November 2025 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

SAC130: SSAC Comments on Name Collision Guidelines in the Proposed Language for the Draft Next Round Applicant Guidebook
by Matthias M. Hudobnik April 24, 2026

April 24, 2026

Dear Colleagues, The SSAC welcomes the opportunity to comment on ICANN's Draft Applicant Guidebook (AGB) for the New gTLD Program: Next Round. Our comments focus on improving Section 6.7 on Name Collisions, with an emphasis on risks arising from collisions between DNS and alternative naming systems (e.g., blockchain-based systems), as outlined in the Name Collision Analysis Project Study 2 Report (NCAP2). SUMMARY OF KEY RECOMMENDATIONS: * Clarify TRT's Role in Initial Assessments AGB §6.7.2 does not clearly state that the Technical Review Team (TRT) conducts the initial name collision risk assessment. NCAP2 indicates TRT is responsible from the outset. _Recommendation:_ Explicitly assign the initial assessment to the TRT. * Enable Pre-Delegation Action on High-Risk Strings Current language suggests high-risk strings are identified only after temporary delegation. NCAP2 supports action based on existing data. _Recommendation:_ Allow TRT to recommend withholding delegation if early analysis shows high risk. * Broaden TRT's Assessment Scope Beyond DNS Data Limiting analysis to DNS logs misses collisions from alternative namespaces that resolve via DNS (e.g., users accustomed to _.wallet_ from blockchain). ➤ _Recommendation:_ Permit use of OSINT, qualitative assessments, and external data sources per NCAP2. * Allow TRT Flexibility to Evolve Assessment Methods AGB cites four NCAP2 methods (NI, CI, VI, VIN), but doesn't state whether TRT may adopt new techniques. _Recommendation:_ Affirm TRT's discretion to evolve methods to address future risks. These updates will better align the AGB with NCAP2 and ICANN Board guidance, while improving transparency, security, and technical rigor in handling name collisions. The SSAC appreciates the efforts of the ICANN org and Subsequent Procedures IRT, and we are available for further discussion. Link: https://itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/security-and-stability-advisory-committe…. Best, Matthias

3 4

SSAC report and apology for the ALAC Monthly meeting on 26/08
by Matthias M. Hudobnik April 21, 2026

April 21, 2026

Dear Colleagues, please find below my report. I apologize for not being able to attend the ALAC Monthly meeting on August 26th. Have a nice day! Best, Matthias Publications: SAC130: SSAC Comments on Name Collision Guidelines in the Proposed Language for the Draft Next Round Applicant Guidebook The SSAC welcomes the opportunity to comment on ICANN's Draft Applicant Guidebook (AGB) for the New gTLD Program: Next Round. Our comments focus on improving Section 6.7 on Name Collisions, with an emphasis on risks arising from collisions between DNS and alternative naming systems (e.g., blockchain-based systems), as outlined in the Name Collision Analysis Project Study 2 Report (NCAP2). SUMMARY OF KEY RECOMMENDATIONS: * Clarify TRT's Role in Initial Assessments AGB §6.7.2 does not clearly state that the Technical Review Team (TRT) conducts the initial name collision risk assessment. NCAP2 indicates TRT is responsible from the outset. _Recommendation:_ Explicitly assign the initial assessment to the TRT. * Enable Pre-Delegation Action on High-Risk Strings Current language suggests high-risk strings are identified only after temporary delegation. NCAP2 supports action based on existing data. _Recommendation:_ Allow TRT to recommend withholding delegation if early analysis shows high risk. * Broaden TRT's Assessment Scope Beyond DNS Data Limiting analysis to DNS logs misses collisions from alternative namespaces that resolve via DNS (e.g., users accustomed to _.wallet_ from blockchain). _Recommendation:_ Permit use of OSINT, qualitative assessments, and external data sources per NCAP2. * Allow TRT Flexibility to Evolve Assessment Methods AGB cites four NCAP2 methods (NI, CI, VI, VIN), but doesn't state whether TRT may adopt new techniques. _Recommendation:_ Affirm TRT's discretion to evolve methods to address future risks. These updates will better align the AGB with NCAP2 and ICANN Board guidance, while improving transparency, security, and technical rigor in handling name collisions. The SSAC appreciates the efforts of the ICANN org and Subsequent Procedures IRT, and we are available for further discussion. Link: https://itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/security-and-stability-advisory-committe…. Ongoing work parties: * DNSSEC Operational Considerations Work Party * Open-Source Software Work Party * Responsible Integration of External Technologies into the DNS * SSAC Workshop Work Party SSAC Membership Applications: The application deadline is closed now and potential candidates are being assessed by the Membership Selection Committee. SSAC Workshop: For SSAC members only, will be held in September in Mexico City.

