At-Large Session Reports from ICANN79

GNSO: IDN EPDP Working Session

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

This session discussed two outstanding issues from the Charter Questions from Phase 2 of the EPDP on IDNs. These were:

1. Whether or not the EPDP should make a recommendation on the need for registries to evolve their own systems for IDN Table Harmonization; and
2. If the information returned by RDDS should include information on the variant set, noting that RDDS does not currently provide for information on variants.

Full report available here: At-Large ICANN79 Documents

GDS: Subpro IRT Work Session (1 of 3)

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

Use template

GNSO: Transfer Policy Review PDP Working Group (1 of 2)

Agenda: https://community.icann.org/x/5gBUEQ

What happened?

This session was discussed Change of Registrant Data (CORD) Draft Recommendation Review – Where they Stand (now).  and Recap of current draft CORD recommendations, however any additional new recommendation was welcomed during the session, Notable discussion happened in reviewing of 30-day transfer restriction and recap of existing recommendations and then followed by Q &A.

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

Change of Registrant (COR) : The working group recommends that the Transfer Policy and all related policies MUST use the term “Change of Registrant Data” in place of the currently-used term “Change of Registrant”. This recommendation is for an update to terminology only and does not imply any other changes to the substance of the policies.

The Registrar MUST include the following elements in the Change of Registrant Data notification:

- Domain name(s)

- Text stating which registrant data field(s) were updated

-  Date and time that the Change of Registrant Data was completed

-  Instructions detailing how the registrant can take action if the change was invalid (how to initiate a reversal)

- The Registrar MUST send the notification via email, SMS, or other secure messaging system. These examples are not intended to be limiting, and it is understood that additional methods of notification may be created that were not originally anticipated

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

Regarding (TEAC/TDRP) recommendation The Working Group recommends the GNSO request an Issues

Report or other suitable mechanism to further research and explore the pros and cons of:

-         expanding the TDRP to registrant filers and

-        creating a new standalone dispute resolution mechanism for registrants who wish to challenge improper transfers, including compromised and stolen domain names.

ccNSO: DNS Abuse Standing Committee Community Update

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

What happened?

This session provided an update on the DNS Abuse Standing Committee’s work and solicit feedback from the community on its draft report.

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

These are key takeaways from the draft report presented in the session:

• The draft report proposed a framework for defining and categorizing DNS abuse, based on existing sources and best practices.
• It also identified gaps and challenges in the current DNS abuse landscape, such as inconsistent terminology, lack of data, and divergent views on roles and responsibilities.
• Finally, the report invites comments and suggestions from the community on how to improve the framework and address the gaps and challenges.

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

Some of the action items for At-Large are as follows:

• Review the committee’s draft report and provide feedback by March 31, 2024, using the online form or email.
• Engage with the committee and other stakeholders on the topic of DNS abuse, through webinars, mailing lists, and meetings.
• Advocate for the interests and perspectives of individual Internet users in the DNS abuse debate, and promote a safe and secure online environment.

GNSO: Transfer Policy Review PDP Working Group (2 of 2)

Agenda: https://community.icann.org/x/5gBUEQ

What happened?

This session was briefly discussed on Transfer Policy Review Working Group Revisiting 30-day Transfer Restrictions & Established Relationships.

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

Registrars MUST apply a 30-day post-change of registrar lock by default for all domain names transferred into a Registrar, however on a case-by-case basis and where an Established Relationship exists, the Registrar may unlock

the domain name in less than thirty (30) days for the purpose of an inter-registrar transfer, on a case-by-case basis. The Registrar MUST restrict the RNH from transferring a domain name

to a new Registrar within 30 days of the completion of an inter-Registrar transfer.

The working group recommends that 30 days is the appropriate period for this requirement because:

• It provides a window of opportunity to identify issues associated with credit card payments, including unauthorized use of a credit card. This may assist with addressing criminal activity and deterring fraud.
• For registrants who legitimately want to transfer a domain again shortly after an inter-registrar transfer has taken place and do not have an Established Relationship, 30 days is a reasonable period of time to wait.

What are the At-Large specific action items

On the Established Relationships - WG Discussion has question for the end users what exemptions (if any) should customers with an “Established Relationship” be provided?

ICANN Grant Program

Wednesday March 6, 2024 15:00 - 16:00 AST
Ballroom A (Main)
  Outreach / Engagement, Public Session

What happened?

The session informed attendees about the overview of the main elements of this first call for applications, especially about the applicant requirements, the path towards recommendation 7, the schedule for the evaluation of the application and round of questions from the attendees in-person and remote.

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

Being a global and competitive program, the community at large must be sufficiently informed so that the greatest number of member organizations present projects that are in line with the mission of ICANN.
We must also identify which types of projects proposed in the program objectives are those that can benefit our regions the most and encourage the application of these proposals.

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

The different ralos must promote and encourage the participation of their ALS members in this program.
Carry out a new training cycle on this program for the community
Keep the community informed of any updates on this program, especially about deadlines.

What happened?
This session discuss the organization of the work regarding rewriting IPC-2
https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/new-rirs-criteria-2012-02-25-en

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

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. 

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. 

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. 

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

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

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.

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

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.

UA Day 2024 Overview Work Session

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 globaly. 

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

Agenda:

Slides here

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.

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

GNSO SubPro Supplemental Recommendations Community Consultation

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

Use template

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

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

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.

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

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 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

What happened?

• 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 suggest 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

Use template

ICANN Grant Program

Use template

GDS: Subpro IRT Work Session (3 of 3)

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

Use template

GNSO Council Small Team Plus - SubPro Supplemental Recommendations Work Session

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

Use template