AT-LARGE GATEWAY

At-Large Website

ALAC

RALOs

At-Large Regional Policy Engagement Program (ARPEP)

At-Large Governance

At-Large Reports

Policy Comments & Advice

Working Groups

ICANN Meetings

At-Large Summit (ATLAS III)

At-Large Review Implementation Plan Development

ALAC and RALO Elections, Selections, and Appointments

At-Large FY25 Strategic Priority Activities

Versions Compared

Old Version 21

changes.mady.by.user Andrew Chen

Saved on

compared with

New Version Current

changes.mady.by.user Heidi Ullrich

Saved on

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

...

Claire Craig - Commented that the ALS survey was useful for other regions. Also asked to how many people was the survey sent. 


Action Items 

...

No Action Items recorded. 

Recommendations to ICANN org 

•    What can ICANN org and ICANN stakeholders do to improve internet infrastructure?

•    ICANN can help policy makes and legislators by building the capacity of legislators so they themselves can explain and bring what we need to do in Africa. ICANN can assist by highlighting policies to assist the private sector. 

•    Raise awareness, increase root instances and servers, as the next billion users will come from Africa, there will be questions about accessibility and what it means to be connected.

•    DNS infrastructure relies heavily on the underlying Internet infrastructure and anything that we can do to improve implement infrastructure will help the DNS, make more exchange points, putting more links between borders between countries , Increase root servers instances and resolvers.

your task here, using "@" to assign to a user and "//" to select a due date

AFRALO: Building a Multilingual Internet: Opportunities and Challenges

...

  •  ICANN org to provide Outreach and Engagement materials to ALAC leadership. Initial set of materials is being finalized and will hopefully be shared by the end of the month. 
  •  

    At-Large/RAOs RALOs should work on:

    • A precise definition of the kind of support the ALSes may provide to the ICANN Com team in their campaign  
    • A clear and precise process for that, and a defined framework for the actions to be undertaken by the ALSes

...

  • Overview was provided about what Name Collisions are and it’s importance. Introduction of new TLDs increases likelihood of collisions
  • There have been evolutions in DNS protocols and other technologies, root server data is no long the only and most efficient way for assessing the risk of name collision
  • There is a lack of consistency as there’s no centralized location to assess risk with data needed
  • NCAP 2 recommends an assessment framework with 4 key features
    • Integrated risk assessment
    • Technical Review Team (TRT)
    • Enhanced Data Collection
    • Multiple Assessment Methods
  • Name Collision process is roughly 4 stages
    • Applicant identifies potential issues using publicly existing data
    • TRT reviews available data
    • ICANN temporarily delegates string into root
    • TRT submits recommendations the Board for Board to decide whether application should move forward
  • Controlled interruptions worked in 2012 round but may not be the most efficient way to assess the risk of name collisions in the next round
    • Controlled interruptions does not work with IPv6
    • Root Servers and Resolver Operators are seeing less data now compared to 2012 due to technological and regulatory changes
  • There are concerns regarding privacy in data collection
  • TRT is essential to dealing name collisions going forward. It would be a highly technical and highly skilled activity. There’s no generalized solution to name collisions 
  • Idea is to have test conducted before delegation but after the TLD has been awarded
    • Personal Identification Information is going to be an issue regardless of where the test is conducted
  • SSAC has been having discussions with Board Committees and understands that it is up to the board to decide on a way forward
  • The ALAC has been discussing auctions with GAC and Org. One recommendation is to have auction be part of application process. It would help mitigate issue of data manipulation is contention info collected at the start of application processing.
    • If list of applicant TLDs published, it could be gamed ahead of time.
    • No statement on when analysis should be done was intentional.
    • Challenge with auctions is that there are already approved recommendations about auctions of last resort. The two issues are separate and should not be conflated.  
  • There are no recommendations from the SubPro Final Report on what method is to be used. Controlled Interruption will continue to be used until Board adopts a new method.
  • There will continue to be concerns regarding privacy and timing

Action Items 

...

  • No action items recorded. 


Wednesday, 12 June 2024

Joint Session: ALAC & GAC

...

