[council] Jeff's Take on GAC-related issues for ICANN 78 (Long)

[Anne ICANN]

+1 - Many thanks, Jeff.  This is extremely helpful!
Anne

Anne Aikman-Scalese
GNSO Councilor
NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2024
anneicanngnso at gmail.com


On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 1:37 PM Paul McGrady via council <
council at gnso.icann.org> wrote:

> Thanks Jeff.  I love the “Jeff’s Take” category.  Much appreciated!
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Paul
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* council <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org> *On Behalf Of *jeff---
> via council
> *Sent:* Friday, September 22, 2023 3:02 PM
> *To:* council at gnso.icann.org
> *Subject:* [council] Jeff's Take on GAC-related issues for ICANN 78 (Long)
>
>
>
> All,
>
>
>
> Full credit here to Paul McGrady who asked me a question on what I
> personally thought the issues for the GAC would be at the upcoming ICANN
> meeting and what if anything I believed may be subject to GAC advice.   I
> thought I would share this with the full Council list so that you all could
> have discussions on these issues and be prepared.
>
>
>
> *Please note that my thoughts are based on discussions with the GAC Point
> of Contact and working on the agenda for ICANN 78.  I am not speaking on
> behalf of the GAC PoC or the GAC as I cannot do that, nor do I have the
> ability to do so. This is being sent to you all with the huge caveat that
> everything is subject to change AND I have separated my personal take on
> the topics in blue.*
>
>
>
> I am going to send out a more comprehensive version of this to the Council
> shortly before ICANN 78 which has the final agenda for the GAC/GNSO
> bilateral as well as some potential talking points.  Some of these items
> below will likely be on the GAC/GNSO agenda, but likely not all of them due
> to time constraints.
>
>
>
> 1.    *SubPro Topics:*
>
>
>
>      a.    Closed Generics - Status on the Facilitated Dialog and the
> future of Closed Generic discussions / implementation.
>
>
>
> *Jeff's note**:  If you recall the original draft letter proposed by the
> GNSO/GAC/ALAC chairs recommended that the Board be instructed to maintain
> the moratorium on Closed Generics from the last round, but the GNSO
> discussed removing that from the letter.   The GAC has a very strong
> interest in the issue of Closed Generics and does not believe they should
> be allowed absent consensus policy on the topic (which of course is
> developed with GAC input). *
>
>
>
>     b.      IRT Progress on Next Round - *Jeff's take**:*  *No known
> concerns here from GAC, just an update.*
>
>
>
>     c.      Pending items still not addressed by the Board / Open Issues
>
>
>
>             - PICs / RVCs:
>
>
>
> *Jeff's Take**:  As most GAC Advice on new gTLDs is implemented as a PIC,
> or may be implemented as an RVC if Registries respond to Early Warnings or
> comments, it is important to the GAC that these be incorporated as
> contractual commitments into the agreements (See ICANN 77 Communique Advice
> 2(a). GAC agrees that such commitments must be enforceable by ICANN through
> clear contractual obligations, and that consequences for the failure to
> meet those obligations should be specified in the relevant agreements with
> the contracted parties. However, they are looking to understand (as we are)
> the changes being proposed by the ICANN Board to the language.  *
>
>
>
>             - Private Auctions:
>
>
>
> *Jeff's take:  The GAC has previously expressed on several occasions,
> including as Advice in its ICANN 77 Communique that, ICANN "ban or strongly
> disincentivize private monetary means of resolution of contention sets,
> including private auctions." (ICANN 77 Communique 4(a)(ii).  They also do
> not want to see ICANN auctions of last resort in contention sets involving
> non-commercial applicants. *
>
>
>
>                 - Opening up small team to GAC participation (especially
> for items not accepted by the Board)
>
>
>
> *Jeff's Take**:  GAC members want to make sure that they are
> participating in the process to determine both the processes used, as well
> as the substance, of revisions to recommendations, new recommendations, not
> pursuing existing recommendations, etc.  This is especially true for all of
> the issues that the GAC has already issued advice on as well as items that
> they previously deemed were of importance to the GAC.*
>
>
>
>                 - Applicant Support (more than financial) -
>
>
>
> *Jeff's Take*:  *Not surprisingly and also quite aligned with the GNSO,
> the GAC issued advice on Applicant Support (ICANN Communique 77, Advice
> #3).  The Applicant Support program to be incredibly important to them and
> they want to make sure that applicants not only have access to financial
> assistance with the application, but also assistance in application
> preparation and ongoing registry management (including potentially a
> reduction in ICANN ongoing registry fees).  They also want to make sure
