Objective is to keep these reports brief and focused on what At-Large should do in terms of next steps. Reports to be presented during the Thursday At-Large Wrap-Up session.

Report format

Instructions:

Using the Reporting Format outlined below, Rapporteurs are encouraged to edit the session they are reporting on directly on this Wiki Page. Should the Rapporteurs run into any issues submit their report, please email At-Large Staff and we can post on their behalf.

Report Format:

What happened?

- Item 1
- Item 2

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

- Item 1
- Item 2

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

- Item 1
- Item 2

Session

Date/Time (local)

Rapporteur

Report

Photos (Optional)

Example Title

Date/Time

@example name

Use template:

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 focused on the new DNS Abuse requirements in the RA and RAA contracts that go into effect on April 5th, 2024. There was a panel that included representatives from the CPH as well folks from IPC and NCUC. The CPH participants focused on the the speed with which an agreement was reached and the effort to get it voted on by a majority of the CPH and expressed high hopes for a positive impact on taking down "bad actors." Elliot Noss made a rare appearance to emphasize the expectation that ICANN Contract Compliance now has the tools it has been asking for and hope to see real results. The IP and business interests suggested it was a good start and the NCUC rep expressed concern that it might trample due process

Deck of Cards

id	Upcoming

Card

label	SaturdayMonday, 02 March 10 June 2024

Session

Date/Time (local)

Rapporteur

Report

Photos (Optional)

GNSO: CPH DNS Abuse Community Outreach

GDS: SubPro IRT Work Session (1 of 3)

Monday, 10 June at 09:00

Justine Chew

Sunday, 3 March at 16:15

What happened?

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

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

the At-Large perspective is that we've been looking for similar changes to the contracts for many years and welcome them. We have no desire to see due process suffer as a result. Ideally, these ammendments do NOT change the behavior of "good actors" but allow ICANN to punish bad ones, there by splitting the difference between the fears of the NCUC and the expectations of the business community

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

Justine has suggested that we perhaps begin holding a series of plenaries on how these ammendments are working out, starting at ICANN 80 so that there are continuous updates.

Card

label	Sunday, 03 March 2024

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.

Zoom Archive
English audio archive

GAC Discussion: New gTLD Program Next Round

Monday, 10 June at 10:45

@Chandana Das

What happened?

The session began by reiterating GAC’s continued advocacy for (a) the ASP to focus on underserved regions to ensure global diversification and foster the overall quality of international representation in the new gTLD program; (b) financial support in the form of lowering application fees to ensure that resource constraints do not hinder the accessibility aspect of the new gTLD program; (c) non-financial support, such as help with preparing an application, to encourage greater rate of successful applications. The session then segued into comprehensive discussions on: (a) funding plan for the ASP and (b) outreach and engagement plan. The session highlighted the following items as topics of special interest for GAC (and provided updates on the current status of the actions taken therein): (a) Geographic Names (b) Reserved and Blocked Names; (c) GAC Advice and Early Warning (d) Private resolution of contentions sets

Session

Date/Time (local)

Rapporteur

Report

Photos (Optional)

GNSO: CPH DNS Abuse Community Outreach

Sunday, 3 March at 16:15

Jonathan Zuck

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

Ensuring representation of applicants (and maybe even end-user interests), particularly from underserved regions, in the new gTLD program. This can be achieved by drawing up a list of practical action items in terms of financial and non-financial support mechanisms.
This is where At-Large’s active participation in both the funding plan derivation and the outreach strategy becomes important.

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

Justine has suggested that we perhaps begin holding a series of plenaries on how these ammendments are working out, starting at ICANN 80 so that there are continuous updates.

Card

label	Monday, 04 March 2024

Collaborating with GAC and other stakeholders to develop funding plans for the Applicant Support Program (ASP) that address concerns related to access barriers. Actively participating in outreach and engagement efforts to ensure end-user perspectives are considered. Monitoring and providing feedback on GAC’s key topics of interests such as Geographic Names, Reserved and Blocked Names, etc.
GNSO: RDRS Standing Committee Work Session	Monday, 10 June at 10:45	@Jasmine Ko

Session

Date/Time (local)

Rapporteur

Report

Photos (Optional)

ASO AC Work Session (1 of 12)

Monday, 4 March at 10:30

What happened?

