<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="overflow-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;">+1.<div>Thank you Jeff, it is a very clear and valuable insight of GAC’s position on this important issues.</div><div>Best regards,</div><div>Osvaldo<br><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>On 25 Sep 2023, at 12:08, Anne ICANN via council <council@gnso.icann.org> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div><div dir="ltr">+1 - Many thanks, Jeff. This is extremely helpful! <div>Anne</div><div><br clear="all"><div><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div>Anne Aikman-Scalese</div>GNSO Councilor<div>NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2024</div><div><a href="mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com" target="_blank">anneicanngnso@gmail.com</a></div></div></div></div><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 1:37 PM Paul McGrady via council <<a href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org">council@gnso.icann.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div class="msg-8941583557031779829">
<div lang="EN-US" style="overflow-wrap: break-word;">
<div class="m_-8941583557031779829WordSection1"><p class="MsoNormal">Thanks Jeff. I love the “Jeff’s Take” category. Much appreciated!<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">Best,<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">Paul<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<div style="border-right:none;border-bottom:none;border-left:none;border-top:1pt solid rgb(225,225,225);padding:3pt 0in 0in"><p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> council <<a href="mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org" target="_blank">council-bounces@gnso.icann.org</a>> <b>On Behalf Of
</b>jeff--- via council<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, September 22, 2023 3:02 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org" target="_blank">council@gnso.icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [council] Jeff's Take on GAC-related issues for ICANN 78 (Long)<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif">All,<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif">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. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif">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 <span style="color:blue">in blue.</span></span></i></b><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif">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.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div id="m_-8941583557031779829x69659ed9cf8d40c9b5e6a8f9c974c5df">
<div>
<div id="m_-8941583557031779829xcc2845b0c171470e9c93d718e4a93fba">
<div>
<div id="m_-8941583557031779829xf49d52c053aa46d79498cbcd65453fb6">
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt">1. <u>SubPro Topics:</u></span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt"> a. Closed Generics - Status on the Facilitated Dialog and the future of Closed Generic discussions / implementation. </span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><i><u><span style="font-size:12pt;color:blue">Jeff's note</span></u></i><i><span style="font-size:12pt;color:blue">: 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). </span></i><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt"> b. IRT Progress on Next Round -
<i><u><span style="color:blue">Jeff's take</span></u></i><u><span style="color:blue">:</span></u><span style="color:blue">
<i>No known concerns here from GAC, just an update.</i></span></span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt"> c. Pending items still not addressed by the Board / Open Issues</span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt"> </span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt"> - PICs / RVCs: <span style="color:blue"> </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><i><u><span style="font-size:12pt;color:blue">Jeff's Take</span></u></i><i><span style="font-size:12pt;color:blue">: 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. </span></i><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt"> </span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt"> - Private Auctions: </span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size:12pt;color:blue">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.
</span></i><i><span style="font-size:12pt"> </span></i><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt"> - Opening up small team to GAC participation (especially for items not accepted by the Board) </span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><i><u><span style="font-size:12pt;color:blue">Jeff's Take</span></u></i><i><span style="font-size:12pt;color:blue">: 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.</span></i><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt"> - Applicant Support (more than financial) - </span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="font-size:12pt;color:blue">Jeff's Take</span></u><span style="font-size:12pt;color:blue">:
<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></span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt"> </span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt"> - GGP Initial Report -<i> </i></span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><i><u><span style="font-size:12pt;color:blue">Jeff's Take:</span></u></i><span style="font-size:12pt;color:blue"> I would propose this<i> gets combined with the topic above and may just be an update.</i></span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt"> </span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt"> - .quebec: Is this an issue for the GAC? </span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><i><u><span style="font-size:12pt;color:blue">Jeff's Take</span></u></i><i><span style="font-size:12pt;color:blue">: 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.</span></i><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt"> </span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt">2. <u>IGOs</u></span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt"> a. Implementation of Curative Rights (what is the status of the IRT) - </span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><i><u><span style="font-size:12pt;color:blue">Jeff's Take</span></u></i><i><span style="font-size:12pt;color:blue">: 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.</span></i><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt"> </span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt"> b. Question of Moratorium on IGO acronyms / watch service (which ICANN is supposed to develop)
