Dear all, Please find below the resolutions from the GNSO Council meeting on Thursday, 14 August 2025 which will be posted shortly on the GNSO Council resolutions <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions/202...> page. Thank you. Kind regards, Terri Policy Team Supporting the GNSO **Beginning of the Consent Agenda items Deferral of Third Customer Standing Committee (CSC) Effectiveness Review Submitted by: Paul McGrady Whereas, 1. In accordance with Section 17 of the ICANN Bylaws<https://www.icann.org/en/governance/bylaws#article17> and the CSC Charter<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/csc-charter-amended-27jun18-en.p...>, the effectiveness of the CSC is to be reviewed two years after its first meeting, and then every three years, using a method determined by the ccNSO and GNSO. 2. On 20 April 2023<https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions/2020-current#202304>, the GNSO Council adopted the Final Report<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2023/correspondence/csc-ef...> of the Second CSC Effectiveness Review Team. 3. On 17 May 2023<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/reynoso-ducos-to-coster...>, the ccNSO and GNSO Councils jointly informed the ICANN Board of the outcome of the review and requested initiation of the process to amend the ICANN Bylaws to adjust the frequency of the CSC effectiveness review per the recommendations in the Final Report<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2023/correspondence/csc-ef...>. 4. On 29 August 2024<https://ccnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/field-attached/reynoso-dibiase-t...>, the ccNSO and GNSO Councils jointly requested the ICANN Board to defer the third CSC Effectiveness Review due to (i) the short timeframe between the delivery of the Second CSC Effectiveness Review Team’s Final Report<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2023/correspondence/csc-ef...> and required start of the third review, (ii) the outstanding recommendations from the Second CDC Effectiveness Review that are not yet implemented, and (iii) the concurrent Second IANA Function Review, which focuses on some aspects of the CSC. 5. During ICANN83, the chairs of the ccNSO and GNSO met and discussed requesting an additional deferral for one year, noting that the outstanding recommendations from the Second CDC Effectiveness Review that are still not implemented and the concurrent Second IANA Function Review, which focuses on some aspects of the CSC, is still ongoing. Resolved, 1. The GNSO Council requests a deferral of the Third CSC Effectiveness Review for one year and will revisit this decision in August 2026. 2. The GNSO Council wishes to communicate its decision to request a deferral to the Board and requests the assistance of GNSO Policy Support Staff to assist with this communication. Vote Results<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2025/vote-result/gnso-coun...> Motion to Confirm the GNSO Non-Registry Liaison and Alternate to the Customer Standing Committee (CSC) Submitted by: Paul McGrady WHEREAS, 1. On 21 May 2025, ICANN org sent a letter to the Chairs of Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees (SO/ACs) requesting them to respectively initiate processes to appoint members, liaisons, and alternates to the Customer Standing Committee (CSC) for the term beginning 1 October 2025. For the GNSO, the current liaison and alternate positions will be stepping down as of 30 September 2025 due to the completion of their term. 2. On 4 June 2025, the GNSO announced a Call for Expressions of Interest (EOI)<https://gnso.icann.org/en/en/announcements/announcement-04jun25-en.htm> to solicit volunteers for both positions—the GNSO Non-Registry Liaison and its Alternate to the CSC—which closed on 16 July 2025. 3. The GNSO Council tasked the GNSO Standing Selection Committee (SSC) with reviewing the applications and recommending two (2) candidates as the GNSO Non-Registry Liaison and its Alternate to the CSC. 4. On 30 July 2025, the SSC convened to review and deliberate on the three (3) applications received, taking into account the selection criteria outlined in the announcements. 5. On 4 August 2025, the SSC submitted its Full Consensus recommendation to the GNSO Council, by way of submission of the relevant motion. 6. The GNSO Council considered the recommendation of the SSC. RESOLVED, 1. The GNSO Council confirms John Gbadamosi as the SSC’s selection to serve as the GNSO Non-Registry Liaison and Anil Jain as the Alternate. 2. The GNSO Council asks the GNSO Secretariat to communicate the appointed candidates to the staff supporting the CSC. 3. The GNSO Council asks the GNSO Secretariat to inform the GNSO-appointees that they have been selected. 4. The GNSO Council asks the GNSO Secretariat to send a response to those applicants who were not appointed, thanking them for their interest and encouraging them to apply for future opportunities as they arise. Vote Results<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2025/vote-result/gnso-coun...