Proposed Agenda | GNSO Council Meeting | Thursday, 19 December 2024 - council

Dec. 9, 2024

      Dear all,

Please find below the agenda for the GNSO Council Meeting on 19 December 2024 at 21:00 UTC. This is posted on the agenda wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/E4DyEg>.

Thank you!
Kind regards,
Devan
Policy Team Supporting the GNSO

GNSO Council Agenda 19 December 2024

Please note that all documents referenced in the agenda have been gathered on a Wiki page for convenience and easier access: https://community.icann.org/x/CICeFw.

This agenda was established according to the GNSO Operating Procedures<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/op-procedu...> v3.5, updated on 15 March 2023.

For convenience:

  *   An excerpt of the ICANN Bylaws defining the voting thresholds is provided in Appendix 1 at the end of this agenda.
  *   An excerpt from the Council Operating Procedures defining the absentee voting procedures is provided in Appendix 2 at the end of this agenda.

GNSO Council meeting on Thursday, 19 December 2024 at 21:00 UTC: https://tinyurl.com/ybse6rda

13:00 Los Angeles; 16:00 Washington DC; 21:00 London; 22:00 Paris; 00:00 Moscow (Friday); 08:00 Melbourne (Friday)

GNSO Council Meeting Remote Participation: https://icann.zoom.us/j/92283565389?pwd=QnlHK1JSbzdiSFFZSjRjamxMTkNGdz09

Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if they will not be able to attend and/or need a dial out call.

___________________________________

Item 1: Administrative Matters (5 minutes)

1.1 - Roll Call

1.2 - Updates to Statements of Interest

1.3 - Review / Amend Agenda

1.4 - Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meetings per the GNSO Operating Procedures:

Minutes<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2024/minutes/minutes-gnso-...> of the GNSO Council Meeting on 17 October 2024 were posted on 01 November 2024.

Minutes <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2024/minutes/minutes-gnso-...> (Part 1) Minutes<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2024/minutes/minutes-gnso-...> (Part 2) of the GNSO Council Meeting on 13 November 2024 were posted on 02 December 2024.

Item 2: Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List (0 minutes)

2.1 - Review focus areas and provide updates on specific key themes / topics, to include review of Projects List<https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/project> and Action Item List. <https://community.icann.org/x/RgZlAg>

Item 3: Consent Agenda (5 minutes)

  *   GNSO Review of the GAC Communiqué
  *   Recommendations Report for the Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP) on Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) Phase 2
  *   Confirmation of GNSO Empowered Community Representative (Tomslin Samme-NIar)

Item 4: COUNCIL VOTE - Empowered Community Approval Action on Fundamental Bylaws Amendments to Article 4 Accountability and Review, 4.2 Reconsideration (10 minutes)

Pursuant to Section 25.2(e) of the ICANN Bylaws, the ICANN Board approved Fundamental Bylaws Amendments to Article 4, Sections 4.2 and 4.3<https://itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/governance/uppdates-to-article-4-icann-gr...> of the ICANN Bylaws. The ICANN Board took a series of actions and communications to move forward with the ICANN Grant Program while in some cases, trying to address issues presented by the original language of Recommendation 7, including:

  *   26 October 2023 resolutions<https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-re...> revisiting the Board's prior approval of Recommendation 7 and directing the development of a more general process for the ICANN community to indicate when ICANN's Accountability Mechanisms should not be available;
  *   21 January 2024 initiation<https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-re...> of a Fundamental Bylaws amendment process setting forth the general process for the ICANN community to limit access to ICANN's Accountability Mechanisms; and,
  *   2 March 2024 letter<https://www.icann.org/files/correspondence/sinha-to-clemente-et-al-02mar24-e...> to the CCWG-AP’s Chartering Organizations specifying a proposed change to Recommendation 7 to remove a reference to the “Independent Application Assessment Panel” so that Recommendation 7 could better achieve its goal of preserving auction proceeds for grants instead of funding challenges to decisions on grant applications; and the

On 7 August 2024, ICANN opened a Public Comment Forum<https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/proposed-fundamental-byla...> on the updated Fundamental Bylaws Proposal, with the proposed amendments being limited and in line with Recommendation 7. Nine submissions were received, and all commenters were supportive of the proposal as posted for Public Comment. Commenters noted that the updated proposal was better aligned to the intention of Recommendation 7 and was a more appropriate means of implementation than the prior proposal.