<i><span style="color:rgb(11,83,148)">- See Above.</span></i></span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt">3. <u>Future Policy Work on DNS Abuse</u>?<span style="color:blue"> </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;color:blue">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></span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt">4. <u>WHOIS / Data Protection</u></span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt"> a. Access to non-public information / "urgent requests" -
<i><u><span style="color:blue">Jeff's Take LONG):</span></u><span style="color:blue"> </span></i></span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size:12pt;color:blue">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 (</span></i><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif"><a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/caballero-to-sinha-23aug23-en.pdf" target="_blank">https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/caballero-to-sinha-23aug23-en.pdf</a>),
<i><span style="color:blue">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 (</span></i><a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/heineman-to-sinha-08sep23-en.pdf" target="_blank">https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/heineman-to-sinha-08sep23-en.pdf</a>)<i><span style="color:blue"> 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:</span></i><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif;color:blue">"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. </span></i><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif;color:blue">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. </span></i><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif;color:blue">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. "</span></i><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif;color:blue">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.</span></i><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif;color:blue">This will be discussed by the GAC at ICANN 78.</span></i><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif;color:blue"> </span></i><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt"> 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).</span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><i><u><span style="font-size:12pt;color:blue">Jeff's Take:</span></u></i><i><span style="font-size:12pt;color:blue"> 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.</span></i><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt">5. <u>SOI:</u> Status of discussions on the representation of undisclosed clients.</span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><i><u><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif;color:blue">Jeff's Take:</span></u></i><i><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif;color:blue"> 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.</span></i><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><i><u><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif;color:blue">Other GAC Activities / Issues (Jeff's Take)</span></u></i><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif;color:blue">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.</span></i><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif;color:blue">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.</span></i><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif;color:blue">3. GAC is also focused on the IANA Review, especially with respect to Articles 18 and 19 of the Bylaws. (</span></i><i><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif"><a href="https://www.icann.org/en/announcements/details/icann-board-convenes-second-iana-naming-function-review-ifr2-11-09-2023-en" target="_blank">https://www.icann.org/en/announcements/details/icann-board-convenes-second-iana-naming-function-review-ifr2-11-09-2023-en</a>).
<span style="color:blue">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.</span> </span></i><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif;color:blue">4. GAC will be looking at the Proposed Updates to Existing Rights Protection Mechanisms documentation (</span></i><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif"><a href="https://www.icann.org/en/announcements/details/icanns-proposed-updates-to-existing-rights-protection-mechanisms-documentation-24-08-2023-en" target="_blank">https://www.icann.org/en/announcements/details/icanns-proposed-updates-to-existing-rights-protection-mechanisms-documentation-24-08-2023-en</a>)
<i><span style="color:blue">posted on August 24, 2023. </span></i><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif;color:blue">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 (</span></i><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif"><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" target="_blank">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>)
<span style="color:blue">and the proposed ccLD related Review mechanism Policy Proposal
</span>(<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" target="_blank">https://www.icann.org/en/announcements/details/icann-seeks-input-on-a-specific-cctld-related-review-mechanism-policy-proposal-01-08-2023-en</a>). <u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div id="m_-8941583557031779829signature_old">
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif"><img border="0" width="364" height="121" style="width: 3.7916in; height: 1.2583in;" id="m_-8941583557031779829Picture_x0020_1" src="cid:image001.png@01D9ED6A.A1769600"></span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div style="border:1pt solid rgb(156,101,0);padding:2pt" id="m_-8941583557031779829footer"><p class="MsoNormal" style="background:rgb(255,235,156)"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Segoe UI", sans-serif;">This email originated from outside the firm. Please use caution.</span><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
council mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org" target="_blank">council@gnso.icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
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 href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy</a>) and the website Terms of Service (<a href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">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.</div></blockquote></div>
<span id="cid:18acce174144cff311"><image001.png></span><span id="cid:%3C%3E"><image001.png></span>_______________________________________________<br>council mailing list<br>council@gnso.icann.org<br>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council<br><br>_______________________________________________<br>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.</div></blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>