This session

discuss

presented the

organization

milestones of

the work regarding rewriting IPC-2
https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/new-rirs-criteria-2012-02-25-en

RDRS pilots over the past 6 months including success criteria, latest metrics, notable system enhancements and trends. It discussed insights of the current results for evaluation with the number of Domain Lookups as an entry door of the system. It focuses on evaluating the tools and how we might evolve with them.

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

How the rest of the community will be engaged to be part of this discussion.

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

At-Large can participate at the level of the RIR. At-Large need to be ready to answer consultation from ASO-AC about IPC-2

GDS: Subpro IRT Work Session (2 of 3)

Agenda: https://community.icann.org/x/boAvEQ

Monday, 4 March at 16:15

Bukola Oronti Tijani Ben Jemaa Justine Chew

At-Large should look into the success criteria of RDRS if it successfully informs the GNSO council and ICANN Board to make decisions regarding SSAD recommendations. It gives reference on At-Large for improving communication with other groups within the ICANN community, and also improves decision-making process in consistency. RDRS is also an significant topic for At-Large to input end-user feedback that could affect the decision-making process of registrars and other relevant stakeholders (who are non-end user)

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

At-Large needs to keep updated with the issue matters and engage by reviewing and commenting on any upcoming platform or public consultations that are open for input. As end-user (consumer data) perspective is needed.

GNSO: IDN EPDP Working Session

Monday, 10 June at 13:45

Satish Babu

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

What happened?

ICANN org provided an update on:

The Next Round Implementation Plan, covering implementation of 126 Subsequent Procedures recommendations adopted by the Board; with 10 recommendations still pending revision by GNSO Council as well as other pending dependencies.
Role and Open+Rep model of the Implementation Review Team (IRT); methodology (i.e. how the IRT undertakes its work), and timeline for a May 2025 completion of the next Applicant Guidebook (AGB).
Timetable of 3 public comments for chunks of AGB draft text.
The Draft Applicant Support Program Handbook.

What are the At-Large specific

takeaways from this session?

At-Large

should follow progress of IRT work, paying particular attention to topics of importance to us.

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

should participate in the public comments as needed, and note that there will be no extensions for any of the public comment proceedings.

GAC Discussion on DNS Abuse Mitigation

Monday, 4 March at 16:15

Joanna Kulesza Amrita Choudhury

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.

Joint Meeting: ICANN Board and GAC

Monday, 10 June at 13:45

Justine Chew

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)

Link to Report and Notes

What happened?

Item 1: DNS Abuse is growing . As per FTC Commission 2023 Fraud Trends reports would of 2.6 million fraud reported in 2023, Phishing which is considered a form of DNS Abuse reported 1000 cases worth 2.2 million
Item 2: The DNS Abuse measurement needs to be both qualitative and quantitative based on actionable evidence for prompt resolution.

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

Item 1: Need for consumer awareness and outreach against DNS Abuse and methods used by threat actors

Item 2: How can end users be aware and understand what is the actionable evidence they need to report and where to report for prompt resolution of issues.

What are the At-Large specific

action items (next steps)?

Item 1: Emphasise on more consumer awareness and outreach on keeping oneself safe but also reporting mechanisms.
Item 2: Follow whether CPH reports on the DNS Abuse after the contract is enforced from April 2024.

Card

label	Tuesday, 05 March 2024

Session

Date/Time (local)RapporteurReportPhotos (Optional)

Reviews Program Session with the Community on ATRT4 Deferral and Pilot Holistic Review

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. registrant restrictions distinguished)
6. New DNS Technologies: Board-led development of ICANN's FY2026-2031 Strategic Plan is calling for more attention to be paid to understand the existence, emergence and impact of new DNS technologies on ICANN's unique identifier system eg. name collisions caused by such new DNS technologies.
7. Applicant Support Program (ASP): The Board has accepted all the SubPro recommendations on ASP, including Supplemental Recommendation 17.2 regarding non-financial resources for ASP qualifiers. A sum of US$10-16 mil has been mentioned for the ASP Funding Plan.

