[NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] Council Prioritization Exercise
Kathy Kleiman
Kathy at KathyKleiman.com
Tue Oct 21 20:32:29 EEST 2025
Hi Farzi and All,
May I suggest a slightly different approach? Can we support the current
Council Prioritization, Projects and Assumptions? If we do that, then
this would result in the deferral of the RPMs -- a good result! I have
to admit -- Tomslin helped me to understand this.
It also gives Council time to seek an independent data analysis of the
UDRP -- something we truly need to draft the UDRP RPMs Review - Phase 2
Charter (which under PDP 3.0 raises much more specific questions for
future PDPs) & a good foundation for the future RPMs Review - Phase 2
Working Group. An independent data review of the UDRP seems fair and
reasonable after 25 years!
/But do we want to ask for it now - or when the Council meets in
Dublin? There may be reasons to wait. You are the experts, but perhaps
it's a good idea to gain some support first from Registries and
Registrars? /
Farzi, to your invitation, what do you think of the new text below (with
your Transfer and DNS Review text included)?
Best and tx, Kathy
==========================================
We support the Prioritization Report and the “Council work currently
underway or expected:
“● Current: Latin Diacritics (LD) PDP
● Nearly certain: DNS Abuse PDP
● Likely: Supplemental Recommendations for SSAD (Council small team?)
These projects are in addition to other ongoing work or where the
Council is not the primary owner of the work (e.g., SCCI, reviews
related work, Implementation Review
Teams, short-lived small teams, other ad hoc work that may arise, etc.)”
We also support the Assumptions of the Council Prioritization Report:
“Assumptions
● The Council, broader community, and its support staff will likely be
overburdened if asked to manage three or more large, parallel efforts.
● This prioritization exercise should focus on calendar year 2026, while
being cognizant of the longer term outlook.”
Regarding 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.
Regarding the future Transfer Dispute Mechanism Project, when we reach
this issue, we think it 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.
Regarding other upcoming projects, we look forward to talking together
about how best to prepare for the work ahead.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
On 10/21/2025 10:01 AM, farzaneh badii wrote:
> 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 <mailto: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 list
>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20251021/fdce2730/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the NCSG-PC
mailing list