<html><head>
<style id="css_styles" type="text/css"><!--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>I will contact the Canadian GAC Rep to see if there is an official position other than what they have said before which is really that they are just following and monitoring the discussion.</div><div><br /></div><div>Sincerely,</div><div><br /></div><div>Jeff</div>
<div><br /></div><div id="signature_old" style="clear:both"><div><br /></div><img src="cid:emb6ab081d-3d97-4e6c-a4e5-e62e64f082fc@7c214743.com" border="0" /></div><div style="clear:both"><br /></div>
<div><br /></div>
<div>
<div>------ Original Message ------</div>
<div>From "Mark Datysgeld" <<a href="mailto:mark@governanceprimer.com">mark@governanceprimer.com</a>></div>
<div>To "<a href="mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com">jeff@jjnsolutions.com</a>" <<a href="mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com">jeff@jjnsolutions.com</a>>; "<a href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org">council@gnso.icann.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org">council@gnso.icann.org</a>></div>
<div>Date 9/25/2023 12:44:05 PM</div>
<div>Subject Re: [council] Jeff's Take on GAC-related issues for ICANN 78 (Long)</div></div><div><br /></div>
<div id="xcccd576bfd354cf"><blockquote cite="e140985a-8c6c-4698-8f2c-bd3239a1b8ca@governanceprimer.com" type="cite" class="cite2">
<p>Thank you, Jeff. Please keep us up to date on the ".quebec"
issue. <span class="emoticon" original=":)">😀</span>
</p>
<p>Best,<br />
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 22 Sept 2023 17:01, jeff--- via
council wrote:
<br />
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:em733344f1-a6da-4525-b02c-5c5511bcfc23@7c214743.com" class="cite">
<style type="text/css"><!--#xcccd576bfd354cf blockquote.cite
{margin-left: 5px; margin-right: 0px; padding-left: 10px; padding-right: 0px; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);}
#xcccd576bfd354cf blockquote.cite2
{margin-left: 5px; margin-right: 0px; padding-left: 10px; padding-right: 0px; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin-top: 3px; padding-top: 0px;}
#xcccd576bfd354cf a img
{border: 0px;}
#xcccd576bfd354cf li#xcccd576bfd354cf [style="'text-align: center;'"], #xcccd576bfd354cf li#xcccd576bfd354cf [style="'text-align: center; '"], #xcccd576bfd354cf li#xcccd576bfd354cf [style="'text-align: right;'"], #xcccd576bfd354cf li#xcccd576bfd354cf [style="'text-align: right; '"]
{list-style-position: inside;}
#xcccd576bfd354cf
{font-family: "Segoe UI"; font-size: 12pt;}
#xcccd576bfd354cf .quote
{margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; border-left: 5px solid rgb(235, 235, 235); padding-left: 0.3em;}
--></style>
<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;" moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">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;" moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">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 face="Calibri, sans-serif" color="#0000ff"><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;" moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">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;" moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">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;" moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">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;" moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">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><font color="#0000ff"><i><br />
</i></font></div>
<div id="signature_old" style="clear:both">
<div><br />
</div>
<img src="cid:part1.Dyb8DD3n.NlJSVQuP@governanceprimer.com" class="" border="0" /></div>
<div><br />
</div>
<br />
<fieldset class="moz-mime-attachment-header"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
council mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org">council@gnso.icann.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council</a>
_______________________________________________
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 (
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy">https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy</a>) and the website Terms of Service (<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos">https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos</a>). 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.</pre>
</blockquote>
<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>
</blockquote></div>
</body></html>