[ALAC] Summary Report for GNSO Council 18 April 2024 meeting
Laura Margolis
margolisl at gmail.com
Tue Apr 23 17:12:56 UTC 2024
Dear Justine,
Thank you for your updated summary report and explanations during today's
call.
Best regards,
El vie, 19 abr 2024 a las 5:41, Justine Chew via ALAC (<
alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org>) escribió:
> Dear all,
>
> Here is my report of the GNSO Council's 18 Apr 2024 meeting.
>
> It's quite substantial as Council discussed at length and decided on quite
> a few issues. There were also a couple of amendments to the agenda but I
> have parsed out what I think are the key matters of interest to us. You can
> also read this report posted at the ALAC Liaison to the GNSO workspace
> <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/GNSO+Liaison+Report%2C+post-Oct+2021>,
> or simply using the links included below to navigate to the Apr 2024 entry.
>
> *Special Summary Report of 18 Apr 2024 Meeting to ALAC
> <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/GNSO+Liaison+Report%2C+post-Oct+2021#GNSOLiaisonReport,postOct2021-A-24-04>*
>
> For brevity, I will just highlight a few things here. For some of the
> issues, you can glean a wider perspective from GNSO Council Apr 2024
> Matters of Interest
> <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/GNSO+Liaison+Report%2C+post-Oct+2021#Apr2024-MOI_Apr2024> and/or
> from GNSO Council Apr 2024 Meeting Records
> <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/GNSO+Liaison+Report%2C+post-Oct+2021#Apr2024-MOI_Apr2024>
> .
>
> *1. Consent Agenda*
>
> - Council resolved <https://community.icann.org/x/AYDyEg> to adopt its Review
> of the GAC ICANN79 Communiqué
> <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2024/correspondence/dibiase-to-sinha-04apr24-en.pdf>
> - Council resolved <https://community.icann.org/x/AYDyEg> to adopt the
> updated Small Team Guidance Document
> <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2024/draft/updated-small-team-guidelines-05apr24.pdf>
> - Council confirmed <https://community.icann.org/x/AYDyEg> the
> Standing Predictability Implementation Review Team (SPIRT) Charter Drafting
> Team Leadership (Chair - Nitan Walia; Vice-chair - Alan Greenberg; GNSO
> Council liaison - Anne Aikman-Scalese)
>
> *2. Diacritics in Latin Script*
>
> - Council had deferred for several months (since ICANN78 in Hamburg)
> on discussing a way forward to address the challenge affecting future
> applied-for strings in the Latin script containing diacritics that may be
> confusingly similar to ASCII strings and which are non-variants as GNSO
> support staff had indicated that a proposal for a solution was being worked
> on which might alleviate the need for a study request which Council had
> been mooting earlier.
> - GNSO support staff suggested that a solution could be incorporated
> through Council's deliberation of the Subsequent Procedures Supplemental
> Recommendations on Topic 24 String Similarity, and accordingly suggested
> that Council withhold those supplemental recommendations 24A, 24B and 24C
> for further work, instead of considering their approval and onward
> submission to the ICANN Board.
> - Council was also given a short briefing by Sarmad Hussain on the
> process and work of the (now disbanded) Latin Generation Panel (Latin GP)
> which resulted in the Latin Label General Rules (Latin LGR) that deemed
> strings in the Latin script containing diacritics and their ASCII
> "equivalents" as non-variants.
> - As an eg, due to the application of the Latin LGR in the Root
> Zone Label Generation Rule (RZ-LGR) as the authoritative source for
> determining the variants of a string, .québec (with diacritic) is
> *not* a variant of the already delegated .quebec (without
> diacritic), resulting in the likelihood that the existing registry operator
> of .quebec (or any other party) would not succeed in obtaining .québec due
> to the 2 strings being found confusingly similar.
> - The current New gTLD 'rules' dictate that an application for any
> string that are found to be confusingly similar to an existing gTLD would
> be disallowed, while an application for an applied-for string that is found
> to be confusingly similar with another one or more applied-for strings
> would result in the strings being placed in a contention set.
> - After much discussion, Council concluded that GNSO support staff's
> suggested way forward is *neither feasible nor desirable*, because:
> - The Topic 24 String Similarity recommendations only deal with
> singular/plurals and ought not be willfully expanded to resolve the
> diacritics challenge, i.e. Council should not shoehorn its Topic 24
> Supplemental Recommendations to accommodate the diacritics challenge;
> - Resolving the diacritic challenge should undergo a proper policy
> development process per the GNSO's operating procedures; and
> - Resolving the diacritic challenge should not present as a
> condition to the implementation of the Next Round.