Concurrently, ICANN finalized confirmation with the Chartering Organizations of the CCWG-AP their support or non-objection to the proposal to update Recommendation 7, including confirmation with the GAC that it too is in a position to support or not object to the updating of Recommendation 7, in light of the Board's acceptance of this alternate path. The Board has formally confirmed its adoption of the updated Recommendation 7 and the respective Fundamental Bylaws Amendments.

At ICANN81, ICANN Org held an Empowered Community Approval Action<https://www.icann.org/en/ec/fundamental-bylaws-amendment-to-accountability-m...> on Fundamental Bylaws Amendments to Article 4 Accountability and Review, 4.2 Reconsideration.<https://www.icann.org/en/ec/fundamental-bylaws-amendment-to-accountability-m...>

The Fundamental Bylaws Amendments will only become effective if approved by the Empowered Community using the process set forth at Section 25.2(f)<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#article25> and Annex D<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#annexD>, Article 1 of the ICANN Bylaws. The convening of the Approval Action Community Forum is part of this process.

Following the Approval Action Community Forum, the GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies are asked to provide feedback, opinions or comments on their support for, objection to, or abstention from the Approval Action under consideration. The GNSO Council must decide and inform the EC Administration of its decision within twenty-one (21) days after the expiration of the Community Forum whether to support, object to, or abstain from the Approval Action by affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority.

A discussion and vote on the Approval Action is scheduled for this GNSO Council meeting. If more time is needed, a placeholder for an email vote will be scheduled to initiate on Monday, 23 December.

Here, the Council will vote on the Fundamental Bylaw amendments.

4.1 - Presentation of Motion<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+2024-12-19> (Tomslin Samme-NIar, GNSO Council Vice Chair)

4.2 - Council Discussion

4.3 - Council Vote (voting threshold: Supermajority)

Item 5: COUNCIL VOTE - Charter for Policy Development Process on Latin Script Diacritics (15 minutes)

On 13 November 2024, the GNSO Council passed a motion<https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions/2020-current#202405> to initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP) on requesting Latin Script Diacritics. The objective of the Preliminary Issue Report<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2024/draft/preliminary-iss...> was for ICANN org to assess all relevant issues related to the GNSO Council request, and, following Community Input during the Public Comment<https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/preliminary-issue-report-...> phase, to recommend a course of action to the GNSO Council.

The PDP will be focused on the circumstance when an ASCII gTLD and the Latin script diacritic version of the gTLD are not variants of each other AND may be found to be visually similar to each other. The issue is theoretically possible for any existing ASCII or Latin script IDN gTLD pairs, and is essentially infinite for future applied-for ASCII or Latin script IDN gTLDs, where diacritics are involved. The Final Issue Report<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2024/draft/final-issue-rep...> includes a draft charter prepared by ICANN org supporting the GNSO Council. Having discussed the draft charter, the Council determined that edits were needed with respect to, but not limited to, the membership structure.

Here, the Council will vote on the updated charter.

5.1 - Presentation of Motion<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+2024-12-19> (Jennifer Chung)

5.2 - Council Discussion

5.3 - Council Vote (voting threshold: affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House)

Item 6: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - EPDP Temporary Specification Phase 1, Recommendation 18 - Urgent Requests (15 minutes)

ICANN org convened an Implementation Review Team to assist ICANN in implementing the EPDP on the Temporary Specification Phase 1 Final Report<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/epdp-gtld-...>, which began meeting in May 2019. ICANN org published the draft Registration Data Policy for public comment<https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/registration-data-consens...> on 24 August 2022. Several commenters expressed dissatisfaction with the implementation of Recommendation 18, specifically around the issue of the response timeline for urgent requests. The relevant portion of Recommendation 18 reads, “A separate timeline of [less than X business days] will 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].”