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.

Zoom Archive
English audio archive
Archive audio en français
Archivo de audio en español
中文音频存档
Архив аудиозаписей на русском языке
أرشيف التسجيلات الصوتية باللغة العربية
Arquivo de áudio em português

Navigating the Multistakeholder Approach: The ICANN Community's Role in Global Internet Governance

Monday, 10 June at 15:30

Harold Arcos Sergio Salinas Porto Amrita Choudhury

Nthabiseng Pule

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 emphasized the relevance of the multistakeholder model, especially is open, inclusive, transparent, accountable, agile, adaptable, nature.

Concerns were expressed on the power asymmetries between nations, stakeholders and the need to create fair, equitably, environment that facilitates meaningful discussions.

Concern was expressed that if we do not ensure policies are drafted 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 At Large we must use all possible avenues and forms of communication with local, regional, and global stakeholders to raise awareness of the issues being discussed and at stake, and the importance of practicing, and strengthening the multi-stakeholder model, promoting the Sao Paulo Multistakeholder Guidelines to enhance the multistakeholder model.

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 UASG Leadership interacted with the community and presented the 5-year Work Plan for UASG from FY25 to FY29 for UASG as a whole, as well as for each of the four Working Groups (Measurement, Tech, EAI, and Comms).

In addition, the UASG Leadership also presented suggested changes to the Governance Processes to enhance the transparency and accountability of UASG.

What are the At-Large specific takeaways?

Since UASG and At-Large work in close relation, particularly for initiatives such as the UA Day, At-Large needs to track the strategic plan as well as governance initiatives within the UASG.

Specific Governance Changes Proposed

Pls see the full report here.

What happened?

The IDN project presented the String Similarity Review Guidelines ( https://itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/strategic-initiatives/string-similarity-review-guidelines-07-02-2024-en.pdf ) which are currently up for Public Comment. The IDN Project has recognized that there are lots of pairs of symbols which, while they are not classed as variants, are sufficiently similar to cause confusion. They have identified some of these, and developed a process to automate the initial evaluation of proposed TLDs. The proposed automation will basically eliminate those TLDs which are clearly NOT similar to any other TLD (current or proposed), thus keeping the number requiring manual review to a manageable number. The only significant oversight appears to be in the matter of variations under the basic character which would be obscured by the underlining which major browsers and word process software packages automatically generate for domain names.

What are the At-Large specific takeaways?

This is a huge improvement over where the IDN project appeared to be a couple of years ago, and it should be commended for that. ALAC may also wish to produce a Public Comment (deadline 27 March) on the matter of underlining, and a couple of other more technical details. (NOTE: This is an interim document, with several unwritten sections still visible. So there will be opportunities for further comment later. This is an opportunity to get some things included while the situation is still somewhat fluid.)

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

CPWG to draft a Public Comment for ALAC.

Use template

What Happened?

Focus of UA Day 2024

Supporting five types of events:

UA awareness
UA technical training
UA academic curricula
UA adoption
UA regional strategy

local and national events

Shortlisted 56 proposals from 50+ countries:

51 national events.

5 regional events.

Support available for UA Day

Developed UA Day materials published at the

https://UniversalAcceptance.day

Awareness Presentation-1hr
Awareness Presentation-2hr (AR, ES, FR, PT, RU, ZH)
UA Adoption Event
Academic Curriculum Discussion and Roadmap Development, (AR, ES, FR, PT, RU, ZH)
Programming Training for UA-4hr (AR, ES, FR, PT, RU, ZH)
Email Administration Training for UA-4hr (AR, ES, FR, PT, RU, ZH)
Promotional videos (ICANN, UASG)

How to promote UA Day 2024 events

Strategic approach:

Identify the target audience
Invite relevant stakeholders (e.g., ccTLDs, developers, regional/local stakeholders, etc.)

Leverage multiple channels:

Consider event platforms to record and promote your event.
Utilize a mix of online and offline channels to reach a wider audience.