2 6

Fwd: ALAC Letter to the IANA IPR CCG re Proposed Amendment to IETF IPMC Bylaws
by Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond Nov. 30, 2025

Nov. 30, 2025

(this was sent to the CPWG list but for the record is also sent to the ALAC now) (CC'ed to ALAC Chair Jonathan Zuck) Dear Colleagues, a moment ago, we discussed the "ALAC Letter to the IANA IPR CCG re Proposed Amendment to IETF IPMC Bylaws" in the weekly CPWG call that I co-Chaired with my colleague Avri Doria. In the "IETF IPMC" (IETF Intellectual Property Management Corporation) of Agenda Item 4, which we had moved to the end, there were no objections to sending the letter to the ALAC for approval by the ALAC prior to it being sent to the IANA Community Coordination Group (CCG) co-Chairs. The draft letter can be found on: https://docs.google.com/document/d/18BN-ki3BpGKyfCTjKb1PZ-bSnYyN-yb9nyWpTOg… As a co-chair of the CPWG, I did not intervene in the discussion as a participant. I participate to ease discussion and am open to all views, thus I do find it difficult to sometimes intervene, taking my Chair's hat on and off - and in this instance, the matter is serious enough that it warrants a written intervention instead - because it is based on facts that take more than 5 minutes to explain. It would have also introduced confusion and stress at the end of the call. I would like, therefore, speaking on my own behalf now, object to two inter-related paragraphs: "/Accordingly, the ALAC supports the transfer of the IANA IPRs and the assignment of related licenses and other agreements from the IETF Trust to the IPMC. The ALAC notes that there are numerous other issues with these Bylaws as currently drafted, which have been brought to the attention of the IETF IPMC by the CCG or members of the CCG. *While these issues do not need to be resolved prior to the completion of the transfer of the IANA IPRs and related agreements, the ALAC strongly encourages the IETF IPMC to amend the Bylaws to resolve these issues expeditiously after the completion of the transfer in order to ensure that the governance of the IETF IPMC under the Bylaws is as clear and unambiguous as possible.*/" *At this point in time, I do NOT agree with the mention "While these issues do not need to be resolved prior to the completion of the transfer of the IANA IPRs and related agreements"* Whilst I felt that, a few months ago, there appeared to be progress in the addressing of the problems relating to the IETF IPMC Bylaws, many of which I pinpointed before anyone else had a look at them, I do not find, at the present time, that there has been enough progress whilst the two month IETF public comment is taking place, to address any of the "numerous other issues with these Bylaws". I cannot quite place my finger on why this is taking so much time and why all people concerned with this process appear to find this to be a secondary matter that is not so important. If Bylaws have to be fixed, they have to be fixed, otherwise we potentially have an organisation with defective Bylaws or Bylaws containing loopholes. Are we, the ICANN Names Community, ready to have the IANA IPRs, transferred to such an organisation? I hope not. Off-line and directly with the people concerned, I have shared my concerns in relation to: (a) the lack of proper IETF Trust minutes recording the agreeing/signing of the current IETF Trust Agreement. By itself, I do not see this as a show-stopper. (yes, formal records for agreeing the current Trust Agreement at the Trustee Meeting of 6 November 2018 are missing!) (b) the lack of progress in all parties resolving the "/numerous other issues with these Bylaws". /When our esteemed colleague Greg Shatan transmitted his analysis and recommendations for Bylaws changes, he differentiated the issues into two categories: - in YELLOW the comments that discuss concerns from the perspective of the Names Community relating to oversight/accountability/powers/obligations of the IETF IPMC. - in BLUE the comments that discuss changes made to improve the document from a legal perspective relating to appropriateness, enforceability, correctness and clarity, based on his perspective as a practising attorney since 1986. I attach his document - "Comparison of revised Bylaws to current Bylaws-1.docx" After discussion within the Community Coordination Group (CCG), the CCG sent a letter to the IETF Trust with its proposed Bylaws Changes. This resulted in a document that outlined the Proposed Amended Bylaws, which was used in the announcement of the Public Comment, as published on https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/SWYX5CDJciD6W9qNsxmNaK-… The proposed changes to the IETF IPMC Bylaws, as sent to the IETF Consultation by the CCG, are provided as a Redline document, which I attach in this email: "Oct25_Proposed_Amended_Bylaws_REDLINE.pdf" Comparing Greg's initial comments to the amendments that were carried over, a number of substantial issues are not addressed in the current Bylaw amendment proposals being considered in the consultation. *I will focus on the few that I think that are important enough to make them conditional for issuing the green light to transferring the IANA IPR over to the IETF IPMC. * A. Non Profit Status Section 1.5 (b) currently mentions that the Directors will seek 501(a) status specifically 501(c)3 exemption from taxation. Greg