  • Applicant Support Program is of importance to the ALAC and GAC. The ALAC was provided an overview of the outreach and engagement plan.
  • The ALAC believes this is a good time to begin an awareness program and would provide targeted audience with enough time to begin
  • The ALAC would like to collaborate with the GAC on ways to up outreach and enagement. The ALAC highlighted that outreach and engagement materials are being developed by ICANN org. 
  • ASP remains a key topic of interest. The ASP should promote diversification in TLD space.
  • ASP Recommendaiton 17.2 has been apporves by the Board. The GAC looks forward to a holistic program being implemented 
  • The ALAC and GAC have met outside of ICANN meetings to talk about issues related to the next round program. They provided correspndence during intersessional time. 
    • GAC ASP Small Team will be having Bilateral with ICANN staff to brainstrom on ways to communicate efficenitly in lead up to ICANN81
    • The GAC is still reviewing questions regarding ASP, such as first come first serve issue. The GAC looks forward to working together with the ALAC on mutual issues of interest. 
    • Joint capacity sessions are an option for both parties to discuss ways forward. 
  • ASP Applications should not be judged based on timing of submission. 
    • Applicants should be aware of what the process will be, especially if applicants must consider if first come, first serve is applied.  
    • Would first come, first serve be a way to solve contention resolution 
      • this may be viewed as a risk issue
  • Is there any intention an action plan about creating awareness for O&E plan about what the GAC needs to do to support the second phase? 
    • The GAC has asked for clarification on budget and financial parameters with regard to ASP. There are also discusiooonis taking place reagrding back-end registry service platforms. 
  • The AGB and materials will be translated to UN language, need to recognize that those are not all the languages spoken in the world, and will require time and resources to translate to the right languages. The GAC would like for there to be an equitable chance for applicnats to submit. This is a reason why they do not like the idea of first come first serve for ASP 
  • When will the app round start?
    • ASP will launch 12 months before the application window starts and is expected to launch Q4 2024. Raising awareness should start now. 
    • Community Awareness campaign should be taking place now and ending around October 2024. Materials from ICANN org is needed to help with comm awareness campaign. 
  • First come, first serve is a bad idea. Could joint communication be published to either force all languages should be done and then first come first serve, or have all applications reviewed at once for ASP. Applications should be treated equally, this is the point of having a application window 
  • Will ASP will receive more applications due to the rise in fee cost?
    • The GAC advocated for a complete waiver for those applying in ASP. Currently looks like there will be a large fee reduction for ASP applicants. If there are more than anticipated applicants, GAC might ask Board to consider more funding for successful applicants
  • How we distribute efforts for outreach and engagement?
    • through GGP, specifc targets for ASP were debated and agreed upon. Board has accepted the GGP Recommendaiotns. GAC has a specific definition for underserved regions 

Action Items 

  • No Action Items recorded.

At-Large Cross RALO Coordination Session

...

The group discussed the statement “Bridging the Digital Divide: Empowering Africa through Multilingual Internet Infrastructure.” The statement recognizes Africa’s diverse linguistic landscape, which includes more than 2,000 spoken languages, and highlighted several recommendations to achieve a multilingual internet in Africa.

Action Items 

  •  Abdeldjalil Bachar Bong  and Hadia Elminiawi to edit the statement incorporating suggestions as follows" Second recommendation- include the "number of root services instances". Edit under "Capacity building" instead of "advocate and promote - "building capacity and skills across Africa".  Spell out DNS Industry including Internet service providers and hosting providers.
  •  Abdeldjalil Bachar Bong to send the AFRALO-AFRICANN statement (once finalized) to staff to forward to the Board.

...

  • Amrita C. provided an overview of the work of the Internet Governance Forum Support Association, its remit, and its reach. 
  • Primary purpose of the association is to support the IGF and its initiatives. 
  • Justine C. provided an update on the GNSO Council meeting
  • Matthias H. provided a short update on the SSAC sessions and highlighted a discussion on AI, and cybersafe campaign with the ALAC 
  • Joanna K. provided an update about the GAC session that was held with the ALAC. There may be additional joint correspondence between the ALAC and GAC. There are opportunities to work intersessionally with the GAC. 
  • If ALAC advice is issued on contention resolution, a method on how it can be mitigated should be added. 
    • taking opportunity for private resolution out of the equation
  • Session reports should highlight action items that ALAC should tend to 
  • Avri discussed in covering the session reports the topics of PICs/RVCs, Applicant Support, registration data access, and DNS Abuse.  
    • Justine also covered the fees that are being discussed for Next Round applications and bid credits for Applicant Support.  
  • Reminder from Justine to work on ALAC Procedure for filing comments and objections in the Next Round. 
  • Claire provided an overview of the remit of the OFB-WG. 
  • Maarten Botterman provided an overview of the ICANN Strategic Plan
    • Board to adopt the plan by March 2025
    • A public comment is scheduled for 09 July 2024 and a community webinar will be available to discuss the Strategic Plan
  • Hadia E. provided an overview of AFRALO sessions that took place at ICANN80. AFRALO provided advice that is impactful to the Africa region. 
  • Denise H. provided an update about the NextGen program participants 
  • Sheerdeep R. provided an update about the Fellowship program participants. Highlighted that previous Fellows are stepping into ALAC leadership rolls 
  • Bukola O. provided an udpate about social media enagement within the ALAC and at-large community. Contest winners were announced. 
  • Jonathan Z. announced that he will be unavailable for the next 45 days. He has delegated responsibility to Claire Craig and Justine Chew. 
  • Heidi U. announced that Claudia Ruiz will be transitioning to the ccNSO team. 

Action Items 

  •  PICs/RVCs to be discussed in CPWG call. 
  •  ALAC to have call with ICANN80 NextGen and Fellowship participants.