Recommendations.

5. CCT Review Recommendations in GNSO Review of the ICANN70 Communiqué

While the GAC appreciated our feedback in the response to the GAC Communique from ICANN70, they would like to know from us how the items identified in the CCT Review Team report will actually be addressed (as expressed in the GAC Communique from ICANN700.  

In particular on the issue of the CCT Review and Subsequent Rounds of New gTLD, according to the GAC, our response only reiterated previous GNSO Council positions and did not address the substantive issues identified by the GAC’s advice, in terms of the adoptions of (relevant) CCT Review Recommendations ahead of the next round of New gTLDs. 

The GAC has presented some questions for us which are below (verbatim)

Question 1: Given decisions not to address certain relevant issues in the SubPro work, does the GNSO intend to opine on those Recommendations that might require PDP processes, especially given the duration of such ?

Question 2: The GAC asked the Board in its ICANN 70 Communique for a “a tracking tool that identifies the status of each Recommendation in terms of who is taking it forward, how it will be implemented and when it is expected to be completed, particularly in regard to Recommendations attributed to the Organisation and the ICANN Community (in addition to the Board).” - would the GNSO Council agree on such a tool being made available by ICANN Org on the CCT Review recommendations, and possibly also other review team recommendations?

Personal note from GNSO Liaison to the GAC:  This tracking tool seems like a no brainer for us to support along with the GAC.  Not just for the CCT-Review Team Recommendations, but for all Review Team Recommendations as it is impossible to track the hundreds of recommendations and where they are in terms of Board Adoption, implementation planning, implementation, etc. 

6. SubPro

As we know, the GAC has filed a public comment to the SubPro Final Outputs put out for comment by the Board: [Comments-gnso-gtld-subsequent-procedures-final-outputs-22apr21] GAC Comment: GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Final Outputs for ICANN Board Consideration]  Do we have any questions about those comments.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns or whether you would like for me to get additional information to help the Council prepare for the meeting.

Sincerely,

Jeff Neuman

GNSO Liaison to the GAC

Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC p: +1.202.549.5079 E: jeff@jjnsolutions.com http://jjnsolutions.com