FW: Letter from GAC Chair to GNSO Chair - GAC input on SubPro recommendations marked as pending
Dear Council Colleagues, Please find attached the GAC letter we just received pertaining to GAC Input on GAC Priority Topics Relative to SubPro Recommendations Marked as “Pending”. Kindly, Sebastien Ducos GoDaddy Registry | Senior Client Services Manager [signature_3228380999] +33612284445 France & Australia sebastien@registry.godaddy<mailto:sebastien@registry.godaddy> From: Gnso-chairs <gnso-chairs-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Benedetta Rossi via Gnso-chairs <gnso-chairs@icann.org> Date: Thursday, 23 March 2023 at 8:54 pm To: gnso-chairs@icann.org <gnso-chairs@icann.org> Cc: gac-staff@icann.org <gac-staff@icann.org>, gac-leadership@icann.org <gac-leadership@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-chairs] Letter from GAC Chair to GNSO Chair - GAC input on SubPro recommendations marked as pending Caution: This email is from an external sender. Please do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Forward suspicious emails to isitbad@. Dear Sebastien, On behalf of the GAC Chair, Nicolas Caballero, please find attached a letter pertaining to GAC Input on GAC Priority Topics Relative to SubPro Recommendations Marked as “Pending”. Thank you, Kind regards, Benedetta -- Benedetta Rossi | GAC Advice and Policy Support, Senior Manager benedetta.rossi@icann.org<mailto:benedetta.rossi@icann.org> | +32.491.90.42.50 ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
If there is no objection, I would propose that we just add this to the small team reviewing the GAC Communique because to some extent it just repeats what is in there. Of course there will be coordination between the small team on SubPro as well. Sincerely, Jeff [cid:image002.png@01D95DCB.25DAA290] Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC p: +1.202.549.5079 E: jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com> http://jjnsolutions.com From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> On Behalf Of Sebastien--- via council Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2023 4:21 PM To: COUNCIL@GNSO.ICANN.ORG Cc: gnso-secs@icann.org; GNSO-Chairs <gnso-chairs@icann.org> Subject: [council] FW: Letter from GAC Chair to GNSO Chair - GAC input on SubPro recommendations marked as pending Dear Council Colleagues, Please find attached the GAC letter we just received pertaining to GAC Input on GAC Priority Topics Relative to SubPro Recommendations Marked as "Pending". Kindly, Sebastien Ducos GoDaddy Registry | Senior Client Services Manager [signature_3228380999] +33612284445 France & Australia sebastien@registry.godaddy<mailto:sebastien@registry.godaddy> From: Gnso-chairs <gnso-chairs-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-chairs-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Benedetta Rossi via Gnso-chairs <gnso-chairs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-chairs@icann.org>> Date: Thursday, 23 March 2023 at 8:54 pm To: gnso-chairs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-chairs@icann.org> <gnso-chairs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-chairs@icann.org>> Cc: gac-staff@icann.org<mailto:gac-staff@icann.org> <gac-staff@icann.org<mailto:gac-staff@icann.org>>, gac-leadership@icann.org<mailto:gac-leadership@icann.org> <gac-leadership@icann.org<mailto:gac-leadership@icann.org>> Subject: [gnso-chairs] Letter from GAC Chair to GNSO Chair - GAC input on SubPro recommendations marked as pending Caution: This email is from an external sender. Please do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Forward suspicious emails to isitbad@. Dear Sebastien, On behalf of the GAC Chair, Nicolas Caballero, please find attached a letter pertaining to GAC Input on GAC Priority Topics Relative to SubPro Recommendations Marked as "Pending". Thank you, Kind regards, Benedetta -- Benedetta Rossi | GAC Advice and Policy Support, Senior Manager benedetta.rossi@icann.org<mailto:benedetta.rossi@icann.org> | +32.491.90.42.50 ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
Many thanks Sebastien, especially for clarifying all the timing in the Board Resolution re Sub Pro, and thank you, Jeff, for your comment. I do not think it will be appropriate to add this March 23 GAC letter to the task for those who will be responding to the GAC Communique. The reason is that these March 23 letter stating items of importance to the GAC are ALL related to the process being followed in the Sub Pro Triage Small Team and cannot be adequately addressed until that Team has made a recommendation to the GNSO Council as a whole. Just to recap, a short list of certain items called out by the GAC in this letter appears below. The Triage Small Team has three 90 minute meetings set in the next ten days and will certainly need to consider this GAC letter in its discussions and recommendations to Council concerning this list of items. (my own notes on the items appear in parentheses following the listed topic.) ● Predictability - (GAC appears most concerned about its own representation on the SPIRT.) ● Public Interest Commitments (PICs)/Registry Voluntary Commitments (RVCs) - (GAC appears more concerned about enforceability of PICs and deficiencies in the PIC Dispute Resolution Process than it does about RVCs. GAC likely is aware that RVCs can be used to resolve GAC Early Warnings and may well support the ByLaws amendment the Board reps have discussed.) ● Closed Generics - (This GAC letter makes clear that the GAC is reiterating its Beijing advice that Closed Generics must serve a public interest goal. Nothing is said about changing that advice to "serve the Global Public Interest." I think that is positive in terms of the direction of future policy work.) ● Applicant Support Program - (This seems to be on track with the GGP - no big disagreement here.) ● Auctions - (GAC is apparently expressing support for the ALAC view against private auctions.) ● GAC Consensus Advice/GAC Early Warnings - (GAC objects to the time limit in the Sub Pro Final Report on issuing Early Warnings and states this is outside the ByLaws. GAC members are divided on the issue of whether the presumption against a TLD should lie if there is a GAC warning on it. To my mind, that likely means that GAC Consensus Advice on that point alone is unlikely. The last point is that when an Early Warning issues, the Final Report says the GAC Warning has to say why. and how the concern can be addressed. GAC wants to modify that to state they only have to say how it can be addressed "if feasible" to address it.) ● Community Applications - (It looks to me as though this is not problematic as to policy. The GAC supports the Final Report and even supports the new appeals process contained in the Final Report. Support of the appeals process appears significant.) ● Name collisions - (The GAC supports Recommendation 29.1 requiring a system for testing Name Collisions prior to the launch of the next round. They are also calling out two pieces of Implementation Guidance. I am active on the Name Collision Analysis Project Discussion Group. I think the DG is getting closer to a consensus solution to this issue and this will be apparent when Study 2 is put out for public comment. However, a question here might be whether the Sub Pro Final Report "fallback" to 90-day controlled interruption might be considered to meet the requirement of Recommendation 29.1 that ICANN MUST have a system in place for EVALUATING name collisions before the next round moves forward. The word, "MUST", has a special meaning in the Sub Pro Final Report..) The other topic not listed specifically as a bullet point in the letter is DNS Abuse. The GAC states that it is disappointed this was not addressed by Sub Pro. During our deliberations, Sub Pro Leadership had written to the GNSO Council that it considered that DNS Abuse would have to be addressed in relation to all existing gTLDs, not just the next round of TLDs and so Leadership believed this to be out of scope. The GAC reiterates its concern that DNS Abuse must be addressed before another round of TLDs is launched. I welcome any other comments on this GAC letter, but it's clear these comments must be considered in the context of the work of the Triage Small Team on pending Sub Pro issues. These are not appropriate topics for the response to the GAC Communique. The appropriate Response there is to say that the Small Team s working on a recommendation to Council as to how to proceed to resolve the 38 pending issues which it hopes to provide before the April Council meeting. Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2024 anneicanngnso@gmail.com On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 1:22 PM Sebastien--- via council < council@gnso.icann.org> wrote:
Dear Council Colleagues,
Please find attached the GAC letter we just received pertaining to GAC Input on GAC Priority Topics Relative to SubPro Recommendations Marked as “Pending”.
