- ALAC - lists.icann.org

SSAC2025-02: SSAC Public Comment on How we Meet: An Initial Project
by Matthias M. Hudobnik May 12, 2025

May 12, 2025

Hi colleagues, the SSAC has published SSAC2025-02: SSAC Public Comment on How we Meet: An Initial Project Report. The SSAC submitted its response to the public comment proceeding on 09 May 2025. This correspondence provides a summary of the SSAC’s positions on the specific proposals detailed within the "How We Meet: An Initial Project Report." Proposals SSAC Supports: · Topic #1: Shorten the Community Forum by one day o 1.1 Shortening the Community Forum by one day. o 1.2.a Moving the Public Forum and Geopolitical Forum earlier in the meeting, to the same day as the Welcome Ceremony and Executive Q&A session, to limit the need for the main ballroom to a single day. o 1.2.b Scheduling any community wrap-up sessions that may be needed in the final block at the end of the fifth and last day. o 1.2.c Adding a new Board-community engagement session open to everyone, to discuss issues of broad common interest, to limit the need for the Board to discuss the same topics in isolation with individual groups. · Topic #2: Prioritize economical and predictable meeting locations o 2.1.a Prioritizing meeting locations that offer economical travel, venue, and accommodation options while respecting the need to rotate ICANN Public Meetings across the various geographic regions, and on the understanding that this could mean returning to the same venue within a specific geographic region. o 2.1.b Returning to previous locations where this is feasible and within the geographical rotation requirement. ■ SSAC Additional Feedback: In selecting venues, countries that are not consistent with ICANN core values of diversity and inclusion should not be selected. · Topic #3: Establish a policy for automatic shift to online meetings o 3.1 Establishing a policy to automatically shift an ICANN Public Meeting to an online format, should unforeseen circumstances arise that necessitate moving a meeting from a planned venue. Proposals SSAC Does Not Support: · Topic #4: Convert one ICANN Public Meeting to a virtual-only format o 4.1 Converting one ICANN Public Meeting per year to an online format. o 4.2.a Conducting an online-only meeting once every few meetings (e.g., every fourth/fifth/sixth ICANN Public Meeting). Proposals for which SSAC Did Not Provide a Response: · Topic #1: Shorten the Community Forum by one day o 1.3 Suggestions for how a reduced 5-day Community Forum can also accommodate improved Board-community interactions while maintaining an adequate number of intra-community work sessions. · Topic #4: Convert one ICANN Public Meeting to a virtual-only format ○ 4.2.b Starting with a pilot of a fourth ICANN Public Meeting in a calendar year, but holding this fourth meeting online. · ○ 4.2.c Exploring a mixed-model where all the sessions are held online but attendees have the option of gathering in one physical location to maximize networking and relationship-building opportunities. The SSAC appreciates the opportunity to provide input on the "How We Meet" initiative and looks forward to continued engagement on this important topic. Link here: https://itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/security-and-stability-advisory-committe… This correspondence mirrors the SSAC’s public comment submission. Link here: https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/how-we-meet-reviewing-th… Have a nice day! Best, Matthias ______________________________ Ing. Mag. Matthias M. Hudobnik FIP • CIPP/E • CIPT • DPO • CIS LA HYPERLINK "mailto:matthias@hudobnik.at"matthias(a)hudobnik.at http://www.hudobnik.at @mhudobnik

1 0

Excellent article by Joanna Kulesca
by Judith Hellerstein May 12, 2025

May 12, 2025

4 3

REVISED: ALAC Objections Procedure
by Claire Craig May 6, 2025

May 6, 2025

Dear Members of the OFB-WB Please see attached the revised ALAC Objections Procedure completed by the Small Team. As you should be aware, this was discussed at the last OFB-WG call on Thursday 1 May 2025. At that time a vote of the ALAC was taken because we had quorum on the call and the final version was approved. The Alac Chair agreed to rely on the poll already taken. Claire C. Craig Co-Chair OFB-WG Claire, This message is being sent on Dev Anand Teelucksingh and my behalf. As agreed during our Thursday OFB meeting, you should forward this message to the ALAC on behalf of the OFB and you may also copy the CPWG for its information. The attached document was created by the ALAC Objections small group and subject to one concern (see below), has the support of the small group and those present on the OFB call on 01 May 2025. During that call, a majority of ALAC Members were present and unanimously supported the document (those present were Aziz, Bukola, Claire, Eunice, Justine, Lilian, Satish and Shah). Jonathan may choose to conduct a new poll of the ALAC to include all Members, or rely on the poll already taken. The concern mentioned is as follows: Tijani has expressed concern about the option for a gARG member to recuse themselves from a specific application(s) instead of resigning. He feels that allowing recusal and not mandating resignation may impact our credibility and lessen the strength of our objections, and that the gARG should be fully free of any conflict with ALL applications. If that is not the case, the applicant may use this to attempt to undermine our standing. He also feels that no one is indispensable and the rest of the gARG people can cover anything. The counterargument is that a resignation of a person with specific skills or knowledge due to a conflict with one application may impact our ability to respond to another un-connected application and may impact our ability to respond to an appeal. Moreover if there are multiple such resignations the overall team may be impacted. Recusal is an effective remedy in the ICANN Board and should suffice for us. Although we did not take a full poll of the small group nor the OFB, I do not believe that any of those on calls over several weeks supported this concern, but Dev and Clair can confirm. Should the ALAC choose to alter this, the document can be quickly revised. Alan -- CCC

