At-Large Session Reports from ICANN78

What happened?

Presentation of SSAC's effort to determine what data is available within ICANN (and sometimes from outside sources) relevant to security and stability issues.  Also, what data would be desirable, but is not currently available?  Or even collected.  (Amazingly, this seems not to have been done before.) 

• When there is a DNSSEC-related outage, notification seems to be mostly word-of-mouth.  There does not appear to be any actual on-going monitoring and alerting. 
• There is threat intelligence on "problem" names.  But not on impacts. 

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

• If anyone in At-Large is aware of additional sources of information not found by the inventory, SSAC would be happy to hear about it. 

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

• At-Large should vigorously support any SSAC efforts to improve and expand ICANN's monitoring activities.
• This open meeting was a first for SSAC.  Having people show up (in addition to our Liaison) would encourage more of this.  Security and stability, after all, impacts all those end users we represent. 

What happened?

Discussion of issues and questions to be taken to the Board: 

• How to integrate Security, Stability and Resiliency into the Global Public Interest framework 
• Adding "Effective" to the Global Public Interest framework.  Because we have too often seen solutions at ICANN which were great, except for the detail that they did not work in practice. 
• How is the DNSSEC rollout progressing?

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

While At Large certainly favors solutions which ICANN implements actually work, and deliver the desired outcomes, there isn't anything specific to take away. 

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

None

What happened?

Discussion of the methodology for the review, and the desired outcomes.. 

Excellent description of what kind of participants are desirable for the Similarity Review Panel, 

• reflect the target "reasonably attentive user" 
• NOT typographers (i.e. experts in the way script code points can be formed).
• familiar with the particular script(s) being compared 

Note that the similarity will explicitly not be a side-by-side comparison, but rather how a label would be seen by someone who has a mental image of what label they are looking for. 

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

At Large needs to make a serious effort to recruit At Large members to participate in the Similarity Review Panel.   We, after all, are the best source for people who can reflect what will be confusing to end users. 

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

Contact the IIDN Project to make sure that we know when the Panel is being formed, in time for us to recruit potential members.