Kindly,
*Sebastien Ducos*
GoDaddy Registry | Senior Client Services Manager
[image: signature_3228380999]
+33612284445
France & Australia
sebastien@registry.godaddy
*From: *Gnso-chairs <gnso-chairs-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Benedetta Rossi via Gnso-chairs <gnso-chairs@icann.org> *Date: *Thursday, 23 March 2023 at 8:54 pm *To: *gnso-chairs@icann.org <gnso-chairs@icann.org> *Cc: *gac-staff@icann.org <gac-staff@icann.org>, gac-leadership@icann.org <gac-leadership@icann.org> *Subject: *[gnso-chairs] Letter from GAC Chair to GNSO Chair - GAC input on SubPro recommendations marked as pending
Caution: This email is from an external sender. Please do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Forward suspicious emails to isitbad@.
Dear Sebastien,
On behalf of the GAC Chair, Nicolas Caballero, please find attached a letter pertaining to GAC Input on GAC Priority Topics Relative to SubPro Recommendations Marked as “Pending”.
Thank you,
Kind regards,
Benedetta
--
*Benedetta Rossi *| GAC Advice and Policy Support, Senior Manager
benedetta.rossi@icann.org | +32.491.90.42.50
*ICANN* | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
_______________________________________________ council mailing list 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.
+1 Anne. It isn’t efficient or appropriate for the GAC response letter team to pre-create the work of the Next Application Process (the “NAP”) small team (my suggestion for its name). We already have a process in place for this and other substantive work. The GAC letter team should just note that this issue is being looked at by the NAP and that the GAC will be kept informed in the usual ways. Best, Paul From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> On Behalf Of Anne ICANN via council Sent: Monday, March 27, 2023 1:12 PM To: Sebastien@registry.godaddy Cc: gnso-secs@icann.org; GNSO-Chairs <gnso-chairs@icann.org>; COUNCIL@GNSO.ICANN.ORG Subject: Re: [council] FW: Letter from GAC Chair to GNSO Chair - GAC input on SubPro recommendations marked as pending Many thanks Sebastien, especially for clarifying all the timing in the Board Resolution re Sub Pro, and thank you, Jeff, for your comment. I do not think it will be appropriate to add this March 23 GAC letter to the task for those who will be responding to the GAC Communique. The reason is that these March 23 letter stating items of importance to the GAC are ALL related to the process being followed in the Sub Pro Triage Small Team and cannot be adequately addressed until that Team has made a recommendation to the GNSO Council as a whole. Just to recap, a short list of certain items called out by the GAC in this letter appears below. The Triage Small Team has three 90 minute meetings set in the next ten days and will certainly need to consider this GAC letter in its discussions and recommendations to Council concerning this list of items. (my own notes on the items appear in parentheses following the listed topic.) ● Predictability - (GAC appears most concerned about its own representation on the SPIRT.) ● Public Interest Commitments (PICs)/Registry Voluntary Commitments (RVCs) - (GAC appears more concerned about enforceability of PICs and deficiencies in the PIC Dispute Resolution Process than it does about RVCs. GAC likely is aware that RVCs can be used to resolve GAC Early Warnings and may well support the ByLaws amendment the Board reps have discussed.) ● Closed Generics - (This GAC letter makes clear that the GAC is reiterating its Beijing advice that Closed Generics must serve a public interest goal. Nothing is said about changing that advice to "serve the Global Public Interest." I think that is positive in terms of the direction of future policy work.) ● Applicant Support Program - (This seems to be on track with the GGP - no big disagreement here.) ● Auctions - (GAC is apparently expressing support for the ALAC view against private auctions.) ● GAC Consensus Advice/GAC Early Warnings - (GAC objects to the time limit in the Sub Pro Final Report on issuing Early Warnings and states this is outside the ByLaws. GAC members are divided on the issue of whether the presumption against a TLD should lie if there is a GAC warning on it. To my mind, that likely means that GAC Consensus Advice on that point alone is unlikely. The last point is that when an Early Warning issues, the Final Report says the GAC Warning has to say why. and how the concern can be addressed. GAC wants to modify that to state they only have to say how it can be addressed "if feasible" to address it.) ● Community Applications - (It looks to me as though this is not problematic as to policy. The GAC supports the Final Report and even supports the new appeals process contained in the Final Report. Support of the appeals process appears significant.) ● Name collisions - (The GAC supports Recommendation 29.1 requiring a system for testing Name Collisions prior to the launch of the next round. They are also calling out two pieces of Implementation Guidance. I am active on the Name Collision Analysis Project Discussion Group. I think the DG is getting closer to a consensus solution to this issue and this will be apparent when Study 2 is put out for public comment. However, a question here might be whether the Sub Pro Final Report "fallback" to 90-day controlled interruption might be considered to meet the requirement of Recommendation 29.1 that ICANN MUST have a system in place for EVALUATING name collisions before the next round moves forward. The word, "MUST", has a special meaning in the Sub Pro Final Report..) The other topic not listed specifically as a bullet point in the letter is DNS Abuse. The GAC states that it is disappointed this was not addressed by Sub Pro. During our deliberations, Sub Pro Leadership had written to the GNSO Council that it considered that DNS Abuse would have to be addressed in relation to all existing gTLDs, not just the next round of TLDs and so Leadership believed this to be out of scope. The GAC reiterates its concern that DNS Abuse must be addressed before another round of TLDs is launched. I welcome any other comments on this GAC letter, but it's clear these comments must be considered in the context of the work of the Triage Small Team on pending Sub Pro issues. These are not appropriate topics for the response to the GAC Communique. The appropriate Response there is to say that the Small Team s working on a recommendation to Council as to how to proceed to resolve the 38 pending issues which it hopes to provide before the April Council meeting. Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2024 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 1:22 PM Sebastien--- via council <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> wrote: Dear Council Colleagues, Please find attached the GAC letter we just received pertaining to GAC Input on GAC Priority Topics Relative to SubPro Recommendations Marked as “Pending”. Kindly, Sebastien Ducos GoDaddy Registry | Senior Client Services Manager [signature_3228380999] +33612284445 France & Australia sebastien@registry.godaddy<mailto:sebastien@registry.godaddy> From: Gnso-chairs <gnso-chairs-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-chairs-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Benedetta Rossi via Gnso-chairs <gnso-chairs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-chairs@icann.org>> Date: Thursday, 23 March 2023 at 8:54 pm To: gnso-chairs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-chairs@icann.org> <gnso-chairs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-chairs@icann.org>> Cc: gac-staff@icann.org<mailto:gac-staff@icann.org> <gac-staff@icann.org<mailto:gac-staff@icann.org>>, gac-leadership@icann.org<mailto:gac-leadership@icann.org> <gac-leadership@icann.org<mailto:gac-leadership@icann.org>> Subject: [gnso-chairs] Letter from GAC Chair to GNSO Chair - GAC input on SubPro recommendations marked as pending Caution: This email is from an external sender. Please do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Forward suspicious emails to isitbad@. Dear Sebastien, On behalf of the GAC Chair, Nicolas Caballero, please find attached a letter pertaining to GAC Input on GAC Priority Topics Relative to SubPro Recommendations Marked as “Pending”. Thank you, Kind regards, Benedetta -- Benedetta Rossi | GAC Advice and Policy Support, Senior Manager benedetta.rossi@icann.org<mailto:benedetta.rossi@icann.org> | +32.491.90.42.50 ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers _______________________________________________ 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. This email originated from outside the firm. Please use caution.
See previous response. Basically this letter from the GAC just repeats what is in the communique. Therefore, however we respond in the communique (like in my last email), that would suffice for our first (non-substantive) response to the GAC on this letter. I hope that clarifies things. [cid:image002.png@01D960C6.DBE3A2A0] Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC p: +1.202.549.5079 E: jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com> http://jjnsolutions.com From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> On Behalf Of Paul McGrady via council Sent: Monday, March 27, 2023 2:29 PM To: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com>; Sebastien@registry.godaddy Cc: gnso-secs@icann.org; GNSO-Chairs <gnso-chairs@icann.org>; COUNCIL@GNSO.ICANN.ORG Subject: Re: [council] FW: Letter from GAC Chair to GNSO Chair - GAC input on SubPro recommendations marked as pending +1 Anne. It isn’t efficient or appropriate for the GAC response letter team to pre-create the work of the Next Application Process (the “NAP”) small team (my suggestion for its name). We already have a process in place for this and other substantive work. The GAC letter team should just note that this issue is being looked at by the NAP and that the GAC will be kept informed in the usual ways. Best, Paul From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org>> On Behalf Of Anne ICANN via council Sent: Monday, March 27, 2023 1:12 PM To: Sebastien@registry.godaddy<mailto:Sebastien@registry.godaddy> Cc: gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>; GNSO-Chairs <gnso-chairs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-chairs@icann.org>>; COUNCIL@GNSO.ICANN.ORG<mailto:COUNCIL@GNSO.ICANN.ORG> Subject: Re: [council] FW: Letter from GAC Chair to GNSO Chair - GAC input on SubPro recommendations marked as pending Many thanks Sebastien, especially for clarifying all the timing in the Board Resolution re Sub Pro, and thank you, Jeff, for your comment. I do not think it will be appropriate to add this March 23 GAC letter to the task for those who will be responding to the GAC Communique. The reason is that these March 23 letter stating items of importance to the GAC are ALL related to the process being followed in the Sub Pro Triage Small Team and cannot be adequately addressed until that Team has made a recommendation to the GNSO Council as a whole. Just to recap, a short list of certain items called out by the GAC in this letter appears below. The Triage Small Team has three 90 minute meetings set in the next ten days and will certainly need to consider this GAC letter in its discussions and recommendations to Council concerning this list of items. (my own notes on the items appear in parentheses following the listed topic.) ● Predictability - (GAC appears most concerned about its own representation on the SPIRT.) ● Public Interest Commitments (PICs)/Registry Voluntary Commitments (RVCs) - (GAC appears more concerned about enforceability of PICs and deficiencies in the PIC Dispute Resolution Process than it does about RVCs. GAC likely is aware that RVCs can be used to resolve GAC Early Warnings and may well support the ByLaws amendment the Board reps have discussed.) ● Closed Generics - (This GAC letter makes clear that the GAC is reiterating its Beijing advice that Closed Generics must serve a public interest goal. Nothing is said about changing that advice to "serve the Global Public Interest." I think that is positive in terms of the direction of future policy work.) ● Applicant Support Program - (This seems to be on track with the GGP - no big disagreement here.) ● Auctions - (GAC is apparently expressing support for the ALAC view against private auctions.) ● GAC Consensus Advice/GAC Early Warnings - (GAC objects to the time limit in the Sub Pro Final Report on issuing Early Warnings and states this is outside the ByLaws. GAC members are divided on the issue of whether the presumption against a TLD should lie if there is a GAC warning on it. To my mind, that likely means that GAC Consensus Advice on that point alone is unlikely. The last point is that when an Early Warning issues, the Final Report says the GAC Warning has to say why. and how the concern can be addressed. GAC wants to modify that to state they only have to say how it can be addressed "if feasible" to address it.) ● Community Applications - (It looks to me as though this is not problematic as to policy. The GAC supports the Final Report and even supports the new appeals process contained in the Final Report. Support of the appeals process appears significant.) ● Name collisions - (The GAC supports Recommendation 29.1 requiring a system for testing Name Collisions prior to the launch of the next round. They are also calling out two pieces of Implementation Guidance. I am active on the Name Collision Analysis Project Discussion Group. I think the DG is getting closer to a consensus solution to this issue and this will be apparent when Study 2 is put out for public comment. However, a question here might be whether the Sub Pro Final Report "fallback" to 90-day controlled interruption might be considered to meet the requirement of Recommendation 29.1 that ICANN MUST have a system in place for EVALUATING name collisions before the next round moves forward. The word, "MUST", has a special meaning in the Sub Pro Final Report..) The other topic not listed specifically as a bullet point in the letter is DNS Abuse. The GAC states that it is disappointed this was not addressed by Sub Pro. During our deliberations, Sub Pro Leadership had written to the GNSO Council that it considered that DNS Abuse would have to be addressed in relation to all existing gTLDs, not just the next round of TLDs and so Leadership believed this to be out of scope. The GAC reiterates its concern that DNS Abuse must be addressed before another round of TLDs is launched. I welcome any other comments on this GAC letter, but it's clear these comments must be considered in the context of the work of the Triage Small Team on pending Sub Pro issues. These are not appropriate topics for the response to the GAC Communique. The appropriate Response there is to say that the Small Team s working on a recommendation to Council as to how to proceed to resolve the 38 pending issues which it hopes to provide before the April Council meeting. Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2024 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 1:22 PM Sebastien--- via council <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> wrote: Dear Council Colleagues, Please find attached the GAC letter we just received pertaining to GAC Input on GAC Priority Topics Relative to SubPro Recommendations Marked as “Pending”. Kindly, Sebastien Ducos GoDaddy Registry | Senior Client Services Manager [signature_3228380999] +33612284445 France & Australia sebastien@registry.godaddy<mailto:sebastien@registry.godaddy> From: Gnso-chairs <gnso-chairs-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-chairs-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Benedetta Rossi via Gnso-chairs <gnso-chairs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-chairs@icann.org>> Date: Thursday, 23 March 2023 at 8:54 pm To: gnso-chairs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-chairs@icann.org> <gnso-chairs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-chairs@icann.org>> Cc: gac-staff@icann.org<mailto:gac-staff@icann.org> <gac-staff@icann.org<mailto:gac-staff@icann.org>>, gac-leadership@icann.org<mailto:gac-leadership@icann.org> <gac-leadership@icann.org<mailto:gac-leadership@icann.org>> Subject: [gnso-chairs] Letter from GAC Chair to GNSO Chair - GAC input on SubPro recommendations marked as pending Caution: This email is from an external sender. Please do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Forward suspicious emails to isitbad@. Dear Sebastien, On behalf of the GAC Chair, Nicolas Caballero, please find attached a letter pertaining to GAC Input on GAC Priority Topics Relative to SubPro Recommendations Marked as “Pending”. Thank you, Kind regards, Benedetta -- Benedetta Rossi | GAC Advice and Policy Support, Senior Manager benedetta.rossi@icann.org<mailto:benedetta.rossi@icann.org> | +32.491.90.42.50 ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers _______________________________________________ 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. This email originated from outside the firm. Please use caution.
Thanks Anne. Let me clarify. I was not at all insinuating that we solve all of these things for the GAC Communique Response. That would be impossible. But my guess was that in the communique response we would say something like “Thank you for the list of topics of GAC Concern”, we have assigned these issues amongst others to a small team of the Council to consider…. Or something like that. In other words, there is no need to respond to the Communique AND to send a separate response to the GAC list of topics. [cid:image001.png@01D960C6.AC3E5EA0] Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC p: +1.202.549.5079 E: jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com> http://jjnsolutions.com From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> On Behalf Of Anne ICANN via council Sent: Monday, March 27, 2023 2:12 PM To: Sebastien@registry.godaddy Cc: gnso-secs@icann.org; GNSO-Chairs <gnso-chairs@icann.org>; COUNCIL@GNSO.ICANN.ORG Subject: Re: [council] FW: Letter from GAC Chair to GNSO Chair - GAC input on SubPro recommendations marked as pending Many thanks Sebastien, especially for clarifying all the timing in the Board Resolution re Sub Pro, and thank you, Jeff, for your comment. I do not think it will be appropriate to add this March 23 GAC letter to the task for those who will be responding to the GAC Communique. The reason is that these March 23 letter stating items of importance to the GAC are ALL related to the process being followed in the Sub Pro Triage Small Team and cannot be adequately addressed until that Team has made a recommendation to the GNSO Council as a whole. Just to recap, a short list of certain items called out by the GAC in this letter appears below. The Triage Small Team has three 90 minute meetings set in the next ten days and will certainly need to consider this GAC letter in its discussions and recommendations to Council concerning this list of items. (my own notes on the items appear in parentheses following the listed topic.) ● Predictability - (GAC appears most concerned about its own representation on the SPIRT.) ● Public Interest Commitments (PICs)/Registry Voluntary Commitments (RVCs) - (GAC appears more concerned about enforceability of PICs and deficiencies in the PIC Dispute Resolution Process than it does about RVCs. GAC likely is aware that RVCs can be used to resolve GAC Early Warnings and may well support the ByLaws amendment the Board reps have discussed.) ● Closed Generics - (This GAC letter makes clear that the GAC is reiterating its Beijing advice that Closed Generics must serve a public interest goal. Nothing is said about changing that advice to "serve the Global Public Interest." I think that is positive in terms of the direction of future policy work.) ● Applicant Support Program - (This seems to be on track with the GGP - no big disagreement here.) ● Auctions - (GAC is apparently expressing support for the ALAC view against private auctions.) ● GAC Consensus Advice/GAC Early Warnings - (GAC objects to the time limit in the Sub Pro Final Report on issuing Early Warnings and states this is outside the ByLaws. GAC members are divided on the issue of whether the presumption against a TLD should lie if there is a GAC warning on it. To my mind, that likely means that GAC Consensus Advice on that point alone is unlikely. The last point is that when an Early Warning issues, the Final Report says the GAC Warning has to say why. and how the concern can be addressed. GAC wants to modify that to state they only have to say how it can be addressed "if feasible" to address it.) ● Community Applications - (It looks to me as though this is not problematic as to policy. The GAC supports the Final Report and even supports the new appeals process contained in the Final Report. Support of the appeals process appears significant.) ● Name collisions - (The GAC supports Recommendation 29.1 requiring a system for testing Name Collisions prior to the launch of the next round. They are also calling out two pieces of Implementation Guidance. I am active on the Name Collision Analysis Project Discussion Group. I think the DG is getting closer to a consensus solution to this issue and this will be apparent when Study 2 is put out for public comment. However, a question here might be whether the Sub Pro Final Report "fallback" to 90-day controlled interruption