proposed that this is improved to say that the organisation *is* a 501(c)3 organisation. This ties in with Section 1.5(c) whereas the current version of the Bylaws makes it conditional if the organisation obtain exemption, that no part of the net earning will go to the Directors etc. Greg suggests making this mandatory by adding "At all times" - which makes sense. B. Definitions Greg proposed that several terms relating to the whole Agreement, are formally defined in the "Definitions" section of the Agreement. This was ignored, thus some definitions happen on the fly in some sub-sections and sub-paragraphs. Ultimately this has less of an impact than some other matters, but it makes the Bylaws harder to read and easier to miss defining some specific terms. However, some current definitions are *plainly wrong* like: /"IETF Administrative LLC" means the administrative arm of the IETF./ There is no "IETF Administrative LLC". (!) There is an "IETF Administration LLC" which is the single-member LLC that provides the corporate legal home for the IETF, the IAB and the IRTF. (Ref. https://www.ietf.org/administration/overview/ ) C. Wrong placement of a clause - an easy change? Clause 3.3(c) is under clause 3.3 Nomination, Election and Term of Office of Directors. Greg suggested moving this to 3.4 Resignation and Removal. Since clause 3.3(c) speaks about removing a director, it makes sense to put it under 3.4 as 3.4(b). D. Regular Meetings of the Board of Directors The current clause 3.8 mentions that Regular meetings of the Board of Directors may be held *without notice*. Greg rightly proposes to fix this to mention how Directors will be notified of a Regular meeting. Holding a meeting without a notice does not make sense. E. Fees and Expenses of Directors In Section 3.14, Fees and Expenses of Directors, Greg proposes a straight forward: "No Director shall be entitled to compensation for his or her services as a Director of the IETF IPMC. " which he explains by the Bylaws currently being ambiguous since the Bylaws do prohibit compensation to Officers. This makes perfect sense. F. Director Liability for Certain Act Section 3.19 is headed "No Liability for Certain Act" and says: "No Director shall be responsible or liable for the acts or omissions of a custodian, agent, depositary, or counsel selected with reasonable care." Greg proposed that the header should be "Director Liability" and that there should be a Duty of the Directors towards the Corporation - as part of essential accountability measures. /"(a) Each Director is required, individually and collectively, to act in good faith, with reasonable and prudent care, and in the best interest of the IETF IPMC. If Directors act in good faith and in a manner that is reasonably in line with the best interests of the IETF IPMC, as determined by a reasonably prudent person in similar circumstances, then such Directors shall be immune from liability arising from official acts on behalf of the Corporation. "/ And also add another Section that says: "(c) Directors who fail to comply with this section of the Bylaws may be personally liable to the IETF IPMC for any improper acts and as otherwise described in these Bylaws" This would definitely raise the bar for Accountability, which is what everyone should wish for an organisation like the IETF IPMC that will hold such important assets. G. Limit as to the maximum contract value of Executed Contracts Greg proposes adding a clause that says: "All contracts of $10,000 or more must be approved by the Board of Directors. " --- and this makes absolute sense - as Greg says "it is common to avoid fraud or just bad unilateral decisions". He also proposes adding this clause to the Section 10.3: "All payments of $10,000 or more must be approved by the Board of Directors, whether in a single instrument or in a series of instruments directed to the same or related persons." Again, this makes sense. _Conclusion_ I honestly do not understand why these were not included in the current round of Bylaw changes. If amending the Bylaws necessitates a full 60 day IETF consultation, why were these changes not included? If the current proposed amendments are agreed, the IETF will again need to restart a 60 day period when the next round of amendments will be proposed - what likelihood is there that any of the remaining issues will ever get fixed? Given the time it has taken to reach the current point, when there is a real pressure to complete the transfer, I am very concerned that we shall never see the other Bylaw improvements ever implemented if there is not a *binding obligation* for the other amendments to be effected within a certain period of time. Given all of the above, I recommend forcefully that the paragraph I have mentioned above: ""While these issues do not need to be resolved prior to the completion of the transfer of the IANA IPRs and related agreements" is replaced with a paragraph that requests commitment from the IETF Trust and the IETF IPMC to address the other issues clearly explained by Greg, within a specific time period, for example within 3 months of the transfer of the IPR to the IPMC, or the transfer is voided. I know this comes late, but we have to make sure we do not let mistakes happen that then take a lot more effort to fix later. Again - all of the above views are my own. Kindest regards, Olivier Crépin-Leblond

