<html><head>
<style id="css_styles">
blockquote.cite { margin-left: 5px; margin-right: 0px; padding-left: 10px; padding-right:0px; border-left: 1px solid #cccccc }
blockquote.cite2 {margin-left: 5px; margin-right: 0px; padding-left: 10px; padding-right:0px; border-left: 1px solid #cccccc; margin-top: 3px; padding-top: 0px; }
a img { border: 0px; }
li[style='text-align: center;'], li[style='text-align: center; '], li[style='text-align: right;'], li[style='text-align: right; '] { list-style-position: inside;}
body { font-family: 'Segoe UI'; font-size: 12pt; }
.quote { margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; border-left: 5px #ebebeb solid; padding-left: 0.3em; }
</style>
</head>
<body><div>All,</div><div><br /></div><div>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. </div><div><br /></div><div><b><i>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 <u>personal</u> take on the topics <font color="#0000ff">in blue.</font></i></b></div><div><br /></div><div>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.</div><div><br /></div><div><div id="x69659ed9cf8d40c9b5e6a8f9c974c5df"><div><div id="xcc2845b0c171470e9c93d718e4a93fba"><div><div id="xf49d52c053aa46d79498cbcd65453fb6"><div style="background-color:rgba(0,0,0,0);margin:0px;"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif">1. <u>SubPro Topics:</u></font></div><div style="background-color:rgba(0,0,0,0);margin:0px;"><br /></div><div style="background-color:rgba(0,0,0,0);margin:0px;"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif"> a. Closed Generics - Status on the Facilitated Dialog and the future of Closed Generic discussions / implementation. </font></div><div style="background-color:rgba(0,0,0,0);margin:0px;"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif"><i><font color="#0000ff"><u><br /></u></font></i></font></div><div style="background-color:rgba(0,0,0,0);margin:0px;"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif"><i><font color="#0000ff"><u>Jeff's note</u>: 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). </font></i></font></div><div style="background-color:rgba(0,0,0,0);margin:0px;"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif"><br /></font></div><div style="background-color:rgba(0,0,0,0);margin:0px;"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif"> b. IRT Progress on Next Round - <font color="#0000ff"><u><i>Jeff's take</i>:</u> <i>No known concerns here from GAC, just an update.</i></font></font></div><div style="background-color:rgba(0,0,0,0);margin:0px;"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif"><br /></font></div><div style="background-color:rgba(0,0,0,0);margin:0px;"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif"> c. Pending items still not addressed by the Board / Open Issues</font></div><div style="background-color:rgba(0,0,0,0);margin:0px;"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif"> </font></div><div style="background-color:rgba(0,0,0,0);margin:0px;"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif"> - PICs / RVCs: <font color="#0000ff"> </font></font></div><div style="background-color:rgba(0,0,0,0);margin:0px;"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif"><font color="#0000ff"><i><u><br /></u></i></font></font></div><div style="background-color:rgba(0,0,0,0);margin:0px;"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif"><font color="#0000ff"><i><u>Jeff's Take</u>: 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. </i></font></font></div><div style="background-color:rgba(0,0,0,0);margin:0px;"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif"> </font></div><div style="background-color:rgba(0,0,0,0);margin:0px;"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif"> - Private Auctions: </font></div><div style="background-color:rgba(0,0,0,0);margin:0px;"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif"><i><font color="#0000ff"><br /></font></i></font></div><div style="background-color:rgba(0,0,0,0);margin:0px;"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif"><i><font color="#0000ff">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. </font> </i></font></div><div style="background-color:rgba(0,0,0,0);margin:0px;"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif"><br /></font></div><div style="background-color:rgba(0,0,0,0);margin:0px;"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif"> - Opening up small team to GAC participation (especially for items not accepted by the Board) </font></div><div style="background-color:rgba(0,0,0,0);margin:0px;"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif"><font color="#0000ff"><i><u><br /></u></i></font></font></div><div style="background-color:rgba(0,0,0,0);margin:0px;"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif"><font color="#0000ff"><i><u>Jeff's Take</u>: 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.</i></font></font></div><div style="background-color:rgba(0,0,0,0);margin:0px;"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif"><br /></font></div><div style="background-color:rgba(0,0,0,0);margin:0px;"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif"> - Applicant Support (more than financial) - </font></div><div style="background-color:rgba(0,0,0,0);margin:0px;"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif"><font color="#0000ff"><u><br /></u></font></font></div><div style="background-color:rgba(0,0,0,0);margin:0px;"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif"><font color="#0000ff"><u>Jeff's Take</u>: <i>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.