Thanks, Anne. If I may make one point of clarification? In relation to your comment “I don't believe we should be reviewing ALL the Recommendations of the Policy and Implementation Working Group at this time”, please note that the development of a Policy Status Review (PSR) report does NOT imply that a review will be conducted on all the recommendations of the Policy and Implementation Working Group. The PSR report is comparable to an Issue Report in the sense that it provides a general overview of the status of implementation of the Policy and Implementation WG recommendations in combination with possible issues that may need further attention but it is then up to the Council to decide if/how a subsequent review is conducted and what the scope of such a review would be. As you note, for processes that have not been used, or are in the process of being used for the first time, it is unlikely that there is sufficient information available to even conduct a review. The PSR report is merely the first step in the process on the basis of which the Council can then take an informed decision on if/how to proceed. Best regards, Marika From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Anne ICANN via council <council@gnso.icann.org> Reply to: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> Date: Sunday, 5 March 2023 at 18:50 To: Terri Agnew <terri.agnew@icann.org> Cc: "gnso-secs@icann.org" <gnso-secs@icann.org>, "liaison6c@gnso.icann.org" <liaison6c@gnso.icann.org>, "council@gnso.icann.org" <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Agenda | GNSO Council Meeting | Wednesday, 15 March 2023 Many thanks, Terri. For consideration by Councilors in relation to the AOB item re possible initiation of a Policy Status Review of the Recommendations of the Policy and Implementation Working Group - It has been pointed out that there are several Recommendations of that group that bear on the Operating Procedures relative to Implementation Review Teams. As a former member of that Working Group, one item I believe is particularly relevant to the current work of the Council is pasted below. "The WG noted that IRTs should not be used as an opportunity to reopen policy recommendations. The main objective of the IRT is to ensure that implementation is carried out in conformance with the intent of the policy recommendations. As such, it would be important to emphasize this aspect to any members joining an IRT, especially if they were not involved in developing the original policy recommendations. " And as you all know, the Board is asking us to change Sub Pro policy it finds problematic in connection with 38 different topics. The Board has suggested we might reconvene the Sub Pro WG but I'm a pragmatist and I don't think that is a practical approach. The Board apparently wants some policy changes and in its presentation, it stated on the slides that it is willing to make suggestions in this regard, although when I asked about this, Avri Doria replied that any such suggestions right now would be "premature." Hopefully those suggestions will be forthcoming in a written form in the near future but I don't recall a previous instance of so many requests for policy changes. Given the current work that needs to be done to move these Board requests and a Sub Pro IRT forward, my own view is that a Policy Status Report on the Recommendations of the Policy & Implementation Working Group is premature. I don't believe we should be reviewing ALL the Recommendations of the Policy and Implementation Working Group at this time. (Perhaps a review of the EPDP process may be appropriate since we have some experience there.) There is no reason to review the GNSO Guidance Process or the Input Process. In fact, either EPDP or GGP may be the most appropriate tool to address the Board's request for review of the 38 policy recommendations it apparently wants the Council to modify before it will move forward with assigning those to an IRT. Regarding the proposed review of the P & I WG recommendations on IRTs, this is not an appropriate time to call into question recommendations like the one that IRTs should be mandatory except in extenuating circumstances (now codified in the Council's Operating Procedures.) The reason is that the Board is about to institute an IRT for Sub Pro (we hope) and as noted in the text above, an important role for the IRT is make sure that "implementation is carried out in conformance with the intent of the policy recommendations." So why would we want to be reviewing that Recommendation at this critical juncture? And don't we have enough work to do without this? Again, I am non-voting. I have retired from the practice of law effective February 28. I am not engaged in any consulting work and do not receive any remuneration in connection with ICANN activities (other than funded travel.) My only concern here is for organizational effectiveness and respect for policy-making roles within the MSM. Another issue in this regard is that the policy recommendations that came out of Sub Pro were in fact an integrated "bundle", not necessarily separable in the manner that is proposed for moving forward. I have not analyzed the Board's request in this regard but it may be worth looking at those 38 items in relation to that principle. Bottom line: I think we need to postpone a PSR on the Recommendations of the Policy & Implementation Working Group and actively engage in an analysis of the 38 items the Board proposes to modify. Again, I'm a pragmatist and would like to know the Board's proposed solutions for these issues before sending the Council off on launching a mechanism, which once again, might fail to meet the Board's requirements for moving forward. Thank your for your consideration of the above. I look forward to thoughts from other Councilors. Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2024 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Fri, Mar 3, 2023 at 2:56 PM Terri Agnew via council <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> wrote: Dear all, Please find below the final proposed agenda for the GNSO Council Meeting on 15 March 2023. 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/2QGjDQ This agenda was established according to the GNSO Operating Procedures [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/f...> v3.5, updated on 24 October 2019. 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 Wednesday, 15 March at 18:15 UTC: https://tinyurl.com/y4naum35 [tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tinyurl.com/y4naum35__;!!PtGJab4!9Vmu0EGg...>. (Wednesday) 11:15 Los Angeles; 14:15 Washington DC; 18:15 London; 19:15 Paris; 21:15 Moscow; (Thursday) 05:15 Melbourne GNSO Council Meeting Remote Participation: [Published 24 hours prior to meeting] 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 (10 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 [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy...> of the GNSO Council meeting on 19 January 2023 were posted on 02 February 2023. Minutes [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy...> of the GNSO Council meeting on 16 February 2023 were posted on 02 March 2023. 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 [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/council/project__;!!PtG...> and Action Item List. <https://community.icann.org/x/RgZlAg> Item 3: Consent Agenda (5 minutes) TBD Item 4: COUNCIL VOTE - Adoption of the Council Committee for Overseeing and Implementing Continuous Improvement (CCOICI) Working Group Self-Assessment (WGSA) Recommendations Report (10 Minutes) The GNSO Council initiated [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions/202...> the GNSO Framework for Continuous Improvement Pilot Project on 16 June 2021, and, as part of this Framework, the Council established the Committee for Overseeing and Implementing Continuous Improvement (CCOICI). As part of the pilot, the CCOICI was tasked<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=170787421> to consider if/how the GNSO WG Self-Assessment could be improved and possibly enhanced with a periodic assessment and an exit interview, with the goal of giving interested parties an opportunity to help identify potential issues and potential future improvements the GNSO Council could consider. The CCOICI started the Working Group Self-Assessment assignment in October 2021 and concluded its work on this assignment in February 2022. However, the CCOICI deferred conducting the public comment until it could be combined with recommendations related to the GNSO Statement of Interest (SOI). The consolidated public comment proceeding<https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/updates-to-the-gnso-state...> on Proposed Updates to the GNSO Operating Procedures was initiated on 09 September 2022 and closed on 14 November 2022. The CCOICI integrated public comments received as appropriate and submitted its Recommendations Report [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy...> to the Council on 5 January 2023. Here, the Council will vote to adopt the Working Group Self-Assessment (WGSA) Recommendations Report. 4.1 – Presentation of motion - (Manju Chen, Chair, Committee for Overseeing and Implementing Continuous Improvement (CCOICI)) 4.2 – Council discussion 4.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority) Item 5: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Next Steps for Consideration of Expired Domain Deletion Policy (“EDDP”) and Expired Registration Recovery Policy (“ERRP”) (15 minutes) The GNSO Council previously considered when to request a Policy Status Report (“PSR”) for the purpose of conducting a review of the two Expiration Policies, the EDDP and the ERRP. In November 2020, given concerns about its capacity and no known issues with the policies, the Council agreed to delay the request for the Policy Status Report (PSR) for a period of 24 months. As 24 months have now passed, the Council is reconsidering whether now is an appropriate time to request a Policy Status Report. To that end, in July 2022, the Council agreed that it would be helpful to consult with both registrars and ICANN org to help determine if there are any known issues or concerns with either of the two Expiration Policies which could warrant requesting a PSR. ICANN org shared a report<https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2022-November/026164.html> from Contractual Compliance colleagues on 1 November 2022, and GNSO Councilors from the Registrar Stakeholder Group shared feedback from registrars on previous Council calls. During its meeting on 17 November 2022<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Final+Proposed+Agend...