2 1

Consensus Call | ALAC Letter to the IANA IPR CCG re Proposed Amendment to IETF IPMC Bylaws
by Jonathan Zuck Nov. 26, 2025

Nov. 26, 2025

Folks, I’ve attached a pdf document which is a letter from the ALAC to the IANA IPR Community Coordination Group Chairs regarding Proposed Amendment to IETF IPMC Bylaws. Support staff shared this letter on the CPWG list on 20 November for comments and it became stable as of today. This letter will be shared with IANA IPR CCG via ALAC’s representative Christopher Wilkinson. Take a look and just email me with comments you might have by Sunday November 30th. Ideally, you’re fine with it and we’ll get it sent on Monday. Thank you. Jonathan Best, Jonathan ALAC Chair Jonathan Zuck | Director, Future of Work Project | Innovators Network jzuck(a)innovatorsnetwork.org<mailto:jzuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> | O 202.827.7594<tel:+12028277594> | D 202.420.7483<tel:+12024207483> [See the source image]Jonathan-zuck<https://www.linkedin.com/in/jonathan-zuck/> | [See the source image] jvzuck<https://twitter.com/Jvzuck> | [See the source image] jonathanzuck<https://www.instagram.com/jonathanzuck/> | [See the source image] Jonathan.zuck<https://www.facebook.com/jonathan.zuck/> [signature_1023473624]

1 0

This month's CPWG report to ALAC
by Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond Nov. 26, 2025

