[council] FW: Letter from GAC Chair to GNSO Chair - GAC input on SubPro recommendations marked as pending

Mon Mar 27 18:29:18 UTC 2023

+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 at gnso.icann.org> On Behalf Of Anne ICANN via council
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2023 1:12 PM
To: Sebastien at registry.godaddy
Cc: gnso-secs at icann.org; GNSO-Chairs <gnso-chairs at icann.org>; COUNCIL at 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 at gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso at gmail.com>

On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 1:22 PM Sebastien--- via council <council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at 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 at registry.godaddy<mailto:sebastien at registry.godaddy>

From: Gnso-chairs <gnso-chairs-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-chairs-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Benedetta Rossi via Gnso-chairs <gnso-chairs at icann.org<mailto:gnso-chairs at icann.org>>
Date: Thursday, 23 March 2023 at 8:54 pm
To: gnso-chairs at icann.org<mailto:gnso-chairs at icann.org> <gnso-chairs at icann.org<mailto:gnso-chairs at icann.org>>
Cc: gac-staff at icann.org<mailto:gac-staff at icann.org> <gac-staff at icann.org<mailto:gac-staff at icann.org>>, gac-leadership at icann.org<mailto:gac-leadership at icann.org> <gac-leadership at icann.org<mailto:gac-leadership at 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 at .

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 at icann.org<mailto:benedetta.rossi at icann.org> | +32.491.90.42.50
ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers

_______________________________________________
council mailing list
council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20230327/67c2ca36/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 44606 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20230327/67c2ca36/image001-0001.png>