Briefing. GNSO Council advances DNS abuse policy work and governance reforms

The Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council met on 15 January 2026 to address a dense agenda of policy development, implementation guidance and internal governance matters. The meeting, chaired by Jennifer Chung following the roll call led by Terry Agnew, brought together representatives from both the Contracted Parties House and the Non-Contracted Parties House, with participation split between in-person and remote attendance.

DNS abuse mitigation moves into formal policy development

The central decision of the meeting was the adoption of a Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group Charter on DNS abuse mitigation. The new PDP will focus specifically on associated domain checks by registrars, a mechanism intended to identify clusters of malicious domain registrations linked to known abuse.

During the discussion, council members raised questions about the scope of the PDP, particularly what happens after associated domain checks flag potentially abusive domains. The drafting team clarified that the PDP is designed to establish obligations for registrars to conduct such checks, while questions of metrics, enforcement and follow-up actions will be explored through the working group’s charter questions.

A significant part of the debate concerned human rights considerations. Some participants argued for explicit reference to ICANN’s board-approved human rights framework of interpretation, while others cautioned against altering standard charter language at a late stage. A compromise was reached by adding the human rights reference to the considerations section rather than the core template text. The motion passed with strong support from both houses, and the council requested the immediate launch of calls for volunteers to populate the new working group.

Clarifying dispute resolution rights for IGOs and INGOs

The council also adopted implementation guidance related to curative rights for intergovernmental and international non-governmental organisations under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) and Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) system.

The guidance addresses ambiguity in earlier recommendations about when parties may exit UDRP proceedings to pursue arbitration. The adopted clarification confirms that IGO and INGO respondents should be able to turn to alternative dispute resolution mechanisms at any point after a UDRP or URS case has been initiated. The aim is to avoid unintentionally forcing these actors into more complex and costly processes than those faced by other parties.

Addressing confusion around ICANN policy processes

Attention then turned to internal process reform. The Standing Committee on Continuous Improvement reported widespread community confusion about the different ICANN policy tools, including PDPs, expedited PDPs (EPDPs), and guidance or implementation processes.

To address this, the committee recommended developing clearer educational materials explaining when and how each mechanism should be used. Additional proposals included allowing EPDPs to decide whether early input phases are necessary, and formalising charter processes for guidance and implementation work. Council members broadly supported these ideas, noting that misunderstanding of policy pathways remains a persistent challenge.

Revisiting SSAD recommendations

The council discussed next steps for the System for Standardised Access/Disclosure (SSAD), a framework linked to access to non-public registration data. The Standing Committee recommended initiating a supplemental recommendation process, which would allow the ICANN Board to formally reconsider a set of SSAD recommendations that were not adopted following earlier EPDP work.

The proposal mirrors an approach used in the Subsequent Procedures process, creating a structured dialogue between the board and the council. Supporters argued that this could enable adjustments based on practical experience from the SSAD pilot, while maintaining accountability under ICANN’s bylaws.

Reforming ICANN’s review system

Updates were also provided on cross-community efforts to redesign ICANN’s review and accountability mechanisms. Work is underway on a new framework covering several types of reviews, including accountability and transparency, structural reviews, and ad hoc reviews for emerging issues. Early thinking suggests using strategic plans and annual reports as starting points for accountability reviews, though questions remain about timing and implementation.

Looking ahead

The meeting concluded with planning updates for upcoming ICANN events, including ICANN 85 in Mumbai in March 2026 and a Strategic Planning Session in Barcelona later in January.

Disclaimer: This content has been generated with the assistance of the DiploFoundation artificial intelligence language model reporting tool. While providing a high level of accuracy and quality, please note that the information provided may not be entirely error-free. We recommend reviewing the original content and consulting pertinent documentation. We do not assume any responsibility or liability for the use or interpretation of this content.