ICANN 79 Meeting:

1. Open call to rejuvenate the membership of the SSAC

   - We currently have no members in Latin America/Caribbean Islands or in Africa.

   - We have very few members in Asia/Pacific.

   - Academic and research backgrounds

   - We are (many) more men than women

2. Name Collision Analysis Project (NCAP)

Name collisions continue to pose a persistent threat to DNS security and stability

   - Name Collision Risk Assessment Framework

   + Integrated Risk Assessment

   + Technical Review Team

   + Enhanced Data Collection

   + Multiple Assessment Methods

3. Privacy Considerations for Name Collision remediation

   - Data collection is crucial—the question is when and where in the evaluation process

   - Granting the TLD to the applicant does not resolve privacy risks related to name collision; rather, it transfers these costs and risks onto the successful applicant. The applicant may lack the capacity or incentive to properly mitigate name collision

4. Safer Cyber Campaign

   - Cybersecurity Is Infrastructure

   - SSAC and various ICANN communities effectively collaborate to reach diverse audiences

   Focus: curate and disseminate the most impactful DNS security information

5. Evolving Internet Name Resolution Space

   - Domain name resolution is becoming more ambiguous

   - Names are becoming less visible and less conspicuous to users

   + Ambiguity in Internet name resolution can give unexpected results and therefore undermines trust in the integrity of services on the Internet.

ICANN79 Prep Week Session: Name Collision Analysis Project Study 2 Update:

...

Recommendation 11 - ICANN should not move ahead with NCAP Study 3

Publications:

SAC123: Report on the Evolution of Internet Name Resolution   

Some key aspects:

• Internet name resolution is evolving beyond just the global DNS to include alternative naming systems that are experimenting with different approaches for reasons like speed, privacy, censorship resistance, and governance.
• Many alternative systems adopt DNS name syntax to leverage existing software.
• Two concerning trends are increased ambiguity where the same name can resolve differently in different systems, and less visibility of names to end users even as names remain vital for security and trust.
• Maintaining integrity and coordination in the shared domain namespace is important.
• The report explores different perspectives on these trends from end users and developers.
• It identifies proposals to facilitate namespace coordination and recommends ICANN continue tracking these issues and provide regular updates to the community.

...

• • Domain names used to play an important role for end users in discovering web resources, but search engines have now replaced them as the primary method of discovery.
  • End users today rarely directly interact with domain names due to the dominance of search engines and mobile devices. Features like browser "omnibars" also allow more free-form input.
  • Other identifiers like QR codes and social media handles now also compete for users' attention rather than domain names.
  • Domain names are becoming less visible in users' environments, yet they still provide an underlying ubiquitous resolution context relied upon by other technologies.
  • Surveys found search engines are by far the predominant method for accessing websites, with domain name usage declining. QR code usage is increasing but still limited except in Asia.
  • Decreased domain name visibility makes it easier for fraudsters to deceive users with lookalike names. Users are also generally unaware that some TLDs signal a different resolution context.
• In summary, domain names are no longer the primary method end users employ to find and access Internet resources, decreasing their visibility and understandability while introducing security issues.

SAC122: Report on Urgent Requests in the gTLD Registration Data Policy 

Some key aspects:

• Focus is on handling of Urgent Requests in proposed gTLD registration data policy
• Urgent Requests refer to imminent threats to life, injury, infrastructure or child exploitation
• Proposed policy requires response to Urgent Requests in 24 hours generally
• SSAC contends proposed policy for Urgent Requests is not fit for purpose
• Definition and required response times are incompatible
• Questions if need and rationale for separate Urgent Request process is fully justified
• Existing ICANN policy and industry practices offer useful precedents
• Proposed extensions allow responses up to 7 days, not reflecting urgency
• Lack of concrete data on frequency and handling of such requests currently
• Risks reputation of ICANN multistakeholder model effectiveness 

...