Agree with Paul. Does anyone have the language of the Board Resolution? Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2024 anneicanngnso@gmail.com On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 5:38 AM Paul McGrady <paul@elstermcgrady.com> wrote:
Thanks Jeff. I’m pretty sure the .spring and .springs example is not about content or registrants but rather that the two items are not automatically *only* plurals of each other since one could be a season and one could be a description of more than one place in which water leaves the earth on its own. Saying “We are MLB and we are defining “spring” as the season of training” and “We are the city of Colorado Springs and we are defining “springs” as where the waters out of the ground” isn’t content. It is context.
Best,
Paul
*From:* Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com> *Sent:* Monday, June 10, 2024 7:30 AM *To:* Paul McGrady <paul@elstermcgrady.com>; Terri Agnew < terri.agnew@icann.org>; Terri Agnew via cou. <council@gnso.icann.org>; DiBiase, Gregory <dibiase@amazon.com>; Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com
*Cc:* ntfy-gnso-council@icann.org; gnso-secs@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [council] Re: Proposed GNSO Council talking points - Joint meeting with GAC
@Paul McGrady <paul@elstermcgrady.com> - I am not convinced that is the case with the work of the Small Team +1. We talked about .spring and .springs both of which are considered open. Therefore, in both cases they are directed to the same registrant base (namely everyone). You cant just say that one TLD is for registrants that like the season and the other is for registrants that like springs. No way to enforce any of that.
We have to have the Board weigh in on this in my opinion.
------------------------------
*From:* Paul McGrady <paul@elstermcgrady.com> *Sent:* Monday, June 10, 2024 7:22 AM *To:* Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com>; Terri Agnew < terri.agnew@icann.org>; Terri Agnew via cou. <council@gnso.icann.org>; DiBiase, Gregory <dibiase@amazon.com>; Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com
*Cc:* ntfy-gnso-council@icann.org <ntfy-gnso-council@icann.org>; gnso-secs@icann.org <gnso-secs@icann.org> *Subject:* RE: [council] Re: Proposed GNSO Council talking points - Joint meeting with GAC
Thanks Jeff. The current work in the Small Team +1 is about registrant restrictions, not content restrictions, so I don’t think this upsets the fruit cart. We already knew that “intended use” as anticipated by SubPro is dead on arrival.
Best,
Paul
*From:* Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com> *Sent:* Monday, June 10, 2024 7:18 AM *To:* Terri Agnew <terri.agnew@icann.org>; Terri Agnew via cou. < council@gnso.icann.org>; DiBiase, Gregory <dibiase@amazon.com>; Paul McGrady <paul@elstermcgrady.com>; Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> *Cc:* ntfy-gnso-council@icann.org; gnso-secs@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [council] Re: Proposed GNSO Council talking points - Joint meeting with GAC
Anne,
Given the resolution passed by the Board this past weekend which should be on website "soon", I think we may have to revisit the entire singular/plurals discussion.
According to Becky Burr, the ICANN Board resolved that there may be no RVCs in a Registry Agreement that regulates or restricts content in any manner. The Registries may have their own policies dealing with this, but they cannot have this enforced in the ICANN Agreement.
Sincerely,
------------------------------
*From:* Anne ICANN via council <council@icann.org> *Sent:* Monday, June 10, 2024 6:36 AM *To:* Terri Agnew <terri.agnew@icann.org>; Terri Agnew via cou. < council@gnso.icann.org>; DiBiase, Gregory <dibiase@amazon.com>; Paul McGrady <paul@elstermcgrady.com> *Cc:* ntfy-gnso-council@icann.org <ntfy-gnso-council@icann.org>; gnso-secs@icann.org <gnso-secs@icann.org> *Subject:* [council] Re: Proposed GNSO Council talking points - Joint meeting with GAC
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@gmail.com
On Sun, Jun 9, 2024 at 9:41 PM Terri Agnew via Ntfy-gnso-council < ntfy-gnso-council@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-meeti...>
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@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to 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.
This email originated from outside the firm. Please use caution.
This email originated from outside the firm. Please use caution.
