<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Council colleagues,</p>
<p>Please find below the Business Constituency's feedback on
outreach related to art28 NIS2, as well as a relevant attachment.<br>
</p>
<p><b>Input follows</b>:<br>
</p>
<p>The BC registers its objection to the direction the council is
taking with regard to governmental outreach. It is clear that the
management of these relationships is the remit of the GAC, not the
GNSO. The council is not a governmental lobbying organization and
should not behave as such.</p>
<p>Discussions with governments are the remit of the GAC – not the
GNSO Council. The GNSO’s role is to propose new polices, leaving
government engagement to the GAC. Under ICANN bylaws, the GNSO’s
role definition is to be “responsible for developing and
recommending to the Board substantive policies relating to generic
top-level domains.” That of the GAC is “activities of ICANN as
they relate to concerns of governments, particularly matters where
there may be an interaction between ICANN’s policies and various
law and international agreements or where they may affect public
policy issues.” Let’s be clear about that intentional separation.
What is proposed for the Council to undertake has little to do
with “recommending to the Board policies relating to generic
top-level domains.”</p>
<p>The BC has been calling for WHOIS policy to be updated in
response to NIS2 (see attached chart – so far, the Council has not
acted). It is therefore premature to reply to Europe to assure EU
authorities that “all is well” until that work has been
completed. Note further that the Council has not developed – or
even begun to develop – updated standards related to NIS2’s
verification and accuracy requirements. Indeed, the Council
elected to delay any work in these areas until the conclusion of
the accuracy scoping work (which left off with a
yet-to-be-employed survey of registrars before work was suspended
indefinitely).</p>
<p>Should council representatives disagree with ICANN bylaws and
elect to forge ahead, and due to the focus here being
multistakeholder processes and roles, we respectfully suggest that
any outreach be done only with full feedback and approval from
each constituency or stakeholder group represented through the
GNSO. This would ensure that there is full buy-in and true
reflection of constituency or stakeholder group positions with any
representation of unanimity in a communication from the Council.
The BC will strongly object to representations otherwise by a
Council letter or outreach that doesn’t fully include such
feedback from each constituency or stakeholder group represented
within the GNSO.</p>
<p>This is an important matter, both procedurally and as represented
by the potential content of a council communication. The BC's
Councilors are happy to work with colleagues to arrive at a
procedure that meets the needs of all groups making up the GNSO.<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
Mark W. Datysgeld [<a href="https://markwd.website">markwd.website</a>]<br>
Director at Governance Primer [<a
href="https://governanceprimer.com">governanceprimer.com</a>]<br>
ICANN GNSO Councilor</div>
</body>
</html>