might be considered to meet the requirement of Recommendation 29.1 that ICANN MUST have a system in place for EVALUATING name collisions before the next round moves forward. The word, "MUST", has a special meaning in the Sub Pro Final Report..) The other topic not listed specifically as a bullet point in the letter is DNS Abuse. The GAC states that it is disappointed this was not addressed by Sub Pro. During our deliberations, Sub Pro Leadership had written to the GNSO Council that it considered that DNS Abuse would have to be addressed in relation to all existing gTLDs, not just the next round of TLDs and so Leadership believed this to be out of scope. The GAC reiterates its concern that DNS Abuse must be addressed before another round of TLDs is launched. I welcome any other comments on this GAC letter, but it's clear these comments must be considered in the context of the work of the Triage Small Team on pending Sub Pro issues. These are not appropriate topics for the response to the GAC Communique. The appropriate Response there is to say that the Small Team s working on a recommendation to Council as to how to proceed to resolve the 38 pending issues which it hopes to provide before the April Council meeting. Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2024 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 1:22 PM Sebastien--- via council <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> wrote: Dear Council Colleagues, Please find attached the GAC letter we just received pertaining to GAC Input on GAC Priority Topics Relative to SubPro Recommendations Marked as “Pending”. Kindly, Sebastien Ducos GoDaddy Registry | Senior Client Services Manager [signature_3228380999] +33612284445 France & Australia sebastien@registry.godaddy<mailto:sebastien@registry.godaddy> From: Gnso-chairs <gnso-chairs-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-chairs-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Benedetta Rossi via Gnso-chairs <gnso-chairs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-chairs@icann.org>> Date: Thursday, 23 March 2023 at 8:54 pm To: gnso-chairs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-chairs@icann.org> <gnso-chairs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-chairs@icann.org>> Cc: gac-staff@icann.org<mailto:gac-staff@icann.org> <gac-staff@icann.org<mailto:gac-staff@icann.org>>, gac-leadership@icann.org<mailto:gac-leadership@icann.org> <gac-leadership@icann.org<mailto:gac-leadership@icann.org>> Subject: [gnso-chairs] Letter from GAC Chair to GNSO Chair - GAC input on SubPro recommendations marked as pending Caution: This email is from an external sender. Please do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Forward suspicious emails to isitbad@. Dear Sebastien, On behalf of the GAC Chair, Nicolas Caballero, please find attached a letter pertaining to GAC Input on GAC Priority Topics Relative to SubPro Recommendations Marked as “Pending”. Thank you, Kind regards, Benedetta -- Benedetta Rossi | GAC Advice and Policy Support, Senior Manager benedetta.rossi@icann.org<mailto:benedetta.rossi@icann.org> | +32.491.90.42.50 ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers _______________________________________________ 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.
Thanks Jeff. That sounds right. Thanks, Council is handling these through the auspices of Small Team X, etc. etc. Best, Paul From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman via council Sent: Monday, March 27, 2023 3:11 PM To: Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com>; Sebastien@registry.godaddy Cc: gnso-secs@icann.org; GNSO-Chairs <gnso-chairs@icann.org>; COUNCIL@GNSO.ICANN.ORG Subject: Re: [council] FW: Letter from GAC Chair to GNSO Chair - GAC input on SubPro recommendations marked as pending Thanks Anne. Let me clarify. I was not at all insinuating that we solve all of these things for the GAC Communique Response. That would be impossible. But my guess was that in the communique response we would say something like “Thank you for the list of topics of GAC Concern”, we have assigned these issues amongst others to a small team of the Council to consider…. Or something like that. In other words, there is no need to respond to the Communique AND to send a separate response to the GAC list of topics. [cid:image001.png@01D960C0.FA175240] Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC p: +1.202.549.5079 E: jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com> http://jjnsolutions.com From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org>> On Behalf Of Anne ICANN via council Sent: Monday, March 27, 2023 2:12 PM To: Sebastien@registry.godaddy<mailto:Sebastien@registry.godaddy> Cc: gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>; GNSO-Chairs <gnso-chairs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-chairs@icann.org>>; COUNCIL@GNSO.ICANN.ORG<mailto:COUNCIL@GNSO.ICANN.ORG> Subject: Re: [council] FW: Letter from GAC Chair to GNSO Chair - GAC input on SubPro recommendations marked as pending Many thanks Sebastien, especially for clarifying all the timing in the Board Resolution re Sub Pro, and thank you, Jeff, for your comment. I do not think it will be appropriate to add this March 23 GAC letter to the task for those who will be responding to the GAC Communique. The reason is that these March 23 letter stating items of importance to the GAC are ALL related to the process being followed in the Sub Pro Triage Small Team and cannot be adequately addressed until that Team has made a recommendation to the GNSO Council as a whole. Just to recap, a short list of certain items called out by the GAC in this letter appears below. The Triage Small Team has three 90 minute meetings set in the next ten days and will certainly need to consider this GAC letter in its discussions and recommendations to Council concerning this list of items. (my own notes on the items appear in parentheses following the listed topic.) ● Predictability - (GAC appears most concerned about its own representation on the SPIRT.) ● Public Interest Commitments (PICs)/Registry Voluntary Commitments (RVCs) - (GAC appears more concerned about enforceability of PICs and deficiencies in the PIC Dispute Resolution Process than it does about RVCs. GAC likely is aware that RVCs can be used to resolve GAC Early Warnings and may well support the ByLaws amendment the Board reps have discussed.) ● Closed Generics - (This GAC letter makes clear that the GAC is reiterating its Beijing advice that Closed Generics must serve a public interest goal. Nothing is said about changing that advice to "serve the Global Public Interest." I think that is positive in terms of the direction of future policy work.) ● Applicant Support Program - (This seems to be on track with the GGP - no big disagreement here.) ● Auctions - (GAC is apparently expressing support for the ALAC view against private auctions.) ● GAC Consensus Advice/GAC Early Warnings - (GAC objects to the time limit in the Sub Pro Final Report on issuing Early Warnings and states this is outside the ByLaws. GAC members are divided on the issue of whether the presumption against a TLD should lie