</i></font></font></div><div style="background-color:rgba(0,0,0,0);margin:0px;"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif"> </font></div><div style="background-color:rgba(0,0,0,0);margin:0px;"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif"> - GGP Initial Report -<i> </i></font></div><div style="background-color:rgba(0,0,0,0);margin:0px;"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif"><i><u><font color="#0000ff"><br /></font></u></i></font></div><div style="background-color:rgba(0,0,0,0);margin:0px;"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif"><i><u><font color="#0000ff">Jeff's Take:</font></u></i><font color="#0000ff"> I would propose this<i> gets combined with the topic above and may just be an update.</i></font></font></div><div style="background-color:rgba(0,0,0,0);margin:0px;"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif"> </font></div><div style="background-color:rgba(0,0,0,0);margin:0px;"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif"> - .quebec: Is this an issue for the GAC? </font></div><div style="background-color:rgba(0,0,0,0);margin:0px;"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif"><font color="#0000ff"><i><u><br /></u></i></font></font></div><div style="background-color:rgba(0,0,0,0);margin:0px;"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif"><font color="#0000ff"><i><u>Jeff's Take</u>: 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.</i></font></font></div><div style="background-color:rgba(0,0,0,0);margin:0px;"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif"> </font></div><div style="background-color:rgba(0,0,0,0);margin:0px;"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif">2. <u>IGOs</u></font></div><div style="background-color:rgba(0,0,0,0);margin:0px;"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif"> a. Implementation of Curative Rights (what is the status of the IRT) - </font></div><div style="background-color:rgba(0,0,0,0);margin:0px;"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif"><font color="#0000ff"><i><u><br /></u></i></font></font></div><div style="background-color:rgba(0,0,0,0);margin:0px;"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif"><font color="#0000ff"><i><u>Jeff's Take</u>: 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.</i></font></font></div><div style="background-color:rgba(0,0,0,0);margin:0px;"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif"> </font></div><div style="background-color:rgba(0,0,0,0);margin:0px;"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif"> b. Question of Moratorium on IGO acronyms / watch service (which ICANN is supposed to develop) <i><font color="#0b5394">- See Above.</font></i></font></div><div style="background-color:rgba(0,0,0,0);margin:0px;"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif"><u><br /></u></font></div><div style="background-color:rgba(0,0,0,0);margin:0px;"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif">3. <u>Future Policy Work on DNS Abuse</u>?<font color="#0000ff"> </font></font></div><div style="background-color:rgba(0,0,0,0);margin:0px;"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif"><font color="#0000ff"><br /></font></font></div><div style="background-color:rgba(0,0,0,0);margin:0px;"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif"><font color="#0000ff">Jeff's Take: <i>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. </i></font></font></div><div style="background-color:rgba(0,0,0,0);margin:0px;"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif"><br /></font></div><div style="background-color:rgba(0,0,0,0);margin:0px;"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif">4. <u>WHOIS / Data Protection</u></font></div><div style="background-color:rgba(0,0,0,0);margin:0px;"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif"> a. Access to non-public information / "urgent requests" - <i><font color="#0000ff"><u>Jeff's Take LONG):</u> </font></i></font></div><div style="background-color:rgba(0,0,0,0);margin:0px;"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif"><i><font color="#0000ff"><br /></font></i></font></div><div style="background-color:rgba(0,0,0,0);margin:0px;"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif"><i><font color="#0000ff">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 (</font></i></font><a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/caballero-to-sinha-23aug23-en.pdf" style="font-size:12pt;">https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/caballero-to-sinha-23aug23-en.pdf</a>), <font color="#0000ff"><i>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 (</i></font><a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/heineman-to-sinha-08sep23-en.pdf" style="font-size:12pt;">https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/heineman-to-sinha-08sep23-en.pdf</a>)<i style="color:#00F;background-color:rgba(0,0,0,0);font-size:12pt;"> 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:</i></div><div style="background-color:rgba(0,0,0,0);margin:0px;"><i style="color:#00F;background-color:rgba(0,0,0,0);font-size:12pt;"><br /></i></div><div style="background-color:rgba(0,0,0,0);margin:0px;"><i><font color="#0000ff">"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.
</font></i></div><div style="background-color:rgba(0,0,0,0);margin:0px;"><i><font color="#0000ff"><br /></font></i></div><div style="background-color:rgba(0,0,0,0);margin:0px;"><i><font color="#0000ff">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.
