- ALAC - lists.icann.org

SAC 127 and DNS abuse
by Evan Leibovitch May 1, 2026

May 1, 2026

Hi all, Anyone who is following the issue of DNS Abuse, which we have been discussing here, would be well advised to have a look at SSAC 127 <https://itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/security-and-stability-advisory-committe…> issued last year, on the top of "DNS Blocking Revisited". This one one of the few ICANN documents of which I am aware that deals with personal-level blocking as a way to mitigate abuse as well as state- and infrastructure-level blocking. It spends a useful amount of effort on how end users can implement their own personal "blocking" through VPNs and "Public Resolvers": * Users are aware of the benefits of public DNS resolvers and have been > reconfiguring their systems to leverage these services. This shift has been > fueled by a growing understanding of the potential privacy and performance > advantages that public resolvers offer over default DNS configurations, and > in response to cases of state censorship and the abuse of DNS services > offered by ISPs.* This, to me, offers a rationale on how educating the public - and indeed the broader ICANN community -- about such facilities is directly relevant to ICANN's mission and At-Large's role within it. I note with curiosity the complete lack of mention of one of the main reasons end-users are implementing such services: the blocking of advertising and tracking sites. To many people, myself included, the use of digital fingerprinting and tracking of personal details across different websites is as abusive as phishing and almost as abusive as malware sites. While mention is made of Cloudflare and Canadian Shield, the report completely ignores services such as Control D, Adguard DNS and NextDNS which block ads and trackers as well as more-malicious sites. For some blocking ads is a significant way to speed web-page rendering. And while some may debate the ethics of ad blocking, I am not aware of any jurisdiction in which doing so is illegal. While it speaks of the use of the DNS to block pornography and gambling sites, as well as in-browser checks against malicious sites, oddly SSAC 127 ignores one of the main reasons people search for alternative DNS servers. But except for that notable error of omission, and is a worthwhile read for anyone who cares about what end-users (the ALAC constituency) can do to mitigate DNS abuse ... that is, considering that what constitutes "abuse" is not rigid and many approaches are available. -- Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada @evanleibovitch / @el56

5 5

Fwd: [SubPro-IRT] New gTLD Program: 2026 Round now accepting applications
by Justine Chew May 1, 2026

May 1, 2026

*My apologies for the receipt of duplicates or triplicates due to cross posting* For your attention -- 2026 Next Round application submission window is now open and *will close on 12 August 2026*. Kind regards, Justine ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Jared Erwin via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt(a)icann.org> Date: Fri, 1 May 2026 at 01:10 Subject: [SubPro-IRT] New gTLD Program: 2026 Round now accepting applications To: subpro-irt(a)icann.org <subpro-irt(a)icann.org> Dear IRT Members, The New gTLD Program: 2026 Round application submission period is now open. Please see the announcement here: https://www.icann.org/en/announcements/details/icann-opens-application-wind…. Congrats to all on this tremendous achievement! Best Jared -- Jared Erwin Senior Director, New gTLD Program Global Domains & Strategy (GDS) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) jared.erwin(a)icann.org _______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt(a)icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave(a)icann.org _______________________________________________ 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 0

Studying impact of Alternative Naming Systems on the DNS
by Justine Chew April 28, 2026

April 28, 2026

ICANN org is finally forming a new technical study group (TSG) to understand the implications of integrating a generic top-level domain (gTLD) name with the same name in an alternative naming system. https://www.icann.org/en/blogs/details/technical-study-group-forming-gtld-i… Kind regards, Justine

