I went to the outreach session today (virtually) and I suggest people who are onsite with no conflicting council duties go to similar sessions and report back. I did not hear anyone from our group making comments. We need to be present in these conversations.
If you remember we weighed in on the amendments. During the outreach session our issues were not addressed but they have done a report here:
The vibe of the sessions are more like they are defending themselves for why they are doing this rather than being open to feedback. Which I think is the wrong approach and some of them mentioned that this is just the first step for DNS abuse discussion and they will come back to Multistakeholder mode after they pass these amendments.
Some claim that if these amendments don't go through trust of the regulators and the UN will be hampered in ICANN and that ICANN can actually govern this space. I totally disagree, I don't think the UN cares about one single issue, if they care they care about whether the system is delivering and a lot of DNS abuse governance is out of ICANN's remit.
They have summarized our comments on the bilateral amendment which in my opinion does not capture NCSG's comments fully but somehow captures BC's comments extensively. For example our arguments that spam should not be included in the definition is totally disregarded. We also made some comments on "actionable evidence" that were disregarded.