Collaborate with:

The non-shortlisted UA Day proposers.
Influencers or partners who have a strong following or influence in your region.

UA Day 2024 keystone event

The keystone UA Day event to be marked in Belgrade, Serbia on 28 Mar 2024. Initiated by UA Local Initiative in Commonwealth of Independent States and Eastern Europe (CIS-EE), and RNIDS, .rs .СРБ ccTLD.

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

The ALAC and At-Large has an important role to work with the UASG, RALOs, At-Large Structures, and individual members around the world to promote end user benefits of UA and encourage the adoption of UA at the local and regional levels.

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

Each RALO needs to actively help and promote its UA Day approved events for wider participation from the community in the UA Day events.

What happened?

This session discussed the practices and experiences of gTLD registrars relating to the validation and verification of domain name registration data. Key topics included the onboarding process for ICANN-accredited registrars, RrSG membership benefits, and the importance of data accuracy.

The meeting featured presentations, discussions, and a Q&A session, highlighting the challenges and costs associated with validation and verification processes. A significant portion of the discussion focused on the need for a trustworthy registration process, the use of digital ID for verification in certain jurisdictions, and the potential for collaborative efforts among registrars to streamline and reduce the costs of these processes

Card

label	Tuesday, 11 June 2024

Session	Date/Time (local)	Rapporteur	Report	Photos (Optional)
Joint Meeting: GAC and GNSO	Tuesday, 11 June at 09:00	Justine Chew	What happened? The GAC raised 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 and the SubPro IRT on how to disincentivize private auctions; (possibly also regarding why a non-commercial applicant might always benefit when up against a commercial applicant).	Zoom Archive English audio archive Archive audio en français Archivo de audio en español 中文音频存档 Архив аудиозаписей на русском языке أرشيف التسجيلات الصوتية باللغة العربية Arquivo de áudio em português
Second IANA Naming Function Review (IFR2) Team Work Session	Tuesday, 11 June at 09:00	Satish Babu Carlton Samuels	What happened? The second IANA Naming Function Review (IFR2) is conducting the review of the IANA Function performance per the scope specified in the ICANN Bylaws. The review focuses on PTI's performance of the IANA naming function against the contractual requirements in the IANA Naming Function Contract and the IANA Naming Function Statement of Work (SoW). Peter Koch, and Ashley Heineman, the two Co-Chairs of the IFR2, co-chaired the session. Under the review of action items, there were two action items, which are being currently tracked in the Google Sheet. The meeting discussed the SoW. Inter alia, the following topics were discussed under the different sections of the spreadsheet. Who is responsible within ICANN for the nontechnical aspects of DNSSEC. US Presence is required for the Contractor Scope of the IANA Naming function: Management of the DNS Root Zone per the SoW (specifically, .arpa is out of scope) Registration Databases: The SoW does not speak of Whois or RDAP Management of the .int top-level domain Maintenance of a repository of IDN tables and LGR Take on other services on the request from ICANN Naming service should be treated with the same importance as other services by the contractor The contractor must treat all customers without discrimination Respect for the diversity of customers Policy responsibility for DNSSEC and .int What are the At-Large specific takeaways from this session? There are no At-Large specific takeaways from this session, but the session generally progresses the review process. What are the At-Large specific action items (next steps)? ALAC should continue to monitor and support the IFR2.
GAC Discussions on DNS Abuse and WHOIS	Tuesday, 11 June at 10:45	Shah Zahidur Rahman @Jasmine Ko	What happened? Briefly discussed and consideration of ICANN org and ICANN community initiatives to prevent and mitigate DNS Abuse in Africa. discussion on new WHOIS/Registration Data policy framework, and The ongoing operation of a Registration Data Request Service (RDRS). The first part of the session discussed the current trends, policy and solutions of DNS Abuse. Cases presented are from The Republic of Chad, National authority of Rwanda and African Top Level Domain organisation. The last part discussed WHOIS Data Protection Policy background, urgent requests for disclosure of registration data, and RDRS with impact of privacy/ proxy services. It highlighted the importance of data protection policy. What are the At-Large specific takeaways from this session? DNSAbuse impacts the Internet end user community, including the undermining of trust and security. Collectively work to increase the global Internet community’s understanding of the DNS abuse ecosystem and what mitigation and disruption practices best contribute to a safer online environment. The adoption of such collectives’ measures will be seen as an important contribution to the work of ICANN ahead of the next application process for New gTLDs. At-Large should look into various good practices from the presentations e.g .potential of the younger economy on how they tackle DNS abuse. While means are getting complicated, accuracy on identifying the type of abuse is more important. We need the right tools for the right problems’ root causes. While African Top Level Domain organisation focus on the local Internet value chain and sustaining automated system. At-Large may reflect on how we respond : do we regard this practice suitable? And for who? It is rare to relate DNS Abuse problems with the Financial sector, and this may increase awareness and engage more stakeholders. The core work of WHOIS is to keep information accessible for security purposes. (Something to be done) to help end users decide whether to trust in a certain domain. The user metrix is giving insights from data on what was happening and why something did not work out well as expected. What are the At-Large specific action items (next steps)? May required capacity building and awareness for At-Large community on DNS abuse and mitigation, and joint conversation with GAC for inputs. At-Large needs to continue to keep the community updated with trends of DNS abuse and share good practices around the community. We could leverage ICANN strength and maintain engagement (e.g. capacity building)
GNSO: Registrars and ICANN: Good RDRS Requests	Tuesday, 11 June at 10:45	Alan Greenberg	What happened? Example: This session discussed...