>, representatives from ICANN org’s Contractual Compliance Team provided a briefing of the report<https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2022-November/026164.html>, and the Council briefly considered potential next steps. Following the meeting, Nacho Amodoz, Greg DiBiase, and Susan Payne volunteered to closely review the report<https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2022-November/026164.html> from ICANN org and determine if any of the issues raised warrant a PSR request. Here, the Council will receive an update on the small team’s recommendation. 5.1 – Introduction of topic (Greg DiBiase, GNSO Council Vice-Chair) 5.2 – Council discussion 5.3 - Next steps Item 6: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Review GNSO-owned projects that may impact SubPro timeline (10 minutes) During the Council’s Strategic Planning Session (SPS), a recurring theme emerged. The Council emphasized it should take care to ensure that any SubPro related work within its control should be carefully managed for timely delivery. The Council does not want its work to serve as an impediment to the timely implementation and launch of the next round of new gTLDs. In order to address this recurring theme, the Council agreed that it would like to receive frequent updates on the work that is connected to the next round of new gTLDs. Those projects include: * IDNs EPDP Phase 1 (top-level charter questions) * GNSO Guidance Process on Applicant Support * Closed Generics Facilitated Discussion * Yet to be formed Small Team to review SubPro recommendations likely pending Board action. Here, the Council will receive a brief update on the above-referenced projects. 6.1 – Introduction of topic (Steve Chan) 6.2 – Council discussion 6.3 – Next steps Item 7: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Continuation of Informal GNSO Council SubPro Discussion (20 minutes) On 12 September 2021 the ICANN Board directed<https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2021-09-12-en#1.a> the ICANN President and CEO to organize the resources required to begin work on the Operational Design Phase (ODP) for the GNSO’s New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Final Report [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/f...> and the Affirmations, Recommendations, and Implementation Guidance contained in that report. On 20 December 2021, ICANN org announced<https://www.icann.org/en/announcements/details/icann-launches-new-gtld-subse...> that the SubPro ODP had formally launched, starting at the beginning of January 2022. The ODP Team has shared numerous updates to the community and sent several sets of assumptions/questions to the GNSO Council via the Council’s liaison to the ODP. While ICANN org published the SubPro Operational Design Assessment (ODA) on 12 December, the Council received a briefing during a webinar on 7 December. The Council formed a small team to review the ODA in detail and provided its input<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/ducos-to-sinha-20jan23-...> to the ICANN Board on 20 January, in advance of the Board's workshop in January 2023. As discussed in the Chair's blog<https://www.icann.org/en/blogs/details/chairs-blog-recap-of-the-january-boar...>, the ICANN Board spent a full day reviewing the SubPro Outputs and ODA. On 28 February 2023, the Council and ICANN Board had a joint meeting [icann.zoom.us]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann.zoom.us/rec/play/7rCLjaxCWtoD3dTl87...> on SubPro, and the Council had a follow-up informal discussion on 7 March 2023. Here, the Council will discuss the joint meeting with the Board and the informal discussion, and consider appropriate next steps. 7.1 – Introduction of topic (Sebastien Ducos) 7.2 – Council discussion 7.3 – Next steps Item 8: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Whois Disclosure System Next Steps (15 minutes) ICANN org published the Whois Disclosure System design paper [archive.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/archive.icann.org/meetings/icann75/files/...> in September 2022 and presented it to the GNSO Council and the EPDP Phase 2 Small Team during ICANN75 [archive.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/archive.icann.org/meetings/icann75/meetin...>. The small team subsequently reviewed the design paper and continued its consultations with ICANN org, resulting in an addendum [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy...> to its preliminary report. The GNSO Council accepted the addendum and communicated to the ICANN Board its support for the request that the ICANN Board proceed with the implementation of the Whois Disclosure System, provided that the updates identified by the small team in the addendum are made. On 27 February 2023, the Board directed<https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-re...> ICANN org to develop and launch the Whois Disclosure System (System) as requested by the GNSO Council within 11 months from 27 February 2023. The Board also directed ICANN org to operate the System for up to two years from the date of launch, and collect and report on usage data. Furthermore, the ICANN Board has urged “the GNSO Council to consider a Policy Development Process or other means to require registrars to use the System”. During ICANN76, on 11 March 2023, the EPDP Phase 2 Small Team will meet with ICANN org to receive an update the status of implementation of the Whois Disclosure System and continue its consideration of some of the aspects identified as requiring further discussion in the addendum. In addition to receiving an update from the Small Team on its meeting with ICANN org, the Council will consider if/how the instructions to the Small Team should be updated to reflect the Council’s expectations of the Small Team during the implementation phase as well as post-implementation, in addition to the ask from the Board to consider a Policy Development Process or other means to require registrars to use the System. 8.1 Introduction of topic (Greg DiBiase) 8.2 Council Discussion 8.3 Next Steps Item 9: ANY OTHER BUSINESS (10 minutes) 9.1 GNSO Chair Election Timeline Announcement 9.2 Policy Status Report on Policy and Implementation Working Group Final Recommendations Report [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/filefi...> _______________________________ 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... [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/f...> References for Coordinated Universal Time of 18:15 UTC Local time between March and October in the NORTHERN hemisphere ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PDT) UTC-7 (Wednesday) 11:15 San José, Costa Rica (CDT) UTC-6 (Wednesday) 12:15 New York/Washington DC, USA (EDT) UTC-4 (Wednesday) 14:15 Buenos Aires, Argentina (ART) UTC-3 (Wednesday) 15:15 Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (BRT) UTC-3 (Wednesday) 15:15 London, United Kingdom (GMT) UTC+0 (Wednesday) 18:15 Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo (WAT) UTC+1 (Wednesday) 19:15 Paris, France (CET) UTC+1 (Wednesday) 19:15 Moscow, Russia (MSK) UTC+3 (Wednesday) 21:15 Singapore (SGT) UTC+8 (Thursday) 02:15 Melbourne, Australia (AEDT) UTC+11 (Thursday) 05:15 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- DST starts on Sunday 26 March 2023, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) for EU countries and on Sunday 12 March 2023 for the U.S. DST ends on Sunday 29 October 2023 for EU countries, and on Sunday 05 November 2023 for the US. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com [timeanddate.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/www.timeanddate.com/__;!!PtGJab4!9Vmu0EGgf...> and https://tinyurl.com/2mx8bt8t [tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tinyurl.com/2mx8bt8t__;!!PtGJab4!9Vmu0EGg...>. _______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council _______________________________________________ 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.

Hi Anne, the idea behind the PSR on the UDRP is the same – to provide the Council with sufficient data and information to make an informed decision on if/how to proceed with the review. Obviously, the UDRP has a longer history which may have resulted in more data and information in the PSR report? Also, the UDRP PSR was preceded by a number of other steps which may have added additional complexity? Do note that the PSR report is a staff product, it is not a community report and as such should not add to the community workload (although the community is offered the opportunity to weigh in through public comment on the draft PSR report). With regards to ‘why this is needed now’ – note that with the adoption of the Policy & Implementation recommendations in 2015, the Council resolved that “a review of these recommendations is carried out at the latest five years following their implementation to assess whether the recommendations have achieved what they set out to do and/or whether any further enhancements or changes are needed”. The idea is that a PSR will allow for an informed decision on if/how to proceed, which could be to conclude that no changes are needed at this stage, or not now but should be considered later, or that there are specific areas that might benefit from review and modification. I hope this is helpful. Best regards, Marika From: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> Date: Tuesday, 7 March 2023 at 02:28 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> Cc: Terri Agnew <terri.agnew@icann.org>, "gnso-secs@icann.org" <gnso-secs@icann.org>, "liaison6c@gnso.icann.org" <liaison6c@gnso.icann.org>, "council@gnso.icann.org" <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [council] Proposed Agenda | GNSO Council Meeting | Wednesday, 15 March 2023 Thanks Marika - the very light touch you suggest was not our experience in connection with the most recent PSR on the UDRP. could you help explain how this would be different and why this is needed now when we have so much work to do? Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2024 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Mon, Mar 6, 2023 at 1:21 AM Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> wrote: Thanks, Anne. If I may make one point of clarification? In relation to your comment “I don't believe we should be reviewing ALL the Recommendations of the Policy and Implementation Working Group at this time”, please note that the development of a Policy Status Review (PSR) report does NOT imply that a review will be conducted on all the recommendations of the Policy and Implementation Working Group. The PSR report is comparable to an Issue Report in the sense that it provides a general overview of the status of implementation of the Policy and Implementation WG recommendations in combination with possible issues that may need further attention but it is then up to the Council to decide if/how a subsequent review is conducted and what the scope of such a review would be. As you note, for processes that have not been used, or are in the process of being used for the first time, it is unlikely that there is sufficient information available to even conduct a review. The PSR report is merely the first step in the process on the basis of which the Council can then take an informed decision on if/how to proceed. Best regards, Marika From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of Anne ICANN via council <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Reply to: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>> Date: Sunday, 5 March 2023 at 18:50 To: Terri Agnew <terri.agnew@icann.org<mailto:terri.agnew@icann.org>> Cc: "gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>" <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>>, "liaison6c@gnso.icann.org<mailto:liaison6c@gnso.icann.org>" <liaison6c@gnso.icann.org<mailto:liaison6c@gnso.icann.org>>, "council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>" <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Agenda | GNSO Council Meeting | Wednesday, 15 March 2023 Many thanks, Terri. For consideration by Councilors in relation to the AOB item re possible initiation of a Policy Status Review of the Recommendations of the Policy and Implementation Working Group - It has been pointed out that there are several Recommendations of that group that bear on the Operating Procedures relative to Implementation Review Teams. As a former member of that Working Group, one item I believe is particularly relevant to the current work of the Council is pasted below. "The WG noted that IRTs should not be used as an opportunity to reopen policy recommendations. The main objective of the IRT is to ensure that implementation is carried out in conformance with the intent of the policy recommendations. As such, it would be important to emphasize this aspect to any members joining an IRT, especially if they were not involved in developing the original policy recommendations. " And as you all know, the Board is asking us to change Sub Pro policy it finds problematic in connection with 38 different topics. The Board has suggested we might reconvene the Sub Pro WG but I'm a pragmatist and I don't think that is a practical approach. The Board apparently wants some policy changes and in its presentation, it stated on the slides that it is willing to make suggestions in this regard, although when I asked about this, Avri Doria replied that any such suggestions right now would be "premature." Hopefully those suggestions will be forthcoming in a written form in the near future but I don't recall a previous instance of so many requests for policy changes. Given the current work that needs to be done to move these Board requests and a Sub Pro IRT forward, my own view is that a Policy Status Report on the Recommendations of the Policy & Implementation Working Group is premature. I don't believe we should be reviewing ALL the Recommendations of the Policy and Implementation Working Group at this time. (Perhaps a review of the EPDP process may be appropriate since we have some experience there.) There is no reason to review the GNSO Guidance Process or the Input Process. In fact, either EPDP or GGP may be the most appropriate tool to address the Board's request for review of the 38 policy recommendations it apparently wants the Council to modify before it will move forward with assigning those to an IRT. Regarding the proposed review of the P & I WG recommendations on IRTs, this is not an appropriate time to call into question recommendations like the one that IRTs should be mandatory except in extenuating circumstances (now codified in the Council's Operating Procedures.) The reason is that the Board is about to institute an IRT for Sub Pro (we hope) and as noted in the text above, an important role for the IRT is make sure that "implementation is carried out in conformance with the intent of the policy recommendations." So why would we want to be reviewing that Recommendation at this critical juncture? And don't we have enough work to do without this? Again, I am non-voting. I have retired from the practice of law effective February 28. I am not engaged in any consulting work and do not receive any remuneration in connection with ICANN activities (other than funded travel.) My only concern here is for organizational effectiveness and respect for policy-making roles within the MSM. Another issue in this regard is that the policy recommendations that came out of Sub Pro were in fact an integrated "bundle", not necessarily separable in the manner that is proposed for moving forward. I have not analyzed the Board's request in this regard but it may be worth looking at those 38 items in relation to that principle. Bottom line: I think we need to postpone a PSR on the Recommendations of the Policy & Implementation Working Group and actively engage in an analysis of the 38 items the Board proposes to modify. Again, I'm a pragmatist and would like to know the Board's proposed solutions for these issues before sending the Council off on launching a mechanism, which once again, might fail to meet the Board's requirements for moving forward. Thank your for your consideration of the above. I look forward to thoughts from other Councilors. Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2024 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Fri, Mar 3, 2023 at 2:56 PM Terri Agnew via council <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> wrote: Dear all, Please find below the final proposed agenda for the GNSO Council Meeting on 15 March 2023. 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/2QGjDQ This agenda was established according to the GNSO Operating Procedures [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/f...> v3.5, updated on 24 October 2019. 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 Wednesday, 15 March at 18:15 UTC: https://tinyurl.com/y4naum35 [tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tinyurl.com/y4naum35__;!!PtGJab4!9Vmu0EGg...>. (Wednesday) 11:15 Los Angeles; 14:15 Washington DC; 18:15 London; 19:15 Paris; 21:15 Moscow; (Thursday) 05:15 Melbourne GNSO Council Meeting Remote Participation: [Published 24 hours prior to meeting] 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 (10 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 [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy...> of the GNSO Council meeting on 19 January 2023 were posted on 02 February 2023. Minutes [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy...> of the GNSO Council meeting on 16 February 2023 were posted on 02 March 2023. 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 [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/council/project__;!!PtG...> and Action Item List. <https://community.icann.org/x/RgZlAg> Item 3: Consent Agenda (5 minutes) TBD Item 4: COUNCIL VOTE - Adoption of the Council Committee for Overseeing and Implementing Continuous Improvement (CCOICI) Working Group Self-Assessment (WGSA) Recommendations Report (10 Minutes) The GNSO Council initiated [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions/202...> the GNSO Framework for Continuous Improvement Pilot Project on 16 June 2021, and, as part of this Framework, the Council established the Committee for Overseeing and Implementing Continuous Improvement (CCOICI). As part of the pilot, the CCOICI was tasked<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=170787421> to consider if/how the GNSO WG Self-Assessment could be improved and possibly enhanced with a periodic assessment and an exit interview, with the goal of giving interested parties an opportunity to help identify potential issues and potential future improvements the GNSO Council could consider. The CCOICI started the Working Group Self-Assessment assignment in October 2021 and concluded its work on this assignment in February 2022. However, the CCOICI deferred conducting the public comment until it could be combined with recommendations related to the GNSO Statement of Interest (SOI). The consolidated public comment proceeding<https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/updates-to-the-gnso-state...> on Proposed Updates to the GNSO Operating Procedures was initiated on 09 September 2022 and closed on 14 November 2022. The CCOICI integrated public comments received as appropriate and submitted its Recommendations Report [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy...> to the Council on 5 January 2023. Here, the Council will vote to adopt the Working Group Self-Assessment (WGSA) Recommendations Report. 4.1 – Presentation of motion - (Manju Chen, Chair, Committee for Overseeing and Implementing Continuous Improvement (CCOICI)) 4.2 – Council discussion 4.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority) Item 5: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Next Steps for Consideration of Expired Domain Deletion Policy (“EDDP”) and Expired Registration Recovery Policy (“ERRP”) (15 minutes) The GNSO Council previously considered when to request a Policy Status Report (“PSR”) for the purpose of conducting a review of the two Expiration Policies, the EDDP and the ERRP. In November 2020, given concerns about its capacity and no known issues with the policies, the Council agreed to delay the request for the Policy Status Report (PSR) for a period of 24 months. As 24 months have now passed, the Council is reconsidering whether now is an appropriate time to request a Policy Status Report. To that end, in July 2022, the Council agreed that it would be helpful to consult with both registrars and ICANN org to help determine if there are any known issues or concerns with either of the two Expiration Policies which could warrant requesting a PSR. ICANN org shared a report<https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2022-November/026164.html> from Contractual Compliance colleagues on 1 November 2022, and GNSO Councilors from the Registrar Stakeholder Group shared feedback from registrars on previous Council calls. During its meeting on 17 November 2022<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Final+Proposed+Agend...>, representatives from ICANN org’s Contractual Compliance Team provided a briefing of the report<https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2022-November/026164.html>, and the Council briefly considered potential next steps. Following the meeting, Nacho Amodoz, Greg DiBiase, and Susan Payne volunteered to closely review the report<https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2022-November/026164.html> from ICANN org and determine if any of the issues raised warrant a PSR request. Here, the Council will receive an update on the small team’s recommendation. 