1 0

Re: New ICAN CTO Report on the IETF
by Carlton Samuels April 27, 2026

April 27, 2026

Dear Olivier: I confess a sleight of hand. I know the substantive arguments yourself and Chris Wilkinson have made over the years on the treatment of the IANA IPR. I know the Sidley Austin memoranda contained, inter alia, the legal framework for the IANA IPR delegation that you have been vocal about; I have curated them on my own system since 2014. You never referred your own paper which, in my IMHO, is a thoughtful and closely reasoned expose of all of the elements and the solution proffered, all in one place. My objective was another posting of your paper. Objective achieved. Carlton ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 at 07:45, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com> wrote: > Dear Carlton, > > many thanks for your follow-up. > > I refer you to my document "IANA Intellectual Property: CCG Failures, > Governance Breakdown, Issues and Recommendations" dated 15 April 2026 > (attached, with ZIPs) that I copied to the CPWG and which indeed takes the > two Sidley Austin memos into account. > > I look forward to your further feedback. > Kindest regards, > > Olivier > > On 27/04/2026 02:00, Carlton Samuels wrote: > > Hi Olivier: > For the record - and grist for the mill - see attached, two Sidley Austin > memos to the CCWG: > > 1. Internal accountability/Hybrid models of April 2015 > 2. Regarding IANA Intellectual Property Rights of August 2015 > > Carlton > > ============================== > *Carlton A Samuels* > > *Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & > Turnaround* > ============================= > > > On Sun, 26 Apr 2026 at 11:41, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond via ALAC < > alac(a)icann.org> wrote: > >> Dear Judith, >> >> thanks for pointing us to this excellent and very helpful paper from >> OCTO. This "taking stock" was very interesting as I was not aware at all >> about the extensive collaboration on so many IETF working groups and I am >> thrilled to see such collaboration happening at all levels. >> >> Part 1 of this paper also has a link to https://pti.icann.org/agreements >> , a web page on the special PTI Web site which shows the extent to which >> the relationship between ICANN, PTI, the IANA functions and the IETF are >> codified as well as monitored, followed and analysed thanks to a set of >> Agreements that are regularly reviewed, amended and updated. You can see >> all of the original documents which the IANA Stewardship Group, some >> drafted with the help of law firm Sidley Austin and will notice that there >> are a number of MoUs that make sure that the matter of PTI and PTI >> operations is not just dropped, since it is a very important function >> indeed. >> >> Part 2 of this paper explains the various "protocol development in IETF >> working groups in 2025 that may be important to those interested in the >> ICANN ecosystem." >> >> Both parts, in my opinion, fall somehow short of achieving their goals as >> both are missing out on some important information, which I would like to >> raise here: >> >> In Part 1 - the OCTO paper confirms the point that I have been making for >> nearly two years: whilst the relationship between ICANN, PTI and "its >> clients" is adequately monitored, tracked, reviewed and enforced through a >> multitude of Agreements shown in the above page, there is absolutely no >> mention of the IANA IPR and the IANA IPR Agreements dated 30 September 2016. >> - There is no tracking of it. >> - There is no formal governance process or oversight in ICANN for >> monitoring, identifying and addressing issues relating to these IPRs >> - There is no community consultation >> - There no service level expectations >> - There is no enforcement >> >> It is a complete barren landscape - and this is one of the main reasons >> why the transfer of IANA IPR from the IETF Trust to the IETF IPMC and other >> important related issues have taken so much time: a complete lack of >> process in ICANN leading to confusion, in addition to potential breaches of >> the IANA IPR Agremeents dated 30 September 2016. >> >> In addition to this, there appears to have been continued opposition from >> ICANN Legal to seeking independent legal advice in relation to the IANA IPR >> Agreements dated 30 September 2016, including but not restricted to in >> respect of the Issues raised in relation to and arising from the IANA IPR >> transfer, the