July 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

Customer Standing Committee Liaison Nominee
by Jonathan Zuck July 31, 2025

July 31, 2025

Folks, On behalf of the AASC, I would like to nominate for your approval, Houda Chihi for the position of ALAC Liaison to the Customer Standing Committee (CSC). Her Curriculum Vitae and EOI are available here<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/atlarge/pages/376963083/S…> (please sign in to Confluence to view this page). The CSC ensures the satisfactory performance of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) naming function. The CSC is responsible for monitoring Public Technical Identifier's (PTI) performance of the IANA naming function against the service level expectations in the IANA Naming Function Contract. The CSC analyzes performance reports provided by PTI and publishes its findings. Please raise any concerns you have by Friday, July 1. Thank you. Jonathan Jonathan Zuck | Director, Future of Work Project | Innovators Network jzuck(a)innovatorsnetwork.org<mailto:jzuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> | O 202.827.7594 | D 202.420.7483 [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]

5 5

Re: SAC130: SSAC Comments on Name Collision Guidelines in the Proposed Language for the Draft Next Round Applicant Guidebook
by Matthias M. Hudobnik July 27, 2025

July 27, 2025

1 0

Re: SAC130: SSAC Comments on Name Collision Guidelines in the Proposed Language for the Draft Next Round Applicant Guidebook
by Justine Chew July 24, 2025

July 24, 2025

Hi Avri, I understand SAC130 to be SSAC's public comment to the draft AGB public comment proceeding that just closed. NCAP Study 2 was an SSAC output. It doesn't go through the GNSO but the recommendations (except one) was approved by the Board. These then went to org for implementation. Hence the new Name Collision Management Framework was established as it appears in the draft AGB, as discussed by the IRT. What I understand from SAC130 is SSAC suggests the that implementation of its NCAP Study 2 is either incomplete or hasn't gone far enough. I trust this position will be discussed when the IRT reconvenes to review public comments and we should once again have Jim Galvin for those IRT calls. Kind regards, Justine --------- On Fri, 25 Jul 2025, 05:06 avri doria, <avri(a)doria.org> wrote: > Hi, > > Was this advice approved by anyone (i.e. GNSO & Board) and designated as > part of the SubPro recommendations? Or does it have the nebulous status of > most advice? Did the GNSO act on NCAP2 "recommendations?" > > As neither the Board nor the SSAC have policy making authority, I am > curious. > > thanks > > avri > On 7/24/2025 11:35, Justine Chew via ALAC wrote: > > Thanks for this, Matthias. I am hopeful that Jim Galvin will discuss these > with the IRT when the IRT reconvenes to review input from the most recent > public comment proceeding. > > Kind regards, > Justine > > > > On Thu, 24 Jul 2025 at 21:28, Matthias M. Hudobnik via ALAC < > alac(a)icann.org> wrote: > >> 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: >> >> 1. >> >> *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. >> 2. >> >> *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. >> 3. >> >> *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. >> 4. >> >> *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 >> _______________________________________________ >> ALAC mailing list -- alac(a)icann.org >> To unsubscribe send an email to alac-leave(a)icann.org >> >> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org >> ALAC Working Wiki: >> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… >> _______________________________________________ >> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your >> personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance >> with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and >> the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos) You >> can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or >> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or >> disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. > > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC mailing list -- alac(a)icann.org > To unsubscribe send an email to alac-leave(a)icann.org > > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org > ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > _______________________________________________ > By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos) You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. > >

1 1

Re: Meeting invitation: ALAC Monthly Call on Tuesday, 22 July 2025 at 13:00 UTC
by Matthias M. Hudobnik July 22, 2025

July 22, 2025

Dear Colleagues, I need to apologize for not being able to attend the ALAC Call today. However, you should have received my report. Thanks a lot and have a nice day! Best, Matthias

