Hello all, Some updates to share on the 15 May 2025. See wiki page for updated GNSO Council agenda<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/GKafBg>. 1. Decreased time on both agenda items: 4 & 7 2. Updated AOB item 8.2 (removed ccNSO) 3. Added additional time item 8 – AOB (now total of 25 minutes) 4. Added two AOB items (8.3 and 8.6) Thank you. Kind regards, Terri From: Devan Reed <devan.reed@icann.org> Date: Friday, May 2, 2025 at 2:08 PM To: "council@gnso.icann.org" <council@gnso.icann.org>, "liaison6c@icann.org" <liaison6c@icann.org> Cc: GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs@icann.org> Subject: Proposed Agenda | GNSO Council Meeting | Thursday, 15 May 2025 Dear all, Please find below the agenda for the GNSO Council Meeting on 15 May 2025 at 05:00 UTC. This will be posted on the agenda wiki page <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/GKafBg> shortly. Thank you. Kind regards, Devan Policy Team Supporting the GNSO GNSO Council Agenda 15 May 2025 Please note that all documents referenced in the agenda have been gathered on a Wiki page for convenience and easier access: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/0KefBg 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, 15 May 2025 at 05:00 UTC: https://tinyurl.com/knke3w 22:00 Los Angeles(Wednesday); 01:00 Washington DC; 06:00 London; 07:00 Paris; 08:00 Moscow; 15:00 Melbourne GNSO Council Meeting Remote Participation: https://icann.zoom.us/j/91048235847?pwd=bmEHjk0uYT3sR2DIoE0c0yw4HKbM6O.1 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/2025/minutes/minutes-gnso-...> of the GNSO Council Meeting on 12 March 2025 were posted on 01 April 2025 Minutes<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2025/transcript/transcript...> of the GNSO Council Meeting on 10 April 2025 were posted on 24 April 2025 Item 2: Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List (5 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) * Aspirational Statement Item 4: COUNCIL VOTE - Deferral of the Next Steps of Phase Two of the Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in All New gTLDs Policy Development Process (PDP) for an Additional Six Months (20 minutes) The Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in All New gTLDs Policy Development Process (PDP) was chartered to be conducted in two phases: Phase One focused on a review of all the RPMs that were developed for the 2012 New gTLD Program, and Phase Two will focus on issues identified in respect of the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). Following the ICANN Board’s approval of the Phase 1 recommendations in January 2022, the GNSO Council discussed delaying Phase Two of the RPMs PDP until the completion of key milestones for the Implementation Review Team, once launched. The Phase One IRT was launched in December 2022 with a projected end date of December 2024. During its meeting on 16 February 2023<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/gnsocouncilmeetings/pages/...>, the GNSO Council agreed to defer next steps on the RPMs PDP Phase Two for 18 months. In October 2024, GNSO support staff advised the GNSO Council leadership of staff estimates that the implementation of RPMs Phase One would be delayed until the third quarter of 2025. In light of this, the Council voted to defer the next steps on Phase Two for an additional six months. Following the direction of the Councilors who reviewed the progress to date, the Council is voting to defer the consideration of next steps for Phase 2 for an additional six months. 4.1 - Introduction of Topic (Susan Payne, GNSO Councilor) 4.2 - Council Vote (voting threshold: simple majority) 4.3 - Next Steps Item 5: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Han Script Character gTLDs (Recommendation 3.17) (20 minutes) The New gTLD Subsequent Procedures (SubPro) PDP provided Recommendation 25.4 (approved by the ICANN Board) to allow single character gTLDs for ideographic scripts in the next round, provided that they do not introduce confusion risks that rise above commonplace similarities. The IDNs EPDP Phase 1 Final Report put forth important additional detail and limitations on 25.4, prescribing that the single character gTLDs be limited to the Han script and that applications must not be accepted until relevant guidelines are developed and put in place by the Chinese, Japanese, and Korean (CJK) Generation Panels (GPs). Alternatively, the IDN EPDP concluded that if the CJK GPs determine that additional guidelines beyond the RZ-LGR are not needed, then the single character applications should proceed. The matter was put out for public comment by the CJK Generation Panels. Although the CJK GPs stated<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/proposed-han-script-single-chara...> that the work done in the Root Zone Label Generation Rules (RZ-LGRs<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/root-zone-lgr-2015-06-21-en>) sufficiently addresses the concerns around the risk of confusion for single character Han script gTLDs, the majority of the public comments<https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/seeking-input-on-han-scri...> on the CJK GPs’ statements opposed moving forward. Some commenters from the Chinese community expressed concerns about the lack of alignment with China’s linguistic laws and regulations, the complexities of Chinese character ideographs, and end-user confusion due to multiple meanings of many single characters. One such comment received from a co-Chair of the CGP argues that the CGP should not be and was not involved in "risk of confusion" policy considerations related to single Han characters as TLDs. Many of the comments call for further community work prior to proceeding. Similar concerns were received through the public comment<https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/second-proceeding-for-pro...> on the relevant draft AGB sections. This public comment was discussed with the Sub Pro IRT IDN Sub-Track which referred the matter to the main SubPro IRT. The main SubPro IRT was asked by ICANN staff whether Recommendation 25.4 should be modified as not implementable or whether the issue should be reviewed with Council for possible further work. It was agreed that the Liaisons should raise this with Council for direction on next steps. A background document<https://lists.icann.org/hyperkitty/list/council@icann.org/message/GLJ5RIOKH3...