IANA IPR processes, the IANA IPR Agreements and any new IANA >> IPR Agreements, as well as the suitability or unsuitability of the use of >> Novation Agreements given all of the other issues cited. >> >> My submission recommends independent investigation, engagement of >> specialist Counsel (Sidley or Californian Counsel) to prepare an >> independent legal opinion, full community transparency, and the adoption of >> interim protective measures pending the negotiation of replacement >> instruments that genuinely address the governance failures identified. >> >> Is ICANN ready to remedy this failure? >> >> In Part 2 - the OCTO paper focusses solely on *protocol development* in >> IETF working groups. This somehow provides an incomplete picture of the >> extent by which ICANN has links with the IETF, although I do not know >> whether there is a specific reason for focussing solely on protocol >> development. >> >> First, there is the excellent work of the IETF Liaison who does more than >> just follow these working groups. The IETF is regularly informed of ICANN >> Activity through the IETF Liaison and their report to the IETF >> Administration LLC Board and at IETF meetings which goes way further than >> just focussing on matters directly concerning the IETF. >> >> Second, there are other IETF groups that have done work on topics of >> interest both to ICANN and the IETF - for example the IDNA and IDNAbis >> working groups that laid the groundwork for IDNs. >> >> RFCs: >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc4690/ in Sept 2006 >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc5891/ in Aug 2010 >> >> ICANN has since done a significant amount of work in relation to IDNs, >> especially when it comes to the operation of IDNs, including Label >> Generation Rules for various scripts. Is there a link back to the IETF for >> these? Should there be? Should the ICANN work be codified/recorded as IETF >> RFCs? >> >> Or perhaps those in charge at ICANN see the IETF as only focussing on >> Protocols and implementation is not something that should be addressed at >> the IETF? I wonder if we could ask these questions to OCTO? >> >> Kindest regards, >> >> Olivier >> >> On 21/04/2026 20:26, Judith Hellerstein via ALAC wrote: >> >> HI All, >> >> Thanks to Olivier and Greg for all their hard work on the IETF MOU that >> they put in. I want to call everyone's attention to the new publication >> that David Huberman put out on ICANN's relationship with the IETF. I think >> it was a good paper. >> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/octo-043-16apr26-en.pdf >> >> He provides a good overview of why ICANN works hard to keep up their >> close partnership with the IETF. In the paper he describes a relationship >> that is not only formal and practical, but also reciprocal. As we all know, >> the Internet’s unique identifier system is defined by IETF standards, and >> IETF participants bring technical expertise into ICANN's multistakeholder >> governance processes. >> >> Since 2025, IETF working groups advanced efforts that have direct >> implications for how the Domain Name System (DNS) operates, from how DNS >> delegations work, to how domain names are provisioned, to how the >> cryptographic algorithms that secure the DNS are managed. This report also >> focuses on and offers a practical overview of what changed, what's coming, >> and why it matters to registry operator, registrar, DNS operator, or anyone >> who depends on the protocols that make the domain name ecosystem function, >> All in all I thought it was a good paper. The technical foundations on >> which the security, stability, and resilience of the Internet’s unique >> identifier system depend on are constantly evolving, and it is important to >> keep abreast of all these issues and why all constituencies within ICANN >> should stay abreast and work closely with the IETF as At Large has done in >> the past >> >> Best, >> >> Judith >> >> -- >> _________________________________________________________________________ >> Judith Hellerstein, Founder & CEO >> Hellerstein & Associates >> 3001 Veazey Terrace NW, Washington DC 20008 >> Phone: (202) 362-5139 Skype ID: judithhellerstein >> Mobile/Whats app: +1202-333-6517 >> E-mail: Judith(a)jhellerstein.com Website: www.jhellerstein.com >> Linked In: www.linkedin.com/in/jhellerstein/ >> Opening Telecom & Technology Opportunities Worldwide >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 0