1 0

SSAC Report
by Matthias M. Hudobnik July 22, 2025

July 22, 2025

Dear Colleagues, see below my report! Best, Matthias Publications: SAC129: SSAC Comments on GNSO Domain Name Registration Data Accuracy Concept Proposal The SSAC appreciates the opportunity to provide input on the GNSO's efforts regarding domain name registration data accuracy. Although our response comes later than intended, we are grateful for your consideration. Impact of Inaccurate Data: * Usability: Hinders effective communication and identification. * Security: Impairs law enforcement, anti-abuse efforts, and timely cybersecurity notifications. * Operations: Disrupts domain transfers, dispute resolution, and security analysis due to incorrect metadata (e.g., create/update dates, registrar info). The SSAC consistently stresses the critical role of accurate data in enabling legitimate communications and mitigating abuse. What Inaccurate Data Does Not Prevent: * It does not stop bad actors from continuing abusive domain use. * Harm prevention is still possible using other tools, but accurate data improves effectiveness. Vulnerable Stakeholders: * Law enforcement, cybersecurity firms, reputation service providers, researchers, brand protection teams, and operators of critical infrastructure (OS vendors, CAs, web/email/social platforms). * These groups rely heavily on registration data for investigations and system protections. Problem Statement Recommendations: * Current Challenge: Lack of clear definitions, measurable standards, and inconsistent accuracy. * Consequences: Weakened DNS security, delayed investigations, and ineffective abuse mitigation. * Objective: Improve data accuracy to strengthen trust and security. * Proposal: * * Define "accuracy" clearly. * Justify accuracy efforts through measurable benefits. * Address the potential commercial impacts. * Evaluate the implications of the EU's NIS2 directive on ICANN policies. SSAC does not offer a formal problem statement but urges the GNSO to tackle key foundational issues including definitions, compliance mechanisms, and external regulatory impacts. Administrative Notes: * The document reflects the consensus of the SSAC, with full transparency on contributors, disclosures, and any recusals. SAC128: SSAC Comments on Draft Governance Document for the Recognition, Maintenance, and Derecognition of RIRs 1. General Support * SSAC supports the document's goal to clarify RIR recognition, obligations, and derecognition procedures. * The document is a significant improvement over the current ICP-2 policy. 2. General Comments * Inconsistent Detail Levels: The document alternates between high-level principles and detailed operational guidance, which may cause ambiguity. * Recommendation: Clearly separate high-level principles from operational details, and consider placing implementation specifics in supplementary documents. 3. Specific Article Comments Article 2.3(b)(i) - Derecognition Proposal Process * Concern: 25% threshold for submitting derecognition proposals could be exploited for disruptive or repetitive submissions. * Recommendation: Introduce safeguards such as cooldown periods and preliminary assessments. Article 4.1(l) - Continuity Requirements * Concern: Vague terms like "sufficient" may allow non-functional data sharing formats. * Recommendation: Define clearer standards for continuity and data sharing expectations. Article 5.3(a) - Transfer of Services Post-Derecognition * Concern: Requiring a smooth transfer from a derecognized RIR may be unrealistic in contentious situations. * Recommendation: Incorporate support structures similar to ICANN's EBERO model to ensure continuity and data escrow during transitions. 4. Transparency * The document includes disclosures of interest, acknowledgements, and identifies any member withdrawals, ensuring transparency and consensus within SSAC. SSAC127: DNS Blocking Revisited What Is DNS and DNS Blocking? * The Domain Name System (DNS) translates human-readable domain names (e.g., example.com) into IP addresses that computers use to communicate. * DNS blocking is a technique to restrict access to online content by interfering with DNS queries. This can involve: * * Pretending a domain doesn't exist. * Providing false IP addresses. Why DNS Blocking Is Used * Often implemented because it's technically simple and low-cost. * Commonly used by governments and organizations for: * * Public safety (e.g., blocking illegal content). * Censorship or regulation of online resources. How DNS Blocking Works * By altering the behaviour of recursive resolvers (DNS servers that respond to user queries). * DNS blocking modifies the translation of a domain name into an IP address, effectively preventing access via DNS. Effectiveness and Limitations * Blocking only works if users rely on the DNS infrastructure where the block is applied. * It can be bypassed through: * * Alternative DNS resolvers. * VPNs or other routing methods. * Important: DNS blocking does not remove the content--only access through DNS is affected. Potential Side Effects * Collateral damage: Can impact unrelated services or domains. * Cross-border effects: May unintentionally affect users outside the blocking jurisdiction. * User confusion: May appear as a technical error, leading to risky behavior. * Legal ambiguity: Laws vary; determining whether DNS blocking is lawful or constitutes censorship depends on local context. SSAC Recommendations Recommendation 1: Any entity implementing DNS blocking should fully understand its technical and policy implications. Recommendation 2: Entities implementing DNS blocking (governments, ISPs, organizations) should follow these principles: * Clear Objectives: Ensure DNS blocking aligns with intended goals. * Defined Policy: Maintain transparent, reviewed processes for deciding what to block. * Minimize Damage: Use methods that avoid overblocking or harming unrelated users. * Respect Boundaries: Do not affect users or networks outside your administrative control. Recommendation 3: Recursive DNS server operators should use Extended DNS Error (EDE) codes to inform users when DNS blocking is active and aid troubleshooting. This report updates previous SSAC advisories (SAC050 and SAC056 from 2011-2012) to reflect changes in technology and growing use cases for DNS blocking. Final reviews: SSAC's comment on the New gTLD Applicant Guidebook (AGB) has closed and the document is finalized as SAC130 * It will be published this week. Ongoing work parties: * DNSSEC Operational Considerations Work Party * Open-Source Software Work Party * Responsible Integration of External Technologies into the DNS SSAC Membership Applications: The application deadline is closed now and potential candidates are being assessed by the Membership Selection Committee. SSAC Workshop: Will be held in September in Mexico City.

