Thanks Sebastien, and sorry to be late to weigh-in. If we are looking at 3 topics, I think DNS Abuse, RDRS/SSAD and Urgent Requests/LEA Authentication seem to be the most timely. As I understand it, once we have agreed on topics there is then an opportunity for further discussion on the specific questions – is that correct? It certainly seems to me that the following could be explored: Abuse – At the time we meet with the GAC the new PDP will be in its infancy, but we can update on the Chair and flag the sessions that are scheduled during ICANN 85. I think it could be interesting to also explore what other “gaps” from the Issues Report the GAC would consider to be priorities, with the understanding that any work on these would likely not be immediate. RDRS/SSAD – We should be in a position to update on our preliminary conversation with the Board, share thinking on next steps, and flag to the GAC that we would welcome them identifying participants for the Supplemental Recommendations process. Urgent Requests/LEA Authentication – It would be helpful to hear progress and timing for the work on LEA Authentication, whether there are any pain points, and what, if anything, the GAC need from us. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy Com Laude T +44 (0) 20 7421 8250 D +44 (0) 20 74218 255 [cid:image001.png@01DC9534.FD6BCA10] <https://comlaude.com/> Follow us on LinkedIn<https://t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/pRkAABB8AADw_RQA0> and Youtube<https://t-uk.xink.io/Tracking/Index/ZxkAABB8AADw_RQA0> From: Sebastien Ducos via council <council@icann.org> Sent: 30 January 2026 13:00 To: aheineman@godaddy.com Cc: GNSO Council <council@icann.org>; GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org> Subject: [council] Re: Topics for the up coming GNSO-GAC Bilateral Thank you Gaurav and Ashley for the input. @Ashley Heineman<mailto:aheineman@godaddy.com> - Yes, 3 topics is best. 4 maximum otherwise, as I wrote, we end up exchanging emails which is an entirely different dynamic. The question is: what topic are we deprioritizing for this meeting... without implying it is less important to us. Kindly, On Thu, Jan 29, 2026 at 5:05 PM aheineman@godaddy.com<mailto:aheineman@godaddy.com> <aheineman@godaddy.com<mailto:aheineman@godaddy.com>> wrote: Hello all and thanks to Seb and Gaurav for getting the ball rolling. I have to wonder if this is still too many topics for real substantive conversation. I realize that Accuracy is an important discussion to have, but I wonder in light of issue priorities for this year if we should focus our time discussing the first three issues. ________________________________ From: Gaurav Vedi via council <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2026 10:55 PM To: Sebastien Ducos <seb.ducos.icann@gmail.com<mailto:seb.ducos.icann@gmail.com>> Cc: GNSO Council <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>>; GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>> Subject: [council] Re: Topics for the up coming GNSO-GAC Bilateral Hi Seb, Thank you for the reminder and sharing the proposed agenda for the upcoming GNSO-GAC bilateral. Based on the proposed five items and considering meaningful two-way engagement, I believe that the following four topics may be considered ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender You have not previously corresponded with this sender. ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd Hi Seb, Thank you for the reminder and sharing the proposed agenda for the upcoming GNSO-GAC bilateral. Based on the proposed five items and considering meaningful two-way engagement, I believe that the following four topics may be considered with priority. 1) DNS Abuse; Proposed questions for the GAC: * What specific outcomes does the GAC expect beyond the current contractual and voluntary measures? * Are there particular abuse vectors or jurisdictional concerns where the GAC sees remaining gaps? 2) RDRS / SSAD; Proposed questions for the GAC: * Based on experience with the RDRS to date, does the GAC see a policy justification for proceeding with any SSAD-related elements? * Any specific use-cases does the GAC believe are not adequately served today? * Any specific thresholds (uptake, predictability, accuracy) that the GAC would consider sufficient to support next steps? 3) Urgent Requests / Law Enforcement Authentication; Proposed questions for the GAC: * Any issues/concerns/gaps that the GAC believe remain unresolved under the current framework? * Is the primary concern authentication, response timelines, or scope of requests? 4) Accuracy – Scope, Responsibility, and Feasibility; Proposed questions for the GAC: * How does the GAC define “accuracy” in practical terms (syntactic, operational, or purpose-based)? * Where does the GAC see primary responsibility resting (registrants, registrars, registries, ICANN compliance)?