Nov. 26, 2025

Dear colleagues, I was on today's ALAC call, as per my earlier intervention about the BCEC. Alas, I was in a restaurant and as the lunchtime progressed it was increasingly difficult to hear. I heard what I thought was Claire's call, only after Bukola spoke, but could not get into a quiet enough place. Here's the brief CPWG update: As you know, we meet every week. At the moment we are finalising one correspondence relating to the IANA Intellectual Property being transferred from the IETF Trust to the IETF Intellectual Property Management Corporation. Last comments will take place on Wednesday's CPWG call, prior to the correspondence being transmitted to the relevant comment process. There are four Statements currently in the Policy pipeline: - String Similarity Evaluation Data for New gTLD Program: Next Round <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/alacpolicydev/pages/60705…> - closing 4 Dec - Registration Data Request Service (RDRS) Policy Alignment Analysis <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/alacpolicydev/pages/60761…> - closing 9 Dec - Timeline for Urgent Requests for Lawful Disclosure of Nonpublic Registration Data <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/alacpolicydev/pages/60768…> - closing 15 Dec - Name Collision IPv6 Research Study <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/alacpolicydev/pages/60771…> - closing 22 Dec In the recent month we made the IANA Function Review 2 workgroup update inactive as it was confirmed that it had completed its work. Work is ongoing in the DNS Abuse topic. We'll also have regular updates about the Latin Diacritics PDP which has entered a vital phase of its process in the run up to its January 2026 reporting/consultation. And of course, the New gTLD Next Round (SubPro) is still full swing, now that the Board has adopted the 2026 Applicant Guidebook at the recent ICANN meeting. Next CPWG call: 26 November 2025, 14:00 UTC - https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AQAcJQ Kindest regards, Olivier

1 0

GAC Liaison Report – Posted on Liaison Page and Submitted for Today’s Call
by Joanna Kulesza Nov. 25, 2025

Nov. 25, 2025

Dear colleagues, I hope this message finds you well. Unfortunately, due to conflicting professional commitments, I am unable to join today’s call. I am therefore submitting my liaison report in writing, in lieu of presenting it during the meeting. My sincere apologies for any inconvenience this may cause. The report has also been posted on the GAC Liaison page https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/atlarge/pages/99710696/GA… for ease of reference. I remain fully available to discuss any points or follow up by email. *GAC Liaison Report – November 2025* Following ICANN84, the GAC continues to focus on several areas closely aligned with ALAC priorities. These include the effectiveness of the Applicant Support Program (ASP), global responses to DNS abuse, the treatment of Latin script diacritics in the Next Round, and preparations for major international processes such as WSIS+20. *Applicant Support Program (ASP)* The GAC remains concerned about the very low number of completed ASP applications and the uneven regional distribution of applicants. This limited uptake risks undermining the Next Round’s goal of broad and equitable participation. The GAC continues to encourage ICANN org to facilitate communication between applicants and relevant government representatives and supports a post-program review to identify barriers and improve future efforts. Collaboration with ALAC remains welcome, particularly regarding outreach in underserved regions. *DNS Abuse* The GAC maintains its focus on DNS abuse and notes ongoing gaps in data, reporting, and enforcement practices. While governments welcomed the recent contractual amendments, further improvements are still expected. The GAC supports the DNS Abuse PDP and continues to encourage coordination with advisory committees, including ALAC. *Latin Script Diacritics* The GAC remains attentive to the work on Latin script diacritics. Although the work will not conclude in time for inclusion in the Applicant Guidebook, the GAC supports ensuring that its outcomes can still be incorporated during application evaluation. The GAC emphasizes the importance of linguistic inclusion while avoiding delays to the Next Round. *WSIS+20 and International Digital Policy Processes* The GAC is actively preparing for the WSIS+20 Review. The outcomes of the December meetings may shape future expectations for global digital cooperation and the wider governance environment. The GAC will continue to monitor these developments and welcomes coordination with ALAC where priorities overlap. *GAC–ALAC Regulatory Updates (2026 Planning)* Following discussions with the Government Engagement (GE) Team, no December session will take place. Two sessions are planned for early 2026: – *15 January 2026* (WSIS+20 Recap) – *12 February 2026* (UN process on a future permanent mechanism on ICT security) Further topic suggestions from colleagues are welcome. Thank you again for your understanding regarding my absence today. I look forward to continuing our work together and am happy to respond to any questions or comments by email. -- Kind regards, Joanna Kulesza ------------------- Joanna Kulesza, PhD Professor of International Law Lodz Cyber Hub / University of Lodz Law School / Poland www.cyber.uni.lodz.pl (EURALO ALS 341) ALAC / EURALO / ALAC Liaison to the GAC