> Motion to Replace Annex 7: Non-Contracted Parties House Procedure for Election of Board/Seat No. 14 Submitted by: Paul McGrady WHEREAS, 1. On 14 January 2024 a team of three volunteers from the Commercial Stakeholders Group and three volunteers from the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group, led by Paul McGrady, was formed to discuss topics surrounding the timely appointment of a candidate to Board seat 14. 2. On 15 July 2025, the Commercial Stakeholders Group and the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group (NCPH) approved the recommendations<https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-nHpTTMO0DJgL5fX9iCLbAxOdH2n8CbH/view> from Team 14. 3. The proposed amendment for Annex 7 clearly sets out a twice yearly review of the Board Seat 14 incumbent, a timeline to begin the selection process, and a recommendation for a search committee made up of members of each SG. RESOLVED, 1. The GNSO Council requests that the GNSO Operating Procedures be updated to include the new proposed Annex 7 process for immediate use by the Commercial Stakeholders Group and the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group to begin their selection process. Vote Results<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2025/vote-result/gnso-coun...> Motion for the Confirmation of Support for the Board’s Proposed Non-Adoption of Select IGO Recommendations Submitted by: Paul McGrady WHEREAS, 1. The GNSO conducted three PDPs related to IGO protections: a.2013: Top & Second Level Protections for IGOs, Red Cross, Int’l Olympic Committee, and international NGOs (INGOs) b.2019: IGO & INGO Curative Rights c. 2022: Expedited PDP on IGO Curative Rights 2.Two recommendations from the 2013 PDP remain pending, which relate to IGO acronyms being entered into the Trademark Clearinghouse and for IGOs to receive Trademark Claims service. 3.In October 2020, the ICANN Board adopted a resolution, signalling its intention to pursue a solution regarding second level protections for IGO and Red Cross acronyms whereby, as an operational matter, an ongoing (i.e. permanent) post-registration notification mechanism would be developed that will notify an affected IGO or the Red Cross when a third party registers a second level domain matching that organization's acronym. 4.In March 2023, the GAC issued Advice to i) to proceed with the approval of the recommendations of the EPDP on Specific Curative Rights Protections for implementation; and ii) To maintain the current moratorium on the registration of IGO acronyms as domain names in New gTLDs presently in place until the full implementation of the recommendations of the EPDP on Specific Curative Rights Protections. 5.As advised by the GAC, a holistic solution has been identified that directs the 1) Building of a permanent post-registration IGO notification system 2) Implementing of the Board-approved GNSO curative rights policy for IGOs and 3) Defining a process for releasing the temporarily-reserved IGO acronyms when the notification system launches 6.The combination of the permanent post-registration notification system, plus the implementation of the Council and Board approved curative rights policy recommendations for IGOs, obviates the need for Recommendations 3.3.5 and 3.3.7 from the 2013 PDP. RESOLVED, 1. The GNSO Council confirms its non-objection to the Board’s intention to reject pending Recommendations 3.3.5 and 3.3.7, on the basis that they have been superseded by subsequent developments. 2. The GNSO Council confirms that it does not intend to develop Supplemental Recommendations for the non-adopted recommendations. Vote Results<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2025/vote-result/gnso-coun...> **End of the Consent Agenda items Motion - Approval of Second IANA Naming Function Review Team (IFR2) Final Report Submitted by: Tomslin Samme-Nlar Seconded by: Thomas Rickert Whereas, 1. On 10 September 2023, the second IANA Function Review (IFR) was convened by the ICANN Board , in compliance with Article 18 of the ICANN Bylaws. The IFR2 Team (IFRT) published its Initial Report for public comment on 20 March 2025. 1. The IFR2 developed two recommendations that will amend the IANA Naming Function Contract, including a recommendation on the presence of specific Domain Name System Security Extensions (DNSSEC) policy details in the IANA Naming Function Contract and identifying and pointing to the appropriate policy authority for DNSSEC 98 in the IANA Naming Function Contract. 1. The IFRT followed the Bylaws required steps regarding contract amendment recommendations found in Section 18.6, which include consultation with the ICANN Board, consultation with the Customer Standing Committee, conducting a public input session for ccTLD and gTLD registry operators, and to conduct a public comment proceeding on the amendment. 