From a prioritization perspective, I believe the above listed four topics seem more suitable for meaningful two-way engagement. Other items such as HRIA updates could be handled via email updates or other focused discussions, if needed. Just my opinion !!
inputs from other councillors are welcome :) Regards, Gaurav Vedi GNSO CPH NCA On Wed, Jan 28, 2026 at 6:23 AM Sebastien Ducos via council <council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org>> wrote: Dear Council Members, I did not want to further crowd our already packed SPS agenda in Barcelona, but it is time to look at our proposed agenda items for the next GNSO-GAC Bilateral meeting in Mumbai. Before I reach out to Manal and Rida can you provide me with what you would like for me to propose as topics? During our last meeting in Dublin we discussed: 1. RDRS 2. Urgent Requests / Law Enforcement Authentication 3. Accuracy 4. DNS Abuse 5. HRIA GAC-Side In Mumbai I proposed: 1. DNS Abuse Depending on progress until then 2. RDRS/SSAD Next Steps : outcome of the SPS 3. Urgent Requests / Law Enforcement Authentication The GAC/PSWG should have updates. Are there questions we want to ask? 4. HRIA 5. Accuracy As a reminder: 1. We normally try to limit ourselves to 4 topics to give each time for discussions. We have fit 5 in the past but find ourselves needing to close discussions early and continue via email, which defeats to a certain extent the purpose of a bilateral. 2. We want to promote 2-way discussions and move away from finding ourselves reporting to the GAC. We should have questions to the GAC and topic leaders are invited to interact with their peers GAC-Side to work on questions jointly. 3. Topics proposed will be discussed with our joint leaderships before we add them to the agenda. Priorities and time allotted to each topic is agreed then, please appreciate not all our suggestions might make the cut. I will be meeting with my GAC peers on 4 February (this time next week), Please provide your inputs by Monday 2 February 2026 COB. Kindly, Seb -- Sebastien Ducos +49 172 690 8418 +33 6 1228 4445 _______________________________________________ council mailing list -- council@icann.org<mailto:council@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to council-leave@icann.org<mailto: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<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy__;!!Hj18uoVe_Lnx!pslxrq-bm91qeh4B0-D1bzZWk5hANkimotTd_1yCGZDpI-AslTF7L0sha4SwQNCmFB7Jtuh3-8g8Zzrj$>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos__;!!Hj18uoVe_Lnx!pslxrq-bm91qeh4B0-D1bzZWk5hANkimotTd_1yCGZDpI-AslTF7L0sha4SwQNCmFB7Jtuh3-yqfu92I$>). 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. -- Regards, Gaurav Vedi -- Sebastien Ducos +49 172 690 8418 +33 6 1228 4445 ________________________________ The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete it. Please note that Com Laude Group Limited (the “Com Laude Group”) does not accept any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group is a limited company registered in England and Wales with company number 10689074 and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England. The Com Laude Group includes Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 6181291 and registered office at 28 Little Russell Street, London, WC1A 2HN England; Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number SC197176 and registered office at 15 William Street, South West Lane, Edinburgh, EH3 7LL Scotland; Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, a corporation incorporated in the State of Washington and principal office address at Suite 332, Securities Building, 1904 Third Ave, Seattle, WA 98101; Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan with company number 0100-01-190853 and registered office at 1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033, Japan; Com Laude Domain ESP S.L.U., a company registered in Spain and registered office address at Calle Barcas 2, 2, Valencia, 46002, Spain. For further information see www.comlaude.com<https://comlaude.com/>
