Content Comparison

What happened?

The SubPro IRT discussed proposed updates to the Base Registry Agreement touching on:

• SubPro + NR Implementation Update: 18 Topics
• Policy Recommendations under 4 areas: Registration Data Policy, IDNs-EPDP Phase 1, RPMs Phase 1 - Trademark Claims, and IGO/INGO
• ICANN Board Approved Community Recommendation: 2 Topics
• Operation Updates under 26 Topics

What are the At-Large specific takeaways from this session? 

• IDNs-EPDP Phase 1 results in proposed Base RA new Spec 14.
• Adoption of SAC074 Incident Reporting
• CCWG-Accountability - inclusion of provision around "governing law"
• CC.1 RDS Review - recommendations regarding registration data
• Update to ASP - broadening of assignment restrictions for ASP applicants

What are the At-Large specific action items (next steps)?

• SubPro IRT Reps to continue to monitor work of this IRT on the Base RA and bring any pertinent issues for discussion at CPWG (or OFB-WG).
• Participate in the public comment proceeding scheduled for Q1 of 2025.

What happened?

The SubPro IRT continued to discuss proposed updates to the Base Registry Agreement, in particular:

• Spec 14 for Primary and Variant TLDs
• Topic 29: Name Collisions
• RVC as way of overcoming an Objection
• Reduction of registry-level fees for ASP qualifiers in Year 1-4
• Registration Data Policy - "thin RDDS"
• Implementing 2014 policy on IGO/INGOs
• Implementing SAC074 Incident Reporting

What are the At-Large specific takeaways from this session? 

• That the IDNs EPDP Phase 1 recommendations have been satisfactorily provided for in the proposed updated Base RA, with 2 exceptions: (1) Org to note that it should be "primary plus up to 4 allocatable variants" (and not "primary plus 4 variants"; and (2) provision of no fees for applying for up to 4 variants in the next round (still pending Board approval).
• The SSAC NCAP Study 2 recommendations around risk management which were approved by the ICANN Board have been incorporated in Spec 6, section 6.
• Objections overcome by RVCs proposed as enforceable as a practicable matter and under the ICANN Bylaws, must be included in RA Spec 11 Section 2, or Spec 12.
• It is unclear currently how changes to PICs or RVCs would be entertained by ICANN.
• ICANN proposes a scale for reduced registry fees for ASP qualifiers post delegation - Year 1: 75%, Year 2: 50%, Year 3: 25%, Year 4: full fixed fees.
• Implementation SAC074 Incident Reporting - to mirror or adapt from .com RA Renewal language on publishing obligations

What are the At-Large specific action items (next steps)?

• SubPro IRT Reps to continue to monitor work of this IRT on the Base RA and bring any pertinent issues for discussion at CPWG (or OFB-WG).
• Develop a few stress tests around RVCs to see how ICANN org would handle RVCs proposed by applicants.
• Obtain clarification and/or advocate for changes to PICs or RVCs to go through RSEP or similar process which requires public comment.
• Participate in the public comment proceeding scheduled for Q1 of 2025.

What happened?

The WG has completed part of this work, but still needs to explore gaps that have not emerged in practical terms. The WG therefore seeks to extend its mandate to ICANN83, allowing it to present its results in Seattle and present its recommendations in Prague.

According to its charter the WG had to be introduced by ICANN81, in order to address them and related methods. The WG has completed part of this work, but still needs to explore gaps that have not emerged in practical terms. 

Decision:

The ccNSO Council extends the mandate of the Policy Gap Analysis working group up and until ICANN83,

with expectation that the chair of the working group provides regular updates to the Council regularly.

What happened?

The SubPro IRT discussed proposed text for the Next AGB on:

• Topic 35 | Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort / Private Resolution of Contention Sets
• Topic 20 | Application Change Requests - Brand String Change
• Singular/Plural Notification

What are the At-Large specific takeaways from this session? 