1. Pursuant to the ICANN Bylaws Section 18.6 (b)(i), IFR Recommendations requiring a contract amendment must be approved by a supermajority vote of the ccNSO Council and GNSO Councils. Resolved, 1. The GNSO Council approves the recommendations contained in the IFR2 Final Report. 1. The GNSO Council requests the GNSO Secretariat to communicate this decision to the Co-Chairs of the IFRT and relevant ICANN staffaccordingly. Vote Results<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2025/vote-result/gnso-coun...> Motion to Approve the Council Small Team on Registration Data Accuracy’s Recommendations Submitted by: Paul McGrady Seconded by: Prudence Malinki WHEREAS, 1. On 19 September 2024<https://icann.zoom.us/rec/play/IcdzAkgsvrGhqhAbS0qNXnIGnacYd8iPARLNa3uukZhyA...>, the GNSO Council agreed to form a drafting team to review threshold questions to ICANN org and the ICANN Community with the goal of making progress on the topic of registration data accuracy. 2. On 17 October 2024<https://icann.zoom.us/rec/play/jw4aV9Urr8afA8dRzD3c7eRlBDKvF94owUaIhcTDOaBfv...>, the GNSO Council agreed to send the threshold questions, with amendments from the drafting team, first to ICANN org and then to the ICANN Community. 3. On 10 December 2024<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2024/correspondence/plexid...>, ICANN org provided a response to the GNSO Council’s questions related to upcoming legislation and the potential impact on policy development. 4. On 14 February 2024, the extended due date, the GNSO Council received responses from the following eight (8) ICANN groups: At-Large Advisory Constituency<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2025/presentation/alac-acc...>, Business Constituency<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2025/presentation/bc-accur...>, Governmental Advisory Committee<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2025/presentation/gac-accu...>, Intellectual Property Constituency<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2025/presentation/ipc-accu...>, Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers Constituency<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2025/presentation/ispcp-ac...>, Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2025/presentation/ncsg-acc...>, Registrar Stakeholder Group<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2025/presentation/rrsg-acc...>, and Registry Stakeholder Group<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2025/presentation/rysg-acc...>. 5. On 12 March 2025<https://icann.zoom.us/rec/play/cmyqjjeg58s2RGBE_HFLNR2s22_2dQMpzSkUhjgUojB3Y...>, the GNSO Council agreed to task a dedicated small team on registration data accuracy to review (i) the responses<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/gnsocouncilmeetings/pages/...> from ICANN org and the aforementioned ICANN groups on the Council’s threshold questions<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2024/draft/draft-concept-p...> and (ii) other relevant sources, and provide recommendations to the GNSO Council on how to proceed. 6. On 28 April 2025, the GNSO Council approved the assignment form<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2025/draft/assignment-form...> for the Council Accuracy Small Team by non-objection. 7. On 15 May 2025, the Council Accuracy Small Team began meeting and decided to focus on the areas of alignment within the responses received, which resulted in the creation of four (4) recommendations. 8. On 10 July 2025<https://icann.zoom.us/rec/play/0kOS5pm2E5NjxPhjjuzeQ6S7aB8kSdiDvlQUwj925peaW...>, the Council Accuracy Small Team presented its four (4) recommendations to the GNSO Council. RESOLVED, 1. The GNSO Council approves the four (4) recommendations in the Council Accuracy Small Team’s Summary Report<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2025/draft/gnso-council-ac...>. 2. The GNSO Council would like to thank the groups who provided feedback to the Council’s threshold questions and would also like to thank the leadership and members of the Council Accuracy Small Team for their commitment and hard work in completing the Summary Report on Registration Data Accuracy. Vote Results<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2025/vote-result/gnso-coun...> Motion - DNS Abuse Small Team Report Submitted by: Jennifer Chung Seconded by: Lawrence O. Olawale-Roberts WHEREAS, 1. The GNSO Council recognizes that the topic of DNS abuse is a longstanding topic and the GNSO has undertaken a variety of activities on this topic in the past.[1<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/gnsocouncilmeetings/pages/...>] 2. In April 2025, the GNSO Council tasked a small team consisting of Council members to consider what policy efforts, if any, the GNSO Council should consider undertaking after considering new data that has been received, since the last DNS Abuse Small Team Recommendations. 