At-Large Session Reports from ICANN81

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.

Session organized: Engaging with the Global Digital Compact (GDC): key insights for ccTLDs in the WSIS+20 Process

This session was organised by the ccNSO IGLC, to review the community engagement with the Global Digital Compact (GDC) and identify takeaways for ccTLDs in the WSIS+20 process, thus empowering ccTLDs globally to navigate and influence the global digital governance landscape effectively.

The session was chaired by Annaliese Williams (.au)

The panellists were Manal Ismail (Egypt IDN), Jorge Cancio (GAC CH), Peter Koch (.de), Yuri Takamatsu (.jp), Demi

Getschko (.br)

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?

The DASC Survey’s results were presented to ALAC

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

Liaison requested to DASC's Chair to share ccLTDs DNS Abuse repository with ALAC community.

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

Liaison need to follow up on this request.

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?

SSAC discussed what processes will be needed to identify potential name collisions.  The broad outlines are in place, but a great deal of work is still required to flesh out the nuts and bolts.

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

As the detailed processes for addressing name collisions are developed, ALAC may wish to review them. 

The ccNSO and the ICANN Board hold a joint meeting to discuss issues of common interest.  

• ccNSO topics for discussion
  • Knowing that Board members are active in various committees, working groups and caucuses, and knowing that Board members step down regularly (end-of term, for other reasons), is progress and continuity ensured of the (smaller) groups, specifically those groups that deal with community work (policy development, advisories, other work).
  • What are the next steps regarding the requests for Bylaw amendments? Noting that no progress was noted since Hamburg on the suggested bylaw amendment to adjust the frequency of the CSC effectiveness reviews.  
  • Progress Board consideration ccPDP3 and ccPDP4
• Board topics discussed
  • Knowing that the ccNSO has a standing committee, the SOPC, that for many years has been doing good work on providing input on budget and related matters, what does the SOPC and the ccNSO in general think about what ICANN is doing and should be doing about its current financial stress? Any thoughts about the financial future of ICANN? 

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... 

Blockchain Name Systems (BNSs) and the global DNS

Presentation from OCTO: Background on BNSs

ICANN community is becoming more interested in how BNSs ineract with the global DNS. More information is sought on BNS and the blockchain itself. OCTO has published two document on these topics (OCTO-039 on BNS, and OCTO-040 Introduction to Blockchain Technologies). Both are neutral and neither promote nor disparages these technologies.

There is only one global DNS, but many different types of blockchains, so comparisons are difficult. Some blockchains have their own coins. The DNS now has a Wallet RRtype.

While there is only one root zone for DNS, Alt-TLDs may have multiple roots. Resolution is usually to account identifiers and not IP addresses. Name collisions can happen on BNS, and between BNS and the global DNS.

There are common names between the two systems, but no definition on how to integrate this. Despite the appearance, the names represent completely different naming systems. Proving that the same entity controls both is difficult, as one is a smart contract while the other is human.

Presentation from D3: Web2-to-Web3 Integration

Domain names are fundamental and ubiquitous, and globally accessible to 5+ billion users. Web3 names in future will include names such as .doge, .888, .crypto, .eth, and may have a high risk of name collision and obsoloscence. These may be incompatible with critical Internet tech such as browsers and email. Their functionality may be limited, and they may lack technical depth leading to scams and security breaches. 

Web3 tried to create Alt-Roots and failed. There is now a proposal to standardize DNS to Web3 wallet mapping that relies upon Wallet RRtype and DNSSEC. Tokenization on the Blockchain refers to storing a representation of different real-life assets so as to enable transactional use (buy, sell, trade, borrow etc). 

D3 proposes to tokenize all domain names today through their DomainFi framework. 

End-users need to understand the differences between the global DNS and the multiple BNSs that may increasingly coexist in the near future. 

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?

This session discussed IDN implementation in the Next Round, Root Zone Label Generation Rules (RZ-LGR), String similarity review and Label Generation Roots (LGR) Tool enhancement. 

The IDN-related policy for the new gTLD has phase 2 final report on iDN EDPD that is currently being considered by GNSO council. While some of the recommendations from the phase 1 report has been reviewed and adopted by the board since June 2024. 

There are requirements for Top Level on RZ-LGR that must require for the generation of gTLD. It has been suggested RZ-LGZ as the sole source to calculate the variant labels  

Visual standard for consideration: 

• Size is variable that rely on user experience 
• Looking at similarity based on reader of that script

RZ LGR ( version 5) 

• Version 6: Thaana script GP (Generation Panel) 
• Plan to publish for public comment in Q1 2025

String similarity review 

• Applying primary gTLD string table 
• All kind of applied-for GTLD, escape double all-blocked variant string

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

At-Large is interested in the timeline of testing and finalising similarity test that could be involved in. 

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

At-Large may support the current timeline of data collection with script expert. 

review the guideline documents and provide feedback 

What happened?

The SubPro IRT continued to discuss proposed updates to the evaluation criteria for Community Priority Evaluation (CPE).

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

• Quite significant changes have been proposed to the CPE evaluation criteria based on SubPro Recommendations, Implementation Guidance and ongoing input from the SubPro IRT.
• Proposed changes aim at rationalizing certain criteria and potential measurements, eliminating duplications and linked-scoring, broadening opportunities for scoring points through scaled-scoring rather than discrete yes-no options, and generally reducing the threshold to prevail to a more reasonable level.

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
• To consider constituting an ALAC small team to test robustness of CPE evaluation criteria - and eventually carry these over to Application questions for Community-TLD applicants. 

What happened?

This session discussed Pilot current status and defining next step 

• What trend has been identified so far? 
• Only 59% participate in registrar 
• Half of the traffic goes to RDRS vs directly? (constant traffic) 
• Traffic low? how to define the performance 

Some observations; 

-Most Frequent requester type is an IP holder 

-There are issues with expedited selected when it properly should not be

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

Latest RDRS Usage Metrics Report: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rdrs-usage-metrics-15oct24-en.pdf  

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

At-Large needs to continue to follow up the next round of follow actions after the pilot. 

What happened?

Discussion and final inputs taken on the Continuous Improvement Program (CIP) Framework document which will open up for public comments on 21 November 2024.

Illustrative examples which were used  in the document to explain how different structures are adopting CIP include reference to ALAC, AFRALO and APRALO  drafts

There was a discussion on the text of Principle 4

The slide deck to drive awareness on the public comment period was shared and discussed for the webinar to be organised on Thursday 4 December

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

Information on the Public Comment period and the date of the webinar to explain the document to the community

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

Attend the webinar and participate in the Public Comment Period.

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?

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...