if there is a GAC warning on it. To my mind, that likely means that GAC Consensus Advice on that point alone is unlikely. The last point is that when an Early Warning issues, the Final Report says the GAC Warning has to say why. and how the concern can be addressed. GAC wants to modify that to state they only have to say how it can be addressed "if feasible" to address it.) ● Community Applications - (It looks to me as though this is not problematic as to policy. The GAC supports the Final Report and even supports the new appeals process contained in the Final Report. Support of the appeals process appears significant.) ● Name collisions - (The GAC supports Recommendation 29.1 requiring a system for testing Name Collisions prior to the launch of the next round. They are also calling out two pieces of Implementation Guidance. I am active on the Name Collision Analysis Project Discussion Group. I think the DG is getting closer to a consensus solution to this issue and this will be apparent when Study 2 is put out for public comment. However, a question here might be whether the Sub Pro Final Report "fallback" to 90-day controlled interruption might be considered to meet the requirement of Recommendation 29.1 that ICANN MUST have a system in place for EVALUATING name collisions before the next round moves forward. The word, "MUST", has a special meaning in the Sub Pro Final Report..) The other topic not listed specifically as a bullet point in the letter is DNS Abuse. The GAC states that it is disappointed this was not addressed by Sub Pro. During our deliberations, Sub Pro Leadership had written to the GNSO Council that it considered that DNS Abuse would have to be addressed in relation to all existing gTLDs, not just the next round of TLDs and so Leadership believed this to be out of scope. The GAC reiterates its concern that DNS Abuse must be addressed before another round of TLDs is launched. I welcome any other comments on this GAC letter, but it's clear these comments must be considered in the context of the work of the Triage Small Team on pending Sub Pro issues. These are not appropriate topics for the response to the GAC Communique. The appropriate Response there is to say that the Small Team s working on a recommendation to Council as to how to proceed to resolve the 38 pending issues which it hopes to provide before the April Council meeting. Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2024 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 1:22 PM Sebastien--- via council <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> wrote: Dear Council Colleagues, Please find attached the GAC letter we just received pertaining to GAC Input on GAC Priority Topics Relative to SubPro Recommendations Marked as “Pending”. Kindly, Sebastien Ducos GoDaddy Registry | Senior Client Services Manager [signature_3228380999] +33612284445 France & Australia sebastien@registry.godaddy<mailto:sebastien@registry.godaddy> From: Gnso-chairs <gnso-chairs-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-chairs-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Benedetta Rossi via Gnso-chairs <gnso-chairs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-chairs@icann.org>> Date: Thursday, 23 March 2023 at 8:54 pm To: gnso-chairs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-chairs@icann.org> <gnso-chairs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-chairs@icann.org>> Cc: gac-staff@icann.org<mailto:gac-staff@icann.org> <gac-staff@icann.org<mailto:gac-staff@icann.org>>, gac-leadership@icann.org<mailto:gac-leadership@icann.org> <gac-leadership@icann.org<mailto:gac-leadership@icann.org>> Subject: [gnso-chairs] Letter from GAC Chair to GNSO Chair - GAC input on SubPro recommendations marked as pending Caution: This email is from an external sender. Please do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Forward suspicious emails to isitbad@. Dear Sebastien, On behalf of the GAC Chair, Nicolas Caballero, please find attached a letter pertaining to GAC Input on GAC Priority Topics Relative to SubPro Recommendations Marked as “Pending”. Thank you, Kind regards, Benedetta -- Benedetta Rossi | GAC Advice and Policy Support, Senior Manager benedetta.rossi@icann.org<mailto:benedetta.rossi@icann.org> | +32.491.90.42.50 ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers _______________________________________________ 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. This email originated from outside the firm. Please use caution.
Thanks Paul and Jeff. I would like to suggest that this letter and the list of GAC concerns be addressed at the top of our next Sub Pro Pending Issues Small Team meeting. - on Tuesday That may be out of order for the 38 issues but I think it's a priority to understand what the Small Team is going to recommend to the Board on these issues. As you know, I've provided short comments on the GAC listed issues below. Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2024 anneicanngnso@gmail.com On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 1:29 PM Paul McGrady <paul@elstermcgrady.com> wrote:
Thanks Jeff. That sounds right. Thanks, Council is handling these through the auspices of Small Team X, etc. etc.
Best,
Paul
*From:* council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Jeff Neuman via council *Sent:* Monday, March 27, 2023 3:11 PM *To:* Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com>; Sebastien@registry.godaddy *Cc:* gnso-secs@icann.org; GNSO-Chairs <gnso-chairs@icann.org>; COUNCIL@GNSO.ICANN.ORG *Subject:* Re: [council] FW: Letter from GAC Chair to GNSO Chair - GAC input on SubPro recommendations marked as pending
Thanks Anne. Let me clarify. I was not at all insinuating that we solve all of these things for the GAC Communique Response. That would be impossible.
But my guess was that in the communique response we would say something like “Thank you for the list of topics of GAC Concern”, we have assigned these issues amongst others to a small team of the Council to consider….
Or something like that.
In other words, there is no need to respond to the Communique AND to send a separate response to the GAC list of topics.
Jeffrey J. Neuman
Founder & CEO
JJN Solutions, LLC
p: +1.202.549.5079
E: jeff@jjnsolutions.com
*From:* council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Anne ICANN via council *Sent:* Monday, March 27, 2023 2:12 PM *To:* Sebastien@registry.godaddy *Cc:* gnso-secs@icann.org; GNSO-Chairs <gnso-chairs@icann.org>; COUNCIL@GNSO.ICANN.ORG *Subject:* Re: [council] FW: Letter from GAC Chair to GNSO Chair - GAC input on SubPro recommendations marked as pending
Many thanks Sebastien, especially for clarifying all the timing in the Board Resolution re Sub Pro, and thank you, Jeff, for your comment. I do not think it will be appropriate to add this March 23 GAC letter to the task for those who will be responding to the GAC Communique. The reason is that these March 23 letter stating items of importance to the GAC are ALL related to the process being followed in the Sub Pro Triage Small Team and cannot be adequately addressed until that Team has made a recommendation to the GNSO Council as a whole.