3. As part of its deliberations, the Small Team reached out to GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, as well as the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC), for input on what problem(s) policy development specifically is needed to mitigate, if any, as well as the expected outcomes if policy development would be undertaken. 4. The Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) provided GAC Advice on the topic of DNS Abuse in its ICANN83 Prague Communique<https://gac.icann.org/contentMigrated/icann83-prague-communique>. 5. In considering the external input received – new data provided by one year of ICANN Contract Amendments<https://www.icann.org/en/contracted-parties/advisories/documents/advisory-co...> (proposed amendments aimed to enhance obligations by requiring registrars and registry operators to promptly take reasonable and appropriate action to stop or otherwise disrupt DNS Abuse), and the INFERMAL Study as well as the Netbeacon Whitepaper<https://netbeacon.org/white-paper-proposal-for-pdps-on-dns-abuse/> and Blog on ICANN Contract Amendments<https://netbeacon.org/how-have-the-gtld-contractual-amendments-impacted-dns-...> – the Small Team has identified a list of gaps in existing DNS abuse mitigation frameworks. 6. While all identified gaps listed in the gap matrix will be considered in the Issue Report, the Small Team recommends elevating three prioritized gaps for a draft Charter development due to their recurrence in data sources and stakeholder input, meaning: ○ i) important/impactful gap to solve ○ ii) likely to gain broad consensus ○ iii) ideally, the potential solution(s) seem achievable having in mind current workload and resources. 1. The Small Team delivered its report, containing 4 recommendations, to the GNSO Council on 4 August. RESOLVED, 1. The GNSO Council accepts the recommendations as outlined in the DNS Abuse Small Team report and requests that an Issue Report be initiated on the topics as outlined by the Small Team and requests that Staff create the report. 2. The GNSO Council thanks the Small Team for its efforts, as well as the community groups that contributed to it. [1<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/gnsocouncilmeetings/pages/...>] Some past work includes: * Registration Abuse Policies WG Final Report from 2010: https://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/rap-wg-final-report-29may10-en.pdf (some, but not all recommendations adopted) * Staff best practices discussion paper from 2011: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/filefield_26745/discussion-paper-... * Uniformity of Contracts to Address Registration Abuse Final Issue Report 2012: https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/registration-abuse/uofc-final-issue-report-... Issue Report, but not sufficient support to initiate a PDP at the time) * DNS Abuse Small Team Report 2022: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2022/correspondence/dns-ab... * ICANN Contract Amendments 2024: https://www.icann.org/en/contracted-parties/registry-operators/global-amendm... Vote Results<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2025/vote-result/gnso-coun...> NCSG Statement<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2025/presentation/ncsg-sta...> Motion for CCG on Review of Reviews Submitted by: Susan Payne Seconded by: Anne Aikman-Scalese WHEREAS, 1. Article 4.6 (b) of ICANN’s Bylaws, requires that the ICANN Board shall cause a periodic Accountability and Transparency Review which shall be conducted no less frequently than every five years measured from the date the previous Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT) was convened. 2. The Third ATRT (ATRT3) was convened in April 2019, and therefore the next review, the Fourth ATRT (ATRT4), should have been initiated in April 2024. 3. ICANN org consulted with the Supporting Organizations and the Advisory Committees, through their Chairs, on the timing and potential deferral of ATRT4 for a limited period of time. Three of the five responding SOs and ACs expressed support for the deferral of ATRT4, citing unimplemented ATRT3 recommendations and capacity issues with running multiple reviews-related projects in parallel. Two of the responding ACs indicated their preference for ATRT4 to initiate on schedule, citing adherence to ICANN Bylaws and the role that Accountability and Transparency Reviews play in providing oversight of ICANN's core commitment. 4. Following that consultation, on 29 April 2024, the Board resolved<https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-re...> to defer ATRT4 for a limited time not to exceed twelve months. 5. The Board received feedback from many parts of the ICANN community that the current status of review program activities, including the potential overlap of the Continuous Improvement Program (CIP), a Pilot Holistic Review, and pending ATRT4 are causing confusion and stressing community resources. The Board also received, on 15 April 2025, statements from the Registries Stakeholder Group (RySG)<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/bacon-to-sinha-14apr25-...