1 0

GNSO Council 15 May 2025 meeting agenda is out
by Justine Chew May 5, 2025

May 5, 2025

Dear all, Due to technical issues with my GNSO Liaison workspace which prevent me from updating its webpage, I am informing you of the agenda of the GNSO Council 15 May 2025 meeting (as set out below), followed by a curation of the matters of interest therein, by way of a googledoc. GNSO Council Meeting #5 of 2025 held on 15 May 2025 Full Agenda <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/GKafBg> | Documents <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/0KefBg> | Motions <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/LKifBg> - 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 - Aspirational Statement - Item 4: COUNCIL VOTE - Deferral of the Next Steps of Phase Two of the Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in All New gTLDs Policy Development Process (PDP) for an Additional Six Months - Item 5: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Han Script Character gTLDs (Recommendation 3.17) - Item 6: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Council Alignment on the Future of Reviews - Item 7: COUNCIL UPDATE: Subsequent Procedures Implementation Review Team on Recommendation 36.4 - Item 8: Any Other Business - 8.1 - ICANN83 Planning - 8.2 - ccNSO and GAC Liaison updates - 8.3 - Whois Implementation Advisory Group update - 8.4 - Registration Data Request Service (RDRS) Standing Committee Report - open question of public comment - 8.5 - Chair update *Matters of Interest *can be found at this link: GNSO Council 15 May 2025 Meeting <https://docs.google.com/document/d/158vXTzz7eJvj_9Gi2zanaGxBMk0nRcFuDl2sSdX…> This Council meeting will take place on *15 May 2025 **at 05:00 UTC*: https://tinyurl.com/knke3w for 2 hours and is open to observers remotely in listen-only mode via Zoom: https://icann.zoom.us/j/91048235847?pwd=bmEHjk0uYT3sR2DIoE0c0yw4HKbM6O.1 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

ALAC Liaison Report to the GAC – ICANN83 Preparatory Update
by Joanna Kulesza April 22, 2025

April 22, 2025

Dear Colleagues, I hereby humbly submit this liaison report ahead of the upcoming ALAC monthly meeting. Please accept my apologies for not being available for live discussion, as I am currently out of office and will return on Wednesday. I remain available by email should any urgent questions arise. ________________________________ 1. Draft Agenda Proposals for the GAC–ALAC Bilateral Meeting at ICANN83 In preparation for ICANN83, the GAC proposed the following agenda items for the GAC–ALAC bilateral session. These topics reflect areas of joint concern between our communities and are intended to foster constructive engagement and reinforce the advisory roles we hold within ICANN’s multistakeholder governance model. 1.1. Applicant Support Program (ASP) – Equity in the Next gTLD Round Objective: Promote meaningful uptake of the ASP and explore how GAC and ALAC can collaborate to enhance outreach and evaluation strategies for underserved applicants in the upcoming new gTLD round. 1.2. DNS Abuse Mitigation – Policy, Enforcement, and End User Protection Objective: Exchange perspectives on national and regional DNS abuse mitigation efforts and identify joint opportunities to strengthen prevention, enforcement, and user protection mechanisms. 1.3. Universal Acceptance (UA) and the Multilingual Internet Objective: Advance UA readiness through community-level training and advocate for public sector adoption to promote digital inclusion and linguistic diversity. 1.4. Domain Name Registration Data – RDRS, Accuracy, and Access Objective: Review early data from the Registration Data Request Service (RDRS) and consider balanced, long-term solutions that uphold privacy while enabling legitimate access. 1.5. Digital Inclusion and Capacity Building Objective: Explore synergies in supporting underserved populations via initiatives such as local IGFs, NRIs, ICANN Learn, and regional leadership programs (e.g., Fellowship and NextGen). 1.6. Public Interest Frameworks and Advisory Roles Objective: Strengthen collaboration between GAC and ALAC in defining, defending, and implementing the public interest in ICANN’s policy processes. Feedback from the ALAC on these proposed agenda items is most welcome, including additional topics or refinements. Coordination on the final agenda is ongoing. ________________________________ 2. April Regulatory Developments Briefing: Session on Cybersecurity and Transboundary Data Access with Council of Europe Expert – April 24, 2025 The next session of the Regulatory Updates Briefing Series will take place on Thursday, April 24, 2025, at 16:00 UTC. This session, tentatively titled “Regulatory Approaches to Cybersecurity and Internet Governance”, will feature Mr. Jan Králik, Programme Manager at the Cybercrime Division of the Council of Europe. He will offer practical insights into: - DNS abuse and its governance under existing legal frameworks - Cross-border data access under the Second Additional Protocol to the Budapest Convention - The ongoing UN Cybercrime Convention negotiations 🔗 Zoom Registration https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/atlarge/pages/227082259/2… 📄 Agenda and Details https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/atlarge/pages/180715827/G… Community participation is encouraged, particularly from those engaged in policy discussions on DNS abuse, cybersecurity, and cross-border legal access. ________________________________ 3. ICANN82 Seattle GAC Communique and GNSO Council Review The ICANN82 GAC Communique was published on 17 March 2025 and is available here: https://gac.icann.org/advice/correspondence/incoming/20250404/gnso-council-… Issues of importance to the GAC: 1. Domain Name Registration Data: The GAC continues to seek progress on urgent requests for domain registration data, urging a 24-hour response timeline. It supports the enhancement of the Registration Data Request Service (RDRS) and recommends mandatory participation for all gTLD registrars. The GAC also emphasizes improving registration data accuracy and calls for further work on EPDP Phase 2A recommendations, especially regarding legal entity and reseller data. 2. Next Round of New gTLDs: The GAC supports the Applicant Support Program (ASP) and requests more granular data on applications from underserved regions. It also urges ICANN org to identify obstacles hindering application progress and considers increasing refunds for early withdrawals. The GAC encourages expanding “ICANN in Your Language” for global outreach. 3. ICANN Community Code of Conduct: The GAC supports the transparency of Statements of Interest (SOI) and the proposed ICANN Community Participant Code of Conduct, emphasizing the need for clear disclosure of participants’ interests. 4. DNS Abuse: The GAC urges stronger cooperation to address DNS abuse, supporting the use of AI-powered detection systems and further discussions on bulk registrations and their link to DNS abuse. 5. WSIS+20: The GAC welcomes ICANN org's engagement in the WSIS+20 process and will continue to foster discussions on the multistakeholder approach to shaping the digital future. The GNSO Council subsequently submitted its official response on 4 April 2025, addressing key themes raised in the Communique, including: Accuracy of registration data; DNS abuse mitigation and Domain name registration policies (see here for further details: https://gac.icann.org/advice/correspondence/incoming/20250404/gnso-council-…) These items are relevant to several agenda items proposed for the ICANN83 bilateral session, particularly those concerning DNS abuse and data accuracy. This report is intended to support ongoing coordination and dialogue between the ALAC and GAC. I welcome any feedback or suggestions and remain committed to supporting effective collaboration on our shared priorities. Respectfully submitted, ------------------- 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

