[NCSG-PC] The idea of GGP to develop Implementation Guidance on Urgent Request after GAC PSWG work

[Tomslin Samme-Nlar]

Hi all,

Greetings from the skies over the Pacific ocean.

*Councillors*, what do think about Anne's suggestion of initiating a GGP
process to develop implementation guidelines for the Urgent Request
timeline issue that GAC PSWG has offered to develop an LEA authentication
system that might help make the implementation of urgent requests feasible?
The council's position currently seems to be that with an authentication
system, the IRT can proceed with its work on implementing Urgent Requests,
but will it really have everything? I had a chat with Anne to further
discuss this and below are some things she believes the GGP might need to
develop implementation guidance on, and I tend to agree:

1. Ways of verifying that the LEA is legit (coming out of the GAC PSWG work
but feed that into the GGP)
2. Requirements to show that the facts supplied by the authenticated LEA
are believable (verifiable) and fit into one of the four categories to
which the urgent requests time frame applies.  (Standards may vary
depending on the allegation.)
3. Specific information on the particular law which the LEA is seeking to
enforce (in some ways may be redundant with the exercise in 2. above.
4. Maybe some helpful standards on types of replies that registrars can
make within 24 hours  - can this be standardized somehow?
5. Helpful standards on what registrars can say if a request is denied.

Keen to hear your thoughts, especially @farzaneh badii
<farzaneh.badii at gmail.com> who has been following this work.

Warmly,
Tomslin



---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Anne ICANN via council <council at icann.org>
Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2025 at 07:17
Subject: [council] Re: Proposed Agenda | GNSO Council Meeting | Wednesday,
12 March 2025
To: Terri Agnew <terri.agnew at icann.org>
Cc: council at gnso.icann.org <council at gnso.icann.org>, liaison6c at icann.org <
liaison6c at icann.org>, GNSO-Secs <gnso-secs at icann.org>


Thanks Terri.  With respect to Item 7 below, "Urgent Requests", some of us
participated in the GAC PSWG meetings on this topic that commenced week
before last.  I think that was a productive meeting but several questions
arose (in chat) about the procedural context in terms of GNSO Council
work.  Obviously a PSWG meeting is not a GNSO process.

Based on the letters exchanged between the Board and Council in 2024, it
appears that the Board previously adopted EPDP Phase I Recommendation 18 in
relation to Urgent Requests but later determined that it was problematic to
implement. The Board stated it was reconsidering its prior adoption of the
Recommendation.  Again, based on correspondence from the GAC, the GAC is
just looking for parallel processes on authenticationof Law Enforcement
Agency Urgent Requests and it appears that the Board and the Council
believe the implementation issues can be addressed by reconvening the
IRT.   (Of course, it may not be that easy to "reconvene".  If this summary
of the status of the issue is wrong, I'm sure Steve Chan will correct me.)

Of course if the Board actually "non-adopts" Recommendation 18, it would
appear this would require Supplemental Recommendations or a Section 16
process.  But as long as Recommendation 18 stands as "approved", a
different process may be appropriate.  Reconvene the IRT or something else?

Urgent Requests really only apply in 4 limited circumstances which the
registrar must evaluate before releasing registration data (presumably
after confirming that the request comes from legitimate law enforcement
authority).  Separately, it does seem to me that the registrar will not
only have to be notified of the situation that meets one of these criteria
(and related facts?), but also of the specific law that the LEA is seeking
to enforce.

For discussion purposes, I wanted to mention one alternative to reconvening
the IRT.  A GNSO procedure which applies in circumstances where there is
new information and the Board is seeking input on how to implement policy
already adopted is the GNSO Guidance Process provided in the ByLaws.
Further Information is available here:

https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-5-ggp-manual-24oct19-en.pdf

Looking forward to the discussion in Council in Seattle.  I'll be remote
for the first three days of the meeting, joining you all in Seattle on
March 11.