Tuesday, 5 March at 9:00

Sebastien Bachollet

What happened?

This session provided updates on the timing for the Fourth Accountability and Transparency Review and the status of the Pilot Holistic Review.

The group also discussed the CIP.

https://static.sched.com/hosted_files/icann79/12/Reviews%20Update%20ICANN79%20Webinar%20Presentation.pptx%20%281%29.pdf

What are the At-Large specific takeaways?

ATRT4 must be done in a not to distant futur.
Proposal discussed: Launch ASAP the PHR and as soon as the PHR started ICANN can start the launch of the ATRT4.
ATRT4 must have a defined scope – no ATRT3 recommendation not completely implemented (particularly CIP and HR).

CIP can be started "officially" the 1st of July 2024 (start of the FY25).

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

At-Large needs to answer the letter received by the ALAC Chair from Theresa S. (ICANN Org) regarding ATRT4.
At-Large need to start selecting participants to both PHR & ATRT4

UASG Governance and Plans Working Session

Tuesday, 5 March at 10:30

Satish Babu

New gTLD Program Next Round: Planning for String Similarity Review Work Session

Tuesday, 5 March at 15:00

Bill Jouris

Card

label	Wednesday, 06 March 2024

Session

Date/Time (local)

Rapporteur

Report

Photos (Optional)

UA Day 2024 Overview Work Session

Wednesday, 6 March at 9:00

Hadia Elminiawi

Laura Margolis

Sergio Salinas Porto

Image Removed

Continuous Improvement Program Community Coordination Group (CIP-CCG) Meeting

Agenda:

https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=295043305

Slides here

Wednesday, 6 March at 10:30

Sebastien Bachollet

Harold Arcos

Hadia Elminiawi

What happened?

The CIPCC held its monthly meeting #4 during ICANN79.

They let the community know the focus of their work, their objectives, and their progress.

They discussed the Assigned Task among the CIP volunteers on the creation of the Draft Principles and Criteria for the framework of the Continuous Improvement Program.

Principles discussed:

Purpose
Effectiveness
efficiency
accountability
Collaboration

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

Atlarge would be interested in answering questions about the effectiveness and efficiency of the work of your AC/SO and NomCom and if you feel that you are doing your job well, then what processes could you improve further?

Atlarge would be interested in organizations and members of their structure being informed of these criteria exercises to make bottom-up contributions that enrich the construction of a framework that will define the continuous improvement process for AC/SO and NomCom in the future.

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

After ICANN79, CIP volunteers must coordinate with the leadership of their home groups to locate a recurring space in which they can update their organization and request contributions for the discussion and construction that takes place in CIPCC.