1 0

Re: [ALAC-Announce] ALAC Monthly Call
by Pari Esfandiari July 22, 2025

July 22, 2025

Dear Colleagues, Please find the EURALO Regional Report pasted below. I’m sharing it in advance, as I’m traveling today and will be joining the meeting late. Warm regards, *Pari Esfandiari* *EURALO Regional Report – July 22, 2025 - Prepared by Pari Esfandiari* Over the past two months, Europe has experienced a high level of Internet governance activity, with strong engagement from EURALO and its members across key regional and global events. - *EuroDIG 2025 (Strasbourg, May):* Regional stakeholders addressed pressing issues. Olivier Crépin-Leblond and I co-hosted a flash session titled *"From Principles to Practice: Core Internet Values in the Age of AI."* - *RIPE 90 (Lisbon, May): *This meeting offered opportunities for cross-community outreach and closer collaboration between RIPE NCC and the At-Large community. Work is currently underway to revise our existing MoU and co-organize joint webinars to strengthen engagement. - *ICANN83 (Prague, June): *EURALO held its Annual General Meeting and the NextGen program. EURALO also hosted a well-attended Readout session to reflect on key developments. - *IGF 2025 (Lillestrøm, June):* EURALO had strong visibility and presence: - I participated in the GigaNet high-level debate *“Should WSIS End?”* - Represented the Dynamic Coalition on Core Internet Values (DC-CIV) and other DCs during the Main Session. - Moderated panel on *“Bridging Internet & AI Governance”*, with speakers including Vint Cerf. - *WSIS+20 High-Level Event (Geneva, July):* The formal WSIS+20 review process was launched. EURALO members contributed to discussions. - *Policy and Legislative Developments:* The European Parliament continues to shape major digital legislation with significant implications for DNS policy, Internet governance, and end-user rights. - *Looking Ahead: *ICANN84 will be held in Dublin in October, providing an opportunity to elevate European priorities and voices in global policy discussions. EURALO is finalizing its FY26 Outreach Strategy, strengthening cooperation with RIPE NCC, and actively preparing for WSIS+20 and ICANN84 to ensure the continued visibility of regional perspectives in global forums. - We will be holding a EURALO Board meeting immediately following this session, where additional issues and strategic actions will be discussed. -- Pari Esfandiari President *Global TechnoPolitics Forum <http://www.technopolitics.org> * *Pario <http://www.parioconsultants.com>- Architects of Ideas* info(a)TechnoPolitics.org <info(a)technopolitics.org> *Linkedin Profile <https://www.linkedin.com/in/pariesfandiari/>* Tel: +1-202*-735-1415* (Office) : +1-310-435-0888 (Cell) : +44-731-210-4049 (Cell)

1 1

ccNSO updates and report on the 219 Council Meeting - July 17th. 2025
by Laura Margolis July 21, 2025