1 0

ccNSO Council Meeting #223 Report
by Laura Margolis Nov. 24, 2025

Nov. 24, 2025

Dear all, Please find below a summary of the key points and developments discussed during the ccNSO Council Meeting #223, held on November 20th., 2025. Agenda and Background Materials <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/ccNSOCWS/pages/103124007/…> *1. Administrative Updates* *Welcome & AOB* The Chair introduced three AoB items: - Closure of the GAC-ccNSO meeting and World Café. - Upcoming cooperation with the RySG on the GNSO DNS Abuse PDP. - Tentative block schedule planning for ICANN85 in Mumbai. *Minutes & Action Items* - *Minutes of Meeting 222* circulated on 14 November; no comments raised. - Most action items from Meeting 222 were either completed or pending the launch of the new ccNSO website (expected mid-December). - A (pending items tracker) pending requested items to the Board, remains regarding the creation and long-term maintenance of the *joint SO/AC tracker*, which requires further discussion. *2. Progress on Ongoing Work * *ccPDP4-IDN <https://ccnso.icann.org/en/workinggroups/idn-cctld-strings.htm>* No new updates since Meeting 222. *Review of Reviews (RoR CCG)* - Two community webinars were held, with increasing participation. - The group is now entering the problem-definition phase and will initially focus on the “A bucket” issues. - Meetings with each SO/AC are planned for ICANN85; a plenary is expected on Thursday morning of the week. *“How We Meet” CCG* No new updates. *Chair / Vice-Chairs / Secretariat Updates* - Discussions continue regarding scheduling conflicts between Smart Africa capacity-building activities and Tech Day. - The new ccNSO website is expected to go live mid-December. - Feedback was provided on the proposed Board-Community session for ICANN85; ccNSO suggested starting this experiment at ICANN86 instead. *3. Decisions & Key Discussions* *Adoption of the Board Seat 11 Nomination Report* - The Nomination Report was presented, including analysis of inconsistencies across nomination guidelines. - Recommendation: GRC <https://ccnso.icann.org/en/workinggroups/grc.htm> to review and harmonize the ccNSO guidelines for all nomination procedures. - As quorum was not met, the decision will be deferred to an *online vote*, but: - *Patricio Poblete* remains the uncontested candidate for Board Seat 11. - Council expressed appreciation for his continued service. *Council Selection Process* - *EU, LAC, and NA seats*: uncontested, no elections. - *AP region*: two candidates; voting ongoing until 9 December. Only 12 of 57 Emissaries have voted so far. - Secretariat is coordinating with RO and ICANN GSE to increase participation. - *African region*: new call for nominations launched after the sole nominee declined to accept. Closes on 4 December. *Appointments to Working Groups* Approved: - Kristian Ørmen (.se) – DASC <https://ccnso.icann.org/en/workinggroups/dasc.htm> - Hsuping Tang (.tw) – DASC <https://ccnso.icann.org/en/workinggroups/dasc.htm> - Siphokazi Simandla (.za) – IGLC <https://ccnso.icann.org/en/workinggroups/iglc.htm> *4. Review of the Bylaw Change Playbook* The Chair led a discussion on the draft ICANN Bylaw Change Playbook recently shared with SO/AC chairs. Key observations included: - Lack of clarity in roles, timelines, and escalation processes. - Several community-requested Bylaw changes in past years were delayed or not accepted, impacting operational timelines (e.g., IFRT composition, review cycles). Consensus: - ccNSO will send informal feedback to ICANN staff (via Russ Weinstein). - No formal resolution required. *5. Any Other Business* *World Café Sessions – Closure* - Summaries from the GAC-ccNSO session will be published through the ICANN84 schedule. - The GRC Continuous Improvement Program will further analyze indicators emerging from the sessions, with output expected for Mumbai. *Coordination with GNSO on DNS Abuse PDP & RySG* Discussion focused on whether ccNSO should: - participate institutionally (as ccNSO), or - encourage individual participation from ccTLD managers. Concerns raised: - DNS Abuse policies in gTLDs can indirectly influence national authorities and ccTLD obligations. - Risk of gTLD policy becoming a de-facto global baseline. Agreement: - Hold an *informal conversation with DASC <https://ccnso.icann.org/en/workinggroups/dasc.htm> leadership* before the next Council meeting. - Explore a joint session with RySG <https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/stakeholders-constituencies/rysg> at ICANN85. - Encourage individual ccTLD participation while respecting scope limitations. *ICANN85 Block Schedule* Proposed structure includes: - Weekend WG/Committee meetings - DASC <https://ccnso.icann.org/en/workinggroups/dasc.htm> or IGLC on Tuesday - A potential joint session with RySG - Market Trends session featuring diverse ccTLD perspectives - Council preparation and leadership selection discussions If you need any more information and any topic, please let me know and I will provide it. Thank you for reading. Best Regards, *Laura Margolis* ALAC Liaison to ccNSO margolisl(a)gmail.com +59899690992 Teams: lauri.margolis ccNSO Liaison Workspace <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/ALAC+Liaison+to+the+ccNSO+Repor…>

1 0

Summary Report GNSO Council 13 November 2025 meeting
by Justine Chew Nov. 17, 2025