Thank you,
Anne





Anne Aikman-Scalese
GNSO Councilor
NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026
anneicanngnso at gmail.com


On Fri, Feb 28, 2025 at 12:40 PM Terri Agnew via council <council at icann.org>
wrote:

> Dear all,
>
>
>
> Please find below the agenda for the GNSO Council Meeting on 12 March 2025
> at 13:15 PT (20:15 UTC) This will be posted on the agenda wiki page
> <https://community.icann.org/x/ewByG> shortly.
>
> ICANN82 Schedule webpage:
> https://icann82.sched.com/event/1vpbt/gnso-council-meeting
>
>
>
> Thank you.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
>
> Terri
>
> Policy Team Supporting the GNSO
>
> *GNSO Council Agenda 12 March 2025*
>
> Please note that all documents referenced in the agenda have been gathered
> on a Wiki page for convenience and easier access:
> https://community.icann.org/x/IABbGQ
>
>
>
> This agenda was established according to the GNSO Operating Procedures
> <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/op-procedures-15mar23-en.pdf>
> v3.5, updated on 15 March 2023.
>
> For convenience:
>
>    - An excerpt of the ICANN Bylaws defining the voting thresholds is
>    provided in Appendix 1 at the end of this agenda.
>    - An excerpt from the Council Operating Procedures defining the
>    absentee voting procedures is provided in Appendix 2 at the end of this
>    agenda.
>
>
>
>  GNSO Council meeting on Thursday, 12 March 2025 at 20:15 UTC:
> https://tinyurl.com/ym7f48uc
>
>
>
> 13:15 Los Angeles; 16:15 Washington DC; 20:15 London; 21:15 Paris; 23:15
> Moscow; 07:15 Melbourne (Friday)
>
>
>
> *GNSO Council Meeting Remote Participation: [Published 24 hours prior to
> meeting]: **https://icann82.sched.com/event/1vpbt/gnso-council-meeting*
> <https://icann82.sched.com/event/1vpbt/gnso-council-meeting>
>
> Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if they will not
> be able to attend and/or need a dial out call.
>
> ___________________________________
>
> *Item 1: Administrative Matters (5 minutes)*
>
> 1.1 - Roll Call
>
> 1.2 - Updates to Statements of Interest
>
> 1.3 - Review / Amend Agenda
>
> 1.4 - Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meetings per the
> GNSO Operating Procedures:
>
> Minutes
> <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2025/minutes/minutes-gnso-council-09jan25-en.pdf>
> of the GNSO Council Meeting on 09 January 2025 were posted on 26 January
> 2025.
>
> Minutes of the GNSO Council Meeting on 13 February 2025 will be posted on
> 03 March 2025
>
>
>
> *Item 2: Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List (0 minutes)*
>
> 2.1 - Review focus areas and provide updates on specific key themes /
> topics, to include 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 (5 minutes)*
>
>
>
>    - Confirm the GNSO Standing Committee on Continuous Improvement (SCCI)
>    Leadership Team
>    - Acknowledgment of the appointment of Greg DiBiase to seat 13 on the
>    ICANN Board.
>
>
>
> *Item 4: COUNCIL VOTE - Final Report from the Transfer Policy Review
> (“TPR”) Policy Development Process (“PDP”) Working Group (15 minutes)*
>
> On 18 February 2021, the GNSO Council
> <https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions/2021#202102>initiated
> <https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions/2020-current#20210218-2> a
> PDP to review the Transfer Policy
> <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/transfer-policy-2016-06-01-en>,
> the policy that governs the process of transferring a domain name from one
> registrar to another. This PDP is tasked to determine if changes to the
> policy are needed to improve the ease, security, and efficacy of
> inter-registrar and inter-registrant transfers.
>
>
>
> The Transfer Policy Review (TPR) working group began meeting in May 2021,
> and while it initially divided its work into three distinct groups/phases,
> the working group ultimately agreed that the topics within its charter
> needed to be considered together due to overlapping dependencies.
> Accordingly, the working group worked toward a comprehensive Initial
> Report
> <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=347734037&preview=/347734037/363921805/GNSO_TPR_Initial_Report_20240731.pdf>,
> which it published on 1 August 2024. The Initial Report covers all topics
> in the working group’s charter, including inter-registrar transfers, change