>, the Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO)<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/reynoso-to-sinha-15apr2...>, and At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC)<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/zuck-to-sinha-15apr25-e...> regarding the broad issue of reviews, which did not align on the best path forward. 6. On 19 May 2025 the Board resolved<https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-re...> to continue the deferral of the ATRT4, and other Specific Reviews, pending community dialogue to inform next steps, and notwithstanding the timing mandated under the Bylaws for the commencement of ATRT4. 7. During the ICANN83 meeting ICANN org further consulted with the Supporting Organizations and the Advisory Committees, through their Chairs. A potential path forward was proposed and appeared to gain support, whereby: * The community would urgently propose a Bylaws amendment to the Board that would amend the Bylaws to allow for a one-time review of all Reviews currently required by the Bylaws and to suspend the conduct of all Reviews until this exercise is completed; * With the explicit safeguard of a time frame for completion, absent which the current Reviews obligations come back fully into force. 8. On 19 June 2025 the At Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) submitted an Empowered Community Reconsideration Petition seeking reconsideration of the 19 May Board resolution to defer ATRT4 and related resolutions relating to community dialogue on and development of a revised reviews program. 9. As a Decisional Participant of the Empowered Community, the GNSO Council at its 10th July 2025 meeting expressed appreciation for the concerns raised by the ALAC but decided not to support the ALAC Petition as a Supporting Petitioner. Although the Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC) had expressed its support, the feedback from other Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies indicated that there was insufficient support from the GNSO as a whole to meet the voting threshold required to give such support. In particular: * The NCSG expressed continued support for the potential path forward referred to at paragraph 7 above; * The RrSG noted it understands and appreciates the ALAC concerns but does not believe an EC petition is warranted at this juncture when dialogue on how to best proceed is ongoing; and * RySG expressed that it recognizes the importance of Reviews in general, as well as the need for ICANN to abide by its Bylaws, and that it has been discussing the path forward initially proposed by the SO/AC leaders in Prague. 1. Subsequently Council set up a small team of councilors to * Work on a response to the Board to include suggested language for a Bylaw amendment, if Council decides this is warranted, and to review the draft Charter for a proposed Cross Community Group (CCG) to undertake a Review of Reviews. * Designate one or two representatives to attend meetings with other SO/ACs leaders to share GNSO thoughts on Bylaw amendments and the draft Charter for the CCG. * Write to the Board on the Council's willingness to undertake a preliminary bylaw amendment to allow for a one-time review of all Reviews currently required by the Bylaws and communicate Council’s support to suspend the conduct of all Reviews until the exercise is completed. * Clearly note that this amendment would have a safeguard in which current Reviews obligations come back fully into force if there is not sufficient or timely progress on the one-time review or reviews initiated. 1. The proposed Charter for the Review of Reviews CCG has now been finalised and is presented to the GNSO Council for review and approval as a Nominating Group. RESOLVED, 1. The GNSO Council approves the Charter for the Review of Reviews CCG<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2025/correspondence/final-...>. 2. The GNSO Council directs the Standing Selection Committee to promptly proceed with the identification and selection of two (2) GNSO member participants of the CCG, at least one of whom should be a GNSO council member, for the approval of the GNSO Council. In making its selections the SSC should bear in mind all aspects of the Charter, and including the timing expectations for this work and the expectations that individual members: * Have sufficient expertise and understanding of the ICANN reviews to participate in the discussions; * Commit to actively participate in the activities of the CCG on an ongoing basis; and * Where appropriate, solicit and communicate the views and concerns of individuals in the group that nominates them. Vote Results<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2025/vote-result/gnso-coun...>