New ICAN CTO Report on the IETF
by Judith Hellerstein April 27, 2026

April 27, 2026

HI All, Thanks to Olivier and Greg for all their hard work on the IETF MOU that they put in. I want to call everyone's attention to the new publication that David Huberman put out on ICANN's relationship with the IETF. I think it was a good paper. https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/octo-043-16apr26-en.pdf He provides a good overview of why ICANN works hard to keep up their close partnership with the IETF. In the paper he describes a relationship that is not only formal and practical, but also reciprocal. As we all know, the Internet’s unique identifier system is defined by IETF standards, and IETF participants bring technical expertise into ICANN's multistakeholder governance processes. Since 2025, IETF working groups advanced efforts that have direct implications for how the Domain Name System (DNS) operates, from how DNS delegations work, to how domain names are provisioned, to how the cryptographic algorithms that secure the DNS are managed. This report also focuses on and offers a practical overview of what changed, what's coming, and why it matters to registry operator, registrar, DNS operator, or anyone who depends on the protocols that make the domain name ecosystem function, All in all I thought it was a good paper. The technical foundations on which the security, stability, and resilience of the Internet’s unique identifier system depend on are constantly evolving, and it is important to keep abreast of all these issues and why all constituencies within ICANN should stay abreast and work closely with the IETF as At Large has done in the past Best, Judith -- _________________________________________________________________________ Judith Hellerstein, Founder & CEO Hellerstein & Associates 3001 Veazey Terrace NW, Washington DC 20008 Phone: (202) 362-5139 Skype ID: judithhellerstein Mobile/Whats app: +1202-333-6517 E-mail:Judith@jhellerstein.com Website:www.jhellerstein.com Linked In:www.linkedin.com/in/jhellerstein/ Opening Telecom & Technology Opportunities Worldwide

7 7

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

Fwd: [SubPro-IRT] Updated ASP Statistics - April 2026
by Justine Chew April 24, 2026

April 24, 2026

FYI. And apologies for receipt of duplicates due to cross posting. Kind regards, Justine --------- ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Samantha Mancia via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt(a)icann.org> Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2026, 23:20 Subject: [SubPro-IRT] Updated ASP Statistics - April 2026 To: subpro-irt(a)icann.org <subpro-irt(a)icann.org> Dear SubPro IRT Members, I hope you are well. I am writing to let you know that the ASP Statistics have been updated on the website <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/newgtldprogram.icann.org/en/application-…> as of 19 April 2026. Please find a summary of the changes since last month below: *ASP Application Status Metrics* - Submitted - Total: 51 - Change over last month: -6 (status progressed from submitted to evaluation completed) - Evaluation Completed - Total: 25 - Change over last month: +6 - Withdrawn - Total: 2 - Change over last month: N/A - Terminated - Total: 0 - Change over last month: N/A *ASP Applications Evaluation Results* - Conditionally Approved (pending payment) - Total: 3 - Change over last month: -4 (status progressed from conditionally approved to fully approved) - Fully Approved (payment received) - Total: 22 - Change over last month: +10 - Not Eligible for Support* - Total: 0 - Change over last month: N/A *** *Please note that "Not Eligible for Support" includes applications that may still be eligible for extended evaluation, therefore this number could change.* You can find additional detail and breakdowns by region and eligible entity type on the ASP statistics webpage [newgtldprogram.icann.org] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/newgtldprogram.icann.org/en/application-…> . Kind Regards, Samantha Mancia New gTLD Program Manager Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Office Telephone: +1 310 301 5800 www.icann.org _______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt(a)icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave(a)icann.org _______________________________________________ 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 0

GAC Liaison Reports (At-Large / ICANN Community)
by Joanna Kulesza April 21, 2026