2 2

ccNSO news and report of the Council meeting #216
by Laura Margolis April 22, 2025

April 22, 2025

Dear all, I hope you are all doing well. This report is divided into two main sections: The first part includes a few updates I’d like to highlight regarding Working Groups and Committees, and the second part is a summary of the last ccNSO Council Meeting held on Thursday, April 17th. *AGENDA* <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/atlarge/pages/99711461/AL…> <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/atlarge/pages/99711461/AL…>*and DOCUMENTS* <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/atlarge/pages/99711461/AL…> <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/atlarge/pages/99711461/AL…> *MARCH* <https://ccnso.icann.org/en/about/council/decisions-resolutions/2025> <https://ccnso.icann.org/en/about/council/decisions-resolutions/2025>*2025* <https://ccnso.icann.org/en/about/council/decisions-resolutions/2025> <https://ccnso.icann.org/en/about/council/decisions-resolutions/2025> *RESOLUTIONS* <https://ccnso.icann.org/en/about/council/decisions-resolutions/2025> <https://ccnso.icann.org/en/about/council/decisions-resolutions/2025> *Statements and Responses* <https://ccnso.icann.org/en/about/statements.htm> <https://ccnso.icann.org/en/about/statements.htm> *LIAISONS REPORTS * Report ccNSO Liaison to GNSO <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/ccNSOCWS/pages/103123979/…> <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/ccNSOCWS/pages/103123979/…> Report ccNSO Liaison to UASG <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/ccNSOCWS/pages/103123979/…> <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/ccNSOCWS/pages/103123979/…> *UPDATES on Working Groups and Committees * *DASC* <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/ccnsowkspc/pages/10841119…> <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/ccnsowkspc/pages/10841119…>– DNS Abuse Standing Committee The group checked in on a few ongoing items—like reminders about the repository and the survey subgroup taking a break until 2026. Most of the meeting focused on follow-up from ICANN82, with a lot of interest in tackling *online financial fraud and scams*. There’s talk of turning it into a broader community initiative, starting in Prague and maybe continuing in Oman. Planning also kicked off for a DASC session on AI at ICANN83, with a call for volunteers and a few prep meetings lined up. *PGA WG* <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/ccnsowkspc/pages/10841522…> <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/ccnsowkspc/pages/10841522…>– Policy Gap Analysis Working Group Final Report PGA WG (draft) https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ouZnDqzikDxnuhlz5VPw0uWvqdCxX2Giy5mEGN4… <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ouZnDqzikDxnuhlz5VPw0uWvqdCxX2Giy5mEGN4…> /edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.v6zxp4ty30x2 <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ouZnDqzikDxnuhlz5VPw0uWvqdCxX2Giy5mEGN4…> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ouZnDqzikDxnuhlz5VPw0uWvqdCxX2Giy5mEGN4…> During the last PGA WG meeting (April 15th.), the draft final report <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ouZnDqzikDxnuhlz5VPw0uWvqdCxX2Giy5mEGN4…> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ouZnDqzikDxnuhlz5VPw0uWvqdCxX2Giy5mEGN4…>was introduced, with the suggestion to include it as Annex B to the full report, and Annex A containing the main document. There was a discussion on whether to include a reference to the latest letter on the retirement policy, as well as outcomes from conversations with ICANN org, the board caucus, and the drafting committee. No additional comments were made regarding the draft recommendation to Council. The group emphasized keeping recommendations concise, suggesting not to delve into too much detail, and advised using the experience from the .lb case for future scenarios. The .lb case serves as an important reference point for understanding the challenges faced by certain domain organizations, particularly regarding their governance and policy discussions. By using this case, the group hopes to learn from past experiences and better structure future recommendations. After consultation, 2 identified recommendations: *Recommendation 1: * *Overview policies, related guidance, and practices relevant for ccTLDs * The ccNSO Council is recommended to adopt the Overview of policies, related guidance, and practices relevant to ccTLDs as presented. This Overview is intended to inform ccTLD Managers and other stakeholders of the key elements that form the framework for how ICANN/PTI and ccTLDs relate to each other and may structure their relationship. After adoption, the ccNSO Council should keep the document up to date by amending the overview: - Each time a new policy arising from a PDP is submitted to or adopted by the ICANN Board - Each time the Council is informed of any other guidance, interpretation or practice. For avoidance of doubt, the overview does not replace, amend, supersede or change the interpretation of any original documentation. *Recommendation 2: **Study Groups IANA Public Records and Disaster Recovery* Following community consultation, the working group recommends that the ccNSO Council establish Study Groups for each of the identified topics, starting with two: IANA Public Records and IANA’s Role in Disaster Recovery. The working group further recommends that the Council determine the order in which the remaining four topics are to be addressed, in consultation with the community. This prioritization should take place once one of the two initial Study Groups is nearing completion of its work. *Disaster recovery* Generally, disaster recovery for a ccTLD is considered wholly the responsibility for the ccTLD manager and its local community to address. However, when it isn’t addressed, the parties often look to IANA for mechanisms to address it, and IANA is expected to do what it reasonably can to address threats to the operation of a ccTLD. What, if any, requirements should be established around disaster recovery and/or the ability to sustain ongoing operations of the domain in the case of disaster or non-compliance with global policies? Another area of disaster recovery is where ccTLD managers have sought to make private arrangements with IANA on special procedures to perform in such emergencies. *IGLC* <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/ccnsowkspc/pages/10840447…> <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/ccnsowkspc/pages/10840447…>– Internet Governance Liaison Committee The group is preparing a session for ICANN83 on the *Future of Internet Governance*. The session will explore how the principles established in the WSIS process have been implemented over the past two decades and the specific ways in which ccTLDs have contributed to this implementation, through their engagement in national and regional IGFs. Also, the group introduced the new working plan for 2025. <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DGqqze3TWT0oLZv--gkRMBIAPZtysZ7oaJ0pP3P…> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DGqqze3TWT0oLZv--gkRMBIAPZtysZ7oaJ0pP3P…> *How we Meet * There were 3 sessions during ICANN82 regarding this topic: 1. ICANN82 Prep Week session <https://sched.co/1udkH> https://sched.co/1udkH <https://sched.co/1udkH> 2. ICANN82 Plenary session <https://sched.co/1vpaT> https://sched.co/1vpaT <https://sched.co/1vpaT> 3. ICANN82 ccNSO Members Meeting <https://sched.co/1vpcE> https://sched.co/1vpcE <https://sched.co/1vpcE> The ccNSO Council is planning to provide feedback to this public comment proceeding. There was a special meeting on April 16th. about this topic and there is a small group working in a draft document. Summary of ccNSO Council Meeting 216 – 17th. April 2025 *Correspondence and Intermeeting Decisions: * • Several important communications were reviewed: o A *request for clarification* was received from *Kim Davies* (VP of IANA Services & President of PTI) regarding the *ccTLD Retirement Policy*. The Council responded to the specific question, and any further steps now rest with ICANN Org. o A *letter from the co-chairs of the Pilot Holistic Review (PHR)* was acknowledged. o A letter was sent to the *Empowered Community Administration (ECA)* confirming the appointment of *Alejandra Reynoso* to the ECA. o Another letter was addressed to the *ICANN Board Chair*, touching on reviews and related governance matters. *Intermeeting Council Decisions (since Meeting 215, March 2025):* o Adoption of a letter *to the NomCom*, providing additional considerations for the selection of future ccNSO Council appointees. o Adoption of a letter *clarifying the scope of trigger events in the retirement policy*, responding to Kim Davies’ inquiry. o Adoption of a letter *to the ICANN Board*, discussing next steps on the *Pilot Holistic Review (PHR)*, *ATRT4*, and broader review frameworks. o These decisions were made between formal meetings and documented for transparency. No objections or additional decisions were raised during the meeting. • The *Triage Committee* reported *no intermeeting decisions* for this period. *Action Items: * • Most action items from meetings 214 and 215 were completed, including appointments, survey reminders, and procedural communications. • Ongoing items include: o Preparation of Council comments for the *IFRT2 consultation*. o Finalization of a response to the *“How We Meet”* public comment process. *Updates: * • Written updates on *ECA, IFRT, CSC*, liaison roles, and working groups were noted. • Progress continues on the *ccNSO website redesign*, with a high-level timeline expected in the next month. Council acknowledged volunteer contributions as vital to this process. • The leadership team met with the ICANN CEO to raise issues regarding the *Playbook*, *bylaw changes*, and the need to defer the *third CSC review*, pending GNSO alignment. *Council 360 Review: * Despite reminders and extended deadlines, the review process did not meet quorum. The Council will revisit whether to continue with the process, considering its usefulness but low participation. *Special Council Election (European Region): * A call for nominations was reopened due to a February resignation. *Nigel Roberts* was nominated and accepted, and as there were no competing candidates, he will be seated without an election. A Q&A is scheduled for *29 April*. *Effectiveness Reviews of Working Groups and Committees:* • A schedule limiting committee/working group reviews to *two per year* was adopted, balancing effectiveness with council workload. • The first group to undergo review under this approach will be the *MPC*, with terms of reference to be drafted before the next meeting. A call for volunteers is open, excluding active MPC members. *Appointments:* Several new members were welcomed into key groups: *IGLC*: Pablo Rodríguez (.pr) *SOPC*: Frank Ogochukwu (.ng) *U**AC*: Andrew Lewela (.ke), Frank Ogochukwu (.ng) *GRC*: Erdem Bayrak (.tr), Francis Alaneme (.ng), Patrick Nyongeza Sungura (.tz), Nicholas Lisse (.na) *DASC*: Vadim Mikhaylov (.ru), Francis Alaneme (.ng), Igor Mkrtumyan (.am),Khaled Khelifi (.tn), Landi Ahmed (.ke), Jake Vincet (.uk), Harsha Saparamadu (.lk), Peter Koch (.de) *CSC Alternate*: Erwin Lansing (.dk) *"How We Meet" Process: * A response to the draft report is being prepared by a team. Aiming for a *1 May* draft. The Council noted the usefulness of a preparatory call held the day prior. *PHR and CIP Letter: * The *PHR/CIP* response letter was already sent to the ICANN Board. No further input or objections were noted. *ICANN83 Planning: * • Meetings are set from *Monday to Thursday*, starting with *Tech Day*. All sessions will be held in the *ccNSO meeting room*, except the Council meeting on Thursday, which will use a *smaller U-shaped room* for better engagement. • A *casual welcome session for newcomers* is also planned. • Planning is underway for a *joint session with the RySG* (Registries Stakeholder Group), aiming to foster dialogue on shared goals, avoid narrow focus on committees, and instead explore thematic cooperation. If you have any questions or would like more details on any of the topics mentioned, feel free to reach out—I’ll be happy to provide more information. Thank you for taking the time to read through the update. See you in the ALAC meeting! Kindest Regards, *Laura Margolis* ALAC Liaison to ccNSO margolisl(a)gmail.com +59899690992 skype: lauri.margolis ccNSO Liaison Workspace <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/ALAC+Liaison+to+the+ccNSO+Repor…>