On 3 June 2024<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2024/correspondence/tsinha...>, the Board wrote to the GNSO Council, noting concerns with the proposed urgent request timeline of business days as not fit for purpose, as truly urgent requests should be responded to within minutes or hours rather than business days. Recognizing this, the Board also noted there is no universal mechanism for registrars to authenticate law enforcement entities. The GNSO Council responded on 29 August 2024<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2024/correspondence/dibias...>, agreeing with the Board’s concerns and suggesting a trilateral meeting between the Board, GNSO Council, and GAC to discuss a potential path forward in light of the concerns.

On 15 October 2024<https://gac.icann.org/contentMigrated/gac-follow-up-on-urgent-requests-gac-r...>, the GAC wrote to the Board, recommending, “[f]or the work on authentication, we would support the establishment of a joint PSWG/CPH task force. For the work on the response time for authenticated requests, we invite the Board and the GNSO Council to identify an expedited procedure for addressing this workstream. We strongly suggest resuming the work of the IRT, which was halted last summer.”

A trilateral meeting was held on 4 November 2024<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Dialogue+with+GAC%2C...> and the Board, GAC, and GNSO Council discussed next steps, including potentially resuming discussions with the IRT.

Here, the Council will discuss the GAC’s proposal and determine next steps.

6.1 - Introduction of Topic (Greg DiBiase, GNSO Chair)

6.2 - Council Discussion

6.3 - Next Steps

Item 7: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Request for Guidance from the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures / IDNs EPDP Phase 1 IRT (10 minutes)

The New gTLD Subsequent Procedures (SubPro) PDP provided a recommendation to allow single character gTLDs in the next round, which was expanded upon by the IDNs EPDP Phase 1 Final Report. The IDNs EPDP Phase 1 Final Report put forth important detail and limitations on the SubPro recommendation, prescribing that the single character gTLDs be limited to the Han script and that relevant guidelines must be developed and put in place by the Chinese, Japanese, and Korean (CJK) Generation Panels (GPs).

In a public comment<https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/seeking-input-on-han-scri...> proceeding, the CJK GPs noted their opposition to moving forward with single character Han script gTLDs. And in a subsequent public comment<https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/second-proceeding-for-pro...> proceeding on relevant Applicant Guidebook (AGB) sections, a number of commenters also expressed their opposition.

This opposition was discussed with the IDN Sub-Track, a sub-track to the SubPro IRT, where it was agreed to not move forward with single character Han script gTLDs. That decision was then discussed with the main SubPro IRT, where it was determined that this decision should be shared with the GNSO Council. A write-up was shared with the Council on [date].

Here, the Council will be briefed on the tentative decision from the SubPro IRT and to discuss the appropriate next steps, if any.

7.1 - Introduction of Topic (Anne Aikman-Scalese & Susan Payne, Council co-liaisons to the SubPro IRT)

7.2 - Council Discussion

7.3 - Next Steps

Item 8: COUNCIL UPDATE: EPDP Temporary Specification Phase 1 - Billing Contact (20 minutes)

During the ICANN81 GNSO Council Wrap-Up<https://icann81.sched.com/event/1p2Gu/gnso-council-wrap-up>, Thomas Rickert provided an update regarding the implementation of EPDP Temp Spec Phase 1 recommendations. Thomas is the current GNSO Council Liaison to the EPDP Temp Spec Phase 1 Implementation Review Team (IRT). Thomas noted that the IRT expressed the view that the absence of a reference to billing contact data was a drafting error, and the EPDP Team intended for the collection of billing contact data to be optional and not mandatory.