July 21, 2025

Dear All, I hope you are all doing great. The last Council Meeting #219 was held on July 17th., 2025 at 18:00 UTC. *Full AGENDA and Background materials <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/ccNSOCWS/pages/103123991/…>* I will highlight on the first part of this report and overview on some Working Groups and Committees and on the second part about the Council Meeting *PART 1* *ccPAIG (ccNSO Policy Implementation Assistance Group – Review Mechanism)* The ccPAIG was established as a new group tasked with supporting the implementation of the Review Mechanism under ccPDP3. Its main responsibility is to assist in translating policy outputs into operational and procedural guidance, ensuring clarity and feasibility for practical implementation. The group plays a key advisory role and will interact with various working groups and committees across the ccNSO. *Appointed Members: *Irina Danelia, Peter Koch, Nick Wenban-Smith, Jordan Carter and Chris Disspain. The group has not a space on the wiki yet. *DASC <https://ccnso.icann.org/en/workinggroups/dasc.htm> (DNS Abuse Standing Committee)* The group met on 3 July 2025 to refine its priorities and prepare for ICANN84. The committee reaffirmed its intention to focus on practical, community-relevant work and to align closely with broader ccNSO objectives. As part of its ICANN84 planning, DASC is exploring the organization of webinars in the lead-up to the meeting to raise awareness and stimulate engagement. During the meeting, it was noted that two external entities—Global Signal Exchange, a non-profit initiative by the Global Anti-Scam Alliance (GASA) and DNS Research Federation (DNSRF), and the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF)—have submitted requests to participate as speakers at ICANN84. The committee is also proposing a joint session with the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) to facilitate dialogue on DNS abuse from both community and governmental perspectives. *IGLC <https://ccnso.icann.org/en/workinggroups/iglc.htm> (Internet Governance Liaison Committee)* At its 16 July 2025 meeting, the IGLC reviewed current developments in Internet governance and preparations for ICANN84. Members shared reflections from the WSIS+20 Forum, noting its increasingly intergovernmental tone and limited interaction in plenaries. The need for more forward-looking contributions was emphasized, and members were invited to support the ongoing elements paper consultation. The group also revisited its Prague session, identifying collaboration, inclusivity, and transparency as key themes. The Chair and Vice-Chair will prepare a summary of the outcomes. Looking ahead to ICANN84, the IGLC is planning a working session and contributing to the ccNSO full session. Discussions may align with the WSIS+20 process and consider developments from the Global South and Europe. *PART 2* *ccNSO Council Meeting 219 Report* *Date:* Thursday, 17 July 2025 *Time:* 18:00 – 19:30 UTC *Full AGENDA and Background materials <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/ccNSOCWS/pages/103123991/…>* *1. Welcome and Agenda Updates* The starting of the meeting noted two updates to the agenda. Item 14 (approval of IFR recommendations) was rendered informational only, as the IFRT had not formally adopted its final report. Regarding item 16a (CSC selection), a decision was no longer necessary due to the receipt of two complete volunteer applications just before the call deadline. *2. Administrative Matters* *Relevant Correspondence* A letter to Jonathan Zuck (ALAC) concerning the Community Reconsideration Request was acknowledged. *Minutes & Action Items from Meeting 218* Items that were completed from meeting 218: - Publication of the Council Election Process guideline and nomination timelines (Board Seat 11 and Council elections) - Launch of the 360-degree Council review - Publication of resolutions and ToRs for the Disaster Recovery and IANA Public Records study groups - Closure of ccPDP3-RM WG and update of the policy overview - Launch and publication of the ccPAIG RM volunteer call Ongoing items include final debriefings from the 360-degree reviews and a joint message to the ICANN Board Chair from the ccNSO and GNSO regarding deferral of the 3rd CSC Effectiveness Review methodology. *Intermeeting Decisions* - *25 June 2025*: Procedure defined for handling ALAC’s Community Reconsideration Request. - *8 July 2025*: Council voted *not to support* the ALAC Request during a special meeting. *3. Updates* *ECA, IFRT & CSC* Written updates were either submitted or pending. The IFRT (IANA Naming Function Review Team) is expected to publish its final report soon, which will include two recommendations requiring Council action. Peter Koch (IFRT co-chair) noted these are unchanged from the draft report