</font></i></div><div style="background-color:rgba(0,0,0,0);margin:0px;"><i><font color="#0000ff"><br /></font></i></div><div style="background-color:rgba(0,0,0,0);margin:0px;"><i><font color="#0000ff">1</font></i><i style="background-color:rgba(0,0,0,0);font-size:12pt;"><font color="#0000ff">0.6.2. 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. "</font></i> </div><div style="background-color:rgba(0,0,0,0);margin:0px;"><br /></div><div style="background-color:rgba(0,0,0,0);margin:0px;"><font color="#0000ff"><i>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.</i></font></div><div style="background-color:rgba(0,0,0,0);margin:0px;"><font color="#0000ff"><i><br /></i></font></div><div style="background-color:rgba(0,0,0,0);margin:0px;"><font color="#0000ff"><i>This will be discussed by the GAC at ICANN 78.</i></font></div><div style="background-color:rgba(0,0,0,0);margin:0px;"><i style="color:#00F;background-color:rgba(0,0,0,0);font-size:12pt;"> </i></div><div style="background-color:rgba(0,0,0,0);margin:0px;"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif"> 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).</font></div><div style="background-color:rgba(0,0,0,0);margin:0px;"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif"><br /></font></div><div style="background-color:rgba(0,0,0,0);margin:0px;"><font color="#0000ff" face="Calibri, sans-serif"><i><u>Jeff's Take:</u> 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.</i></font></div><div style="background-color:rgba(0,0,0,0);margin:0px;"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif"><br /></font></div><div style="background-color:rgba(0,0,0,0);margin:0px;"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif">5. <u>SOI:</u> Status of discussions on the representation of undisclosed clients.</font></div></div></div></div></div>
<div><br /></div><div><i><font color="#0000ff"><u>Jeff's Take:</u> 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.</font></i></div><div><i><font color="#0000ff"><br /></font></i></div><div><i><font color="#0000ff"><u>Other GAC Activities / Issues (Jeff's Take)</u></font></i></div><div><i><font color="#0000ff"><br /></font></i></div><div><i><font color="#0000ff">1. </font></i><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 255); font-style: italic;">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.</span></div><div><i><font color="#0000ff"><br /></font></i></div><div><i><font color="#0000ff">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.</font></i></div><div><i><font color="#0000ff"><br /></font></i></div><div><i><font color="#0000ff">3. GAC is also focused on the IANA Review, especially with respect to Articles 18 and 19 of the Bylaws. (</font><a href="https://www.icann.org/en/announcements/details/icann-board-convenes-second-iana-naming-function-review-ifr2-11-09-2023-en" style="font-size:12pt;">https://www.icann.org/en/announcements/details/icann-board-convenes-second-iana-naming-function-review-ifr2-11-09-2023-en</a>). <font color="#0000ff">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.</font> </i></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div><i><font color="#0000ff">4. GAC will be looking at the Proposed Updates to Existing Rights Protection Mechanisms documentation (</font></i><a href="https://www.icann.org/en/announcements/details/icanns-proposed-updates-to-existing-rights-protection-mechanisms-documentation-24-08-2023-en" style="font-size:12pt;">https://www.icann.org/en/announcements/details/icanns-proposed-updates-to-existing-rights-protection-mechanisms-documentation-24-08-2023-en</a>) <i><font color="#0000ff">posted on August 24, 2023. </font></i></div><div><i><font color="#0000ff"><br /></font></i></div><div><i><font color="#0000ff">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 (</font></i><a href="https://www.icann.org/en/announcements/details/icann-seeks-input-on-ccnso-pdp4-initial-report-on-de-selection-of-idncctlds-16-08-2023-en" style="font-size:12pt;">https://www.icann.org/en/announcements/details/icann-seeks-input-on-ccnso-pdp4-initial-report-on-de-selection-of-idncctlds-16-08-2023-en</a>) <font color="#0000ff">and the proposed ccLD related Review mechanism Policy Proposal </font>(<a href="https://www.icann.org/en/announcements/details/icann-seeks-input-on-a-specific-cctld-related-review-mechanism-policy-proposal-01-08-2023-en" style="font-size:12pt;">https://www.icann.org/en/announcements/details/icann-seeks-input-on-a-specific-cctld-related-review-mechanism-policy-proposal-01-08-2023-en</a>). </div><div><br /></div><div></div></div></div>
<div><font color="#0000ff"><i><br /></i></font></div><div id="signature_old" style="clear:both"><div><br /></div><img src="cid:emff5319d3-73d6-454a-a0e9-371c6223b494@7c214743.com" border="0" /></div><div><br /></div>
</body></html>