• Confirmation of ‘Ascending Clock’ and ‘Second Price’ method for ICANN Auctions of Last Resort; with Bid Credit for supported ASP applicants partaking in an auction. Additional auctions rules and procedures (as applicable) will be available no later than (3) months before 1st auction.

• Brand String Change will be essentially the same as last round.
• Singular/Plural issue notification will be incorporated in AGB.

What are the At-Large specific action items (next steps)?

• SubPro IRT Reps to continue to monitor work of this IRT and bring any pertinent issues for discussion at CPWG or OFB-WG.
• Participate in the public comment proceeding scheduled for Q1 of 2025.

What happened?

Example: This session discussed....

What are the At-Large specific takeaways from this session? 

Example: At-Large is interested in...

What are the At-Large specific action items (next steps)?

Example: At-Large needs to... 

IGLC

The ccNSO Internet Governance Liaison Committee (IGLC) will kick off the next edition of its heat map, to determine which are the hot internet governance topics for each of the ICANN regions, and see whether there are changes with respect to previous editions of the heat map.

IGLC HEAT MAP | A brainstorming for HeatMap updating. ICANN has five geographical regions. The members of the ccNSO Internet Governance Liaison Committee (IGLC) regularly reflect on what the hot internet governance topics are for each of the five regions. Are there overlaps? Major differences? Which topics deserve particular attention, and how can IGLC provide value to ccTLDs globally?  Consult previous IGLC heat maps here. 

What happened?

This session discussed the ongoing outreach efforts for the upcoming gTLD application round and the efforts to engage regional GAC communities. Since the Kigali meeting, regional webinars were organized in Latin America, Africa, and the Middle East, focusing on informing GAC members about the upcoming rounds and encouraging governments to support outreach in their regions. Efforts to track and measure the effectiveness of these engagements, including the number of events held and the countries reached, were presented. An emphasis was placed on the need for community involvement, as the current team size is not sufficient to reach all regions.

What are the At-Large specific takeaways from this session?

At-Large is interested in the ongoing engagement efforts and the regional outreach activities that are being tracked to assess the effectiveness of these efforts. It was highlighted that the engagement statistics are crucial to understanding how well the outreach is performing and how it impacts the number of applications received in the upcoming round. There is a clear need for broader participation from the community to help expand the outreach efforts and ensure the global nature of the initiative.

What are the At-Large specific action items (next steps)?

At-Large might consider joining GAC / propose joint efforts to:
1. Encourage participation in regional outreach efforts – At-Large members are urged to contribute to the ongoing outreach by supporting webinars and helping to engage local communities.
2. Join the monthly IRT meetings – Attend the upcoming IRT meetings (next on the 14th) to stay informed on the progress and provide feedback on engagement strategies.
3. Assist in requesting speakers – At-Large members should help identify and request speakers to support outreach efforts in their regions, facilitating local engagements.
4. Sign up as champions for outreach – At-Large members can sign up to be champions of the outreach initiatives, helping to build connections and support in underserved regions.
5. Monitor outreach progress – Track the regional statistics and help identify areas that may require further attention or expansion.

What happened?

Example: This session discussed....

What are the At-Large specific takeaways from this session? 

Example: At-Large is interested in...

What are the At-Large specific action items (next steps)?

Example: At-Large needs to... 

What happened?

Example: This session discussed....

What are the At-Large specific takeaways from this session? 

Example: At-Large is interested in...

What are the At-Large specific action items (next steps)?

Example: At-Large needs to... 

What happened?

Example: This session discussed....

What are the At-Large specific takeaways from this session? 

Example: At-Large is interested in...

What are the At-Large specific action items (next steps)?

Example: At-Large needs to... 

What happened?

Example: This session discussed....

What are the At-Large specific takeaways from this session? 

Example: At-Large is interested in...

What are the At-Large specific action items (next steps)?

Example: At-Large needs to... 

Meeting organized by ICANN's Governmental Engagement Team. The purpose of the session is to update the community on geopolitical developments and their impact on ICANN's technical mission, policies and processes. It is recognized that governmental, regulatory and other initiatives can affect all parts of the ICANN community.