and are expected to receive support before Board submission. *Board Progress on ccPDP4-IDN* Incremental progress was noted, with implementation assessment and review of complex recommendations such as variant management ongoing. *4. Administrative Decisions* *Adoption of FY26–27 Portfolio* The Council adopted the Triage Committee’s recommended portfolio of work for FY26–27, which outlines priorities, resource allocations (volunteer and staff), and a delivery roadmap. Prioritization was critical due to limited resources. Key work areas include: - Information sharing (Internet Governance, DNS Abuse, Universal Acceptance, Tech Day) - Policy development (ongoing work for ccPDP3 RM implementation and ccPDP4) - Bylaw-mandated ICANN participation (e.g. Review of Reviews) - Foundational activities (governance and administration of the ccNSO) The Council agreed to: - Launch the *Disaster Recovery Study Group* around ICANN84 - Begin preparations for the *IANA Data Accuracy Study Group* before ICANN84, leveraging the event to build interest and participation Remember that this 2 study groups were decided as a result of the work of the PGA WG (Policy Gap Analysis Working Group) *Board Seat 11 – Nomination Process* A discussion was held on the relevance of the "None of the Above" option in the election ballot. It was agreed that: - If only one candidate is nominated and accepts, *no election will be held* - If two or more candidates are nominated, *the “None of the Above” option will be removed* from the ballot Concerns included the historical ambiguity and redundancy of the option, as well as procedural inefficiency. *Resolution passed*, effective seven days after publication due to its impact on members. *5. Deferred and Informational Matters* *Approval of 2nd IANA Function Review Team (IFRT2) Recommendations* No decision was taken. The item was deferred to the August 2025 meeting. The Council is expected to approve: - *Recommendation 1*: Remove policy details from the IANA Naming Function Contract - *Recommendation 2*: Identify and reference DNSSEC policy authority in the Contract *6. Appointments to Committees and Working Groups* The following appointments were confirmed: - *IGLC*: Jaijit Bhattacharya - *MPC*: Heidy Isabel Hernandez Lopez - *ccPAIG*: Irina Danelia, Peter Koch, Nick Wenban-Smith, Jordan Carter, Chris Disspain *7. CSC Related Matters* *a. Progress on Member Selection* This item was overtaken by events. Two valid applications were received before the deadline, making an extension unnecessary. *b. Bylaw and Charter Updates* Bart Boswinkel provided an update: - CSC adopted SLA change mechanisms to enable full review of IANA Naming Services SLAs (starting at ICANN84) - Proposed bylaw changes reflect recommendations of the 2nd CSC Effectiveness Review Team - Discussion ongoing regarding alternates and frequency of reviews No decision required. *8. Substantive Topics* *Review of Reviews – Progress* The Council reviewed the evolving process for a cross-community group to reform ICANN's review mechanisms. Recent milestones: - Draft charter was prepared by Biyi Oladipo, Jordan Carter, Alejandra Reynoso and Chris Disspain - Engagement with ICANN (Theresa Swinehart, Becky Burr, Tripti) confirmed no showstoppers from ICANN Org - Informal discussions continued in SO/AC Chairs calls - If consensus is reached, the ICANN Board will initiate the CCG process *Charter details:* - Membership: 2 per SO/AC, 2 Board members, 2 senior Org reps (max 18 members) - Deliverables: fact-finding to begin in ICANN84, proposals by ICANN85. The ccNSO delegation will be selected according to its internal nomination procedures. *9. ICANN84 Planning* The block schedule is in development. Planned sessions: - *Community session on Review of Reviews* (Monday) - *Meetings with GAC, RSSAC, and ICANN Board* - *GAC-UA & ccNSO-UAC joint session* (Saturday) - Topics may include European regulatory approaches and structural evolution *10. Any Other Business* - *Maarten Simon’s note* on IANA-related intellectual property transfer from IETF Trust to IPMC was introduced. - The *final report of the Continuous Improvement Framework (CIP)* was circulated. A workshop is proposed for ICANN84 to discuss implementation. This framework is intended to replace the current Organizational Review process. If you need more details on any of the topics, please let me know and I will be happy to provide them. Remember that this report and rest of information on what is going on at the ccNSO are uploaded in our Liaison’s wiki space. <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/atlarge/pages/99711461/AL…> Thank you. Kindest Regards, *Laura Margolis* ALAC Liaison to ccNSO margolisl(a)gmail.com +59899690992 ccNSO Liaison Workspace <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/ALAC+Liaison+to+the+ccNSO+Repor…>