3 2

GNSO Council 10 April 2025 meeting agenda is out
by Justine Chew April 13, 2025

April 13, 2025

Dear all, Just a note to inform you that the agenda for the GNSO Council meeting on 10 April 2025 is out. For a curated version of the highlighted agenda items, please visit the *MATTERS OF INTEREST* sub-menu at this link <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/atlarge/pages/99708540/GN…> . *GNSO Council Meeting #4 of 2025 held on 10 Apr 2025 <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/atlarge/pages/99708540/GN…>* *Full Agenda <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/EKafBg> | Documents <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/yKefBg> | Motions <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/GaifBg>* - *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* - GNSO Review of the GAC Communiqué - *Recommendations Report for the Transfer Policy Review PDP* - *Item 4: COUNCIL VOTE - Confirmation of EPDP on Temporary Specification Team’s Intent to Modify RAA Requirements Related to Billing Contact* - Item 5: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Aspirational Statement Review - *Item 6: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Han Script Single Character gTLDs (Recommendation 3.17)* - *Item 7: COUNCIL UPDATE: Registration Data Request Service* - *Item 8: COUNCIL DISCUSSION: Next Steps for Whois Implementation Advisory Group* - *Item 9: Any Other Business* - 9.1 - Update on ICANN83 Planning and GNSO Draft Schedule - 9.2 - WSIS+20 <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fM5b8tZX1APSUhEovc0qHWXc_wg3HzJ8__mJuvZ…> and internet governance discussions - *9.3 - Latin Diacritics PDP Working Group - Review of Project Plan <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2025/presentation/project…>* - 9.4 - Standing Committee on Continuous Improvements - Review of Project Plan - *9.5 - Council review of Assignment Forms for DNS Abuse and Accuracy Small Teams* This Council meeting will take place on *10 Apr 2025 **at 21:00 UTC*: https://tinyurl.com/5bsuykt5 for 2 hours and is open to observers remotely in listen-only mode via Zoom. To access the Zoom link for this meeting, please visit the *MEETING DETAILS* sub-menu at this link <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/atlarge/pages/99708540/GN…> . 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 1

SSAC has published SSAC2025-01: SSAC Public Comment for Fourth Proceeding for Proposed Language for Draft Sections of Next Round Applicant Guidebook
by Matthias M. Hudobnik April 4, 2025