> of registrant, the Transfer Dispute Resolution Policy, ICANN-approved
> transfers, and others.
>
>
>
> The TPR Working Group introduced a new format to its Initial and Final
> Report, where it endeavors to indicate the “Policy Impact Level” of each
> policy recommendation. The Policy Impact Indicator is a new feature to help
> the reader understand the degree of change being proposed by the Working
> Group, i.e., how much does this recommendation differ from the current
> Transfer Policy?
>
>
>
> Here, the Council will vote on the Final Report from the TPR PDP Working
> Group.
>
> 4.1 - Introduction of Topic (Osvaldo Novoa, GNSO Council Liaison to the
> TPR PDP)
>
> 4.2 - Council Vote (voting threshold: supermajority)
>
> 4.3 - Next Steps
>
>
>
> *Item 5: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Next Steps for Registration Data Accuracy
> (25 minutes) *
>
> During the Council’s July 2024 meeting
> <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2024/minutes/minutes-gnso-council-18jul24-en.pdf>,
> the Council agreed that restarting the Scoping Team at this time is not
> recommended. However, during the August meeting
> <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2024/minutes/minutes-gnso-council-08aug24-en.pdf>,
> some Councilors suggested potentially convening a small team to discuss how
> to make progress on this topic. Council Leadership distributed a proposal
> <https://lists.icann.org/hyperkitty/list/council@icann.org/thread/DPFGXG6WTLZJ3UUJXEW4NL424YDUXMB4/>
> of how to solicit additional feedback from ICANN org and GNSO groups with
> directed questions, in order to receive information from which the Council
> can decide how to handle the important topic of accuracy. Following full
> Council review and feedback, the Council distributed these questions to
> Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees. The Council received
> feedback from the following groups: ALAC, BC, GAC, IPC, ISPCP, NCSG, RrSG,
> and RySG.
>
>
>
> Separately, Council Leadership sent a communication re: RDS-WHOIS2
> Recommendation CC.1
> <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/resolutions-board-action-rds-whois2-final-recs-25feb20-en.pdf>
> from 2020. This recommendation deals with the accuracy of RDS data,
> particularly names suspended due to inaccurate data. The recommendation
> essentially recommends that registrars note in the RDS record that the name
> is suspended due to incorrect data and also recommends the name should not
> be “unsuspended” until the data is corrected. As this recommendation also
> falls under the topic of accuracy, Leadership noted that folding
> Recommendation CC.1 into the broader discussion of accuracy (when that
> takes place) may make sense.
>
>
>
> Here the Council will discuss the feedback received and determine next
> steps for making progress on registration data accuracy now that feedback
> has been received.
>
> 5.1 - Introduction of Topic (Greg DiBiase, GNSO Chair)
>
> 5.2 - Council Discussion
>
> 5.3 - Next Steps
>
>
>
> *Item 6: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - EPDP Phase 1 on the Temporary Specification
> - Implementation Question re: Billing Contact (20 minutes)*
>
> During the ICANN81 GNSO Council Wrap-Up
> <https://icann81.sched.com/event/1p2Gu/gnso-council-wrap-up>, Thomas
> Rickert provided an update regarding the implementation of EPDP Temp Spec
> Phase 1 recommendations. Thomas is the current GNSO Council Liaison to the
> EPDP Temp Spec Phase 1 Implementation Review Team (IRT). Thomas noted that
> the IRT expressed the view that the absence of a reference to billing
> contact data was a drafting error, and the EPDP Team intended for the
> collection of billing contact data to be optional and not mandatory.
>
>
>
> The Registration Data Policy
> <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/registration-data-policy-2024-02-21-en>
> was published on 21 February 2024, and the policy has an effective date of
> 21 August 2025. The EPDP Phase 1 policy recommendations
> <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/epdp-gtld-registration-data-specs-final-2-20feb19-en.pdf>
> do not reference billing contact data, and the Registration Data Policy
> <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/registration-data-policy-2024-02-21-en>
> also makes no reference to billing contact data.