What happened?

• Update on Legislative and Regulatory Developments.
• Update on IGO Activities.
• WSIS+20 Review.
• Introduction Internet Governance Advocacy Project.
  

What are the At-Large specific takeaways from this session? 

• • ICANN participates in several IT ecosystem forums, high-level UN technical forums, and global geopolitical arenas.
  • Executive Vice President designate for Technological Sovereignty, Security and Democracy of the European Union, Henna Virkkunen, recognized the importance of “[...] further improving coordination among EU Member States at the United Nations, in the Internet Governance Forum, in other relevant international fora and technical organizations, such as the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.”
  • Some participants raised concerns about a potential change in the ICANN context following the US election results.
  • ICANN is making efforts to clarify the concept of the Multi-Stakeholder Model at the highest level of international fora so that its importance in the policy development process is appreciated.
  • ICANN is in contact and participating in dialogue with governmental decision-makers to raise awareness of its role in policy development for Internet governance and to raise its profile as an authoritative spokesperson to raise red flags about possible collisions between some governmental regulatory initiatives, governmental technical initiatives, and their impact on the Domain Name System and technical resource management under Icann's mission.
  • Upcoming policy & regulatory initiatives on which ICANN has been in contact and provided input:
    • • Transposition of NIS2 Directive in EU Member States
      • EU Strategy on Internet Governance (Joint Communication with EEAS, non-regulatory)
      • Review of the Cybersecurity Act (Regulation (EU) 2019/881)

      • On the NIS2 Directive ICANN submission to the European Commission's consultation on the draft implementing regulation, highlighting:

        • • Significant incidents for DNS/TLDs

          • 
            

            Cybersecurity risk management measures.

• • What has ICANN done about WSIS+20 Review?
    • • Internally
        • ICANN written contributions.
        • Engagements of governments and interested stakeholders.

• • • • Externally
        • WSIS+20 Outreach Network
        • WSIS+20 Small Discussion Group with SO/ACs
        • Coordination with other organizations

• • • • Facts
        • Inform the general public about the importance and possible impact and threat of multilateral processes, including WSIS+20.
        • Provide evidence of the success of MSM IG, including IDN, UA.
        • HLGM and GAC outreach
        • Quiet diplomacy - bilateral meetings

What are the At-Large specific action items (next steps)?

• Promote the Multi-Stakeholder Model as the working example that includes those affected by the development of policies in the Internet governance ecosystem.
• Bring Icann's knowledge to the regional forums that we build or the forums where we are invited to promote a better understanding of Icann's mission, the importance of the Multi-Stakeholder Model and the spaces for participation that we have in the At-Large community.
• Participate actively in both internal and external spaces to Icann where the WSIS+20 review is discussed to ensure the preservation of a space for Atlarge participation and action within the Internet governance ecosystem.
• From each of Atlarge's dissemination spaces and from the social networks of each of its collective (ALSs) and individual members, promote the opportunity for participation that we have, promote Icann's mission, promote the value of the Multi-Stakeholder model in the policy development process.
• Promote the Internet Governance Advocacy Project in each of our regional organizations and among members, which seeks to educate the general public about the complexity of the concept and its impact on everyday life.

What happened?

This session, titled "IDN and UA Strategy: Capacity Building Initiatives" discussed several aspects of ICANN's strategy for UA in three sections. These were ICANN.org's UA Strategy (Sarmad Hussain); UA Curriculum Development (Moderator: Gerardo Ferriera) ; and the UA Day (Moderator: Seda Akbulut). The full presentation is available here.

What are the At-Large specific takeaways from this session? 

At-Large-specific Takeaways included a presentation by the incoming ALAC Member Eunice Alejandra Pérez Coello about the UA Curriculum Adoption in Mexico, and a presentation on "UA Day, ALAC and the ICANN At-Large" by Satish Babu, ALAC Member, ALAC Liaison to UASG and Chair, UA-Tech WG.

What are the At-Large specific action items (next steps)?