Just to recap, a short list of certain items called out by the GAC in this letter appears below. The Triage Small Team has three 90 minute meetings set in the next ten days and will certainly need to consider this GAC letter in its discussions and recommendations to Council concerning this list of items. (my own notes on the items appear in parentheses following the listed topic.)
● Predictability - (GAC appears most concerned about its own representation on the SPIRT.)
● Public Interest Commitments (PICs)/Registry Voluntary Commitments (RVCs) - (GAC appears more concerned about enforceability of PICs and deficiencies in the PIC Dispute Resolution Process than it does about RVCs. GAC likely is aware that RVCs can be used to resolve GAC Early Warnings and may well support the ByLaws amendment the Board reps have discussed.)
● Closed Generics - (This GAC letter makes clear that the GAC is reiterating its Beijing advice that Closed Generics must serve a public interest goal. Nothing is said about changing that advice to "serve the Global Public Interest." I think that is positive in terms of the direction of future policy work.)
● Applicant Support Program - (This seems to be on track with the GGP - no big disagreement here.)
● Auctions - (GAC is apparently expressing support for the ALAC view against private auctions.)
● GAC Consensus Advice/GAC Early Warnings - (GAC objects to the time limit in the Sub Pro Final Report on issuing Early Warnings and states this is outside the ByLaws. GAC members are divided on the issue of whether the presumption against a TLD should lie if there is a GAC warning on it. To my mind, that likely means that GAC Consensus Advice on that point alone is unlikely. The last point is that when an Early Warning issues, the Final Report says the GAC Warning has to say why. and how the concern can be addressed. GAC wants to modify that to state they only have to say how it can be addressed "if feasible" to address it.)
● Community Applications - (It looks to me as though this is not problematic as to policy. The GAC supports the Final Report and even supports the new appeals process contained in the Final Report. Support of the appeals process appears significant.)
● Name collisions - (The GAC supports Recommendation 29.1 requiring a system for testing Name Collisions prior to the launch of the next round. They are also calling out two pieces of Implementation Guidance. I am active on the Name Collision Analysis Project Discussion Group. I think the DG is getting closer to a consensus solution to this issue and this will be apparent when Study 2 is put out for public comment. However, a question here might be whether the Sub Pro Final Report "fallback" to 90-day controlled interruption might be considered to meet the requirement of Recommendation 29.1 that ICANN MUST have a system in place for EVALUATING name collisions before the next round moves forward. The word, "MUST", has a special meaning in the Sub Pro Final Report..)
The other topic not listed specifically as a bullet point in the letter is DNS Abuse. The GAC states that it is disappointed this was not addressed by Sub Pro. During our deliberations, Sub Pro Leadership had written to the GNSO Council that it considered that DNS Abuse would have to be addressed in relation to all existing gTLDs, not just the next round of TLDs and so Leadership believed this to be out of scope. The GAC reiterates its concern that DNS Abuse must be addressed before another round of TLDs is launched.
I welcome any other comments on this GAC letter, but it's clear these comments must be considered in the context of the work of the Triage Small Team on pending Sub Pro issues. These are not appropriate topics for the response to the GAC Communique. The appropriate Response there is to say that the Small Team s working on a recommendation to Council as to how to proceed to resolve the 38 pending issues which it hopes to provide before the April Council meeting.
Anne
Anne Aikman-Scalese
GNSO Councilor
NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2024
anneicanngnso@gmail.com
On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 1:22 PM Sebastien--- via council < council@gnso.icann.org> wrote:
Dear Council Colleagues,
Please find attached the GAC letter we just received pertaining to GAC Input on GAC Priority Topics Relative to SubPro Recommendations Marked as “Pending”.
Kindly,
*Sebastien Ducos*
GoDaddy Registry | Senior Client Services Manager
[image: signature_3228380999]
+33612284445
France & Australia
sebastien@registry.godaddy
*From: *Gnso-chairs <gnso-chairs-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Benedetta Rossi via Gnso-chairs <gnso-chairs@icann.org> *Date: *Thursday, 23 March 2023 at 8:54 pm *To: *gnso-chairs@icann.org <gnso-chairs@icann.org> *Cc: *gac-staff@icann.org <gac-staff@icann.org>, gac-leadership@icann.org <gac-leadership@icann.org> *Subject: *[gnso-chairs] Letter from GAC Chair to GNSO Chair - GAC input on SubPro recommendations marked as pending
Caution: This email is from an external sender. Please do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Forward suspicious emails to isitbad@.
Dear Sebastien,
On behalf of the GAC Chair, Nicolas Caballero, please find attached a letter pertaining to GAC Input on GAC Priority Topics Relative to SubPro Recommendations Marked as “Pending”.
Thank you,
Kind regards,
Benedetta
--
*Benedetta Rossi *| GAC Advice and Policy Support, Senior Manager
benedetta.rossi@icann.org | +32.491.90.42.50
*ICANN* | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
_______________________________________________ council mailing list 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.
This email originated from outside the firm. Please use caution.
Correction - what the Small Team on Sub Pro is going to recommend to the Council to respond to the Board in relation to the listed GAC issues of concern. Just thinking we should discuss at the top of our meeting tomorrow. Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2024 anneicanngnso@gmail.com On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 2:26 PM Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks Paul and Jeff. I would like to suggest that this letter and the list of GAC concerns be addressed at the top of our next Sub Pro Pending Issues Small Team meeting. - on Tuesday That may be out of order for the 38 issues but I think it's a priority to understand what the Small Team is going to recommend to the Board on these issues. As you know, I've provided short comments on the GAC listed issues below.
Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2024 anneicanngnso@gmail.com
On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 1:29 PM Paul McGrady <paul@elstermcgrady.com> wrote:
Thanks Jeff. That sounds right. Thanks, Council is handling these through the auspices of Small Team X, etc. etc.
Best,
Paul
*From:* council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Jeff Neuman via council *Sent:* Monday, March 27, 2023 3:11 PM *To:* Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso@gmail.com>; Sebastien@registry.godaddy *Cc:* gnso-secs@icann.org; GNSO-Chairs <gnso-chairs@icann.org>; COUNCIL@GNSO.ICANN.ORG *Subject:* Re: [council] FW: Letter from GAC Chair to GNSO Chair - GAC input on SubPro recommendations marked as pending
Thanks Anne. Let me clarify. I was not at all insinuating that we solve all of these things for the GAC Communique Response. That would be impossible.