The Registration Data Policy<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/registration-data-policy-2024-02-21-en> was published on 21 February 2024, and the policy has an effective date of 21 August 2025. The EPDP Phase 1 policy recommendations<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/epdp-gtld-...> do not reference billing contact data, and the Registration Data Policy<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/registration-data-policy-2024-02-21-en> also makes no reference to billing contact data.

In the interest of transparency, Thomas requested that all Councilors consult with their respective groups to ensure that others are properly informed and agree with the interpretation raised by the registrars within the IRT. Accordingly, Councilors were asked to consult with their groups on the following questions:

  1.  Does your group believe that billing contact data was in scope for the EPDP Temp Spec policy development?
  2.  If yes, does your group believe there was a drafting error in the EPDP Phase 1 Final Report because the intention of the recommendations, by not including a recommendation concerning the collection, escrow, etc of billing contact data was that the collection and retention of billing contact data should be optional and not mandatory? Note: If, as a matter of ICANN Consensus Policy this was the intended outcome, this interpretation would change current contractual requirements for registrars.

Here, the Council will discuss the above questions and determine next steps.

8.1 - Introduction of Topic (Greg DiBiase, GNSO Chair)

8.2 - Council Discussion

8.3 - Next Steps

Item 9: COUNCIL UPDATE - 2025 Council Strategic Planning Session (SPS) (10 minutes)

The GNSO Council will hold its annual Strategic Planning Session (SPS) in Washington, DC on 14-15 January 2025.

The SPS is a dedicated meeting during which the Council will discuss and identify its priorities and goals for the upcoming year. Council Leadership has been developing the agenda, and has identified, et.al., the following themes for discussion:

Overview of the Council’s Role and Remit  and the Role of Councilors

  *   Evolution of the Council’s role in managing PDPs, including improvements derived from previous SPS
  *   Review of work for the upcoming year (including targeted review of project management tools)
  *   Consideration of recent projects that did not follow the typical path after Council adoption (e.g., delayed implementation, challenges in implementing recommendations)
  *   Continuous improvement of the GNSO (board readiness, GNSO Standing Committee on Continuous Improvement (SCCI), Five Year Strategic Plan)

Here, the Council will receive an update from Leadership and Support Staff on SPS planning and important information to know ahead of the SPS.

9.1 - Introduction of Topic (Greg DiBiase, GNSO Chair)

9.2 - Council Discussion

9.3 - Next Steps

Item 10:  DISCUSSION ITEM -  Request for Guidance from the Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP IRT on the Scope of Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) Recommendation 1 (15 minutes)

There are currently diverging views within the Implementation Review Team (IRT) concerning the implementation of the Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS) Final Recommendation 1 in the RPM PDP Phase 1 Final Report. Specifically, there is disagreement regarding the scope of amendments to a complaint filed under the URS after the complainant receives the contact information from the URS Provider. As stated in URS Recommendation 1:

The Working Group recommends that URS Rule 3(b), and, where necessary, a URS Provider’s Supplemental Rules be amended to clarify that a Complainant must only be required to insert the publicly-available WHOIS/Registration Data Directory Service (RDDS) data for the domain name(s) at issue in its initial Complaint.

Furthermore, the Working Group recommends that URS Procedure paragraph 3.3 be amended to allow the Complainant to update the Complaint within 2-3 calendar days after the URS Provider provides updated registration data related to the disputed domain name(s).

The draft language currently proposed by some IRT members to URS Rule 3(b)<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dC3BIYxnIb2zZks1AOnrUNEkQJCzi8EKaCAbGMP1...>, which has sparked disagreement within the IRT, pertains to the text in red below:

“Pursuant to URS Procedure Section 3.3, Complainant shall have the opportunity to file an amended Complaint limited to adding additional contact details about the Registrant following disclosure of the relevant contact details of the Respondent.”

According to some members of the IRT, the scope of amendments to a complaint should be “limited to adding additional contact details about the Registrant” as this is what was intended by URS Recommendation 1, and as such, this should be stated in the proposed amendment to URS Rule 3(b)(iii). Accordingly, these IRT members believe that the amended filing should be limited to including redacted data about the Registrant in the complaint, as this aligns with the expedited nature of the proceeding. No additional changes or amendments to the complaint should be allowed.

