Contributed by by Aftab Siddiqui

11 December 2025. The Second RIR Governance Document Still Lacks Real Accountability.

Before we start discussing the second draft, we need to first give a well-deserved acknowledgement to the ASO-AC for its dedication and leadership in reviewing and updating the Regional Internet Registry (RIR) governance policy. The journey from ICP-2 to this second governance draft represents meaningful progress which is not just in structure, but in clarity and responsiveness to community needs. The work is substantial, and the community recognises it.

Moving towards the second draft of the RIR Governance document which is being positioned as a major step toward a more structured and resilient global Internet numbers governance model, which in essence is true but APRALO’s November 2025 response makes few things clear:

• The draft introduces processes but not strong governance.

• It creates frameworks but leaves the rules undefined.

• Without safeguards, accountability becomes optional.

While the draft improves on earlier iterations, it still contains structural weaknesses that could weaken the bottom-up model the RIR system is built on.

Undefined “Implementation Procedures” 

The draft defers key operational and oversight rules to future “Implementation Procedures” to be created later by ICANN and the RIRs.

• No minimum standards.

• No transparency guarantees.

• No requirement for community review.

These risks handing the power to design accountability rules to those meant to be held accountable. APRALO calls for a mandatory accountability baseline inside the core document, not in a future annex that could be quietly shaped later.

Audits exist but without “Scope, Limits or Transparency”

Audits are a necessary accountability tool, and their inclusion is welcome.

But the current design is dangerously vague:

• There are no caps on how often audits can be triggered, risking audit overload without purpose

• No clear timelines exist for when audits must begin or conclude, this could stall accountability

• There is no requirement to publish audit outcomes, limiting community oversight

• Community-initiated audits require an unusually high participation threshold (25% or 2,000 members)

Such ambiguity could either flood RIRs with audits or prevent meaningful community-led reviews altogether. APRALO stresses the need for defined triggers, caps, timelines, and public reporting to make audits effective instead of ornamental.

Remediation is prioritised, without guardrails

The draft prefers rehabilitation over immediate derecognition which is a sensible idea in principle. But with no timeframes, milestones, or reporting requirements, remediation could become an endless holding pattern.

Without hard deadlines and transparency, a failing RIR could remain in limbo for years while the community stays in the dark. APRALO urges time-bound remediation with published plans and visible progress reporting.

Appeals process is linked to ICANN existing processes 

Appeals currently fall under ICANN’s existing review mechanism, which can change at any time and may not suit RIR-specific scenarios or their respective communities.

A governance system needs a dedicated, independent, and reliable appeals mechanism. Without it, decisions risk appearing discretionary rather than accountable.

No requirements for diversity or regional balance

The document assumes community participation but does not guarantee representation, especially for smaller or underserved regions or communities. A global system cannot claim legitimacy if oversight bodies can be regionally skewed by default. Diversity in all forms whether geographic, linguistic, gender and stakeholder must be required, not implied.

Emergency Continuity: Stability vs Risk

One of the draft’s most important proposals is a mechanism to transfer RIR operations to an “Emergency Operator” in case of severe failure, which is again a good safety valve. 

APRALO suggests that this provision should be further refined with objective triggers, defined time limits, and strong communication expectations. Doing so would provide confidence that emergency measures are used appropriately and consistently, while maintaining trust in the RIR system.

Final Verdict: The draft is a step forward but not enough

Yes, the revised draft of the RIR Governance Document begins to address long-standing concerns, it formalises audits, introduces recognition/derecognition procedures, and acknowledges the need for operational stability.

But the structural gaps identified by APRALO show the draft still leans too heavily on vague promises and side-procedures. Without clear, enforceable standards, mandatory community participation, and strong transparency safeguards, the new framework risks becoming “governance with invisible rules.”

If the community does not demand stronger provisions now, we may look back in a few years and view this framework as a missed opportunity. Strengthening it today could ensure shared responsibility, transparency, and a strong community voice. Without these improvements, the governance model may gradually evolve in ways that limit oversight and accountability.

This is not a theoretical concern. For many in Asia-Pacific and other regions, real accountability and inclusive governance are essential for maintaining trust, ensuring fair resource distribution, and protecting regional autonomy in Internet-number governance.

