Page History

What happened?

• ICANN org revealed their modelling for the Next Round gTLD string application fee based on their interpretation of Board-approved SubPro policy recommendations.
• Current implementation cost of Next Round is estimated at US$70mil, most of which are fixed costs.
• Uncertainty remains - fee amount cannot yet be finalized due to pending consideration by the Board of IDNs-EPDP recommendations on variant application and SSAC recommendations for name collisions (NCAP).
• Community asked for more detailed breakdown of the costing done by org.

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

It looks like the string application fee is going to be significantly costly. Applicant support is going to be a key factor towards the goal to expand registry pool to effectively include underserved, undeveloped / indigenous communities, small businesses, non-profit orgs as potential applicants.

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

No specific action as yet. Discussion continues at session 2 and/or session 3 as we/community (i) need time to study what was presented and (ii) await more specific details from ICANN org on the way they are costing the implementation for 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?

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 the next steps in the adoption of Phase 2 Initial Report of EPDP on IDNs. The EPDP started looking at the comments received, starting with the non-substantive comments. Regular meetings will resume from 27 June 2024 until the Team can close all the comments received at the report finalized. The current expected date of completion by end of October 2024.

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

At-Large has earlier submitted its inputs to the public comment to the Phase 2 initial report. At this point there's nothing that At-Large needs to do from its side.

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

At-Large needs to look at the status of its inputs submitted earlier when the Phase 2 Final Report is released. In the meantime, the EPDP Team from ALAC will continue to work processing the inputs received to the public comments and finalize the Phase 2 report.

What happened?

The GAC raised 9 topics for discussion with the ICANN Board:

1. GNSO Statements of Interest
2. Resolution of Contention Sets
3. Public Interest Commitments and Registry Voluntary Commitments
4. Name Collisions - NCAP Study 2and the proposed Name Collision Risk Assessment Framework, SAC 124
5. DNS Resiliency - emerging threats
6. New DNS Technologies - Blockchain, alternative root systems
7. Applicant Support in Next Round of New gTLDs
8. Registration Data Request Service (deferred)
9. Balancing of Stakeholder Interests (deferred)

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

Selectively:-

1. GNSO SOI: The Board supports the GAC's position of ensuring full transparency for participation in ICANN; has asked Org to develop an Ethics Policy for community input.
2. Resolution of Contention Sets: 

• The Board spoke about GAC and ALAC Advice to disincentivize private auctions or other private means to resolve contention sets, while noting that SubPro PDP did allow JVs as a means to do so, so the Board is having to balance these 2 opposing view. positions. Although the Board agrees that private auctions should be disincentivized, this is not a straight forward issue, pointing to the NERA report/study on auctions/contention resolution for context.
• The Board also indicated that it cannot accept GAC's proposition for drawing lots to avoid forcing non-commercial applicants from competing with commercial applicants should they get put in a contention set. Because drawing lots is illegal in California and there is no clear, consistent way to determine whether a non-commercial applicant is more beneficial than a commercial applicant. 

3. Registry Voluntary Commitments (RVCs): The Board has resolved not to accept RVCs that involve restriction of content based on legal analysis (advice & precedents) that ICANN will likely not be permitted under its Bylaws to enforce such commitments even if the registry outsources compliance monitoring. The Board thinks that registries can make commitments for and enforce content restrictions but these cannot be in their Registry Agreement. (NB. community registration registrant restrictions distinguished)
6. New DNS Technologies: 
7. Applicant Support Program (ASP): The Board has accepted all the Board-led development of ICANN's FY2026-2031 is calling for more attention to be paid to understand the existence, emergence and impact of new DNS technologies which impact ICANN's unique identifier system which will likely be impacted by name collisions caused by such new DNS technologies.
7. Applicant Support Program (ASP): The Board has accepted all the SubPro recommendations on ASP, including Supplementary Recommendation 17.2 regarding Recommendation 17.2 regarding non-financial resources for ASP qualifiers, as well as (approved) a funding plan to fund the ASP financial and non-financial resources for ASP qualifiers.8. Registration Data Request Service (RDRS): To be completed later.

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

• To watch out for Org's announcement on Board resolutions that were adopted at their 8 June meeting, and determine any next steps afterward.
• To participate in onward Board consultations on how to disincentivize private auctions; also regarding why a non-commercial applicant might always benefit when up against a commercial applicant.
• To participate in development of ICANN's FY2026-2031 Strategic Plan, in which 
• To participate in the SubPro IRT - ASP Sub-track in relation to the implementation of the GNSO Supplementary Recommendation 17.2, ASP Funding Plan.

What happened?

This plenary session explored how ICANN and its multi-stakeholder community can effectively participate in the ongoing and increasingly intense United Nations debates and processes related to Internet Governance. The aim is to safeguard the multi-stakeholder approach against possible shifts towards more restricted multilateral decision-making processes that could compromise the fundamental attributes of the global Internet.

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

Community discussions emphasize the multistakeholder model as an open, inclusive, transparent, accountable, agile, adaptable, and efficient approach. More importantly, it is mindful of power asymmetries among and within the different stakeholders, drives to treat stakeholders fairly and equitably, and facilitates meaningful discussions.

If we don’t ensure the policy is made in the public interest and in the interest of a free, open interoperable Internet, we risk losing all the hard work and benefits of the last 30 years.

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

From Atlarge we must use all possible structures and forms of communication with all local, regional, and global stakeholders to raise awareness about the importance of knowing, practicing, and strengthening the multi-stakeholder model within the decision-making processes within ICANN.  Become ambassadors of the Multistakeholder Model while participating in an internal process for its review and evolution.

Highlight ICANN's value of being able to participate in multilateral spaces, making contributions from the multi-stakeholder construction. To understand the MSHM as a geopolitical tool that allows ICANN to have a greater voice in these multilateral stages.

Click here for Session Recordings

What happened?

The GAC raised 5 6 major topics for discussion with the GNSO Council:

1. High Level Government Meeting - GAC Update to Council
2. GNSO Statements of Interest (SOI)
3. New gTLD Next Round
    A. Update on singular/plural issue: ICANN Org strawman
    B. Implementation Review Team (IRT) update: in particular, the proposed US$92,000 Registry Service Provider fee.
    C. Resolution of Contention Sets: private auctions.
    D. Registry Voluntary Commitments / Public Interest Commitments.

4. Diacritics Issue update
5. WHOIS / RDAP
     A. Urgent Requests (for registration data)
     B.  Registration Data Accuracy

6. DNS Abuse Mitigation

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

The GAC is taking the approach of communicating its views and concerns on such matters which are under GNSO Council's purview as well as matters for which the GAC seeks GNSO Council's cooperation for matters under ICANN org's and/or the ICANN Board's purview.

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

• To continue participating in the GNSO SubPro Small Team Plus discussions on the ICANN org strawman regarding permissibility of singular/plural strings.
• To participate in onward Board consultations on how to disincentivize private auctions; (possibly also regarding why a non-commercial applicant might always benefit when up against a commercial applicant).

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...

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?

Click here to view a curated version of the agenda.

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

Click here to view a summary report.

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...