However, other IRT members raised concerns about the current text in red, noting that URS Recommendation 1 does not impose a limit on the scope of possible amendments to the complaint. These IRT members pointed out that if new information providing greater clarity to a claim becomes available after the party's identity is revealed, the complainant should be permitted to amend the Complaint to include this information. These IRT members believe that there doesn't seem to be any substantial harm in allowing the complainant to amend the Complaint beyond just putting in the contact details of the registrant.

A staff review of meeting transcripts suggests that the PDP Working Group did not discuss either expanding or limiting the scope of URS Recommendation 1.  For further details on the PDP IRT and original Working Group discussions, see the background document at https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2024/draft/staff-summary-r....

The IRT has not come to agreement and the next step, per the IRT Principles and Guidelines<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/irt-principles-guidelines-23aug1...>, is to raise the issue with the GNSO Council liaison.

Here, the Council will receive an introduction to the topic from the GNSO Council Liaison to the IRT.

10.1 - Introduction of Topic (Susan Payne, GNSO Council Liaison to the IRT)

10.2 - Council Discussion

10.3 - Next Steps

Item 11: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - GNSO Council PR Officer Update (10 minutes)

During the GNSO Council Strategic Planning Session (SPS) that was held from 14-16 December 2022, the GNSO Council identified the need to enhance its communication efforts to promote its work and outcomes to a broader audience, as well as to counterbalance negative stories and misinformation about GNSO policy work that seemed to have gained prominence on social media and industry blogs.

A GNSO Council small team<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Communications+Small...> was formed in April 2023 to develop a strategic communications plan<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2024/draft/gnso-council-co...> for the GNSO Council. Within its report, the small team put forward two substantive recommendations for new mechanisms to enhance GNSO Council’s communications practice: 1) appoint a member in the GNSO Council to serve as the “PR officer” to guide / support policy staff in implementing the communications strategy and proposed improvements; and 2) establish a LinkedIn page for the GNSO Council.

Following the first recommendation, Lawrence Olawale-Roberts agreed to assume the role of PR Officer.

Here, the Council will hear an update from Lawrence Olawale-Roberts on his work in this role.

11.1 - Introduction of Topic (Lawrence Olawale-Roberts, GNSO Council PR Officer)

11.2 - Council Discussion

11.3 - Next Steps

Item 12: Any Other Business (5 minutes)

12.1 - GNSO Liaison to the GAC update

12.2 - ICANN82 - funded travel emails were sent out, please action as past deadline

 _______________________________

Appendix 1: GNSO Council Voting Thresholds (ICANN Bylaws, Article 11, Section 11.3(i))

See https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#article11.

Appendix 2: GNSO Council Absentee Voting Procedures (GNSO Operating Procedures, Section 4.4)

See https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/op-procedu...

References for Coordinated Universal Time of 21:00 UTC

Local time between March and November in the NORTHERN hemisphere

See https://www.timeanddate.com/time/change/ for Dates for Daylight Saving Time and Clock Changes

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

California, USA (PDT) UTC-8 13:00

San José, Costa Rica (CST) UTC-6  15:00

New York/Washington DC, USA (EDT) UTC-5 16:00

Buenos Aires, Argentina (ART) UTC-3 18:00

Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo (WAT) UTC+1 22:00

Paris, France (CEST) UTC+1  22:00

Moscow, Russia (MSK) UTC+3 00:00 (Friday)

Singapore (SGT) UTC+8  05:00 (Friday)

Melbourne, Australia (AEST) UTC+11 08:00 (Friday)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com<http://www.timeanddate.com/> and https://tinyurl.com/ybse6rda.

Proposed Agenda | GNSO Council Meeting | Thursday, 19 December 2024

Devan Reed

Anne ICANN

Steve Chan

Susan Payne

tags

participants (4)