More information: 

• ICP-2 Review

• Second Draft of the RIR Governance Document public comment proceeding

• APRALO Submission to the Second Draft of the RIR Governance Document public comment proceeding

Next decisional point:

• ASO to review comments received to the Second Draft of the RIR Governance Document public comment proceeding which closed on 7 November 2025

Tags: ASO, IETF, NRO, RIRs, ICP-2, APNIC, ARIN, RIPE NCC, AFRINIC, ICP-2 Review

Let us know if you would like more discussion on this topic.

Contributed by Satish Babu

6 November 2025. A uniform way to handle diacritics in domain names, similar to IDN Variants, has been a long-standing demand from several parts of At-Large, including the Canadian French-speaking territories. The asymmetry between Diacritics and Variants arose from the way the Latin Generation Panel has chosen to treat diacritic labels--as distinctly separate code points, and not as equivalents as with variant labels--mostly on account of security and confusability issues. In order for the end-user community to treat Latin Diacritics and Latin regular ASCII labels in special cases (eg. to treat Montreal and Montréal as the same thing), a policy needed to be developed as an exception to existing policy on variants.

In support of a 22 June 2023 letter from the ALAC Chair to the (then) GNSO Chair, a preliminary issue report was requested by the GNSO Council in May 2024, for ICANN org to assess all relevant issues related to the request. The Preliminary Issue Report was put out for public comment on 8 July 2024. Based on 41 public comments received, the Final Issue Report suggested a potential policy development process (PDP) to consider a single issue: In circumstances where a base ASCII gTLD and the Latin script diacritic version of the gTLD are NOT variants of each other, what mechanism is needed in order to allow a single registry operator to simultaneously operate both gTLDs?

The Latin Script Diacritics PDP was initiated by the GNSO Council in November 2024. The name of the PDP was later simplified to Latin Diacritics PDP (LD PDP) and its charter adopted on 19 December 2024. The PDP adopted an 'Open Model', and the first meeting took place in March 2025.

Given the similarity between on IDN variants and diacritics, the LD PDP builds on the work done by the two phases of the Expedited Policy Development Process on Internationalized Domain Names (EPDP on IDNs). The LD PDP first worked on defining the precise scope of the PDP, and developed a framework for differentiating variants and diacritics. The PDP subsequently went through the recommendations of the EPDP on IDNs to determine if they would apply to Latin Diacritics.

As of now, the PDP has completed iterating through the list of EPDP recommendations and has produced its initial recommendations. During ICANN84, it also ran through several Stress Test cases that examined different edge cases and worked on finalizing its initial recommendations.

The revised timeline for the public comment on the PDP’s draft initial recommendations is January 2026, with submission of its Final Report to the GNSO Council targeted for August 2026 (as opposed to the original estimate of Nov 2026).

Next engagement opportunity:

• Public comment proceeding on the Latin Diacritics PDP Initial Report in January 2026

Tags: GNSO, Latin Script Diacritics PDP

Let us know if you would like more discussion on this topic.

Contributed by by Maureen Hilyard and Justine Chew

14 October 2025. It bears reminding that ICANN is responsible for coordinating and managing the Internet's unique identifier systems, which cover domain names (“Names”), Internet Protocol (IP)  addresses (“Numbers”), and protocol parameters (“Protocols” or “Standards”). While Names attracts the most attention within the ICANN community, it is the role of the Address Supporting Organization (ASO) to review and develop recommendations on IP address policy and to advise the ICANN Board on policy issues relating to the operation, assignment, and management of IP addresses; while responsibility for Protocols management falls to the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF).

Although the ASO is the formal participating body in ICANN, the actual Numbers policy-making function is mostly undertaken on a regional basis by the world’s five Regional Internet Registries (RIRs), which in turn rely on the Internet Coordination Policy-2 (ICP-2) – a statement of essential fundamental principles required for recognising and evaluating new RIRs –  and the Number Resource Organization (NRO) as the coordinating mechanism of the RIRs.

The ICP-2 had been presented by the ASO (then assisted by APNIC, ARIN and RIPE NCC) to and accepted by the ICANN Board back in June 2001. Following a spate of legal disputes related to use of IPv4 address allocations outside the African region, beginning in 2020, AFRINIC became embroiled in court litigation, had its assets frozen, and by mid-2022, saw its Board of Directors dissolved by the Supreme Court of Mauritius.   