> that the program is highly publicized to those that are the intended
> beneficiaries of the program.*
>
>
>
>             - GGP Initial Report -
>
>
>
> *Jeff's Take:*  I would propose this* gets combined with the topic above
> and may just be an update.*
>
>
>
>         - .quebec:  Is this an issue for the GAC?
>
>
>
> *Jeff's Take**:  This issue of course is of interest to the GAC Canadian
> Reps, but as of today this issue has not gotten on the GAC agenda as a
> whole.  That is not an indication of whether this issue is important or
> not, there just have not been any GAC-wide discussions on the topic.
> Because it was discussed within the GNSO Council this week, I raised it at
> the meeting today and the GAC Point of Contact is going to see if this is
> an issue for the GAC at this ICANN meeting.*
>
>
>
> 2.    *IGOs*
>
>     a.    Implementation of Curative Rights (what is the status of the
> IRT) -
>
>
>
> *Jeff's Take**:  I believe The GAC is supposed to get a briefing at
> ICANN78 from ICANN on the status of implementation of Curative Rights as
> well as the Watch Service (see below).  They believe that these are must
> haves before ICANN should consider lifting the reservation of IGO
> Acronyms.  This was in their GAC Communique as advice a couple of meetings
> ago.  They want to discuss this with the GNSO.  I do not expect further
> advice on this unless they affirm their previous advice or if it appears
> that ICANN is moving in a direction that is inconsistent with the previous
> GAC Advice.*
>
>
>
>     b.    Question of Moratorium on IGO acronyms / watch service (which
> ICANN is supposed to develop) *- See Above.*
>
>
>
> 3.    *Future Policy Work on DNS Abuse*?
>
>
>
> Jeff's Take:  *The GAC positions on this are well-known.  They are
> supportive of the proposed contract amendments for the Contracted Parties
> but of course want to see more done on the policy front before the opening
> up of the next round.  But I do not expect any advice here, just more of
> wanting an update on what is going on and making sure it is progressing.  *
>
>
>
> 4.    *WHOIS / Data Protection*
>
>        a.   Access to non-public information / "urgent requests" - *Jeff's
> Take LONG):  *
>
>
>
> *This relates to the pilot being lunched soon by ICANN with the
> Registrars.  On August 23, 2023, the GAC Chair sent a letter to the ICANN
> Board (*
> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/caballero-to-sinha-23aug23-en.pdf),
> *to express its concerns over the time line to respond to requests in
> select emergency situations ("Urgent Requests").  They do not like the
> proposed three (3) business days currently in the EPDP Phase 1
> implementation report and want the ICANN Board to reconsider this. On
> September 8, 2023, the Registrars sent a letter to the ICANN Board (*
> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/heineman-to-sinha-08sep23-en.pdf
> )* providing some context to the 3 business days stating that this
> language has been in the text since September 2021, but in August 2022 the
> language changed to requiring a response, "no longer than two (2) business
> days from receipt" which was put out for comment. This was a change from
> the Implementation Pilot Team without consultation of the full IRT.  Once
> that was published, there were several meetings of the full IRT to come up
> with a compromise solution.  The Compromise language published following
> the July 24, 2023 meeting, which the Registrars agree with, was:*
>
>
>
> *"10.6. For Urgent Requests for Lawful Disclosure, Registrar and Registry
> Operator MUST respond, as defined in Section 10.7, without undue delay,
> generally within 24 hours of receipt.  *
>
>
>
> *10.6.1. If Registrar or Registry Operator cannot respond to an Urgent
> Request for Lawful Disclosure within 24 hours, it MUST notify the requestor
> within 24 hours of receipt of an Urgent Request for Lawful Disclosure of
> the need for an extension to respond. Registrar or Registry Operator’s
> extension notification to the requestor MUST include (a) confirmation that
> it has reviewed and considered the Urgent Request for Lawful Disclosure on
> its merits and determined additional time to respond is needed, (b)
> rationale for why additional time is needed, and (c) the time frame it will
> respond, as required by Section 10.7, which cannot exceed two (2) business
> days from the time of the initial receipt of the request.  *
>
>
>
> *10.6.2. In addition to the extension provided for in Section 10.6.1, if
> responding to an Urgent Request for Lawful Disclosure is complex, or a
> large number of requests are received by Registrar or Registry Operator, it
> MAY extend the time for response up to an additional one (1) business day
> provided it notifies the requestor within (2) business days from the time
> of the initial receipt of the request of the updated time frame to respond
> explaining the need for an additional extension of time. "*
>
>
>
> *So according to the registrars, they are only requesting 3 business days