April 4, 2025

Hi colleagues, the SSAC has published SSAC2025-01. ### SSAC has published SSAC2025-01: SSAC Public Comment for Fourth Proceeding for Proposed Language for Draft Sections of Next Round Applicant Guidebook: The SSAC has reviewed the draft language of Topic 29 in the Applicant Guidebook (AGB) and wishes to highlight several key concerns and recommendations to ensure the effectiveness of the Name Collision Risk Assessment Framework and its alignment with the NCAP2 Final Report and SAC124 guidance: 1. Clarity on DNS Assessment Methods · SSAC seeks explicit confirmation on which of the DNS-related assessment methods from NCAP2 (No Interruption, Controlled Interruption, Visible · Interruption) will be implemented during temporary delegation. · There is a concern that "Visible Interruption and Notification" has been omitted, despite its unique value in supporting root cause analysis for name collisions. · SSAC requests that any excluded methods be clearly justified, and encourages ICANN org to consider the need for sufficient data collection in all cases. · The SSAC underscores that the Technical Review Team (TRT), as recommended in NCAP2, should be involved in determining the appropriate assessment methods. 2. Support for Effective Mitigation and Remediation · SSAC emphasizes that DNS query data alone is insufficient to fully diagnose name collisions or develop robust mitigation plans. · The "Visible Interruption and Notification" method is critical because it collects application-layer data, offering qualitative insights that DNS-only methods cannot provide. · SSAC questions its exclusion from the current draft and reiterates the importance of combining quantitative and qualitative data to properly assess and mitigate risks. · The SSAC again refers to SAC124 Recommendation 2, urging ICANN to adopt solutions that enable comprehensive data collection and analysis. 3. Role and Implementation of the Technical Review Team (TRT) · SSAC supports the creation of a dedicated TRT as outlined in NCAP2 Recommendation 7 and requests more detail on how it will be structured, what responsibilities it will have, and how it will interact with applicants. · Currently, the draft only refers to the TRT in limited ways (e.g., in mitigation plan evaluation), and the SSAC recommends strengthening this · by: o Replacing “may advise” with “should advise” when referring to TRT input on mitigation plans. o Ensuring TRT participation in the Initial Assessment phase and requiring their availability to explain assessment findings to applicants. · These enhancements would promote transparency, collaboration, and a more technically informed approach to name collision risk management. Conclusion SSAC urges ICANN to revise the draft Topic 29 to: · Clearly outline the chosen DNS assessment methods and rationale for exclusions; · Reinstate and justify the role of “Visible Interruption and Notification” where applicable; · Define the scope, authority, and involvement of the Technical Review Team throughout the assessment and remediation process. These steps are essential to uphold the integrity of the Name Collision Risk Framework and ensure the stability and security of the DNS. Link to the report: https://itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/security-and-stability-advisory-committe… Have a nice day! Best, Matthias ______________________________ Ing. Mag. Matthias M. Hudobnik FIP • CIPP/E • CIPT • DPO • CIS LA matthias(a)hudobnik.at http://www.hudobnik.at @mhudobnik

1 0

Re: Summary Report on ICANN82 ccNSO Council meeting, working groups and sessions
by Laura Margolis April 1, 2025