> - As a result, Council reverted to requesting GNSO support staff to
> circulate work done on a study request that could be utilised as a
> foundation to an Issues Report for initiating an EPDP should Council decide
> so at a later date.
>
> *Action by ALAC Liaison:* to update ALAC/CPWG after the GNSO Council's
> May 2024 meeting on any direction taken with regards to resolving the
> Diacritics issue.
>
> *3. Singular/Plural gTLDs & String Similarity*
>
> - ICANN Org's Lars Hoffman (who is the lead for the Subsequent
> Procedures Implementation Review Team (SubPro IRT)) informed Council that
> ICANN org had been requested by the ICANN Board to propose an effective way
> to implement what Supplemental Recommendations 24A, 24B, 24C are attempting
> to achieve with regards to singular/plurals while addressing the Board's
> subsisting concerns with the supplemental recommendation language, bearing
> in mind that the Board SubPro Caucus co-chairs had earlier indicated that
> the ICANN Board may still decline to adopt Supplemental Recommendations
> 24A, 24B, 24C because of already shared concerns.
> - ICANN Org's proposition is to essentially remove the
> singular/plurals assessment out of String Similarity Review altogether and
> rely on an 'objection-like' approach without it becoming a formal objection
> process, which would still place burdens on the community to take action to
> prevent the singular/plurals from being approved if there was a concern.
> - Council was amenable to consider Lars' proposition in-principle,
> subject to details being fleshed out further.
> - On these bases, Council opted to withhold Supplemental
> Recommendations 24A, 24B, 24C from the slate of Supplemental
> Recommendations
> <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2024/agenda/new-gtld-subpro-supplemental-recommendations-2apr24-en.pdf> which
> its SubPro Small Team Plus had produced and which had gone through
> community consultations, most recently at ICANN79.
> - However, Council had yet to decide as to who would consider/discuss
> Lars' proposition in detail - whether it may be the SubPro Small Team (or
> Small Team Plus) or Council itself. There were differing views expressed by
> Councilors on this. Council will review this question in May 2024.
>
> *Action by ALAC Liaison*: to update ALAC/CPWG when GNSO Council has
> decided on whether and how the Supplemental Recommendations 24A, 24B and
> 24C on String Similarity might be reworked further based on the
> intervention of the Board and ICANN org.
>
> *4. Subsequent Procedures Supplemental Recommendations*
>
> - Having dealt with the pending Subsequent Procedures recommendation,
> Council tasked the SubPro Small Team Plus with an updated assignment
> form
> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yDgWIwKZqKk0WY0q7CS2pf7aD4VupCWV/edit>
> . The Small Team Plus has committed to a work plan
> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IhxKi0dvkS-a3ot7w8YG0iFxw4LiZuLz/edit>
> to address the recommendations not adopted by the Board.
> - Following that plan, the Small Team agreed to Supplemental
> Recommendations
> <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2024/agenda/new-gtld-subpro-supplemental-recommendations-2apr24-en.pdf> on
> five of the six Topics, i.e. (i) Registry Voluntary Commitments / Public
> Interest Commitments, (ii) Applicant Support, (iii) Terms and Conditions,
> (iv) String Similarity Evaluations, and (v) Limited Challenge/Appeal
> Mechanisms. Based on the expected implementation as it relates to the
> Continued Operations Instrument (COI), the Small Team Plus determined it
> was unnecessary to develop a Supplemental Recommendation for the 6th Topic
> 22: Registrant Protections.
> - On 1 April, an “Explainer” document
> <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2024/agenda/new-gtld-subpro-supplemental-recommendations-2apr24-en.pdf>was
> shared with Council that consolidates all of the Supplemental
> Recommendations and provides a brief explanation for each of them.
> - Following Council's deliberation on the issues of Diacritics in
> Latin Script (item 2 above) and Singular/Plural gTLDs & String Similarity
> (item 3 above) which resulted in the withholding of Supplemental
> Recommendations 24A, 24B, 24C, Council proceeded to unanimously vote
> <https://community.icann.org/x/AYDyEg> to approve the SubPro Supplemental
> Recommendations
> <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2024/agenda/new-gtld-subpro-supplemental-recommendations-2apr24-en.pdf> for (i)
> Registry Voluntary Commitments / Public Interest Commitments, (ii)
> Applicant Support, (iii) Terms and Conditions, and (iv) Limited
> Challenge/Appeal Mechanisms. These will now be submitted to the ICANN
> Board's consideration/approval.