Nov. 17, 2025

Dear all, Please find following the final agenda of the GNSO Council 13 Nov meeting, followed by my Summary Report on Matters of Interest. You can also find all the information at this link <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/atlarge/pages/265846872/G…> under the relevant tabs. Happy to answer any questions received to this email ahead of, or during the next ALAC Monthly meeting on 25 Nov 2025 <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AYBbIg>. *GNSO Council Meeting held on 13 November 2025 (updated 11 Nov) <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/atlarge/pages/265846872/G…>* *Full Agenda* <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/SKafBg>* | * *Documents* <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AKifBg>* | * *Motions* <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/XKifBg> - *Item 1: Administrative Matters* - 1.1 - Roll Call - 1.2 - Updates to Statements of Interest - 1.3 - Review / Amend Agenda - 1.4 - Minutes - Minutes <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2025/minutes/minutes-gnso…> of the GNSO Council Meeting on 18 September 2025 were posted on 2 October 2025. - *Minutes* <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2025/minutes/minutes-gnso…> of the GNSO Extraordinary Council Meeting on 09 October 2025 were posted on 25 October 2025. - Part 1 <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2025/minutes/minutes-gnso…> and Part 2 <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2025/minutes/minutes-gnso…> Minutes of the GNSO Council Meeting on 29 October 2025 were posted on 15 November 2025. - Item 2: Opening Remarks / Review of Projects Action List - 2.1 - Review focus areas and provide updates on specific key themes / topics, to include review of Projects List <https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/project> and Action Item List <https://community.icann.org/x/RgZlAg> - Item 3: Consent Agenda - GNSO Council Review of GAC Communiqué - Confirmation of GNSO Empowered Community Representative - Motion to commemorate Rubens Kuhl - *Item 4: COUNCIL VOTE: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP - Interpretation of Intent for Select IGO/INGO PDP Recommendations* - *Item 5: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Final Issue Report on a Policy Development Process for DNS Abuse* - *Item 6: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Registration Data Request Service (RDRS) Standing Committee Findings Report * - Item 7: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - GNSO Liaison to the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) Annual Report - *Item 8: Any Other Business* - 8.1 - SPS Planning - *8.2 - Next steps - Expiration Policies* *Summary Report to the ALAC on GNSO Council Meeting #11 held on 13 November 2025* For brevity, I will just highlight outcomes on key issues here. For some of the issues, you can get more information under the Matters of Interest and/or Meeting Records tabs. *1. Protection for IGO/INGO Identifiers * - I had previously reported on and discussed this issue extensively during the CPWG call of 24 Sep 2025 <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AQBFHQ>. During Council’s Extraordinary Meeting held on 9 Oct 2025, I spoke in support of the IGO/INGO Group’s position <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/download/attachments/514097153/G…> and submitted a letter <https://atlarge.icann.org/en/advice_statements/14043> to Council expressing support for the ICANN Board, ICANN org IRT implementation staff and the minority of SubPro IRT members' preference for the inclusion of protected IGO/INGO Identifiers in String Similarity Review for the Next Round as the correct and logical interpretation of relevant adopted policy recommendations. - However, a majority of Councilors (with RrSG abstaining, one BC councilor, one ISPCP and the NCPH councilor disagreeing) favored the stricter interpretation of the relevant adopted policy recommendations text which was silent as to the treatment protected IGO/INGO Identifiers in String Similarity Review. They see extending protections for IGO and INGO names from exact match to string similarity as constituting new policy, and not mere implementation. This effectively means, a third party applicant could potentially apply for and secure a string which is confusingly similar to a protected IGO/INGO Identifier (i.e. a full name of an IGO/INGO from a specified list) and if the designated IGO/INGO did not also apply for its protected identifier string or objected to an application for a string which deemed confusingly similar to the protected IGO/INGO Identifier, then IGO/INGO would be from obtaining its protected identifier string due to the overarching policy for not allowing confusingly similar strings to be delegated into the root. - Noting this undesirable consequence, Councilors rallied to build consensus around a motion Option 4 <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/VKifBg> to effectively encourage ICANN org to notify the GAC and a designated IGO/INGO in the event a string which deemed confusingly similar to its protected IGO/INGO Identifier is applied for (as was suggested <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-am…> by the Board). This is to provide notice to GAC and/or the designated IGO/INGO to take action as it deems appropriate. - Council had during its 29 October 2025 Meeting deferred the vote of the motion Option 4 <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/VKifBg> as the RySG expressed concern on the earlier Resolved Clause 3(f) and requested time to propose further amendment. After much discussion on the Council mailing list, the finalized motion Option 4 <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/XKifBg> was voted on and passed (with RrSG abstaining <https://lists.icann.org/hyperkitty/list/council@icann.org/thread/WZY6NQCDS2…>) (motion Options 1, 2, and 3 were withdrawn). *2. DNS Abuse* - GNSO support staff presented an analysis of the discussions at the DNS Abuse Work Session on 26 October 2025 <https://icann84.sched.com/event/29QJN> (see Session Report wiki: At-Large Session Reports from ICANN84 <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/MIAEF> ) as well as the comments received to the Preliminary Issue Report on a Policy Development Process on DNS Abuse Mitigation Public Comment Proceeding <https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/preliminary-issue-report…> . - Council’s discussion - ahead of the issuance of the Final Issue Report on 17 November - mostly revolved around the following: - (a) agreement on the 2 identified priority gaps as being suitable for PDP while the 3rd identified gap would be better dealt with through non-PDP establishment of best practices; - (b) whether Council should initiate one PDP with 2 phases or 2 separate PDPs but possibly part overlap in timetable; - (c) staff and volunteer community resources available for the PDP(s); - (d) length of the PDP workplan(s) (i.e. how fast can a PDP be completed), noting this is subject to the number and complicatedness of charter questions; and - (e) whether a Representative+Open PDP model should be preferred over a purely Representative PDP model and impact of including vs excluding newcomer participation or participants who do not belong to any existing group in ICANN. - Council is expected to consider initiating one or 2 PDPs in its December 2025 meeting. *3. Registration Data Request Service (RDRS)* - The RDRS Standing Committee Chair discussed <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2025/presentation/rdrs-fi…> their Findings Report, including its 6 recommendations and comments <https://itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/generic-names-supporting-organization-co…> from its August 2025 public comment proceeding <https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/registration-data-reques…> : - Rec #1: Continue the RDRS beyond the Pilot period - Rec #2: Allow for authentication of interested requestor groups, beginning with law enforcement. - Rec #3: Implement Key System Enhancements to sustain and evolve RDRS post-pilot while more policy work is underway. - Rec #4: Consider further policy work in the following areas. - Rec #5: Next steps on EPDP Phase 2/SSAD Policy Recommendations. - Rec #6: Maintain the current Standing Committee with narrowed Scope. - Council will further consider next steps in due course. - *NOTE: Separately, the ICANN Board has asked for community input to generate community discussion on the proposed roadmap for aligning the RDRS-related policy gaps identified in the **Registration Data Request Service Policy Alignment Analysis* <https://itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/registration-data-request-service-rdrs/r…>* and to help inform discussions between the ICANN Board and the GNSO as they assess the work of the Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Issues (PPSAI) IRT and Registration Data Policy IRT and begin to discuss the consensus policy recommendations for an System for Standardized Access/Disclosure. This **public comment proceeding* <https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/registration-data-reques…>* will close on 9 December.* Thanks for reading / considering *Justine Chew* ALAC Liaison to the GNSO GNSO Liaison Workspace <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/fG7xBQ?atlOrigin=eyJpIjoiNDI1Y…> ------