April 1, 2025

Dear Judith, Thank you so much. I hope you found it useful. Best, Laura El lun, 31 mar 2025 a las 20:14, Judith Hellerstein (< judith(a)jhellerstein.com>) escribió: > HI Laura, > > Thanks for such an excellent and comprehensive write up and summary of all > the action that happened during Seattle within the CCNSO > > 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 > > On 3/31/25 4:05 PM, Laura Margolis via ALAC wrote: > > Dear All, > > I hope this message finds you well. > > Attached is my report on the ICANN82 Meeting in Seattle. To make it easier > to follow, I have divided the report into three sections: > > 1. Highlights from Council Meeting #215 in Seattle. > 2. Updates on Working Groups and Committees. > 3. ICANN82 Sessions. > > > > *AGENDA > <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/atlarge/pages/99711461/AL…> > Council meeting #215 – March 13th., 2025 * > > *BACKGROUND AND DOCUMENTS > <https://ccnso.icann.org/en/about/statements.htm>* > > Council workspace for this meeting: > https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/-4slBg > > ccNSO correspondence: statements and responses: > https://ccnso.icann.org/en/about/statements.htm > > > > *1.- HIGHLIGHTS FROM COUNCIL MEETING #215 IN SEATTLE* > > *Some News in the Council about Councilors:* > > Alejandra Reynoso was reelected as a Chair, starting her term at the end > of ICANN82 and until ICANN85. > > Biyi Oladipo (.ng) and Jordan Carter (.au) were re elected as Vice Chairs, > starting at the end of ICANN82 and until ICANN85. > > Byron Holland (.ca) started his position #12 at the Board, replacing > Katrina Sataki who resigned. > > Everton Rodrigues (.br) started as a new Councilor, elected for LAC Region. > > *Election Process for European Region Vacancy – Meeting Report Summary* > > The ccNSO Council approved an extraordinary election process to fill the > European Region vacancy after Nicklas Pousette declined his term. The > timeline includes nominations (26 March – 22 April 2025) and elections if > needed (30 April – 21 May 2025), with results announced on 23 May 2025. > Joke Braeken was appointed Election Process Manager, and the decision took > effect upon publication. > > > > *Some Decisions made during the Council Meeting #215 in Seattle* > > *Council 360 Review* > > Suggestion: Extend deadline > Background: The ccNSO Council 360 feedback process requires at least 10 > CouncilLors to respond within a two-week period. In the first 2025 review > (11 Feb – 3 Mar 2025), only 6 Councillors responded, failing to meet quorum. > Decision: The ccNSO Council has extended the 360 review process until 21 > March 2025. Results will be shared with individual Councillors starting 25 > March 2025. > > > > *Blueprint Review Process – ccNSO Working Groups and Committees* > > Decision Summary: > Following the successful review of the DNS Abuse Standing Committee (DASC) > in January 2025, the ccNSO Council approved a standardized review method > for other committees and working groups. The Council adopted the review > blueprint and requested the ccNSO Chair and Secretariat to develop a review > schedule in consultation with the committees, considering workload and > necessity. The timeline is expected by Meeting 216 to ensure the launch of > a review before ICANN83 in Prague. The resolution will take effect seven > days after publication, and the Chair will inform the relevant working > groups accordingly. > > > > *Update on Pilot Holistic Review (PHR) and ATRT4 Next Steps* > > An update was provided on the Board’s discussions regarding the Pilot > Holistic Review (PHR) and its future direction. The Board has engaged with > the PHR co-chairs, SO/AC chairs, and the broader community to determine > whether the premises of the review are acceptable. The continuation of the > PHR remains subject to both community and Board approval. > > Concerns were raised about the review process, questioning its necessity > and suggesting a return to the drawing board. While there was some > opposition, At-Large members largely supported continuing the work. > > It was suggested that the group should first communicate with the Board > before making decisions. The importance of clarity on the Board’s intent > regarding ATRT4 and other reviews was emphasized. A note to the Board will > be drafted to inquire about their plans. > > There were discussions about systemic issues within ICANN’s review > processes, with a proposal to pause all reviews, including PHR, and > consider appointing a design team to improve the overall review system. > > A drafting team was formed to prepare a communication to the Board. > Caution was advised against halting all bylaw reviews, emphasizing the need > for a balanced approach. > > > > *2.- SOME UPDATES ON THE WORKING GROUPS AND COMMITTEES* > > *IGLC <https://ccnso.icann.org/en/workinggroups/iglc.htm> – Internet > Governance Liaison Committee* > > The group adopted the New Action Plan > <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DGqqze3TWT0oLZv--gkRMBIAPZtysZ7oaJ0pP3P…> > during ICANN82 Meeting, which includes the update of the heatmap > <https://drive.google.com/file/d/16p_pqHKkeFjWfXBAdOYDMW4i4-9kALso/view> > (is a brainstorming of ideas on the hot Internet Governance topics in the > different regions) and the napkin pitch exercise, which requests the views > of the IGLC members on a topic identified on the heatmap. > > - The IGLC will monitor key policy trends and regulatory developments > that relate to ccTLDs. > - When needed the IGLC will inform and share information to the > broader ccTLD community to assist community members to assess trends and > developments by: > > Providing written reports for inclusion in the ccNSO newsletter > > Hosting sessions at ICANN public meetings > > Arranging intersessional webinars and roundtable discussions > > Coordinating with other (ccNSO) working groups and committees to discuss > and present views on a central topic from different perspectives > > The New Action Plan also included an impact-effort analysis which > concluded the need to prioritize the following topics: > > 1. The Future of Internet Governance > 2. Resilience > 3. Artificial Intelligence > > The IGLC recognizes *Resilience* as a multifaceted topic involving > various ccNSO groups. To prevent overlap, it suggests coordinating with > other ccNSO working groups to present diverse perspectives, potentially > leading to a shared approach for similar topics. > > Regarding *Artificial Intelligence,* the IGLC will monitor key policy > trends and regulations, informing the ccTLD community via the ccNSO > Newsletter when relevant. > > The IGLC is planning for ICANN83 a session on the *Future of Internet > Governance.