1 0

ALAC Liaison to the GAC updates: GAC Joint Webinar Invitation, Prague Bilateral Agenda, and May Briefing – Request for Input by 5 May
by Joanna Kulesza July 21, 2025

July 21, 2025

Dear Colleagues, I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to share several updates and to seek your input on key upcoming ALAC engagement opportunities with the GAC: ------------------------------ *1. Invitation to ASO-GAC Webinar on the RIR Governance Document (13 May, 13:00 UTC)* Marco Hogewoning, GAC VC, has extended an invitation to ALAC to participate in a *joint ASO-GAC webinar* on the proposed *Governance Document for the Recognition, Maintenance, and Derecognition of RIRs* (a revision of ICP-2). The session will take place on *Tuesday, 13 May at 13:00 UTC* for 90 minutes. The webinar will provide an overview of the draft, which is currently open for public comment until *27 May 2025*: 🔗 ICANN Public Comment Page <https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/governance-document-for-…> 🔗 ICP-2 Background <https://www.nro.net/policy/internet-coordination-policy-2/> Given the relevance of this topic to ALAC, I strongly encourage participation. Please also consider whether ALAC should offer a brief intervention during the session—perhaps by *Jonathan Zuck*, ALAC Chair, should he be willing and available. ------------------------------ *2. GAC-ALAC Bilateral Meeting at ICANN83 – Draft Agenda and Speaker Suggestions* Kristina has proposed the following agenda for our bilateral session, with two suggested ALAC speakers: - *Applicant Support Program (ASP) – Equity in the Next gTLD Round [recommended]* *Suggested Speaker: Avri Doria* - *DNS Abuse Mitigation – Policy, Enforcement, and End User Protection* - *Universal Acceptance (UA) and the Multilingual Internet* - *Domain Name Registration Data – RDRS, Accuracy, and Access* - *Digital Inclusion and Capacity Building* - *Public Interest Frameworks and Advisory Roles * *[recommended]* *Suggested Speaker: Justine Chew* Your comments and additional suggestions are welcome. Please kindly note that given our usual, limited timing for these sessions, we are likely to cover no more than two topics of shared interest. My recommendations, as your liaison to the GAC, are noted above. ------------------------------ *3. May Regulatory Updates Briefing – Call for Input* Together with our GAC colleagues, we are ready to welcome your suggestions for the topic to be covered during our May Regulatory Updates Briefing <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/atlarge/pages/180715827/G…> session, the last one before our Prague meeting. Zeina has originally proposed a focus on *infrastructure governance in the Middle East* as one of the topics for us to consider during these sessions, whereas we await further ideas from the Governmental Engagement team. I would appreciate any additional suggestions from the ALAC regarding policy topics or regional insights that should be reflected in this session. ------------------------------ *Kindly provide your feedback on the above items by Monday, 5 May.* Thank you for your attention to this matter and lasting support. -- 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

10 18

Summary Report for GNSO Council 10 July 2025 meeting
by Justine Chew July 18, 2025