April 21, 2026

Dear colleagues, Please find here <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/atlarge/pages/99710696/GA…> and below my Liaison Report ahead of today’s call. Please note that I may join late due to competing commitments – my apologies in advance. I look forward to your feedback on the items flagged below, particularly the proposed bilateral agenda for ICANN86. Warm regards, Joanna GAC Liaison Report: ALAC Monthly Call By: Joanna Kulesza, EURALO, ALAC Liaison to the GAC Reporting Period: February – April 2026 Submitted: April 2026 1. Regulatory Developments Briefing Series 1.1 Review of the Briefing Series – GAC Governmental Engagement Call Following a productive cycle of seven briefings delivered since January 2025, a dedicated call with the ICANN Governmental Engagement team is scheduled to review the format of the series and decide on its continuation, cadence and ownership going forward. This report reflects the Liaison’s preliminary position; input from ALAC members ahead of that call is welcomed. Options under consideration: * Option A – Maintain current cadence (monthly/intersessional, up to nine sessions per year). Next proposed topic: inaugural Organizational Session of the UN Global Mechanism on ICT Security, the successor framework to the Open-Ended Working Group established pursuant to UNGA resolution 79/237, which took place on 30–31 March 2026 at UN Headquarters. * Option B – Reduce to quarterly (four sessions per year). Allows for deeper preparation, higher-profile speakers, and sustainable administrative load. * Option C – Sunset the series in its current form; replace with ad-hoc briefings tied to specific multilateral events (WSIS+20 milestones, Global Mechanism cycle outcomes, Hanoi Convention ratifications). Liaison’s preliminary view: the series has established itself as a cross-community platform for substantive engagement on regulatory developments of direct relevance to ICANN and to end-user interests. It fills a gap no other ICANN convening currently covers. Option B (quarterly) is recommended as the most sustainable arrangement, conditional on continued administrative support from the ICANN Governmental Engagement team. Feedback from ALAC members is welcomed before the GAC–GE call. 2. ICANN86 Seville – ALAC–GAC Bilateral Meeting Preparation Preparation for the ALAC–GAC bilateral at ICANN86 (Seville, 7–11 June 2026) is underway, in coordination with the GAC Chair, ALAC Chair, and the ICANN Governmental Engagement team. Provisional agenda items under discussion: * DNS abuse enforcement: follow-up to ICANN85 discussions and the GNSO Council review * WSIS+20 follow-up and the Global Mechanism’s first-cycle agenda * ASP mid-program assessment (pending publication of ICANN org analysis) Feedback from ALAC is explicitly sought on: * Whether DNS abuse and WSIS+20 should be retained as standing agenda items in the bilateral format, given that both topics were covered at length in ICANN84 and ICANN85 bilaterals. * Whether the UN Permanent Mechanism on Cybersecurity should be introduced as a new item, reflecting its recent launch and its impact on DNS security and stability. * Speaker balance and intervention points; candidate ALAC speakers for each item. 3. Strategic Alignment with ALAC FY26 Priorities The work reported here directly supports two of ALAC’s FY26 Strategic Objectives. Strategic Objective 1: Evolve and promote ICANN’s multistakeholder model. The Liaison’s engagement with the UN Global Mechanism’s Organizational Session, and the Regulatory Developments Briefing on that process, directly contribute to the At-Large community’s informed participation in the post-WSIS+20 international governance environment. Strategic Objective 3: Collaborate with relevant stakeholders to evolve the Internet’s unique identifier systems. Ongoing ALAC–GAC coordination on DNS abuse, Hanoi Convention implementation and registration data access continues to reflect shared responsibility for identifier governance with a user-centric perspective. 4. Recommendations * ALAC to endorse continuation of the Regulatory Developments Briefing Series on a quarterly cadence, with the ICANN Governmental Engagement team leading administrative coordination and the ALAC Liaison leading content direction. * ALAC to provide feedback on the proposed ICANN86 bilateral agenda by 4 May 2026, with particular attention to the question of whether the UN Permanent Mechanism on Cybersecurity should be introduced as a standing item. * ALAC to flag any further topics for Regulatory Developments Briefings in Q2 2026, to allow for speaker recruitment and agenda coordination with the GAC GE team. Annex: Regulatory Developments Briefing Series – Delivery Record Seven briefings delivered since January 2025: * Briefing 1 – WSIS+20 Discussion (13 January 2025) * Briefing 2 – UN Cybercrime Convention and the Second Additional Protocol to the Budapest Convention (13 February 2025) * Briefing 3 – Regulatory Approaches to Cybersecurity and Internet Governance (with Jan Králík, Council of Europe) (24 April 2025) * Briefing 4 – Internet Infrastructure and Multistakeholder Governance in MENA (29 May 2025) * Briefing 5 – UN OEWG Outcomes & WSIS+20 Reflections (24 July 2025) * Briefing 6 – WSIS+20 Zero Draft: Internet Governance section (11 September 2025) * Briefing 7 – WSIS+20 UN General Assembly High-Level Meeting Outcomes (15 January 2026) See the Confluence page<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/atlarge/pages/180715827/G…> for further details and recordings.