* > > > > *PGA WG > <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/ccnsowkspc/pages/10841522…> > – Policy Gap Analysis Working Group* > > The group ended its first part in January and created an overview document > with policies and guidance related to ccTLDs. > <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Jp2WLD6ZfF1nVY3p0xSNkCeo1E4fKIdL/edit> > > 2 recommendations came out after discussion in the working group. > > Recommendation is for two ccNSO Study Groups, to look in depth at: > > 1. IANA Public Records for ccTLDs - what is the purpose, data > accuracy and maintenance. > > 2. IANA role (if any) in disaster recovery for ccTLDs. > > The ccNSO Council will decide on the next steps in the next few months. > > Session during ICANN82: https://icann82.sched.com/event/1vpcS > > > > *DASC <https://ccnso.icann.org/en/workinggroups/dasc.htm> – DNS Abuse > Standing Committee* > > The session focused on the accuracy of domain name registration data and > its role in mitigating DNS abuse. The discussion covered proactive and > reactive monitoring strategies designed to improve data accuracy. Early > findings suggest a correlation between unverified registration details and > potentially harmful domain activity. > > It was also highlighted that registrant verification can support law > enforcement investigations and help ensure that domain owners retain > control over their domains. However, verification alone is not considered a > complete solution for preventing abuse. Measures implemented by a ccTLD > registry to enhance data accuracy were discussed, including incentives for > registrars that adopt electronic identification (eID) verification and the > launch of a new system in May 2025 to flag domains with inaccurate > registration details and set deadlines for correction. > > The session concluded with a vote to gather participants' perspectives on > the effectiveness of accurate registration data in combating online abuse. > > The group agreed to broaden its scope of discussion to encompass a wider > range of topics, including spam, phishing, malware, and other related > issues. Additionally, they considered renaming the group to avoid limiting > its focus solely to DNS abuse. > > Session during ICANN82 in Seattle: https://icann82.sched.com/event/1vpcW > > > > *TLD-OPS <https://ccnso.icann.org/en/workinggroups/tld-ops-standing.htm> > Standing Committee* > > The purpose of the Standing Committee is to govern the daily operation of > the TLD-OPS email list; and, when deemed necessary, to develop and > implement progress plans for future improvements and developments of the > TLD-OPS email list, including its ecosystem. > > A new workshop will be held during ICANN84 on concrete demonstration on > security software for registries. > <https://ccnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/field-attached/tld-monitoring-t…> > > > > *3.- SESSIONS DURING ICANN82 – SEATTLE* > > *ccTLDs NEWS SESSION* > > The ccTLD News Sessions have been an integral part of the ccNSO Members > Meetings for several years, serving as a global forum where both seasoned > professionals and newcomers can exchange insights and discuss key issues > related to country-code Top-Level Domains (ccTLDs). > > At ICANN82, the session covered several significant topics, including: > > - *Proactive Measures Against Domain Abuse in .us* – Crystal Peterson > (.us) introduced the Registry Threat Mitigation Service (RTMS), a > centralized platform aimed at enhancing domain security by facilitating the > detection, blocking, investigation, and reporting of domain abuse threats. > - *Research on Next-Generation DNS by APTLD* – Sameer Gahlot (.in) > presented findings from two case studies conducted by APTLD. The research > explored how registries can integrate emerging technologies to improve > security, privacy, and efficiency within the DNS ecosystem, highlighting > the necessity of adapting to global technological advancements. > - *Updates on the Ukrainian ccTLD* – Dmytro Kohmanyuk (.ua) provided > an overview of recent developments in Ukraine's ccTLD, addressing > challenges and progress in the context of the ongoing geopolitical > situation. > - *Lusophone Community Initiatives* – Marta Moreira Dias (.pt) shared > insights into projects and initiatives aimed at fostering collaboration and > development within the Lusophone ccTLD community. > > These discussions underscored the evolving landscape of ccTLD management > and the importance of collaborative efforts in addressing both technical > and strategic challenges. > > Session during ICANN82: https://icann82.sched.com/event/1vpcH > > > > *ccNSO with GAC SESSION* > > The session was divided into two parts. The first item focused on > identifying policy and procedural gaps in IANA's policies related to > country-code top-level domains (ccTLDs), conducted in a plenary format. The > second item was an interactive engagement session where participants were > split into breakout groups to discuss various ccTLD models. This networking > session offered an opportunity for meaningful dialogue and idea exchange. > The session was both interesting and productive, fostering deeper insights > into the challenges and opportunities facing ccTLDs. > > More information and presentations: > https://gac.icann.org/sessions/icann82-session-20-gac-meeting-with-the-ccnso > > > > *SIDS - Small Island Developing States within the ICANN Ecosystem* > > ICANN82 hosted the first official session on Small Island Developing > States (SIDS) following informal discussions at previous meetings. The open > mic session covered ICANN initiatives for SIDS, improvements in training > and engagement, and regional collaboration. Key highlights included ICANN’s > capacity-building efforts in Oceania and the LAC Regions. > > The importance of technical training, collaboration with the SIDS > technical community, and anycast deployment for reliable root service was > emphasized. Participants proposed enhancing regional cooperation, > conducting assessments for tailored training, and addressing financial > constraints. > > LACTLD presented two Caribbean ccTLD initiatives: the Unified Domain > Search Engine and LACTLD's Anycast Cloud, used by six regional ccTLDs. The > session concluded with a brainstorming, agreeing to revive a mailing list > for continued discussions. > > Session during ICANN82: https://icann82.sched.com/event/1vpeC > > > Please feel free to reach out if you have any questions or need some more > information on any of the topics, —I’ll be happy to answer. > > > > Thank you. > > > Best Regards, > > -- > *Laura Margolis* > ALAC Liaison to ccNSO > > margolisl(a)gmail.com > +59899690992 > skype: lauri.margolis > > ccNSO Liaison Workspace > <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/ALAC+Liaison+to+the+ccNSO+Repor…> > > > _______________________________________________ > 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. > > -- *Laura Margolis* ALAC Liaison to ccNSO margolisl(a)gmail.com +59899690992 skype: lauri.margolis ccNSO Liaison Workspace <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/ALAC+Liaison+to+the+ccNSO+Repor…>