2 1

ICANN84 ccNSO Summary Report
by Laura Margolis Nov. 14, 2025

Nov. 14, 2025

Dear all, I hope this message finds you well. Please find attached my report on the recent ICANN84 meeting held in Dublin. For clarity, the report is divided into two sections: the first highlights key sessions from the week, and the second provides a summary of Council Meeting #222. *PART 1 – ICANN84 Session Highlights * *1) Joint ccNSO–GAC Session: Approaches to DNS Abuse Mitigation* Wednesday, 29 October 2025 | 10:30-12:00 DUB Schedule: https://sched.co/29QMX This interactive session helped strengthen networking across the community and continued the collaborative format introduced at ICANN83. The ccNSO–GAC Joint Session highlighted five complementary approaches to combating DNS abuse, including AI-driven detection (.nl), portfolio-based investigation (.us), Australia’s national anti-scam framework, bulk registration insights, and trusted notifier systems (.uk). Across all stations, the focus shifted from isolated domain checks to behavioral analysis, cross-sector collaboration, and rapid, proportionate action. These discussions underscored how stronger data quality, human oversight, and shared intelligence directly enhance end-user safety and resilience across ccTLD ecosystems. From an ALAC perspective, the session reinforced how these evolving practices directly strengthen protection for end users by reducing exposure to fraudulent domains, online scams, and large-scale abuse campaigns. Approaches such as AI-powered detection, coordinated anti-scam models, and trusted notifier systems help ensure that harmful websites are identified and removed more quickly, while minimizing disruption to legitimate registrants. Overall, the session highlighted practical, operational advances that contribute to a safer, more trustworthy user experience across the DNS. *2) Tech Day & DASC:* *use of AI tools in Domain Abuse Mitigation* Monday, 27 October 2025 | 15:00-16:00 local (UTC +0) Schedule: https://sched.co/29QJy *(all presentations available for download)* During ICANN84 Tech Day, the session on AI for DNS Abuse Prevention showcased three distinct yet complementary approaches from .EU, .UK, and .US. *EURid (.eu)* presented APEWS, an AI/ML-driven predictive system that analyzes registration data to identify potentially malicious domains before activation, now evolving into a multi-TLD SaaS model. *Nominet (.uk)* demonstrated Domain Watch, which combines machine learning and rule-based detection to flag deceptive registrations shortly after creation, supported by “Genie,” an AI tool that enhances anomaly detection and intelligence analysis. *GoDaddy Registry (.us)* outlined a proactive, cross-TLD threat-intelligence framework that temporarily blocks high-risk domains before registration using AI scoring, fuzzy matching, and real-time data feeds. *End-user impact:* Together, these approaches highlight a shift toward prevention, significantly strengthening protection for end users by reducing exposure to phishing, malware, fraudulent domains, and large-scale abuse campaigns. *3) ccTLD News* *Tuesday, 28 October 2025 | 10:30-12:00* Schedule:* https://sched.co/29QNp <https://sched.co/29QNp> **(all presentations available for download)* The ccTLD News Session at ICANN84 offered a dynamic overview of innovation, governance, and strategic evolution across the ccTLD space. Presentations ranged from .ng’s initiatives to foster partnerships and technological development, to .no’s strong model for maintaining a safe and accountable namespace through clear rules and coordinated oversight. The .co team shared insights into its process for selecting a new registry operator, while .dk highlighted its transition toward full registrar-managed operations. Finally, .am showcased how Armenia is leveraging digital identity, security, and global engagement to strengthen its presence on the international stage. For *end-users*, these developments translate into more secure, predictable, and trustworthy online environments—whether through improved registry accountability, enhanced service quality, or stronger safeguards against abuse. The session continues to be an essential platform for knowledge-sharing within the ccTLD community, offering ALAC valuable perspectives on trends that directly influence user experience, protection, and choice. *4) IGLC: WSIS+20 and Beyond: A Future Built by ccTLDs * Discussion on the role of ccTLDs in shaping the future beyond WSIS+20 Tuesday, 28 October 2025 | 13:15-14:30 Schedule: https://sched.co/29QNq *(all presentations available for download)* The IGLC Session at ICANN84, themed “*WSIS+20 and Beyond: A Future Built by ccTLDs*,” explored the evolving role of ccTLDs in shaping a resilient, trusted, and inclusive digital ecosystem. A key highlight was the intervention of *H.E. Ambassador Ekitela Lokaale*, Permanent Representative of Kenya to the UN, who provided an important review of the WSIS+20 process and underscored the continued significance of WSIS outcomes for global digital development. The session also included perspectives on how the technical community—particularly ccTLD operators—can reinforce multistakeholderism, a deep dive between digital and Internet governance, and reflections on the enduring relevance of the IGF as a platform for open dialogue. For end users, these discussions are crucial: robust multistakeholder governance ensures that Internet-related decisions remain transparent, inclusive, and grounded in the public interest. By contributing actively to these processes, ccTLDs help maintain an Internet that is open, secure, and responsive to the needs of users worldwide. *PART 2 – Council meeting #222 – October 30th., 2025* Agenda and Background Materials <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/ccNSOCWS/pages/103124003/…> *Summary – ccNSO Council Meeting (ICANN84, Dublin)* The Council began by reviewing administrative items, noting that all action items from the previous meeting had been completed and that minutes from Meeting 221 had been approved without comments. Written updates were received from the ECA, CSC, multiple working groups, liaisons, and on the progress of the redesigned ccNSO website, expected to launch in December 2025. Informational updates were also provided on the near-finalization of ccPDP4-IDN, the ongoing fact-finding phase of the Review of Reviews, and discussions within the “How We Meet” initiative focused on improving ICANN’s meeting model and overall efficiency. *Key Decisions * The Council adopted several substantive decisions that shape the ccNSO’s policy, governance, and operational landscape: - *CSC Bylaw and Charter Changes:* The Council supported the proposed amendments to the CSC Charter and related Fundamental Bylaw changes needed to implement recommendations from the 2nd CSC Effectiveness Review. These include modifying the review cycle, formalizing alternates, and aligning procedures with updated SLA processes. The changes will progress through Public Comment and require adoption by both the ccNSO and GNSO Councils. - *Adoption of the FY26–27 Quarterly Portfolio Update:* The Council adopted the first quarterly monitor of the FY26–27 portfolio. All work items were assessed as “green,” indicating continued progress across activities such as the implementation of the Review Mechanism and preparation for the IANA Whois Accuracy Study Group. - *Update to the ccTLD Policy/Guidance Overview:* The Council approved an updated overview of policies and practices relevant to ccTLDs, incorporating the new *2025 Guideline on Voluntary Financial Contributions*. This replaces the previous 2013 guideline and updates the central governance reference for financial interactions with ICANN. - *Election Processes and Nominations:* With the African region lacking an accepted nomination, the Council approved a new timeline for a fresh call for nominations and appointed Joke Baeken as Election Process Manager. Updates were also shared on regional Council elections and the Board Seat 11 nomination process, with Patricio Poblete advancing as the sole candidate. - *Appointments to Committees and External Groups:* Several appointments were confirmed, strengthening participation across strategic and operational areas: – *Jack Zack (.ca)* to TLD-OPS – *Crystal Isaac (.vi)* to SOPC – *Jordan Carter (.au)* and *Marta Moreira Dias (.pt)* for the 2026 ICANN Leadership Program – *Demi Getschko (.br)* and *Olga Cavalli* to the Excellence Award Nominating Committee - *Calls for Volunteers:* The Council approved the launch of calls for volunteers for the *Root Zone Evolution Review Committee (RZERC)*, the *Strategic and Operational Planning Committee (SOPC)*, and the *IANA Whois Accuracy Study Group*, each with defined application windows. The meeting concluded with updates on upcoming Council session dates. If you have any questions or need to deep dive in any topic, please let me know and I will be happy to provide you with more information. Thank you for reading. Have a nice weekend. Kindest Regards, -- *Laura Margolis* ALAC Liaison to ccNSO margolisl(a)gmail.com +59899690992 Teams: lauri.margolis ccNSO Liaison Workspace <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/ALAC+Liaison+to+the+ccNSO+Repor…>

1 0

Another thing to say something
by carlos dionisio aguirre Nov. 11, 2025

Nov. 11, 2025

1 0