3 2

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

ccNSO Council Meeting 228 Report
by Laura Margolis April 20, 2026

April 20, 2026

Dear All, I hope you are all doing fine. I would like to share a summary of the ccNSO Council Meeting 228, held on 16 April 2026 at 12:00 UTC Agenda and Background materials <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/ccNSOCWS/pages/685342721/…> Committees and Working Groups – April 2026 <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/ccnsowkspc/pages/10841066…> *--> This time I tried to make a shorter report so its easier for you to read it.* *Summary* The meeting focused on governance updates, policy development progress, and preparations for ICANN86. Key outcomes included the approval of a new ccNSO member (.es), the adoption of updated conflict of interest guidelines aligned with ICANN’s Code of Conduct, and ongoing discussions on cross-community processes such as the Review of Reviews and DNS Abuse mitigation. Operationally, attention was also drawn to ICANN87 planning uncertainties and the importance of communication from ICANN Org. *Key Decisions* - Approval of *RED.ES <http://RED.ES> (.es)* as a new ccNSO member (member #181). - Adoption of the updated ccNSO Statement of Interest and Conflict of Interest Guidelines (v2, April 2026), aligned with the 2025 ICANN Code of Conduct. *Key Updates * - *ccPDP4-IDN*: The caucus is close to completing its policy review. Next steps will focus on implementation discussions. - *ccPDP3 Implementation*: Planning phase concluded; responsibility has transitioned to ICANN Org. The ccPAIG (ccNSO Policy Assistance Implementation Group) is expected to remain available for support. - *CCG Review of Reviews*: - Simplification from 5 to 3 categories (“buckets”). - Upcoming webinar and draft proposal ahead of ICANN86. - Potential creation of scoping groups involving SO/AC leadership. - *GNSO DNS Abuse Mitigation PDP1*: Remains a standing agenda item due to its dynamic nature and ambitious timeline. Council evaluated if it will keep it in the monthly agenda or will move the updates to the written updates. *Cross-Community & Coordination Points* - Increased emphasis on SO/AC coordination, particularly in relation to Review of Reviews and workload management. - Opportunity for engagement during ICANN86 plenary sessions, as no dedicated ccNSO session is planned for this topic. - Continued collaboration efforts led by ccNSO leadership to improve cross-community alignment and efficiency. *Concerns:* - *ICANN87 (Oman)*: Concerns were raised about regional instability and the feasibility of holding an in-person meeting, alongside a clear call for more transparent communication, contingency planning, and a defined timeline from ICANN Org, with the option of reverting to a fully online format if conditions do not improve. *Organizational Updates* - Announcement of Bart Boswinkel’s retirement (effective October 2026), with transition planning underway. - Ongoing efforts to increase awareness and participation in ccNSO activities, including joint webinars. Next one will be organized together with APTLD. *Next Steps / Upcoming Milestones* - ICANN86 (Sevilla): draft schedule under development; preparatory call to be confirmed. - Webinar and draft proposal on Review of Reviews to be shared with SO/ACs. - Continued monitoring of DNS Abuse PDP1 developments. - Follow-up on ICANN87 planning and communication from ICANN Org. Please let me know if you would like further details on any of these topics or if a deeper dive would be useful for ALAC discussions. Thank you for reading. 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