In October 2023, the NRO Executive Council (NRO-EC) asked the ASO Address Council to establish and manage a process to update the ICP-2 document, which is summarized below:

The ALAC submitted comments on the Draft Principles during the Q4 2024 first public comment proceeding; while APRALO submitted a comment in full support of the ALAC submission. In its submission, the ALAC agreed with much of what was proposed by the ASO. 

The ALAC also submitted comments on the First Draft RIR Governance Document during the Q2 2025 Governance Document for the Recognition, Maintenance, and Derecognition of RIRs public comment proceeding, expressing certain concerns which were subsequently found to have been addressed in the Second Draft RIR Governance Document. In the ALAC’s view, these developments represent meaningful steps forward in making the RIR framework more resilient, accountable, and community-focused and contribute to institutional trust and end-user accountability.

For the Q3 & Q4 2025 second public comment proceeding, the ALAC is set to urge the ASO to revisit two outstanding concerns to the Second Draft RIR Governance Document:

1. Accountability of Sub-Regional Registries (Section 2.6) - introduction of baseline safeguards—such as transparency, fairness, and community consultation—that would apply consistently to all delegated functions, while still allowing each RIR to determine the details.

2. Regional Continuity in Handoff Scenarios (Section 6.3(a)) - where an Emergency Operator is to temporarily take over RIR functions in the event of failure the ALAC stresses that continuity of services is not the same as continuity of trust. To safeguard both technical stability and community confidence, the ALAC recommends the inclusion of mechanisms for community consultation and transparency during the transition period; and wherever feasible, prioritize regional expertise and continuity when selecting interim or successor entities. This would ensure that while the Emergency Operator keeps the Internet running, the process also preserves local trust, legitimacy, and alignment with community needs.

More information: 

• ICP-2 Review

• Proposed ICP-2 Version 2 Principles public comment proceeding

• First Draft of the RIR Governance Document public comment proceeding

• Second Draft of the RIR Governance Document public comment proceeding

ICANN engagement opportunity:

• ICANN84 Prep Week: Presenting the Second Draft of the RIR Governance Document, 15 October 2025 at 15:00 UTC

Next decisional point:

• ASO to review comments received to the Second Draft of the RIR Governance Document public comment proceeding closing on 7 November 2025

Tags: ASO, IETF, NRO, RIRs, ICP-2, APNIC, ARIN, RIPE NCC, AFRINIC, ICP-2 Review

Let us know if you would like more discussion on this topic.

Contributed by Amrita Choudhury

2 September 2025. The WSIS+20 Zero Draft document to review the twenty-year implementation of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) was released on 29 August 2025. Written text proposals to the draft can be sent by email to ungawsisreview@un.org by 26 September 2025. [Update: The deadline to submit comments on the WSIS+20 Zero draft has been extended to 3 October https://publicadministration.desa.un.org/wsis20] Registrations are now open for Stakeholders and Member States consultation on 13 and 14 October 2025. The updated roadmap released by the Co-facilitators up to October can be viewed here.

In brief, the draft reaffirms the commitment for a people-centered, inclusive, and development-oriented Information Society, anchored in human rights including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), and aligned with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. 

Closing persistent digital divides between countries, genders, and vulnerable groups through better connectivity, affordability, local content, multilingualism, and digital literacy are emphasized. The importance of digital public goods and infrastructures, equitable access to technologies, and capacity-building especially LDCs, LLDCs, SIDS, and African countries are highlighted.

The document calls for the safeguarding of human rights, mitigation of environmental impacts, emphasizing the role of ICTs in sustainable development, trade, education, health, and disaster resilience, and urges stronger global cooperation, investment, and financing mechanisms. It calls for a permanent mandate for the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), and recognizes the role of National and Regional IGFs in enhancing multistakeholder discussion at the local level.