The next steps that ALAC and RALOs can consider doing is to further promote the new UA Curriculum as well as the UA Day in different regions. RALOs, especially in regions of high linguistic diversity, can consider promoting the UA Day events--particularly regional events--better.

What happened?

Example: This session discussed....

What are the At-Large specific takeaways from this session? 

Example: At-Large is interested in...

What are the At-Large specific action items (next steps)?

Example: At-Large needs to... 

This was the 8th meeting of the IDN Sub-Track of the SubPro IRT. The meeting discussed incorporating the recommendations of the EPDP on IDN recommendations to the the following topics in SubPro:

* Base RA (Specification 14)
* Objections
* Application Queuing/Prioritization
* Different TLD Types

The meeting did not discuss topics that were directly related to end-users.

What happened?

Example: This session discussed....

What are the At-Large specific takeaways from this session? 

Example: At-Large is interested in...

What are the At-Large specific action items (next steps)?

Example: At-Large needs to... 

What happened?

Example: This session discussed....

What are the At-Large specific takeaways from this session? 

Example: At-Large is interested in...

What are the At-Large specific action items (next steps)?

Example: At-Large needs to... 

What happened?

Example: This session discussed....

What are the At-Large specific takeaways from this session? 

Example: At-Large is interested in...

What are the At-Large specific action items (next steps)?

Example: At-Large needs to... 

What happened?

Attendees were divided into several groups. I attended the "At-Large/End-user" group to discuss "what does accuracy mean, what inaccuracies are being seen, and what legitimate needs are being affected?"

The groups gave slightly different answers. However, a common respons was accuracy is needed for contactability.

The answers to the questions may be different if the discussion is based on a Registrant view compared to an End-user view.

What are the At-Large specific takeaways from this session? 

In my view, we have to be carefully arguing for more visible data in WHOIS/RDAP output.

What are the At-Large specific action items (next steps)?

An action point can be to monitor the European NIS2 implementation and requirements for registration data.

What happened?

Example: This session discussed....

What are the At-Large specific takeaways from this session? 

Example: At-Large is interested in...

What are the At-Large specific action items (next steps)?

Example: At-Large needs to... 

What happened?

ICANN Org provided an update on the Outreach and Engagement efforts regarding the Next Round and the ASP.

What are the At-Large specific takeaways from this session? 

• O&E efforts are implemented regionally, with stated countries of focus, and specific target audiences in mind
• GDS, GSE need support from RALOs, ALSes, IMs to help identify target events, entities for outreach purposes

What are the At-Large specific action items (next steps)?

RALOs should follow up with their respective GSEs regarding the outputs from the At-Large Plenary 2: Cross Community Collaboration to Deliver the Next Round

What happened?

Example: This session discussed....

What are the At-Large specific takeaways from this session? 

Example: At-Large is interested in...

What are the At-Large specific action items (next steps)?

Example: At-Large needs to... 

What happened?

Agenda, mostly administrative matters internal to GNSO & Council. The only issue of potential interest to At-Large is:

• Update on the Registration Data Policy Implementation Review Team 

What are the At-Large specific takeaways from this session? 

• The Registration Data Policy (RDP) resulted from the EPDP Phase 1, with the RDP now finalized and to be implemented soon. Since it needs to be read in conjunction with other documents - namely the Base RAA 2013. The RAA requires a billing contact data to be collected and put in escrow but the RDP, in superseding documents for registrar obligations, is silent on collection of billing contact data as well as such data being put in escrow, hence raising an inconsistency.
• Council needs to facilitate the publishing of an update RDP which states that collection and putting into escrow of billing contact data is optional, and to get ICANN Compliance's understanding on this approach to allow for what was intended and at the same time, disallow reopening discussion on any other aspect of the RDP.

What are the At-Large specific action items (next steps)?

• None

What happened?

Example: This session discussed....

What are the At-Large specific takeaways from this session? 

Example: At-Large is interested in...

What are the At-Large specific action items (next steps)?

Example: At-Large needs to...