> prepared by Lars Hoffmann was shared with the Council on December 9. The Council Liaisons to the IRT suggesting referring the issue to a GNSO Guidance Process (GGP) to determine the guidance necessary to allow Han single characters to proceed, with an acknowledgement that the GGP could well determine that Recommendation 25.4 and IDN EPDP recommendation 3.17 as approved may not be implementable. Due to time constraints, and the fact that both the SubPro and IDNs recommendations were conditional, the Liaisons believe that the recommended GGP process should not hold up the next round. During Council deliberations, some Councilors suggested an Expert Working Group (EWG), as an alternative to the GGP. Staff provided an update to the Council during its April meeting where an additional mechanism was identified - the External Expert Advice (EEA) process as captured in Article 13 of the ICANN Bylaws. Following the Council’s April meeting, GNSO support staff provided an analysis of the potential options to address this issue, the GGP,the EWG, and the EEA. Here, the Council will discuss the next steps for Han Script Character gTLDs. 5.1 - Introduction of Topic (Greg DiBiase, GNSO Chair) 5.2 - Council Discussion 5.3 - Next Steps Item 6: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Council Alignment on the Future of Reviews (30 minutes) ICANN created Specific Reviews in 2009 as a way to measure how it was meeting its commitments in four specific areas: Accountability and Transparency; Security, Stability, and Resiliency of the Domain Name System; Registration Directory Service; and Competition, Consumer Trust, and Consumer Choice. These reviews were incorporated into ICANN's Bylaws in 2016. Specific Reviews are led by community review teams and operate according to Section 4.6<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en#article4.6> of the ICANN Bylaws and the Operating Standards for Specific Reviews. Upon completion of a review, the Board assesses the results and considers recommendations accordingly. With exception of the Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice review that is conducted “After a New gTLD Round has been in operation for one year”, Specific Reviews are conducted “no less frequently than every five years”, measured from the date the previous review effort was convened. The Accountability and Transparency Review Team 3 (ATRT3) recommended the establishment of a new Specific Review, the Holistic Review, to examine the continuous improvement, effectiveness, and accountability of the ICANN community structures as well as the collaboration among them. A Pilot Holistic Review Team<https://community.icann.org/display/PHR> was convened to develop the guidelines and methodologies for the future Holistic Review, recommended by the ATRT3. Following an introduction of the topic, the Council will discuss the potential options going forward, including: * Status Quo: Continue on the current path, kick off ATRT4 and bifurcate out the Pilot Holistic Review (structural review) and the Continuing Improvement process. * Change Option 1: Repurpose ATRT4 to have it undertake the structural review, and as a result wind down the Pilot Holistic Review (with the Continuing Improvement process independent and functioning). * Change Option 2: Suspend all reviews and kick off a Review of Reviews to determine what reviews are necessary at this time (including a structural review). Here, the Council will consider these options and determine which, if any, is most supported by councilors. 6.1 - Introduction of Topic (Paul McGrady, GNSO Councilor) 6.2 - Council Discussion 6.3 - Next Steps Item 7: COUNCIL UPDATE: Subsequent Procedures Implementation Review Team on Recommendation 36.4 (20 minutes) On 16 March 2023, the ICANN Board adopted<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/scorecard-subpro-pdp-board-actio...>, et al., Recommendation 36.4 of the Subsequent Procedures PDP. Recommendation 36.4 provides: ICANN must add a contractual provision stating that the registry operator will not engage in fraudulent or deceptive practices. In the event that ICANN receives an order from a court that a registry has engaged in fraudulent or deceptive practices, ICANN may issue a notice of breach for such practices and allow the registry to cure such breach in accordance with the Registry Agreement. Further, in the event that there is a credible allegation by any third party of fraudulent or deceptive practices, other than as set forth in above, ICANN may, at its discretion, either commence dispute resolution actions under the Registry Agreement (Currently Article 5 of the Registry Agreement), or appoint a panel under the PICDRP. For the purposes of a credible claim of fraudulent or deceptive practices the reporter (as defined by the PICDRP) must only specifically state the grounds of the alleged non-compliance, but not that it personally has been harmed as a result of the registry operator’s act or omission. Here, the Council liaisons to the SubPro Implementation Review Team would like to discuss concerns regarding the proposed implementation of Recommendation 36.4. 7.1 - Introduction of Topic (Anne Aikman-Scalese and Susan Payne, Council Liaisons to SubPro IRT) 7.2 - Council Discussion 7.3 - Next Steps Item 8: Any Other Business (15 minutes) 8.1 - ICANN83 Planning 8.2 - ccNSO and GAC Liaison updates 8.3 - Whois Implementation Advisory Group update 8.4 - Registration Data Request Service (RDRS) Standing Committee Report - open question of public comment 8.5 - Chair update _______________________________ 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-7 22:00 (Wednesday) San José, Costa Rica (CST) UTC-6 23:00 (Wednesday) New York/Washington DC, USA (EDT) UTC-4 01:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina (ART) UTC-3 02:00 Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo (WAT) UTC+1 06:00 Paris, France (CEST) UTC+2 07:00 Moscow, Russia (MSK) UTC+3 08:00 Singapore (SGT) UTC+8 13:00 Melbourne, Australia (AEST) UTC+10 15:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com<http://www.timeanddate.com/> and https://tinyurl.com/knke3w