Dear IFR2 Team,

As a follow up to Action Item #26-01 (26 November 2024 meeting), please see below for Sam Eisner’s guidance on Peter’s question regarding more information on amendment paths and recommendations. The meeting recording is linked here and if you need to reference the recording, the discussion took place at around 21 minutes and 13 seconds.

There are two ways to achieve amendment to the IANA Naming Function Agreement. 1. The IFR’s ability to require a unilateral amendment if all procedural requirements of the IFR are met in reaching such a recommendation (and the similar rights of special IFRs or separation cross community working groups); or 2. The ability for ICANN and PTI to mutually agree to an amendment to the agreement, which also requires ICANN’s adherence to the procedures set out at Section 16.3 of the Bylaws in the event that any term as defined as a “Material Term” is impacted. Modification to any of those “Material Terms” require ICANN to present the proposals to both the ccNSO and GNSO Councils for an opportunity to reject such changes.

In the event the IFRT has amendments to the IANA Naming Function Contract that they do not believe rise to the level of requiring full procedural power of the IFRT to mandate, but are instead recommendations of amendments that they urge ICANN and PTI to jointly explore, the IFR could issue a recommendation - noting that it is not invoking the process of Section 18.6 of the ICANN Bylaws or intending to cause an amendment under Section 7.3(c) of the IANA Naming Function Contract - but instead is solely recommending the exploration of such an amendment if mutual agreement on terms can be met. The IFRT could further note that it intends these as general recommendations Under Section 18.5 of the ICANN Bylaws for improvement of the IANA Naming Function Contract.

Please let me  know if you have further questions.

Thank you,

Reda