[NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] Council Prioritization Exercise

Tue Oct 21 17:01:36 EEST 2025

Thanks Kathy. Please write up a short paragraph so that we can replace the
suggested paragraph with that.

Farzaneh

On Tue, Oct 21, 2025 at 9:57 AM Kathy Kleiman <Kathy at kathykleiman.com>
wrote:

> Dear Farzi,
>
> *For #2, we do have as strong position on whether this work should be
> prioritized -- it should not. *The very people who would be involved in
> this process are very tired. We have been attending two meetings a week and
> we are very, very tired.  Applicant support, Community Priority Evaluation,
> Objections and Appeals all involved untold energy from the Multistakeholder
> Process.  *Please do not prioritize RPMs -- Please Defer -- because there
> we will lose due to exhaustion if we start now or even soon. Plus, as you
> point out there are so many more Timely, Important Issues.*
>
> *For #2, we need a new, independent, objective and neutral data study of
> the UDRP - done by data scientists. Right now, there is none.  To do a
> "data-driven review, we truly, truly need an independent study, just as we
> had for starting the RPM Review - Phase 1 with a great independent study on
> the Trademark Clearinghouse.  *As Co-Chair, I can tell you that it
> changed the entire temperature in the Working Group from partisan (I love
> the TMCH, I hate the TMCH) to constructive -- "given this independent,
> objective data, what are the problems of the TMCH and how can we fix it."
>
> *Please, please, please find a way to get ICANN Org to commission an
> independent study here, just like for RPM Review - Phase 1 -- with
> questions from all SOs and ACs. After 90,000 UDRP decisions, the vast
> majority revoking domain names, it is the least they can do and it will be
> critical to the outcome.*
>
> *We will lose if we start with the WIPO-ICA report as WIPO is a vested
> party and does not want us to review its work as Provider. It wants to be
> legislator and judge.*
>
> Best and tx,
>
> Kathy
> On 10/21/2025 9:33 AM, farzaneh badii wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> We only have until tomorrow. Lets send this to the council:
>
> *1. Transfers Dispute Mechanism*
> This issue should be prioritized in accordance with the findings of the *Human
> Rights Impact Assessment (HRIA)* conducted after the Transfer Policy
> Review PDP. The HRIA identified that access to effective remedy is a
> central human rights consideration, and the lack of a clear dispute process
> for registrants creates an accountability gap. Therefore, this work should
> move forward as a matter of priority to ensure registrants have timely and
> rights-respecting redress options in cases of domain name theft or
> unauthorized transfers.
>
> *2. Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) Phase 2*
> We do not have a strong position on whether this work should be
> prioritized. However, given the significant time elapsed since the original
> PDP and the evolving enforcement landscape, the Council should consider
> multiple recent studies on UDRP rather than relying on a single source.
> ICANN org should also conduct its own study to assess the current
> effectiveness, fairness, and accessibility of existing RPMs before
> launching any new PDP.
>
> *3. DNS Abuse*
> While recognizing the importance of DNS abuse mitigation, we caution
> against adopting the “doomsday narrative” that frames DNS abuse as an
> existential threat to the multistakeholder model. The issue deserves
> attention but not disproportionate urgency. If the PDP proceeds, mitigation
> mechanisms must be evaluated not only for their perceived technical
> effectiveness but also for their *consistency with human rights
> principles*—including proportionality, due process, and avoidance of
> over-removal or overblocking.
>
>
> Farzaneh
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 12, 2025 at 10:47 PM Pedro de Perdigão Lana <
> pedrodeperdigaolana at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Just to note, although this doesn't change anything in the important part
>> of the working document, the RPM IRT work is actually expected to end in Q1
>> 2026, not Q4 2025.
>>
>> Cordially,
>>
>> *Pedro de Perdigão Lana*
>> Lawyer <https://www.nic.br/>, GEDAI/UFPR <https://www.gedai.com.br/>
>> Researcher
>> PhD Candidate (UFPR), LLM in Business Law (UCoimbra)
>> Coordination/Board/EC @ ISOC Brazil <https://www.isoc.org.br/>, NCUC
>> <https://www.ncuc.org/> & NCSG
>> <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Home>(ICANN) and CC
>> Brazil <https://br.creativecommons.net/>.
>> This message is restricted to the sender and recipient(s). If received by
>> mistake, please reply informing it.
>>
>>
>> Em dom., 12 de out. de 2025 às 19:10, Tomslin Samme-Nlar <
>> mesumbeslin at gmail.com> escreveu:
>>
>>> FYA
>>>
>>> Remain blessed,
>>> Tomslin
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
>>> From: Steve Chan via council <council at icann.org>
>>> Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2025 at 10:31
>>> Subject: [council] Council Prioritization Exercise
>>> To: council at icann.org <council at icann.org>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear Councilors,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I missed this action item (“Staff to recirculate the Prioritization
>>> document to Council list with a deadline of feedback from SG/Cs of 9 21
>>> October.“) from the Council’s September meeting, so apologies for the later
>>> delivery. Here is a link to the document:
>>> https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2025/draft/gnso-council-prioritization-working-document-05sep25-en.pdf
>>> and because of the late delivery, I’d like to suggest that the due date for
>>> feedback be extended to 21 October. As a reminder, the homework for
>>> Councilors is: “Councilors to share the prioritization document with SG/Cs
>>> to establish group priorities and share feedback with Council not later
>>> than 9 21 October.”
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Steve
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Steven Chan*
>>>
>>> VP, Policy Development Support & GNSO Relations
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>>>
>>> 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
>>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/12025%0D%0A++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Waterfront+Drive,+Suite+300+%0D%0A+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Los%0D%0A++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Angeles,+CA+90094-2536?entry=gmail&source=g>
>>>
>>> Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536
>>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/12025%0D%0A++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Waterfront+Drive,+Suite+300+%0D%0A+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Los%0D%0A++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Angeles,+CA+90094-2536?entry=gmail&source=g>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Email: steve.chan at icann.org
>>>
>>> Mobile: +1.310.339.4410
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20251021/190c6132/attachment-0001.htm>