>
>
>
> In the interest of transparency, Thomas requested that all Councilors
> consult with their respective groups to ensure that others are properly
> informed and agree with the interpretation raised by the IRT. Accordingly,
> Councilors were asked to consult with their groups. The Council discussed
> this topic during its meeting on 19 December 2024
> <https://icann.zoom.us/rec/play/wMLdawWw7g5mSvuAbgKmzJKUiRDCBU1sSYKHcwg3nb8ObzAmHbtR9DZLt9wYmV3Bee3G-a8XkuGBTEfT.bGJ8DSe9rB48OrcM?canPlayFromShare=true&from=share_recording_detail&startTime=1734642041000&componentName=rec-play&originRequestUrl=https%3A%2F%2Ficann.zoom.us%2Frec%2Fshare%2FXG3MKnwKXUSApB_Pn5dtTtisSshnOXh-t8bwgOOpd2wfiAhC0gPDDaWI6tv23obz.u_NkYLkVfPbM11VO%3FstartTime%3D1734642041000>
> and asked for additional background information on the topic.
>
>
>
> During its February meeting, the Council considered the questions below:
>
>
>
>    1. Does the Council confirm billing contact was in scope for the EPDP
>    on the Temp Spec - Phase 1 Team?
>    2. Does the Council confirm:
>
> a.                   the collection of billing contacts by registrars
> should continue to be required as per current RAA requirements because EPDP
> Phase 1, by being silent on this, did not mean to change this requirement,
> OR
>
> b.                   the collection of billing contacts by registrars
> should become optional because EPDP Phase 1, by being silent on this, meant
> to change the RAA requirement?
>
>
>
> The Council discussed potential options during its February 2025 meeting
> <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Final+Proposed+Agenda+2025-02-13>
> and continued discussing options during its GNSO Working Session at
> ICANN82.
>
>
>
> Here, the Council will continue discussing how to resolve the question of
> Billing Contact.
>
> 6.1 - Introduction of Topic (Greg DiBiase, GNSO Chair)
>
> 6.2 - Council Discussion
>
> 6.3 - Next Steps
>
>
>
> *Item 7: COUNCIL DISCUSSION: Update on Trilateral Meeting on Urgent
> Requests (20 minutes)*
>
> ICANN org convened an Implementation Review Team to assist ICANN in
> implementing the EPDP on the Temporary Specification Phase 1 Final Report
> <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/epdp-gtld-registration-data-specs-final-20feb19-en.pdf>,
> which began meeting in May 2019. ICANN org published the draft Registration
> Data Policy for public comment
> <https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/registration-data-consensus-policy-for-gtlds-24-08-2022>
> on 24 August 2022. Several commenters expressed dissatisfaction with the
> implementation of Recommendation 18, specifically around the issue of the
> response timeline for urgent requests. The relevant portion of
> Recommendation 18 reads, “A separate timeline of [less than X business
> days] will considered for the response to ‘Urgent’ Reasonable Disclosure
> Requests, those Requests for which evidence is supplied to show an
> immediate need for disclosure [time frame to be finalized and criteria set
> for Urgent requests during implementation].”
>
>
>
> On 3 June 2024
> <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2024/correspondence/tsinha-to-dibiase-03june24-en.pdf>,
> the Board wrote to the GNSO Council, noting concerns with the proposed
> urgent request timeline of business days as not fit for purpose, as truly
> urgent requests should be responded to within minutes or hours rather than
> business days. Recognizing this, the Board also noted there is no universal
> mechanism for registrars to authenticate law enforcement entities. The GNSO
> Council responded on 29 August 2024
> <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2024/correspondence/dibiase-to-sinha-29aug24-en.pdf>,
> agreeing with the Board’s concerns and suggesting a trilateral meeting
> between the Board, GNSO Council, and GAC to discuss a potential path
> forward in light of the concerns.
>
>
>
> On 15 October 2024
> <https://gac.icann.org/contentMigrated/gac-follow-up-on-urgent-requests-gac-response-to-board-clarifying-question-and-additional-considerations>,
> the GAC wrote to the Board, recommending, “[f]or the work on
> authentication, we would support the establishment of a joint PSWG/CPH task
> force. For the work on the response time for authenticated requests, we