The draft recognizes the technical community, and mentions introduction of Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) as an initiative to promote multilingual internet. It also frames human rights, gender equality, digital inclusion, and sustainability as cross-cutting priorities, with monitoring, measurement, and periodic review mechanisms to track progress towards meaningful, affordable, and universal connectivity. It links the WSIS Action Lines with the SDGs and the Global Digital Compact (GDC), calls for WSIS reviews to feed into the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) and United Nations Commission on Science and Technology (CSTD) processes, and the outcomes of WSIS to feed into the GDC review in 2027.

---

ICANN engagement opportunities:

• ICANN will be organizing webinars on the Zero Draft on 3 September 12-13:30 UTC and 4 September 1-2:30 UTC.

• Additionally the Co-facilitators are expected to attend ICANN84 where the community will have an opportunity to share their views.

Tags: WSIS+20 (per ISOC), UDHR, SDGs, IGF, GDC, ECOSOC, CSTD, ICANN84, LDCs, LLDCs, SIDS

Let us know if you would like more discussion on this topic.

Contributed by Justine Chew

26 August 2025. ICANN calls its New Generic Top-Level Domains (gTLD) Program “a community-driven initiative enabling the continued expansion of the Internet’s Domain Name System (DNS). Through the introduction of new gTLDs, including domain names in a variety of scripts and languages (Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs)), this program aims to encourage innovation, competition, and consumer choice”. Building on the ‘2012 New gTLD Round’, the New gTLD Program: Next Round (expected to open in April 2026) is touted as “the chance for [applicants] to apply for new top-level domains tailored to fit their organization, community, culture, language, and customer interests.” An enduring component of the Program is the Applicant Support Program (ASP) which is “intended to make applying for a new gTLD or operating a registry more accessible to applicants who would be otherwise unable due to financial and resource constraint”. In short, the ASP offers ASP Resources aimed at encouraging entry of new registry operators that focus on serving underserved communities and/or regions around the world.  

With the Next Round Applicant Support Program (ASP) application window closing on 19 November 2025, interest has been somewhat weaker than hoped for. Notwithstanding the 14 August news of two ASP applicants from the APAC region having conditionally qualified for support, which is welcomed, APRALO shares the deep concerns expressed jointly by the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) and the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC), about the ASP’s current trajectory, given the looming application closing date and the disproportionately low representation from underserved regions. In aiming to boost uptake in the ASP, APRALO has partnered with ICANN to host a webinar for prospective and current applicants from APAC to better understand available resources, including ASP Pro Bono Service Providers and Mentors, to assist with the ASP and gTLD application processes.

---

More information: 

• New Generic Top-Level Domain Program: Next Round

• Next Round Applicant Support Program (ASP) 

• Joint Letter from the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) and the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) to the ICANN Board Chair re: Urgent Review of the Next Round Applicant Support Program, 15 August 2025 

• Circle ID: New gTLD Program’s Credibility Questioned Amid Weak Global Uptake, 20 Aug 2025

Next decisional point: ALAC-GAC-ICANN meeting to address expressed concerns
Tags: Next_Round, ASP, ALAC, APRALO, GAC

Let us know if you would like more discussion on this topic.

Contributed by Justine Chew

13 August 2025. The ICANN Bylaws Article 4 provides for an ICANN Reviews Program - comprising Specific Reviews (Section 4.6), and Organizational Reviews (Section 4.4) - which must be undertaken in cycles of certain time periods, to help ensure that ICANN remains accountable to the community for operating in accordance with its Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws. 

The reviews most relevant to us and their statuses up to 18 May 2025:

Open

Open

On 19 May 2025, the Board further deferred:

• ATRT4 pending a community dialogue to focus on what commitments and other work of ICANN should be reviewed, to enable progress on the future of ICANN reviews; and

• Third At-Large Review (and other organizational reviews) until the first CIP cycle is complete.

During ICANN83, the Supporting Organizations/Advisory Committees (SOAC) Chairs and Vice-Chairs began discussions with senior ICANN org executives on ICANN being in continued violation of its Bylaws following the Board’s 19 May 2025 resolution. During the discussions, the ALAC leadership raised concerns expressed by At-Large Community members on the continued deferral of ATRT4. Despite this, the other SOAC leaders declined to support our call for the immediate initiation of ATRT4, following the PHR’s conclusion. They preferred an entirely new path for the review of reviews.