5.1 – Introduction of topic (Greg DiBiase, GNSO Council Vice-Chair) 5.2 – Council discussion 5.3 - Next steps Item 6: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Review GNSO-owned projects that may impact SubPro timeline (10 minutes) During the Council’s Strategic Planning Session (SPS), a recurring theme emerged. The Council emphasized it should take care to ensure that any SubPro related work within its control should be carefully managed for timely delivery. The Council does not want its work to serve as an impediment to the timely implementation and launch of the next round of new gTLDs. In order to address this recurring theme, the Council agreed that it would like to receive frequent updates on the work that is connected to the next round of new gTLDs. Those projects include: * IDNs EPDP Phase 1 (top-level charter questions) * GNSO Guidance Process on Applicant Support * Closed Generics Facilitated Discussion * Yet to be formed Small Team to review SubPro recommendations likely pending Board action. Here, the Council will receive a brief update on the above-referenced projects. 6.1 – Introduction of topic (Steve Chan) 6.2 – Council discussion 6.3 – Next steps Item 7: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Continuation of Informal GNSO Council SubPro Discussion (20 minutes) On 12 September 2021 the ICANN Board directed<https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2021-09-12-en#1.a> the ICANN President and CEO to organize the resources required to begin work on the Operational Design Phase (ODP) for the GNSO’s New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Final Report [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/f...> and the Affirmations, Recommendations, and Implementation Guidance contained in that report. On 20 December 2021, ICANN org announced<https://www.icann.org/en/announcements/details/icann-launches-new-gtld-subse...> that the SubPro ODP had formally launched, starting at the beginning of January 2022. The ODP Team has shared numerous updates to the community and sent several sets of assumptions/questions to the GNSO Council via the Council’s liaison to the ODP. While ICANN org published the SubPro Operational Design Assessment (ODA) on 12 December, the Council received a briefing during a webinar on 7 December. The Council formed a small team to review the ODA in detail and provided its input<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/ducos-to-sinha-20jan23-...> to the ICANN Board on 20 January, in advance of the Board's workshop in January 2023. As discussed in the Chair's blog<https://www.icann.org/en/blogs/details/chairs-blog-recap-of-the-january-boar...>, the ICANN Board spent a full day reviewing the SubPro Outputs and ODA. On 28 February 2023, the Council and ICANN Board had a joint meeting [icann.zoom.us]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann.zoom.us/rec/play/7rCLjaxCWtoD3dTl87...> on SubPro, and the Council had a follow-up informal discussion on 7 March 2023. Here, the Council will discuss the joint meeting with the Board and the informal discussion, and consider appropriate next steps. 7.1 – Introduction of topic (Sebastien Ducos) 7.2 – Council discussion 7.3 – Next steps Item 8: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Whois Disclosure System Next Steps (15 minutes) ICANN org published the Whois Disclosure System design paper [archive.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/archive.icann.org/meetings/icann75/files/...> in September 2022 and presented it to the GNSO Council and the EPDP Phase 2 Small Team during ICANN75 [archive.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/archive.icann.org/meetings/icann75/meetin...>. The small team subsequently reviewed the design paper and continued its consultations with ICANN org, resulting in an addendum [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy...> to its preliminary report. The GNSO Council accepted the addendum and communicated to the ICANN Board its support for the request that the ICANN Board proceed with the implementation of the Whois Disclosure System, provided that the updates identified by the small team in the addendum are made. On 27 February 2023, the Board directed<https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-re...> ICANN org to develop and launch the Whois Disclosure System (System) as requested by the GNSO Council within 11 months from 27 February 2023. The Board also directed ICANN org to operate the System for up to two years from the date of launch, and collect and report on usage data. Furthermore, the ICANN Board has urged “the GNSO Council to consider a Policy Development Process or other means to require registrars to use the System”. During ICANN76, on 11 March 2023, the EPDP Phase 2 Small Team will meet with ICANN org to receive an update the status of implementation of the Whois Disclosure System and continue its consideration of some of the aspects identified as requiring further discussion in the addendum. In addition to receiving an update from the Small Team on its meeting with ICANN org, the Council will consider if/how the instructions to the Small Team should be updated to reflect the Council’s expectations of the Small Team during the implementation phase as well as post-implementation, in addition to the ask from the Board to consider a Policy Development Process or other means to require registrars to use the System. 8.1 Introduction of topic (Greg DiBiase) 8.2 Council Discussion 8.3 Next Steps Item 9: ANY OTHER BUSINESS (10 minutes) 9.1 GNSO Chair Election Timeline Announcement 9.2 Policy Status Report on Policy and Implementation Working Group Final Recommendations Report [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/filefi...> _______________________________ 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... [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/f...> References for Coordinated Universal Time of 18:15 UTC Local time between March and October in the NORTHERN hemisphere ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PDT) UTC-7 (Wednesday) 11:15 San José, Costa Rica (CDT) UTC-6 (Wednesday) 12:15 New York/Washington DC, USA (EDT) UTC-4 (Wednesday) 14:15 Buenos Aires, Argentina (ART) UTC-3 (Wednesday) 15:15 Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (BRT) UTC-3 (Wednesday) 15:15 London, United Kingdom (GMT) UTC+0 (Wednesday) 18:15 Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo (WAT) UTC+1 (Wednesday) 19:15 Paris, France (CET) UTC+1 (Wednesday) 19:15 Moscow, Russia (MSK) UTC+3 (Wednesday) 21:15 Singapore (SGT) UTC+8 (Thursday) 02:15 Melbourne, Australia (AEDT) UTC+11 (Thursday) 05:15 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- DST starts on Sunday 26 March 2023, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) for EU countries and on Sunday 12 March 2023 for the U.S. DST ends on Sunday 29 October 2023 for EU countries, and on Sunday 05 November 2023 for the US. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com [timeanddate.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/www.timeanddate.com/__;!!PtGJab4!9Vmu0EGgf...> and https://tinyurl.com/2mx8bt8t [tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tinyurl.com/2mx8bt8t__;!!PtGJab4!9Vmu0EGg...>. _______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council _______________________________________________ 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.

Hi Anne – no, that is not what I am saying, that is an assessment that Council is expected to make, which is expected to be facilitated and informed by the information provided in the PSR report. Best regards, Marika From: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> Date: Tuesday, 7 March 2023 at 21:24 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> Cc: Terri Agnew <terri.agnew@icann.org>, "gnso-secs@icann.org" <gnso-secs@icann.org>, "liaison6c@gnso.icann.org" <liaison6c@gnso.icann.org>, "council@gnso.icann.org" <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ext] Re: [council] Proposed Agenda | GNSO Council Meeting | Wednesday, 15 March 2023 Many thanks Marika. Of course staff has plenty to do in support of the work that Council is doing and expected to do at this time - much more than usual it would seem in light of all that must be coordinated to get the next round off the ground. I appreciate your viewpoint that staff does the work and then the community provides public comment on it. Given this staff responsibility, I wonder if you can also clarify whether it is actually staff that makes the required assessment of "...whether the recommendations have achieved what they set out to do and/or whether any further enhancements or changes are needed.” By clarifying that the work is done by staff and not Council, are you saying that it is ICANN staff that will make that critical assessment in the PSR and not the Council? Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2024 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Tue, Mar 7, 2023 at 2:57 AM Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> wrote: Hi Anne, the idea behind the PSR on the UDRP is the same – to provide the Council with sufficient data and information to make an informed decision on if/how to proceed with the review. Obviously, the UDRP has a longer history which may have resulted in more data and information in the PSR report? Also, the UDRP PSR was preceded by a number of other steps which may have added additional complexity? Do note that the PSR report is a staff product, it is not a community report and as such should not add to the community workload (although the community is offered the opportunity to weigh in through public comment on the draft PSR report). With regards to ‘why this is needed now’ – note that with the adoption of the Policy & Implementation recommendations in 2015, the Council resolved that “a review of these recommendations is carried out at the latest five years following their implementation to assess whether the recommendations have achieved what they set out to do and/or whether any further enhancements or changes are needed”. The idea is that a PSR will allow for an informed decision on if/how to proceed, which could be to conclude that no changes are needed at this stage, or not now but should be considered later, or that there are specific areas that might benefit from review and modification. I hope this is helpful. Best regards, Marika From: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>> Date: Tuesday, 7 March 2023 at 02:28 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Cc: Terri Agnew <terri.agnew@icann.org<mailto:terri.agnew@icann.org>>, "gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>" <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>>, "liaison6c@gnso.icann.org<mailto:liaison6c@gnso.icann.org>" <liaison6c@gnso.icann.org<mailto:liaison6c@gnso.icann.org>>, "council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>" <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: [Ext] Re: [council] Proposed Agenda | GNSO Council Meeting | Wednesday, 15 March 2023 Thanks Marika - the very light touch you suggest was not our experience in connection with the most recent PSR on the UDRP. could you help explain how this would be different and why this is needed now when we have so much work to do? Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2024 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Mon, Mar 6, 2023 at 1:21 AM Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> wrote: Thanks, Anne. If I may make one point of clarification? In relation to your comment “I don't believe we should be reviewing ALL the Recommendations of the Policy and Implementation Working Group at this time”, please note that the development of a Policy Status Review (PSR) report does NOT imply that a review will be conducted on all the recommendations of the Policy and Implementation Working Group. The PSR report is comparable to an Issue Report in the sense that it provides a general overview of the status of implementation of the Policy and Implementation WG recommendations in combination with possible issues that may need further attention but it is then up to the Council to decide if/how a subsequent review is conducted and what the scope of such a review would be. As you note, for processes that have not been used, or are in the process of being used for the first time, it is unlikely that there is sufficient information available to even conduct a review. The PSR report is merely the first step in the process on the basis of which the Council can then take an informed decision on if/how to proceed. Best regards, Marika From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of Anne ICANN via council <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Reply to: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>> Date: Sunday, 5 March 2023 at 18:50 To: Terri Agnew <terri.agnew@icann.org<mailto:terri.agnew@icann.org>> Cc: "gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>" <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>>, "liaison6c@gnso.icann.org<mailto:liaison6c@gnso.icann.org>" <liaison6c@gnso.icann.org<mailto:liaison6c@gnso.icann.org>>, "council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>" <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Agenda | GNSO Council Meeting | Wednesday, 15 March 2023 Many thanks, Terri. For consideration by Councilors in relation to the AOB item re possible initiation of a Policy Status Review of the Recommendations of the Policy and Implementation Working Group - It has been pointed out that there are several Recommendations of that group that bear on the Operating Procedures relative to Implementation Review Teams. As a former member of that Working Group, one item I believe is particularly relevant to the current work of the Council is pasted below. "The WG noted that IRTs should not be used as an opportunity to reopen policy recommendations. The main objective of the IRT is to ensure that implementation is carried out in conformance with the intent of the policy recommendations. As such, it would be important to emphasize this aspect to any members joining an IRT, especially if they were not involved in developing the original policy recommendations. " And as you all know, the Board is asking us to change Sub Pro policy it finds problematic in connection with 38 different topics. The Board has suggested we might reconvene the Sub Pro WG but I'm a pragmatist and I don't think that is a practical approach. The Board apparently wants some policy changes and in its presentation, it stated on the slides that it is willing to make suggestions in this regard, although when I asked about this, Avri Doria replied that any such suggestions right now would be "premature." Hopefully those suggestions will be forthcoming in a written form in the near future but I don't recall a previous instance of so many requests for policy changes. Given the current work that needs to be done to move these Board requests and a Sub Pro IRT forward, my own view is that a Policy Status Report on the Recommendations of the Policy & Implementation Working Group is premature. I don't believe we should be reviewing ALL the Recommendations of the Policy and Implementation Working Group at this time. (Perhaps a review of the EPDP process may be appropriate since we have some experience there.) There is no reason to review the GNSO Guidance Process or the Input Process. In fact, either EPDP or GGP may be the most appropriate tool to address the Board's request for review of the 38 policy recommendations it apparently wants the Council to modify before it will move forward with assigning those to an IRT. Regarding the proposed review of the P & I WG recommendations on IRTs, this is not an appropriate time to call into question recommendations like the one that IRTs should be mandatory except in extenuating circumstances (now codified in the Council's Operating Procedures.) The reason is that the Board is about to institute an IRT for Sub Pro (we hope) and as noted in the text above, an important role for the IRT is make sure that "implementation is carried out in conformance with the intent of the policy recommendations." So why would we want to be reviewing that Recommendation at this critical juncture? And don't we have enough work to do without this? Again, I am non-voting. I have retired from the practice of law effective February 28. I am not engaged in any consulting work and do not receive any remuneration in connection with ICANN activities (other than funded travel.) My only concern here is for organizational effectiveness and respect for policy-making roles within the MSM. Another issue in this regard is that the policy recommendations that came out of Sub Pro were in fact an integrated "bundle", not necessarily separable in the manner that is proposed for moving forward. I have not analyzed the Board's request in this regard but it may be worth looking at those 38 items in relation to that principle. Bottom line: I think we need to postpone a PSR on the Recommendations of the Policy & Implementation Working Group and actively engage in an analysis of the 38 items the Board proposes to modify. Again, I'm a pragmatist and would like to know the Board's proposed solutions for these issues before sending the Council off on launching a mechanism, which once again, might fail to meet the Board's requirements for moving forward. Thank your for your consideration of the above. I look forward to thoughts from other Councilors. Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2024 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Fri, Mar 3, 2023 at 2:56 PM Terri Agnew via council <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> wrote: Dear all, Please find below the final proposed agenda for the GNSO Council Meeting on 15 March 2023. 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/2QGjDQ This agenda was established according to the GNSO Operating Procedures [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/f...> v3.5, updated on 24 October 2019. 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 Wednesday, 15 March at 18:15 UTC: https://tinyurl.com/y4naum35 [tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tinyurl.com/y4naum35__;!!PtGJab4!9Vmu0EGg...>. (Wednesday) 11:15 Los Angeles; 14:15 Washington DC; 18:15 London; 19:15 Paris; 21:15 Moscow; (Thursday) 05:15 Melbourne GNSO Council Meeting Remote Participation: [Published 24 hours prior to meeting] 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 (10 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 [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy...> of the GNSO Council meeting on 19 January 2023 were posted on 02 February 2023. Minutes [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy...> of the GNSO Council meeting on 16 February 2023 were posted on 02 March 2023. 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 [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/council/project__;!!PtG...> and Action Item List. <https://community.icann.org/x/RgZlAg> Item 3: Consent Agenda (5 minutes) TBD Item 4: COUNCIL VOTE - Adoption of the Council Committee for Overseeing and Implementing Continuous Improvement (CCOICI) Working Group Self-Assessment (WGSA) Recommendations Report (10 Minutes) The GNSO Council initiated [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions/202...> the GNSO Framework for Continuous Improvement Pilot Project on 16 June 2021, and, as part of this Framework, the Council established the Committee for Overseeing and Implementing Continuous Improvement (CCOICI). As part of the pilot, the CCOICI was tasked<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=170787421> to consider if/how the GNSO WG Self-Assessment could be improved and possibly enhanced with a periodic assessment and an exit interview, with the goal of giving interested parties an opportunity to help identify potential issues and potential future improvements the GNSO Council could consider. The CCOICI started the Working Group Self-Assessment assignment in October 2021 and concluded its work on this assignment in February 2022. However, the CCOICI deferred conducting the public comment until it could be combined with recommendations related to the GNSO Statement of Interest (SOI). The consolidated public comment proceeding<https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/updates-to-the-gnso-state...> on Proposed Updates to the GNSO Operating Procedures was initiated on 09 September 2022 and closed on 14 November 2022. The CCOICI integrated public comments received as appropriate and submitted its Recommendations Report [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy...> to the Council on 5 January 2023. Here, the Council will vote to adopt the Working Group Self-Assessment (WGSA) Recommendations Report. 4.1 – Presentation of motion - (Manju Chen, Chair, Committee for Overseeing and Implementing Continuous Improvement (CCOICI)) 4.2 – Council discussion 4.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority) Item 5: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Next Steps for Consideration of Expired Domain Deletion Policy (“EDDP”) and Expired Registration Recovery Policy (“ERRP”) (15 minutes) The GNSO Council previously considered when to request a Policy Status Report (“PSR”) for the purpose of conducting a review of the two Expiration Policies, the EDDP and the ERRP. In November 2020, given concerns about its capacity and no known issues with the policies, the Council agreed to delay the request for the Policy Status Report (PSR) for a period of 24 months. As 24 months have now passed, the Council is reconsidering whether now is an appropriate time to request a Policy Status Report. To that end, in July 2022, the Council agreed that it would be helpful to consult with both registrars and ICANN org to help determine if there are any known issues or concerns with either of the two Expiration Policies which could warrant requesting a PSR. ICANN org shared a report<https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2022-November/026164.html> from Contractual Compliance colleagues on 1 November 2022, and GNSO Councilors from the Registrar Stakeholder Group shared feedback from registrars on previous Council calls. During its meeting on 17 November 2022<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Final+Proposed+Agend...