>
> *Action by ALAC Liaison*: to update ALAC/CPWG on GNSO Council's adoption
> of the SubPro Supplemental Recommendations for 4 topics.
>
> *5. Cross-Community Working Group on Auction Proceeds (CCWG-AP)
> Recommendation 7*
>
> - In its 2 March 2024 letter, the Board notes it “has been considering
> whether there are further ways to meet the community’s broader intention
> with Recommendation 7. If the phrase ‘from the Independent Project
> Applications Panel’ is removed from Recommendation 7, many of the Board’s
> concerns that supported the October 2023 action would be addressed. The
> Board also notes that removal of that phrase would support what it has
> always understood to be the intention of the CCWG-AP in making
> Recommendation 7 - to preserve the auction proceeds for funding projects,
> not challenges. Therefore, the Board asks for the Chartering Organizations’
> support in considering an update to the recommendation. Specifically, the
> Board asks for each Chartering Organization to the CCWG-AP to approve an
> update to Recommendation 7 that would remove the phrase ‘*from the
> Independent Project Applications Evaluation Panel*’ from the text of
> the recommendation. If the Chartering Organizations approve this update,
> the Board believes that there is a path to full implementation of the
> CCWG-AP’s Recommendation 7, including the ability to apply the restriction
> to third parties.”
> - Council agreed to reply to the 2 Mar letter expressing support for
> the Board's suggestion to remove the phrase ‘*from the Independent
> Project Applications Evaluation Panel*’ from the text of the
> recommendation.
>
> *6. Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Implementation (PPSAI)*
>
> - The issue with PPSAI is it is in 'rather unique' situation in that
> there is a gap between when the policies were adopted but implementation
> was subsequently delayed, and when work is now planed to resume again,
> those policies may no longer be fit for purpose due to new legislation
> coming into effect and other factors.
> - Council was informed that ICANN Org has been working on an
> implementation plan and planning to reengage with its Implementation Review
> Team (PPSAI IRT) at ICANN80. A fresh call for volunteers will be issued
> prior to ICANN80 to constitute a refreshed PPSAI IRT with an open + rep
> model.
> - There are currently 4 "threshold questions" for the refreshed IRT's
> consideration:-
> - Are there any policy questions or items the IRT already wants to
> bring to Council for guidance?
> - Can an implementation model without a formal accreditation
> program remain consistent with policy recommendations?
> - Are there specific areas to revisit under new law/policy (Org to
> share assessment, IRT to review)?
> - Can these frameworks be aligned with existing work on RDRS,
> Registration Data Policy, etc and remain consistent with policy
> recommendations?
> - It was noted that this PPSAI IRT could be seen *not* as a
> conventional IRT but rather as a scoping team for issue identification
> based on the first question.
>
> *Action by ALAC Liaison*: to update ALAC/CPWG when the call for
> volunteers to refresh the PPSAI IRT is made.
>
> *7. IPC's Request for Reconsideration (RfR) on the Board's Proposed Bylaws
> Updates to Limit Access to Accountability Mechanisms*
>
> - IPC received a response from the Board Accountability Mechanisms
> Committee (BAMC) rejecting IPC's RfR on the basis that IPC was not a party
> harmed by the Board's Proposed Bylaws Updates to Limit Access to
> Accountability Mechanisms
> <https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/proposed-bylaws-updates-to-limit-access-to-accountability-mechanisms-27-02-2024>
> - NOTE: While the GNSO Council did not support
> <https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/proposed-bylaws-updates-to-limit-access-to-accountability-mechanisms-27-02-2024/submissions/gnso-council-15-04-2024> the
> Board's proposal and the ALAC did
> <https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/proposed-bylaws-updates-to-limit-access-to-accountability-mechanisms-27-02-2024/submissions/policy-staff-in-support-of-the-at-large-community-at-large-advisory-committee-alac-11-04-2024>,
> the issue being contended here, as explained to Council by an IPC
> Councilor, is the principle that an ICANN community group can be found to
> have no standing (i.e. has been unable to show harm suffered) for something
> that has yet to be implemented.
>
> *Action by ALAC Liaison*: to liaise with IPC on next steps to the BAMC's
> rejection of IPC's RfR on the Board's Proposed Bylaws updates to limit
> access to Accountability Mechanisms, *if so instructed by ALAC-LT/ALAC*.