> if they have notified the requestor within 24 hours that it needs more time
> and if it needs 3 business days it needs to notify the requestor again
> within 2 business days from receipt of the original request.  Registrars do
> not agree with the GAC's interpretation that this will always be 3 business
> days and believes that the GAC should have given the Board the full
> context.  It is my impression that the GAC may believe that because it
> allows 3 business days that this will become the default.*
>
>
>
> *This will be discussed by the GAC at ICANN 78.*
>
>
>
>        b.   Accuracy Issue and status of DPAs between the Contracted
> Parties and ICANN (Since this has been the reason for delaying policy work
> on accuracy).
>
>
>
> *Jeff's Take:**  Accuracy of Registration data is of utmost importance to
> the GAC and "remains committed to working within the Accuracy Scoping Team
> to assess the current state of accuracy under ICANN's contracts."  The GAC
> welcomes the completion of a Data Protection Impact Assessment on a
> contractual compliance audit that could shed light on the current state of
> accuracy.  Although I believe they were ok with the initial 6-month delay
> of the Scoping Team work waiting for the DPAs, they are looking for more
> meaningful updates on where ICANN is with the DPAs .  They would like to
> see policy work ASAP.  I am not sure if there will be Advice on this, but
> it certainly is an issue of importance.*
>
>
>
> 5.    *SOI:*  Status of discussions on the representation of undisclosed
> clients.
>
>
>
> *Jeff's Take:**  The GAC Is following this one closely and I believe they
> are aligned more with requiring disclosure of clients that are directly
> being represented in policy processes.  Governments individually generally
> require full disclosure of clients when they engage in discussions with
> representatives of industry, the community, etc.  Whether there will be
> advice on this at ICANN 78 or not, I don't think so.  But it is an item of
> importance to them.*
>
>
>
> *Other GAC Activities / Issues (Jeff's Take)*
>
>
>
> *1.  I discussed the proposed Charter for the Standing Committee on RDRS
> to help inform the next steps on the SSAD policy recommendations with the
> GAC PoC today.  Specifically I discussed the composition which currently is
> made up of Councilors and members of the ePDP Phase 2 small team members.
> from the GAC, I believe Chris Lewis-Evans and Laureen Kapin had a "shared
> membership."  Chris is no longer working with the Public safety working
> group and is in the private sector.  So I am sure being able to appoint a
> replacement (not an alternate) will be important to them.*
>
>
>
> *2.    GAC is having two days of outreach sessions at ICANN 78 during the
> first weekend.  The second day will focus on "emerging technologies" and
> getting briefings from ICANN Org on Blockchain in general and "alternative
> naming spaces" with an eye on trying to figure out what, if anything, is
> the GAC role.*
>
>
>
> *3.  GAC is also focused on the IANA Review, especially with respect to
> Articles 18 and 19 of the Bylaws. (**https://www.icann.org/en/announcements/details/icann-board-convenes-second-iana-naming-function-review-ifr2-11-09-2023-en
> <https://www.icann.org/en/announcements/details/icann-board-convenes-second-iana-naming-function-review-ifr2-11-09-2023-en>).
> This review is taking a broader look athat includes identifying whether the
> requirements identified in the IANA contract SOW are still relevant or
> whether they need changing.  This is defined in Section 18.3 of the
> Bylaws. *
>
>
>
> *4.  GAC will be looking at the Proposed Updates to Existing Rights
> Protection Mechanisms documentation (*
> https://www.icann.org/en/announcements/details/icanns-proposed-updates-to-existing-rights-protection-mechanisms-documentation-24-08-2023-en)
> *posted on August 24, 2023. *
>
>
>
> *5.  There are a couple of ccTLD items the GAC will discuss including
> input on ccNSO PDP4 (initial Report on (de-) selection of IDN ccTLDs (*
> https://www.icann.org/en/announcements/details/icann-seeks-input-on-ccnso-pdp4-initial-report-on-de-selection-of-idncctlds-16-08-2023-en)
> and the proposed ccLD related Review mechanism Policy Proposal (
> https://www.icann.org/en/announcements/details/icann-seeks-input-on-a-specific-cctld-related-review-mechanism-policy-proposal-01-08-2023-en
> ).
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> This email originated from outside the firm. Please use caution.
> _______________________________________________
> council mailing list
> 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.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20230925/6c5305b6/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 11989 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20230925/6c5305b6/image001-0002.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 11989 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20230925/6c5305b6/image001-0003.png>