Following ICANN83, the ALAC Chair filed an ALAC Empowered Community Reconsideration Petition which eventually expired on 11 July 2025 following a lack of support from any of the other four ICANN Empowered Community participants. (As a follow up, the ALAC Chair is communicating the At-Large’s concerns to the ICANN Board regarding the continuing deferral of ATRT4.)   

In recent weeks, the ccNSO Chair proposed that a review of reviews be undertaken by a maximum 18-member cross community group (CCG) and circulated a CCG draft charter for preliminary comment. This draft charter was sent to the Board on 30 July 2025. The Board suggests that each SOAC interested in participating in the CCG provide its candidates to serve as CCG members by 22 August 2025. This is to allow the newly selected members time to prepare for the work leading into and during ICANN84. 

This new CCG’s scope is limited to periodic review of ICANN structure and operations (section 4.4), Annual Review (section 4.5), Specific Reviews (section 4.6), previously conducted Reviews; and reviews that have previously been formally recommended.

The community can expect an update on the Review of Reviews over two ICANN84 plenary sessions.

---

More information: 

• OFBWG 7 Aug 2025

• ICANN Bylaws Article 4, on Reviews

  • Section 4.6 - Specific Reviews comprise (1) Accountability and Transparency Review (ATRT), (2) Security, Stability, and Resiliency Review (SSRT), (3) Registration Directory Service Review (RDS), and (4) Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice Review (CCTRT).

    • In particular, Section 4.6 (b)(vi) states that, “The Accountability and Transparency Review shall be conducted no less frequently than every five years measured from the date the previous Accountability and Transparency Review Team was convened.”

  • Section 4.4 - Organization Reviews are periodic reviews of the performance and operation of each Supporting Organization, each Supporting Organization Council, each Advisory Committee (other than the Governmental Advisory Committee), and the Nominating Committee by an entity or entities independent of the organization under review.

    • In particular Section 4.4 states that, “These periodic reviews shall be conducted no less frequently than every five years, based on feasibility as determined by the Board. Each five-year cycle will be computed from the moment of the reception by the Board of the final report of the relevant review Working Group.”

• The Continuous Improvement Program (CIP) is the implementation of the Third Accountability and Transparency Review (ATRT3) Recommendation 3.6 to evolve Organizational Reviews into an effort led by the ICANN community, instead of one conducted by independent examiners. 

  • Work on the CIP is overseen by the CIP Community Coordination Group (CIP-CCG) that was launched in January 2024, and produced the Continuous Improvement Program Framework in July 2025.

  • The CIP Framework is a new model for community-led evaluation and enhancement of ICANN’s structures and processes.

Next decisional point: Seating of the RoR CCG circa 22 August 2025
Tags: ICANN_Bylaws_Article_4, ICANN Reviews Program, ATRT, ccNSO, OFBWG

Let us know if you would like more discussion on this topic.

Contributed by Justine Chew

6 August 2025. The At-Large Community has in recent weeks helped shape a list of Domain Name System (DNS) abuse mitigation gaps by providing input to GNSO Council’s DNS Abuse Small Team. With input from other ICANN community groups, the full list of over 30 gaps is to be recommended for further investigation through an Issue Report. After analysis of the input, 3 gaps clearly emerged as priorities for GNSO policy development formulation. These 3 gaps of (1) Associated domain check, (2) Inefficient coordination on domain generation algorithm-based abuse, and (3) Unrestricted API Access for domain name registration, are considered as important/impactful gaps to solve, are likely to gain broad consensus and ideally, and expected to lead to achievable potential solution(s) given available volunteer/staff resources. A request for an Issue Report is expected to be made by GNSO Council, and the Issue Report is anticipated to be out for public comment by October 2025. Gaps (1) and (3) were highlighted by At-Large at the ICANN83 At-Large Plenary 2 on DNS Abuse.

---

More information: 

• CPWG high-level update, 30 Jul 2025 (covers At-Large Position on DNS Abuse mitigation gaps)

• CPWG high-level update, 16 Jul 2025 (covers notes on DNS Abuse mitigation gaps; and At-Large priorities)

Next decisional point: GNSO Council meeting, 14 Aug 2025
Tags: DNS_Abuse, CPWG, GNSO, GNSO_PDP

Let us know if you would like more discussion on this topic.