> invite the Board and the GNSO Council to identify an expedited procedure
> for addressing this workstream. We strongly suggest resuming the work of
> the IRT, which was halted last summer.”
>
>
>
> A trilateral meeting was held on 4 November 2024
> <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Dialogue+with+GAC%2C+GNSO+Council%2C+and+Board+on+EPDP+Phase+1+Recommendation+18+%28Urgent+Requests%292024-11-04>
> and the Board, GAC, and GNSO Council discussed next steps, including
> potentially resuming discussions with the IRT. The Council discussed this
> issue in detail during its meeting on 19 December 2024
> <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Final+Proposed+Agenda+2024-12-19>
> and responded to the GAC on 15 January 2025
> <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2025/correspondence/dibiase-to-caballero-15jan25-en.pdf>.
> A second trilateral meeting was held on 12 February 2025
> <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Dialogue+with+GAC%2C+GNSO+Council%2C+and+Board+on+EPDP+Phase+1+Recommendation+18+%28Urgent+Requests%29+2025-02-12>
> .
>
>
>
> Here, the Council will hear an update from that trilateral meeting and
> discuss next steps.
>
> 7.1 - Introduction of Topic (Greg DiBiase, GNSO Chair)
>
> 7.2 - Council Discussion
>
> 7.3 - Next Steps
>
>
>
> *Item 8: COUNCIL DISCUSSION: Outcomes of Strategic Planning Session (15
> minutes)*
>
> Beginning in 2018, the GNSO Council has held an annual Strategic Planning
> Session (SPS). The SPS is the Council’s dedicated meeting designed to (i)
> understand and review the GNSO’s portfolio of work for the coming year,
> (ii) align on the GNSO’s work priorities for the coming year, (iii)
> consider whether the GNSO Council has the correct resources and tools to
> conduct its work as manager of the PDP efficiently, effectively, and
> comprehensively, and (iv) discuss how to best prepare for emerging and
> upcoming challenges the Council could face in the coming year and beyond.
> This year’s SPS was held in Washington, D.C. on 14-15 January 2025.
>
>
>
> Here, the Council will review the outcomes of the SPS and discuss next
> steps.
>
> 8.1 - Introduction of Topic (Greg DiBiase, GNSO Chair)
>
> 8.2 - Council Discussion
>
> 8.3 - Next Steps
>
>
>
> *Item 9: Any Other Business (15 minutes)*
>
> 9.1 - GNSO Chair Election Timeline
> <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/proposed-chair-election-timeline-25feb25-en.pdf>
> Announcement
>
> 9.2 - Update from the GNSO Informal Internet Governance Tracking Group
>
> 9.3 - Accuracy Scoping Deferral Expiration
>
> 9.4 - Open Mic
>
>
>
>  _______________________________
>
> Appendix 1: GNSO Council Voting Thresholds (ICANN Bylaws, Article 11,
> Section 11.3(i))
>
> See https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#article11.
>
> Appendix 2: GNSO Council Absentee Voting Procedures (GNSO Operating
> Procedures, Section 4.4)
>
> See
> https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/op-procedures-15mar23-en.pdf
>
>
>
>
> *References for Coordinated Universal Time of 20:15 UTC*
>
> Local time between March and November in the NORTHERN hemisphere
>
> See https://www.timeanddate.com/time/change/ for Dates for Daylight
> Saving Time and Clock Changes
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> California, USA (PDT) UTC-7 13:15
>
> San José, Costa Rica (CST) UTC-6  14:15
>
> New York/Washington DC, USA (EDT) UTC-4 16:15
>
> Buenos Aires, Argentina (ART) UTC-3 17:15
>
> Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo (WAT) UTC+1 21:15
>
> Paris, France (CEST) UTC+1  21:15
>
> Moscow, Russia (MSK) UTC+3 23:15
>
> Singapore (SGT) UTC+8  04:15 (Friday)
>
> Melbourne, Australia (AEST) UTC+11 07:15 (Friday)
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com and
> https://tinyurl.com/ym7f48uc
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> council mailing list -- council at icann.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to council-leave at icann.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.

_______________________________________________
council mailing list -- council at icann.org
To unsubscribe send an email to council-leave at icann.org

_______________________________________________
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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20250308/956961c0/attachment-0001.htm>