Hi Mark. I encourage you to listen to the recording of the meeting of the small group which just occurred. I think many of your concerns have been overtaken by events and the list of worries you lay out will be smaller (but not eliminated entirely). Best, Paul From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> On Behalf Of Mark Datysgeld via council Sent: Wednesday, August 2, 2023 3:03 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] BC input on outreach related to art28 NIS2 Council colleagues, Please find below the Business Constituency's feedback on outreach related to art28 NIS2, as well as a relevant attachment. Input follows: The BC registers its objection to the direction the council is taking with regard to governmental outreach. It is clear that the management of these relationships is the remit of the GAC, not the GNSO. The council is not a governmental lobbying organization and should not behave as such. Discussions with governments are the remit of the GAC - not the GNSO Council. The GNSO's role is to propose new polices, leaving government engagement to the GAC. Under ICANN bylaws, the GNSO's role definition is to be "responsible for developing and recommending to the Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains." That of the GAC is "activities of ICANN as they relate to concerns of governments, particularly matters where there may be an interaction between ICANN's policies and various law and international agreements or where they may affect public policy issues." Let's be clear about that intentional separation. What is proposed for the Council to undertake has little to do with "recommending to the Board policies relating to generic top-level domains." The BC has been calling for WHOIS policy to be updated in response to NIS2 (see attached chart - so far, the Council has not acted). It is therefore premature to reply to Europe to assure EU authorities that "all is well" until that work has been completed. Note further that the Council has not developed - or even begun to develop - updated standards related to NIS2's verification and accuracy requirements. Indeed, the Council elected to delay any work in these areas until the conclusion of the accuracy scoping work (which left off with a yet-to-be-employed survey of registrars before work was suspended indefinitely). Should council representatives disagree with ICANN bylaws and elect to forge ahead, and due to the focus here being multistakeholder processes and roles, we respectfully suggest that any outreach be done only with full feedback and approval from each constituency or stakeholder group represented through the GNSO. This would ensure that there is full buy-in and true reflection of constituency or stakeholder group positions with any representation of unanimity in a communication from the Council. The BC will strongly object to representations otherwise by a Council letter or outreach that doesn't fully include such feedback from each constituency or stakeholder group represented within the GNSO. This is an important matter, both procedurally and as represented by the potential content of a council communication. The BC's Councilors are happy to work with colleagues to arrive at a procedure that meets the needs of all groups making up the GNSO. -- Mark W. Datysgeld [markwd.website<https://markwd.website/>] Director at Governance Primer [governanceprimer.com<https://governanceprimer.com/>] ICANN GNSO Councilor This email originated from outside the firm. Please use caution.