>, representatives from ICANN org’s Contractual Compliance Team provided a briefing of the report<https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2022-November/026164.html>, and the Council briefly considered potential next steps. Following the meeting, Nacho Amodoz, Greg DiBiase, and Susan Payne volunteered to closely review the report<https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2022-November/026164.html> from ICANN org and determine if any of the issues raised warrant a PSR request. Here, the Council will receive an update on the small team’s recommendation. 5.1 – Introduction of topic (Greg DiBiase, GNSO Council Vice-Chair) 5.2 – Council discussion 5.3 - Next steps Item 6: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Review GNSO-owned projects that may impact SubPro timeline (10 minutes) During the Council’s Strategic Planning Session (SPS), a recurring theme emerged. The Council emphasized it should take care to ensure that any SubPro related work within its control should be carefully managed for timely delivery. The Council does not want its work to serve as an impediment to the timely implementation and launch of the next round of new gTLDs. In order to address this recurring theme, the Council agreed that it would like to receive frequent updates on the work that is connected to the next round of new gTLDs. Those projects include: * IDNs EPDP Phase 1 (top-level charter questions) * GNSO Guidance Process on Applicant Support * Closed Generics Facilitated Discussion * Yet to be formed Small Team to review SubPro recommendations likely pending Board action. Here, the Council will receive a brief update on the above-referenced projects. 6.1 – Introduction of topic (Steve Chan) 6.2 – Council discussion 6.3 – Next steps Item 7: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Continuation of Informal GNSO Council SubPro Discussion (20 minutes) On 12 September 2021 the ICANN Board directed<https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2021-09-12-en#1.a> the ICANN President and CEO to organize the resources required to begin work on the Operational Design Phase (ODP) for the GNSO’s New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Final Report [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/f...> and the Affirmations, Recommendations, and Implementation Guidance contained in that report. On 20 December 2021, ICANN org announced<https://www.icann.org/en/announcements/details/icann-launches-new-gtld-subse...> that the SubPro ODP had formally launched, starting at the beginning of January 2022. The ODP Team has shared numerous updates to the community and sent several sets of assumptions/questions to the GNSO Council via the Council’s liaison to the ODP. While ICANN org published the SubPro Operational Design Assessment (ODA) on 12 December, the Council received a briefing during a webinar on 7 December. The Council formed a small team to review the ODA in detail and provided its input<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/ducos-to-sinha-20jan23-...> to the ICANN Board on 20 January, in advance of the Board's workshop in January 2023. As discussed in the Chair's blog<https://www.icann.org/en/blogs/details/chairs-blog-recap-of-the-january-boar...>, the ICANN Board spent a full day reviewing the SubPro Outputs and ODA. On 28 February 2023, the Council and ICANN Board had a joint meeting [icann.zoom.us]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann.zoom.us/rec/play/7rCLjaxCWtoD3dTl87...> on SubPro, and the Council had a follow-up informal discussion on 7 March 2023. Here, the Council will discuss the joint meeting with the Board and the informal discussion, and consider appropriate next steps. 7.1 – Introduction of topic (Sebastien Ducos) 7.2 – Council discussion 7.3 – Next steps Item 8: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Whois Disclosure System Next Steps (15 minutes) ICANN org published the Whois Disclosure System design paper [archive.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/archive.icann.org/meetings/icann75/files/...> in September 2022 and presented it to the GNSO Council and the EPDP Phase 2 Small Team during ICANN75 [archive.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/archive.icann.org/meetings/icann75/meetin...>. The small team subsequently reviewed the design paper and continued its consultations with ICANN org, resulting in an addendum [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy...> to its preliminary report. The GNSO Council accepted the addendum and communicated to the ICANN Board its support for the request that the ICANN Board proceed with the implementation of the Whois Disclosure System, provided that the updates identified by the small team in the addendum are made. On 27 February 2023, the Board directed<https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-re...> ICANN org to develop and launch the Whois Disclosure System (System) as requested by the GNSO Council within 11 months from 27 February 2023. The Board also directed ICANN org to operate the System for up to two years from the date of launch, and collect and report on usage data. Furthermore, the ICANN Board has urged “the GNSO Council to consider a Policy Development Process or other means to require registrars to use the System”. During ICANN76, on 11 March 2023, the EPDP Phase 2 Small Team will meet with ICANN org to receive an update the status of implementation of the Whois Disclosure System and continue its consideration of some of the aspects identified as requiring further discussion in the addendum. In addition to receiving an update from the Small Team on its meeting with ICANN org, the Council will consider if/how the instructions to the Small Team should be updated to reflect the Council’s expectations of the Small Team during the implementation phase as well as post-implementation, in addition to the ask from the Board to consider a Policy Development Process or other means to require registrars to use the System. 8.1 Introduction of topic (Greg DiBiase) 8.2 Council Discussion 8.3 Next Steps Item 9: ANY OTHER BUSINESS (10 minutes) 9.1 GNSO Chair Election Timeline Announcement 9.2 Policy Status Report on Policy and Implementation Working Group Final Recommendations Report [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/filefi...> _______________________________ 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... [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/f...> References for Coordinated Universal Time of 18:15 UTC Local time between March and October in the NORTHERN hemisphere ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PDT) UTC-7 (Wednesday) 11:15 San José, Costa Rica (CDT) UTC-6 (Wednesday) 12:15 New York/Washington DC, USA (EDT) UTC-4 (Wednesday) 14:15 Buenos Aires, Argentina (ART) UTC-3 (Wednesday) 15:15 Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (BRT) UTC-3 (Wednesday) 15:15 London, United Kingdom (GMT) UTC+0 (Wednesday) 18:15 Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo (WAT) UTC+1 (Wednesday) 19:15 Paris, France (CET) UTC+1 (Wednesday) 19:15 Moscow, Russia (MSK) UTC+3 (Wednesday) 21:15 Singapore (SGT) UTC+8 (Thursday) 02:15 Melbourne, Australia (AEDT) UTC+11 (Thursday) 05:15 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- DST starts on Sunday 26 March 2023, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) for EU countries and on Sunday 12 March 2023 for the U.S. DST ends on Sunday 29 October 2023 for EU countries, and on Sunday 05 November 2023 for the US. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com [timeanddate.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/www.timeanddate.com/__;!!PtGJab4!9Vmu0EGgf...> and https://tinyurl.com/2mx8bt8t [tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tinyurl.com/2mx8bt8t__;!!PtGJab4!9Vmu0EGg...>. _______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council _______________________________________________ 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.

Hi Anne – I think we would take the same approach as with the UDRP PSR. In parallel to the public comment forum, the Council would be briefed on the PSR and given an opportunity to provide feedback which would be incorporated into the final version. Of course, if there is an interest to discuss the approach and content at an earlier point, the staff support team would be happy to brief the Council on its progress. Best regards, Marika From: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, 8 March 2023 at 15:25 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> Cc: Terri Agnew <terri.agnew@icann.org>, "gnso-secs@icann.org" <gnso-secs@icann.org>, "liaison6c@gnso.icann.org" <liaison6c@gnso.icann.org>, "council@gnso.icann.org" <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ext] Re: [council] Proposed Agenda | GNSO Council Meeting | Wednesday, 15 March 2023 Thanks for clarifying. So I assume then that Council will review and have an opportunity to revise the draft PSR before it goes out for public comment? Thank you, Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2024 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Wed, Mar 8, 2023 at 12:52 AM Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> wrote: Hi Anne – no, that is not what I am saying, that is an assessment that Council is expected to make, which is expected to be facilitated and informed by the information provided in the PSR report. Best regards, Marika From: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>> Date: Tuesday, 7 March 2023 at 21:24 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Cc: Terri Agnew <terri.agnew@icann.org<mailto:terri.agnew@icann.org>>, "gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>" <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>>, "liaison6c@gnso.icann.org<mailto:liaison6c@gnso.icann.org>" <liaison6c@gnso.icann.org<mailto:liaison6c@gnso.icann.org>>, "council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>" <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Ext] Re: [council] Proposed Agenda | GNSO Council Meeting | Wednesday, 15 March 2023 Many thanks Marika. Of course staff has plenty to do in support of the work that Council is doing and expected to do at this time - much more than usual it would seem in light of all that must be coordinated to get the next round off the ground. I appreciate your viewpoint that staff does the work and then the community provides public comment on it. Given this staff responsibility, I wonder if you can also clarify whether it is actually staff that makes the required assessment of "...whether the recommendations have achieved what they set out to do and/or whether any further enhancements or changes are needed.” By clarifying that the work is done by staff and not Council, are you saying that it is ICANN staff that will make that critical assessment in the PSR and not the Council? Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2024 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Tue, Mar 7, 2023 at 2:57 AM Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> wrote: Hi Anne, the idea behind the PSR on the UDRP is the same – to provide the Council with sufficient data and information to make an informed decision on if/how to proceed with the review. Obviously, the UDRP has a longer history which may have resulted in more data and information in the PSR report? Also, the UDRP PSR was preceded by a number of other steps which may have added additional complexity? Do note that the PSR report is a staff product, it is not a community report and as such should not add to the community workload (although the community is offered the opportunity to weigh in through public comment on the draft PSR report). With regards to ‘why this is needed now’ – note that with the adoption of the Policy & Implementation recommendations in 2015, the Council resolved that “a review of these recommendations is carried out at the latest five years following their implementation to assess whether the recommendations have achieved what they set out to do and/or whether any further enhancements or changes are needed”. The idea is that a PSR will allow for an informed decision on if/how to proceed, which could be to conclude that no changes are needed at this stage, or not now but should be considered later, or that there are specific areas that might benefit from review and modification. I hope this is helpful. Best regards, Marika From: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>> Date: Tuesday, 7 March 2023 at 02:28 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Cc: Terri Agnew <terri.agnew@icann.org<mailto:terri.agnew@icann.org>>, "gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>" <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>>, "liaison6c@gnso.icann.org<mailto:liaison6c@gnso.icann.org>" <liaison6c@gnso.icann.org<mailto:liaison6c@gnso.icann.org>>, "council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>" <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: [Ext] Re: [council] Proposed Agenda | GNSO Council Meeting | Wednesday, 15 March 2023 Thanks Marika - the very light touch you suggest was not our experience in connection with the most recent PSR on the UDRP. could you help explain how this would be different and why this is needed now when we have so much work to do? Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2024 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Mon, Mar 6, 2023 at 1:21 AM Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> wrote: Thanks, Anne. If I may make one point of clarification? In relation to your comment “I don't believe we should be reviewing ALL the Recommendations of the Policy and Implementation Working Group at this time”, please note that the development of a Policy Status Review (PSR) report does NOT imply that a review will be conducted on all the recommendations of the Policy and Implementation Working Group. The PSR report is comparable to an Issue Report in the sense that it provides a general overview of the status of implementation of the Policy and Implementation WG recommendations in combination with possible issues that may need further attention but it is then up to the Council to decide if/how a subsequent review is conducted and what the scope of such a review would be. As you note, for processes that have not been used, or are in the process of being used for the first time, it is unlikely that there is sufficient information available to even conduct a review. The PSR report is merely the first step in the process on the basis of which the Council can then take an informed decision on if/how to proceed. Best regards, Marika From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of Anne ICANN via council <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Reply to: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com>> Date: Sunday, 5 March 2023 at 18:50 To: Terri Agnew <terri.agnew@icann.org<mailto:terri.agnew@icann.org>> Cc: "gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>" <gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>>, "liaison6c@gnso.icann.org<mailto:liaison6c@gnso.icann.org>" <liaison6c@gnso.icann.org<mailto:liaison6c@gnso.icann.org>>, "council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>" <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] Proposed Agenda | GNSO Council Meeting | Wednesday, 15 March 2023 Many thanks, Terri. For consideration by Councilors in relation to the AOB item re possible initiation of a Policy Status Review of the Recommendations of the Policy and Implementation Working Group - It has been pointed out that there are several Recommendations of that group that bear on the Operating Procedures relative to Implementation Review Teams. As a former member of that Working Group, one item I believe is particularly relevant to the current work of the Council is pasted below. "The WG noted that IRTs should not be used as an opportunity to reopen policy recommendations. The main objective of the IRT is to ensure that implementation is carried out in conformance with the intent of the policy recommendations. As such, it would be important to emphasize this aspect to any members joining an IRT, especially if they were not involved in developing the original policy recommendations. " And as you all know, the Board is asking us to change Sub Pro policy it finds problematic in connection with 38 different topics. The Board has suggested we might reconvene the Sub Pro WG but I'm a pragmatist and I don't think that is a practical approach. The Board apparently wants some policy changes and in its presentation, it stated on the slides that it is willing to make suggestions in this regard, although when I asked about this, Avri Doria replied that any such suggestions right now would be "premature." Hopefully those suggestions will be forthcoming in a written form in the near future but I don't recall a previous instance of so many requests for policy changes. Given the current work that needs to be done to move these Board requests and a Sub Pro IRT forward, my own view is that a Policy Status Report on the Recommendations of the Policy & Implementation Working Group is premature. I don't believe we should be reviewing ALL the Recommendations of the Policy and Implementation Working Group at this time. (Perhaps a review of the EPDP process may be appropriate since we have some experience there.) There is no reason to review the GNSO Guidance Process or the Input Process. In fact, either EPDP or GGP may be the most appropriate tool to address the Board's request for review of the 38 policy recommendations it apparently wants the Council to modify before it will move forward with assigning those to an IRT. Regarding the proposed review of the P & I WG recommendations on IRTs, this is not an appropriate time to call into question recommendations like the one that IRTs should be mandatory except in extenuating circumstances (now codified in the Council's Operating Procedures.) The reason is that the Board is about to institute an IRT for Sub Pro (we hope) and as noted in the text above, an important role for the IRT is make sure that "implementation is carried out in conformance with the intent of the policy recommendations." So why would we want to be reviewing that Recommendation at this critical juncture? And don't we have enough work to do without this? Again, I am non-voting. I have retired from the practice of law effective February 28. I am not engaged in any consulting work and do not receive any remuneration in connection with ICANN activities (other than funded travel.) My only concern here is for organizational effectiveness and respect for policy-making roles within the MSM. Another issue in this regard is that the policy recommendations that came out of Sub Pro were in fact an integrated "bundle", not necessarily separable in the manner that is proposed for moving forward. I have not analyzed the Board's request in this regard but it may be worth looking at those 38 items in relation to that principle. Bottom line: I think we need to postpone a PSR on the Recommendations of the Policy & Implementation Working Group and actively engage in an analysis of the 38 items the Board proposes to modify. Again, I'm a pragmatist and would like to know the Board's proposed solutions for these issues before sending the Council off on launching a mechanism, which once again, might fail to meet the Board's requirements for moving forward. Thank your for your consideration of the above. I look forward to thoughts from other Councilors. Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2024 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Fri, Mar 3, 2023 at 2:56 PM Terri Agnew via council <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> wrote: Dear all, Please find below the final proposed agenda for the GNSO Council Meeting on 15 March 2023. 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/2QGjDQ This agenda was established according to the GNSO Operating Procedures [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/f...> v3.5, updated on 24 October 2019. 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 Wednesday, 15 March at 18:15 UTC: https://tinyurl.com/y4naum35 [tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tinyurl.com/y4naum35__;!!PtGJab4!9Vmu0EGg...>. (Wednesday) 11:15 Los Angeles; 14:15 Washington DC; 18:15 London; 19:15 Paris; 21:15 Moscow; (Thursday) 05:15 Melbourne GNSO Council Meeting Remote Participation: [Published 24 hours prior to meeting] 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 (10 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 [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy...> of the GNSO Council meeting on 19 January 2023 were posted on 02 February 2023. Minutes [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy...> of the GNSO Council meeting on 16 February 2023 were posted on 02 March 2023. 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 [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/council/project__;!!PtG...> and Action Item List. <https://community.icann.org/x/RgZlAg> Item 3: Consent Agenda (5 minutes) TBD Item 4: COUNCIL VOTE - Adoption of the Council Committee for Overseeing and Implementing Continuous Improvement (CCOICI) Working Group Self-Assessment (WGSA) Recommendations Report (10 Minutes) The GNSO Council initiated [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions/202...