From our monthly ALAC meetings, we can report whether these updates are being made periodically as needed for the work of the CIPCC.

Each RALO could work on developing a criteria to measure:

If it is fulfilling its purpose (based on the purpose of ALAC defined in the bylaws)
if It is doing things effectively
It is doing things efficiently

Image Removed

GNSO SubPro Supplemental Recommendations Community Consultation

Agenda: https://community.icann.org/x/1oBkEQ

Wednesday, 6 March at 10:30

Tijani Ben Jemaa

Use template

GNSO: Registrars and ICANN: Validation, Verification, and Accuracy - Oh My!

Agenda: https://community.icann.org/x/UAFUEQ

Wednesday, 6 March at 10:30

Eduardo Diaz

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

Example: At-Large is interested in

the implications of these practices for the broader community, especially in ensuring a safe and secure domain name system while balancing the operational and financial burdens on registrars. The discussions around digital ID and the potential for collaborative verification efforts are particularly relevant, as they could lead to more inclusive and efficient practices that benefit all stakeholders. Additionally, the emphasis on the importance of data accuracy and the challenges associated with achieving it resonate with At-Large's commitment to user trust and the integrity of the

...

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

Example: At-Large needs to...

GNSO: Transfer Policy Review PDP Working Group

Tuesday, 11 June at 15:30

Steinar Grøtterød

What happened?

The GNSO-TPR working group continued the "tuning" of text for the proposed recommendations based on input from the Registrar Stakeholder Group (RrSG).

ICANN Org proposed a new ordering of the recommendations in order to make the recommendations more in-line with a transfer process. Consensus in the WG to use the new ordering but link to the previous.

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

The proposed new text and the reordering of the recommendations are OK

domain name system

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

At-Large

needs to engage with ICANN and other stakeholders to explore further the feasibility and implications of implementing a system where verification performed by one registrar can be utilized by another, potentially reducing costs and administrative burdens.

At-Large should advocate for the development of guidelines that support the use of digital IDs for domain registration verification, especially in regions where such systems are already in place. This would streamline the verification process without compromising security or privacy.

At-Large could facilitate discussions among its members to gather insights and feedback on the current challenges registrars face in validating and verifying domain registration data. This could inform At-Large's contributions to policy discussions and its advocacy efforts.

At-Large may consider organizing a workshop or session at a future ICANN meeting to discuss the potential for collaborative efforts among registrars and other stakeholders to address the challenges of validation and verification, including the exploration of new technologies and methodologies.

At-Large should monitor developments related to NIS2 and other relevant legislation to ensure that the interests and concerns of the broader Internet user community are considered in discussions about domain registration data accuracy and verification.

FY26-30 Strategic Plan Development Community Consultation

Wednesday, 6 March at 10:30 Claire Craig

What happened?

will continue actively in the GNSO-TPR meeting. The final report will be ready for public comments in August 2024.

Use template

GDS: Subpro IRT Work Session (3 of 3)

Agenda: https://community.icann.org/x/doAvEQ

Use template

Card

label	Wednesday, 12 June 2024

Session

Date/Time (local)

Rapporteur

Report

Photos (Optional)

ccNSO: Universal Acceptance Awareness ccTLDs Session

Wednesday, 12 June at 09:00

Laura Margolis Marcelo Rodriguez

What happened?

ccNSO's session of the ccNSO Universal Acceptance Committee (UAC), focusing on its work plan and promoting the use of its library and mailing list.

The UAC also discussed the relevance of Universal Acceptance Day for ccTLDs, survey results, and next steps to explore ccTLD readiness for the UA.

UA Day 2024 Statistics were displayed, showing more than 133 events of different types, taking place in more than 65 countries.

Tentative UA Day 2025 timeline was presented.

Results of survey available in: idnworldreport.eu

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

Most of the UA Day events were organized by different ALSes in each of the participating countries and of course promoted for end users.

At-Large representatives can advocate for the development and implementation of end users solutions to Universal Acceptance challenges, ensuring that the needs and experiences of individual Internet users are considered in policy discussions and technical standards development.

At-Large members can provide input on the planning process for UA Day 2025, suggesting ideas for activities and initiatives that would resonate with individual Internet users and help advance UA principles.