>
> Thanks for reading.
>
> Justine Chew
> ALAC Liaison to the GNSO
> GNSO Liaison Report Workspace
> <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/GNSO+Liaison+Report%2C+post-Oct+2021>
> ------
>
>
> On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 at 09:54, Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> ***Apologies for the duplication***
>> Please see the update I sent to the CPWG mailing list in respect of Item
>> 5: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Diacritics in Latin Script, following Andrew's
>> message and Olivier's update on my behalf at the CWPG call of 10 April
>> 2024.
>>
>> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/2024-April/005124.html
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Justine Chew
>> ALAC Liaison to the GNSO
>> GNSO Liaison Report Workspace
>> <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/GNSO+Liaison+Report%2C+post-Oct+2021>
>> ------
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 at 17:53, Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> Just a note to inform you that the agenda for the GNSO Council meeting
>>> of 18 Apr 2024 is out.
>>>
>>> For a curated version of the highlighted agenda item, please visit this
>>> link
>>> <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/GNSO+Liaison+Report%2C+post-Oct+2021#Apr2024-MOI_Apr2024>
>>> .
>>>
>>> *GNSO Council Meeting #4 of 2024 held on 18 Apr 2024 *
>>>
>>> *Full Agenda <https://community.icann.org/x/_oAvEQ> | Documents
>>> <https://community.icann.org/x/A4DyEg> | Motions
>>> <https://community.icann.org/x/AYDyEg>*
>>>
>>> - *Item 1: Administrative Matters*
>>> - Item 2: Opening Remarks / Review of Projects List
>>> <https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/project> and Action Item List.
>>> <https://community.icann.org/x/RgZlAg>
>>> - *Item 3: Consent Agenda*
>>> - GNSO Council Review of the GAC Communiqué
>>> <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2024/correspondence/dibiase-to-sinha-04apr24-en.pdf>
>>> - GNSO Council Small Team Guidance Document
>>> <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2024/draft/updated-small-team-guidelines-05apr24.pdf>
>>> - *Confirmation of Standing Predictability Implementation Review
>>> Team (SPIRT) Charter Drafting Team Leadership *(Chair - Nitan
>>> Walia; Vice-chair - Alan Greenberg; GNSO Council liaison - Anne
>>> Aikman-Scalese)
>>> - *Item 4: COUNCIL VOTE - Deferral of Policy Status Report Request -
>>> Expiration Policies*
>>> - *Item 5: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Diacritics in Latin Script*
>>> - *Item 6: COUNCIL VOTE - SubPro Supplemental Recommendations*
>>> - *Item 7: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - New gTLD Auction Proceeds Cross
>>> Community Working Group - Auction Proceeds (CCWG-AP) - Proposed Update to
>>> Recommendation 7*
>>> - Item 8: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Review of Action Decision Radar
>>> - *Item 9: Update on Status of Privacy and Proxy Services
>>> Accreditation Implementation*
>>> - *Item 10: ANY OTHER BUSINESS*
>>> -
>>>
>>> 10.1 - Update on ICANN80 planning and GNSO Draft schedule
>>> <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2024/draft/icann80-gnso-draft-schedule-04apr24-en.pdf>
>>> -
>>>
>>> 10.2 - Replacement of Council representative to the Continuous
>>> Improvement Program Community Coordination Group (CIP-CCG)
>>> -
>>>
>>> *10.3 - Upcoming Sessions/Updates on the Registration Data
>>> Request System (RDRS) *
>>>
>>>
>>> As usual, Council meetings are open to observers both on-site and
>>> remotely in listen-only mode. If you would like to observe the meeting,
>>> please check this link
>>> <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/GNSO+Liaison+Report%2C+post-Oct+2021#Apr2024-MeetDeets_Apr2024>
>>> for details.
>>>
>>> Thanks for reading / considering.
>>>
>>> Justine Chew
>>> ALAC Liaison to the GNSO
>>> GNSO Liaison Report Workspace
>>> <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/GNSO+Liaison+Report%2C+post-Oct+2021>
>>> ------
>>>
>>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ALAC mailing list
> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>
> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> ALAC Working Wiki:
> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
--
*Laura Margolis*
ALAC Liaison to ccNSO
margolisl at gmail.com
+59899690992
skype: lauri.margolis
ccNSO Liaison Workspace
<https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/ALAC+Liaison+to+the+ccNSO+Reports#ccNSO-696341623>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/attachments/20240423/0b8ad55d/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the ALAC
mailing list