> the GNSO Framework for Continuous Improvement Pilot Project on 16 June 2021, and, as part of this Framework, the Council established the Committee for Overseeing and Implementing Continuous Improvement (CCOICI). As part of the pilot, the CCOICI was tasked<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=170787421> to consider if/how the GNSO WG Self-Assessment could be improved and possibly enhanced with a periodic assessment and an exit interview, with the goal of giving interested parties an opportunity to help identify potential issues and potential future improvements the GNSO Council could consider. The CCOICI started the Working Group Self-Assessment assignment in October 2021 and concluded its work on this assignment in February 2022. However, the CCOICI deferred conducting the public comment until it could be combined with recommendations related to the GNSO Statement of Interest (SOI). The consolidated public comment proceeding<https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/updates-to-the-gnso-state...> on Proposed Updates to the GNSO Operating Procedures was initiated on 09 September 2022 and closed on 14 November 2022. The CCOICI integrated public comments received as appropriate and submitted its Recommendations Report [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy...> to the Council on 5 January 2023. Here, the Council will vote to adopt the Working Group Self-Assessment (WGSA) Recommendations Report. 4.1 – Presentation of motion - (Manju Chen, Chair, Committee for Overseeing and Implementing Continuous Improvement (CCOICI)) 4.2 – Council discussion 4.3 – Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority) Item 5: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Next Steps for Consideration of Expired Domain Deletion Policy (“EDDP”) and Expired Registration Recovery Policy (“ERRP”) (15 minutes) The GNSO Council previously considered when to request a Policy Status Report (“PSR”) for the purpose of conducting a review of the two Expiration Policies, the EDDP and the ERRP. In November 2020, given concerns about its capacity and no known issues with the policies, the Council agreed to delay the request for the Policy Status Report (PSR) for a period of 24 months. As 24 months have now passed, the Council is reconsidering whether now is an appropriate time to request a Policy Status Report. To that end, in July 2022, the Council agreed that it would be helpful to consult with both registrars and ICANN org to help determine if there are any known issues or concerns with either of the two Expiration Policies which could warrant requesting a PSR. ICANN org shared a report<https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2022-November/026164.html> from Contractual Compliance colleagues on 1 November 2022, and GNSO Councilors from the Registrar Stakeholder Group shared feedback from registrars on previous Council calls. During its meeting on 17 November 2022<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Final+Proposed+Agend...>, representatives from ICANN org’s Contractual Compliance Team provided a briefing of the report<https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2022-November/026164.html>, and the Council briefly considered potential next steps. Following the meeting, Nacho Amodoz, Greg DiBiase, and Susan Payne volunteered to closely review the report<https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2022-November/026164.html> from ICANN org and determine if any of the issues raised warrant a PSR request. Here, the Council will receive an update on the small team’s recommendation. 5.1 – Introduction of topic (Greg DiBiase, GNSO Council Vice-Chair) 5.2 – Council discussion 5.3 - Next steps Item 6: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Review GNSO-owned projects that may impact SubPro timeline (10 minutes) During the Council’s Strategic Planning Session (SPS), a recurring theme emerged. The Council emphasized it should take care to ensure that any SubPro related work within its control should be carefully managed for timely delivery. The Council does not want its work to serve as an impediment to the timely implementation and launch of the next round of new gTLDs. In order to address this recurring theme, the Council agreed that it would like to receive frequent updates on the work that is connected to the next round of new gTLDs. Those projects include: * IDNs EPDP Phase 1 (top-level charter questions) * GNSO Guidance Process on Applicant Support * Closed Generics Facilitated Discussion * Yet to be formed Small Team to review SubPro recommendations likely pending Board action. Here, the Council will receive a brief update on the above-referenced projects. 6.1 – Introduction of topic (Steve Chan) 6.2 – Council discussion 6.3 – Next steps Item 7: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Continuation of Informal GNSO Council SubPro Discussion (20 minutes) On 12 September 2021 the ICANN Board directed<https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2021-09-12-en#1.a> the ICANN President and CEO to organize the resources required to begin work on the Operational Design Phase (ODP) for the GNSO’s New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Final Report [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/f...> and the Affirmations, Recommendations, and Implementation Guidance contained in that report. On 20 December 2021, ICANN org announced<https://www.icann.org/en/announcements/details/icann-launches-new-gtld-subse...> that the SubPro ODP had formally launched, starting at the beginning of January 2022. The ODP Team has shared numerous updates to the community and sent several sets of assumptions/questions to the GNSO Council via the Council’s liaison to the ODP. While ICANN org published the SubPro Operational Design Assessment (ODA) on 12 December, the Council received a briefing during a webinar on 7 December. The Council formed a small team to review the ODA in detail and provided its input<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/ducos-to-sinha-20jan23-...> to the ICANN Board on 20 January, in advance of the Board's workshop in January 2023. As discussed in the Chair's blog<https://www.icann.org/en/blogs/details/chairs-blog-recap-of-the-january-boar...>, the ICANN Board spent a full day reviewing the SubPro Outputs and ODA. On 28 February 2023, the Council and ICANN Board had a joint meeting [icann.zoom.us]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann.zoom.us/rec/play/7rCLjaxCWtoD3dTl87...> on SubPro, and the Council had a follow-up informal discussion on 7 March 2023. Here, the Council will discuss the joint meeting with the Board and the informal discussion, and consider appropriate next steps. 7.1 – Introduction of topic (Sebastien Ducos) 7.2 – Council discussion 7.3 – Next steps Item 8: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Whois Disclosure System Next Steps (15 minutes) ICANN org published the Whois Disclosure System design paper [archive.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/archive.icann.org/meetings/icann75/files/...> in September 2022 and presented it to the GNSO Council and the EPDP Phase 2 Small Team during ICANN75 [archive.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/archive.icann.org/meetings/icann75/meetin...>. The small team subsequently reviewed the design paper and continued its consultations with ICANN org, resulting in an addendum [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy...> to its preliminary report. The GNSO Council accepted the addendum and communicated to the ICANN Board its support for the request that the ICANN Board proceed with the implementation of the Whois Disclosure System, provided that the updates identified by the small team in the addendum are made. On 27 February 2023, the Board directed<https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-re...> ICANN org to develop and launch the Whois Disclosure System (System) as requested by the GNSO Council within 11 months from 27 February 2023. The Board also directed ICANN org to operate the System for up to two years from the date of launch, and collect and report on usage data. Furthermore, the ICANN Board has urged “the GNSO Council to consider a Policy Development Process or other means to require registrars to use the System”. During ICANN76, on 11 March 2023, the EPDP Phase 2 Small Team will meet with ICANN org to receive an update the status of implementation of the Whois Disclosure System and continue its consideration of some of the aspects identified as requiring further discussion in the addendum. In addition to receiving an update from the Small Team on its meeting with ICANN org, the Council will consider if/how the instructions to the Small Team should be updated to reflect the Council’s expectations of the Small Team during the implementation phase as well as post-implementation, in addition to the ask from the Board to consider a Policy Development Process or other means to require registrars to use the System. 8.1 Introduction of topic (Greg DiBiase) 8.2 Council Discussion 8.3 Next Steps Item 9: ANY OTHER BUSINESS (10 minutes) 9.1 GNSO Chair Election Timeline Announcement 9.2 Policy Status Report on Policy and Implementation Working Group Final Recommendations Report [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/filefi...> _______________________________ 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... [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/f...> References for Coordinated Universal Time of 18:15 UTC Local time between March and October in the NORTHERN hemisphere ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PDT) UTC-7 (Wednesday) 11:15 San José, Costa Rica (CDT) UTC-6 (Wednesday) 12:15 New York/Washington DC, USA (EDT) UTC-4 (Wednesday) 14:15 Buenos Aires, Argentina (ART) UTC-3 (Wednesday) 15:15 Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (BRT) UTC-3 (Wednesday) 15:15 London, United Kingdom (GMT) UTC+0 (Wednesday) 18:15 Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo (WAT) UTC+1 (Wednesday) 19:15 Paris, France (CET) UTC+1 (Wednesday) 19:15 Moscow, Russia (MSK) UTC+3 (Wednesday) 21:15 Singapore (SGT) UTC+8 (Thursday) 02:15 Melbourne, Australia (AEDT) UTC+11 (Thursday) 05:15 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- DST starts on Sunday 26 March 2023, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) for EU countries and on Sunday 12 March 2023 for the U.S. DST ends on Sunday 29 October 2023 for EU countries, and on Sunday 05 November 2023 for the US. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com [timeanddate.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/www.timeanddate.com/__;!!PtGJab4!9Vmu0EGgf...> and https://tinyurl.com/2mx8bt8t [tinyurl.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/tinyurl.com/2mx8bt8t__;!!PtGJab4!9Vmu0EGg...>. _______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council _______________________________________________ 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.