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

At-Large members can contribute to advancing Universal Acceptance principles by raising awareness, providing feedback, and actively participating in initiatives aimed at addressing universal acceptance challenges from the perspective of individual Internet users.

GDS: SubPro IRT Work Session (2 of 3)

Wednesday, 12 June at 09:00

Justine Chew Bukola Oronti

What happened?

ICANN Org presented the 2012 Round of ICANN Auctions of Last Resort Process, including the number of auctions of last resort, the wining bid range and what the auction proceeds was used for.
ICANN Org presented on SubPro Recommendation 17.5 approved by the Board; which provides for a bid credit, multiplier, or other similar mechanism to be applied to a bid submitted by an ASP-qualified applicant which is caught by a contention set and chooses to participate in an ICANN Auction of Last Resort to resolve that contention set.
- Context for Rec 17.5: ALAC's proposal submitted through public comment that 'an applicant qualified to receive Applicant Support (ASP) should be given priority in any string contention' was considered and modified to read; "increase the chances of applicants qualified to receive Applicant Support winning at the auction". For this to be achieved, it was recommended that a bid credit, multiplier or other similar mechanism would be applied to any bids submitted by ASP-qualified applicants.
ICANN Org presented two different mechanisms for implementing a bid credit, multiplier or other similar mechanism to increase the probability that ASP-qualified would win their gTLD string in the auction process:- a) Post-bidding winning adjustments - Bid credits. b) Pre-bidding discount calculation - Set-asides.

Introduction by Maarten Botterman – Chair of the Strategic Planning Committee of the Board

The Strategic Plan Approach and the Development Timeline were presented by Becky Nash

Two polls were run during the session to gage the views of the participants in person and online

Concerning the vision statement

Developing Strategies –Themes based on the three main objectives

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

Item 1 – This is an important exercise and ICANN Board wants to ensure that this is done in a way that supports the MSM and that the MSM is fully engaged in developing the new FY 26 – 30 Strategic Plan
Item 2 – While in it is not mandatory, it was suggested that preparing for and participating in this exercise can be more meaningful by reviewing the current strategic plan
Item 3 - ALAC and At-Large by extension, appears in to be very engaged in this exercise and we are able to provide meaningful feedback (in this and other fora in which we participate) because of our levels of planning and preparedness.

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

Item 1 - Find ways to ensure that the information for this development of the Strategic is communicated with our End Users particularly through our RALOs, and encourage them let their voices and views be heard so that they can help to shape the new Strategic Plan
Item 2 - ALAC and At-Large needs to continue to participate in the process and by sharing our feedback
Item 3 - Development of the draft strategies is underway and we should use every opportunity to provide input even before the draft plan is shared for public comment.

IFR2 Team Meeting and Work Session

Wednesday, 6 March at 13:15

ICANN Grant Program

Wednesday, 6 March at 15:00

Lilian Ivette De Luque Bruges Bukola Oronti Claire Craig

Wednesday, 6 March at 16:15

Bukola Oronti Tijani Ben Jemaa Justine Chew

View file

name	IRT work session 33 _Wednesday 6 March at 16.15.docx
height	250

Card

label	Thursday, 07 March 2024

Session

Date/Time (local)RapporteurReportPhotos (Optional)

GNSO Council Small Team Plus - SubPro Supplemental Recommendations Work Session

Agenda: https://community.icann.org/x/6ABUEQ

Thursday, 7 March at 9:00 Tijani Ben Jemaa

Use template

Card

label	Español

Informes de la sesión de At-Large de ICANN79

Formato del informe:

¿Qué sucedió?

Tema 1
Tema 2

¿Cuáles son las conclusiones clave específicas de At-Large de esta sesión?

Tema 1
Tema 2

¿Cuáles son los puntos de acción específicos de At-Large (próximos pasos)?