July 18, 2025

Dear all, Please find below, the re-updated Agenda for the GNSO Council 10 July 2025 meeting, followed by my Summary Report on Matters of Interest. You can also find these at this link <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/WIDYDw> under the relevant tabs. I'd be happy to answer and questions on this thread or during the next ALAC Monthly Call on 22 July. *GNSO Council Meeting #7 of 2025 held on 10 July 2025 (agenda updated again) <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/WIDYDw>* *Full Agenda* <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/KKafBg>* | * *Documents* <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/4KefBg>* | * *Motions* <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/PKifBg> - *Item 1: Administrative Matters* - 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 - Confirmation of the GNSO-appointed Member for the Universal Acceptance (UA) Expert Working Group (EWG) - GNSO Council Review of GAC Communiqué - *Item 4: COUNCIL VOTE - Council Next Steps Regarding ICANN Reviews* - *Item 5: COUNCIL BRIEFING - Second IANA Naming Function Review Team (IFR2) Draft Report* - *Item 6: COUNCIL UPDATE - Privacy Proxy Services Accreditation Issues Implementation Work* - *Item 7: COUNCIL UPDATE - GNSO Council Small Team on Accuracy Draft Report* - *Item 8: COUNCIL UPDATE - GNSO Council Small Team on DNS Abuse* - Item 9: Any Other Business - 9.1 - ccNSO Council Update - 9.2 - Customer Standing Committee (CSC) Effectiveness Review Deferral - 9.3 - Celebration of Greg DiBiase, Outgoing GNSO Chair *Summary to the ALAC on GNSO Council Meeting #7 of 2025 held on 10 July 2025* For brevity, I will just highlight a few things here. For some of the issues, you can glean a wider perspective from GNSO Council July 2025 Matters of Interest and/or from GNSO Council July 2025 Meeting Records. 1. *Future of Reviews* - Council declined to support the ALAC’s Petition for an Empowered Community Reconsideration Request <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/alac-to-eca-19jun25-en…> and instead prefers the potential path being discussed by SOAC leadership (i.e. a Bylaws amendment to the Board that would amend the Bylaws to allow for a one-time review of all Reviews currently required by the Bylaws and to suspend the conduct of all Reviews until this exercise is completed, with the explicit safeguard of a time frame for completion, absent which the current Reviews obligations come back fully into force). - Council also decided that a motion confirming GNSO’s position be deferred pending more information on the potential path. 2. *Registration Data Accuracy (RDA)* - Council’s Accuracy Small Team has worked on: - Examining the current timeline for validation and verification of registration data under the 2024 Registrar Accreditation Agreement - Assembling a diverse and representative group of interested stakeholders who could work together on producing clear and user-friendly registrant educational materials related to the importance of accurate registration data - Further work on a previously-approved Whois2 Review Team recommendation (CC.1) related to the inclusion of a notation in the RDDS record that the domain name is suspended due to incorrect data - Council received an update on 4 recommendations <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/download/attachments/351535105/2…> being developed, which are expected to be voted on in its August meeting. 3. *DNS Abuse* - Council’s DNS Abuse Small Team has been working on: - Its Assignment Form <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2025/draft/assignment-for…> which includes the review and analysis of DNS Abuse mitigation efforts across the broader ICANN ecosystem, the impact of the RA and RAA amendments, the INFERMAL study, as well as other data sources. - On concluding that there are indeed gaps remaining, then cataloguing the issues. In developing that catalogue of issues, the small team also solicited input from SG/C/SO/ACs. (see At-Large Input to GNSO Council DNS Abuse Small Team (prioritization) <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/download/attachments/370246404/2…> (16 July 2025)) - A Request for an Issues Report. - Council received an update on the progress of the small team’s work and are expected to vote on the Request for an Issues Report in its August meeting. 4. *Privacy Proxy Services Accreditation Issues (PPSAI) Implementation* - The PPSAI Implementation Review Team (PPSAI IRT) re-convened by ICANN org in June 2024, has been refining a set of overarching threshold questions that require input to move forward on implementation of the 21 policy recommendations from the Final Report <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/filefield_48305/ppsai-final-07de…> that was approved by the ICANN Board back in August 2016. Work had been paused due to overlapping issues around the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), data processing, and the Temporary Specification <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/gtld-registration-data-specs-en/#temp…> . - The threshold questions currently under discussion are: - 1. Are there any policy questions or items the IRT already wants to bring to the GNSO Council for guidance? - 2. Implementation Model: Accreditation Program or Alternative Implementation: - (a) Can an implementation model without a new standalone accreditation program remain consistent with the policy recommendations? - 3. Disclosure Frameworks (Intellectual Property and Law Enforcement). - (a) Are there specific areas to revisit under new law/policy? - (b) Can these frameworks be aligned with existing work on the Registration Data Request Service (RDRS), Registration Data Policy, and other existing procedures and remain consistent with the policy recommendations? - Council expects discussions on these threshold questions to be formally presented in August 2025 whereupon Council will determine what approach to take to review these or to provide the guidance to the PPSAI threshold questions. - There after in September, draft responses to these questions is expected to be socialized with different groups, and in October, Council will discuss input received and finalize the responses to the IRT so that they can keep working considerations. 5. *Second IANA Naming Function Review Team (IFR2)* - Council received an update (slides <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2025/presentation/iana-na…>) from Ashley Heineman and Peter Koch, IFR2 Co-Chairs, on the IFR2 draft report <https://itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/internet-assigned-numbers-authority-iana…> which contained findings and recommendations in three key areas: - Presence of specific Domain Name System Security Extensions (DNSSEC) policy details in the IANA Naming Function Contract - Transparency and availability of Contract amendments - Frequency of reviews - After considering public comment received and making adjustments as appropriate, the IFR2 team is working to reach consensus on its Final Report. - Council is expected to vote on the Final Report during the August Council meeting. Thanks for reading / considering Justine Chew ALAC Liaison to the GNSO GNSO Liaison Report Workspace <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/fG7xBQ?atlOrigin=eyJpIjoiNDI1Y…>

1 0