Versions Compared

Version Old Version 3 New Version Current
Changes made by

Heidi Ullrich

Heidi Ullrich

Saved on

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.


Please let the CPWG Co-Chairs and/or staff know by Tuesday, 1 March 23:59 UTC whether you would like to volunteer to draft 2-3 bullet points on recent or ongoing At-Large positions on policy and other end user issues in ICANN, such as:

  • Future of ICANN Meetings
  • EPDP and GDPR compliance
  • DNS abuse
  • ICANN Reviews and the multistakeholder model
  • Universal Acceptance (UA)
  • Subsequent Procedures

...

  • Universal Acceptance
    1. Big improvements have been made with long TLDs
    2. Long way to go for IDNs.
    3. Measurable improvement should proceed a new round.


  • EPDP and GDPR compliance
    1. Standardized Data Access is Important
    2. the Proposed SSAD doesn't deliver enough to justify costs
    3. System likely to be obsolete by the time it's delivered
    4. A ticketing system would make more sense


  • DNS abuse
    1. EU Report Confirms DNS Abuse is still an important issue.
    2. 75% of phishing domains and 59% of malware domains are maliciously registered
    3. Mitigation is most Important


  • Subsequent Procedures
    • Work to be done, prior to a new round
    • DNS Abuse, Universal Acceptance, Applicant Support top AT-Large priorities


  • Global Public Interest Framework
    • The PIF is a pilot which is under consideration as a lense through which the Board and Community could situate recommendations and positions.
    • It is based on and bounded by ICANN's Articles of Incorporation and By-laws End user interests, as they are reflected in these governing documents, must be honoured
    • Security and usability require more than allowing variant TLDs to be made available unchecked.
    •  technical, operational, legal, community/linguistic factors require management policies or implementation guidance to enhance the end-user experience with IDNs and their variant TLDs.
  • Registrar Transfer
    1. Significant work in securing notifying Registered Name Holders (RNH) in the different phases
    2. Focus on establish a secure Transfer Authorization Code (TAC), inc. time to live for the TAC
    3. «Consensus" that the 60 days transfer locks (after create and transfer) is too long. 


Please reference talking points from prior ICANN meetings (67-72) on the At-Large website:

https://atlarge.icann.org/policy/at-large-policy-sessions-icann-meetings-resources-en