Tema 1
Tema 2

Sesión

Fecha y hora (local)

Relator

Informe

Fotos (opcional)

It is clear that the discussion on a bid credit, multiplier or other similar mechanism is intrinsically linked to the discussion on auctions in that the timing and nature of the ICANN Auction (when bids are placed, whether the auction is an increasing-price auction etc) are key factors which would impact the efficacy of a bid credit, multiplier or other similar mechanism. Notwithstanding, it is as yet unclear which of the proposed 2 options would better achieve the goal of increasing the chances of ASP-qualified applicants winning at an auction. What are the At-Large specific action items (next steps)? At-Large needs to closely follow the discussion on the proposed options of a bid credit or set-asides for ASP-qualified applicants, and study/understand the ramifications of each option. At-Large should also closely monitor discussions on the auction process which would determine the nature of ICANN Auctions. At-Large needs to develop/make a submission (through the SubPro IRT in the interim) on the 2 proposed options of a) Post-bidding winning adjustments - Bid credits. b) Pre-bidding discount calculation - Set-asides, whether elements of either could be taken up to achieve the goal of increasing the chances of ASP-qualified applicants winning at an auction.	Zoom Archive English audio archive
ccNSO: Policy Update Session	Wednesday, 12 June at 10:45	Laura Margolis	What happened? ccNSO session was about analyzing and investigating potential gaps in the ccNSO Policy Framework regarding the Delegation, Transfer, Revocation, and Retirement of Country Code Top-Level Domains (ccTLDs). This session follows up on a similar discussion held during ICANN79. What are the At-Large specific takeaways from this session? There are no At-Large specific takeaways from this session, but the session generally progresses the review process. What are the At-Large specific action items (next steps)? Continue to monitor developments in ccNSO policy frameworks and provide feedback on proposed changes to ensure that they align with the interests and needs of At-Large internet users. Promote capacity building initiatives within the At-Large community to enhance understanding of ccNSO policy
GNSO Council Meeting	Wednesday, 12 June at 13:45	Justine Chew	What happened? Click here to view a curated version of the meeting 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)? None at this point.	Zoom Webinar Archive English audio archive
GNSO: CPH Registration Data Implementation Discussion	Wednesday, 12 June at 15:30	Session cancelled	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...

Card

label	Thursday, 13 June 2024

Session

Date/Time (local)

Rapporteur

Report

Photos (Optional)

GDS: PPSAI IRT Work Session

Thursday. 13 June at 09:00

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...

GDS: SubPro IRT Work Session (3 of 3)

Thursday, 13 June at 09:00

Justine Chew Bukola Oronti

What happened?

This 3rd session of the IRT concentrated on 2 topics:

RSP Evaluation Fee and gTLD Evaluation Fee
Predictability Framework (and by extension, the Standing Predictability Implementation Review Team draft charter)

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

The level of fees are of concern, and risks being unaffordable by potential applicants that we would like to see apply for a gTLD, even with Applicant Support.

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

Awaiting for more details to be shared by ICANN org on how they have developed their budgets and costings to derive the 2 fees.

Zoom Archive
English audio archive

¿Qué sucedió?

Ejemplo: Esta sesión debatió...

¿Cuáles son las conclusiones clave específicas de At-Large de esta sesión?

Ejemplo: At-Large está interesado en...

¿Cuáles son los puntos de acción específicos de At-Large (próximos pasos)?

Ejemplo: At-Large necesita...

Card

label	Français

Rapports de séance d’At-Large de l’ICANN79

Format du rapport :

Que s’est-il passé ?

Item 1
Item 2

Quels sont les principaux points à retenir de cette séance ?

Item 1
Item 2

Quelles sont les mesures spécifiques à prendre (étapes suivantes) ?

Item 1
Item 2

Séance

Date/heure (locale)

Rapporteur

Rapport

Photos (facultatif)

Que s’est-il passé ?

Exemple : Lors de cette séance, la discussion a porté sur...

Quels sont les principaux points à retenir de cette séance ?

Exemple : At-large s’intéresse à...

Quelles sont les mesures spécifiques à prendre (étapes suivantes) ?

Exemple : At-Large a besoin de...

Content

Space Tools

Page History

Versions Compared

Old Version 2

New Version Current

Key

At-Large Session Reports

Instructions:

Report Format:

Formato del informe:

Format du rapport :