But my guess was that in the communique response we would say something like “Thank you for the list of topics of GAC Concern”, we have assigned these issues amongst others to a small team of the Council to consider….
Or something like that.
In other words, there is no need to respond to the Communique AND to send a separate response to the GAC list of topics.
Jeffrey J. Neuman
Founder & CEO
JJN Solutions, LLC
p: +1.202.549.5079
E: jeff@jjnsolutions.com
*From:* council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Anne ICANN via council *Sent:* Monday, March 27, 2023 2:12 PM *To:* Sebastien@registry.godaddy *Cc:* gnso-secs@icann.org; GNSO-Chairs <gnso-chairs@icann.org>; COUNCIL@GNSO.ICANN.ORG *Subject:* Re: [council] FW: Letter from GAC Chair to GNSO Chair - GAC input on SubPro recommendations marked as pending
Many thanks Sebastien, especially for clarifying all the timing in the Board Resolution re Sub Pro, and thank you, Jeff, for your comment. I do not think it will be appropriate to add this March 23 GAC letter to the task for those who will be responding to the GAC Communique. The reason is that these March 23 letter stating items of importance to the GAC are ALL related to the process being followed in the Sub Pro Triage Small Team and cannot be adequately addressed until that Team has made a recommendation to the GNSO Council as a whole.
Just to recap, a short list of certain items called out by the GAC in this letter appears below. The Triage Small Team has three 90 minute meetings set in the next ten days and will certainly need to consider this GAC letter in its discussions and recommendations to Council concerning this list of items. (my own notes on the items appear in parentheses following the listed topic.)
● Predictability - (GAC appears most concerned about its own representation on the SPIRT.)
● Public Interest Commitments (PICs)/Registry Voluntary Commitments (RVCs) - (GAC appears more concerned about enforceability of PICs and deficiencies in the PIC Dispute Resolution Process than it does about RVCs. GAC likely is aware that RVCs can be used to resolve GAC Early Warnings and may well support the ByLaws amendment the Board reps have discussed.)
● Closed Generics - (This GAC letter makes clear that the GAC is reiterating its Beijing advice that Closed Generics must serve a public interest goal. Nothing is said about changing that advice to "serve the Global Public Interest." I think that is positive in terms of the direction of future policy work.)
● Applicant Support Program - (This seems to be on track with the GGP - no big disagreement here.)
● Auctions - (GAC is apparently expressing support for the ALAC view against private auctions.)
● GAC Consensus Advice/GAC Early Warnings - (GAC objects to the time limit in the Sub Pro Final Report on issuing Early Warnings and states this is outside the ByLaws. GAC members are divided on the issue of whether the presumption against a TLD should lie if there is a GAC warning on it. To my mind, that likely means that GAC Consensus Advice on that point alone is unlikely. The last point is that when an Early Warning issues, the Final Report says the GAC Warning has to say why. and how the concern can be addressed. GAC wants to modify that to state they only have to say how it can be addressed "if feasible" to address it.)
● Community Applications - (It looks to me as though this is not problematic as to policy. The GAC supports the Final Report and even supports the new appeals process contained in the Final Report. Support of the appeals process appears significant.)
● Name collisions - (The GAC supports Recommendation 29.1 requiring a system for testing Name Collisions prior to the launch of the next round. They are also calling out two pieces of Implementation Guidance. I am active on the Name Collision Analysis Project Discussion Group. I think the DG is getting closer to a consensus solution to this issue and this will be apparent when Study 2 is put out for public comment. However, a question here might be whether the Sub Pro Final Report "fallback" to 90-day controlled interruption might be considered to meet the requirement of Recommendation 29.1 that ICANN MUST have a system in place for EVALUATING name collisions before the next round moves forward. The word, "MUST", has a special meaning in the Sub Pro Final Report..)
The other topic not listed specifically as a bullet point in the letter is DNS Abuse. The GAC states that it is disappointed this was not addressed by Sub Pro. During our deliberations, Sub Pro Leadership had written to the GNSO Council that it considered that DNS Abuse would have to be addressed in relation to all existing gTLDs, not just the next round of TLDs and so Leadership believed this to be out of scope. The GAC reiterates its concern that DNS Abuse must be addressed before another round of TLDs is launched.
I welcome any other comments on this GAC letter, but it's clear these comments must be considered in the context of the work of the Triage Small Team on pending Sub Pro issues. These are not appropriate topics for the response to the GAC Communique. The appropriate Response there is to say that the Small Team s working on a recommendation to Council as to how to proceed to resolve the 38 pending issues which it hopes to provide before the April Council meeting.
Anne
Anne Aikman-Scalese
GNSO Councilor
NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2024
anneicanngnso@gmail.com
On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 1:22 PM Sebastien--- via council < council@gnso.icann.org> wrote:
Dear Council Colleagues,
Please find attached the GAC letter we just received pertaining to GAC Input on GAC Priority Topics Relative to SubPro Recommendations Marked as “Pending”.
Kindly,
*Sebastien Ducos*
GoDaddy Registry | Senior Client Services Manager
[image: signature_3228380999]
+33612284445
France & Australia
sebastien@registry.godaddy
*From: *Gnso-chairs <gnso-chairs-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Benedetta Rossi via Gnso-chairs <gnso-chairs@icann.org> *Date: *Thursday, 23 March 2023 at 8:54 pm *To: *gnso-chairs@icann.org <gnso-chairs@icann.org> *Cc: *gac-staff@icann.org <gac-staff@icann.org>, gac-leadership@icann.org <gac-leadership@icann.org> *Subject: *[gnso-chairs] Letter from GAC Chair to GNSO Chair - GAC input on SubPro recommendations marked as pending
Caution: This email is from an external sender. Please do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Forward suspicious emails to isitbad@.
Dear Sebastien,
On behalf of the GAC Chair, Nicolas Caballero, please find attached a letter pertaining to GAC Input on GAC Priority Topics Relative to SubPro Recommendations Marked as “Pending”.
Thank you,
Kind regards,
Benedetta
--
*Benedetta Rossi *| GAC Advice and Policy Support, Senior Manager
benedetta.rossi@icann.org | +32.491.90.42.50
*ICANN* | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
_______________________________________________ council mailing list 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.
This email originated from outside the firm. Please use caution.
participants (4)
-
Anne ICANN -
Jeff Neuman -
Paul McGrady -
Sebastien＠registry.godaddy