2 1

Summary Report on ICANN82 ccNSO Council meeting, working groups and sessions
by Laura Margolis April 1, 2025

April 1, 2025

Dear All, I hope this message finds you well. Attached is my report on the ICANN82 Meeting in Seattle. To make it easier to follow, I have divided the report into three sections: 1. Highlights from Council Meeting #215 in Seattle. 2. Updates on Working Groups and Committees. 3. ICANN82 Sessions. *AGENDA <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/atlarge/pages/99711461/AL…> Council meeting #215 – March 13th., 2025 * *BACKGROUND AND DOCUMENTS <https://ccnso.icann.org/en/about/statements.htm>* Council workspace for this meeting: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/-4slBg ccNSO correspondence: statements and responses: https://ccnso.icann.org/en/about/statements.htm *1.- HIGHLIGHTS FROM COUNCIL MEETING #215 IN SEATTLE* *Some News in the Council about Councilors:* Alejandra Reynoso was reelected as a Chair, starting her term at the end of ICANN82 and until ICANN85. Biyi Oladipo (.ng) and Jordan Carter (.au) were re elected as Vice Chairs, starting at the end of ICANN82 and until ICANN85. Byron Holland (.ca) started his position #12 at the Board, replacing Katrina Sataki who resigned. Everton Rodrigues (.br) started as a new Councilor, elected for LAC Region. *Election Process for European Region Vacancy – Meeting Report Summary* The ccNSO Council approved an extraordinary election process to fill the European Region vacancy after Nicklas Pousette declined his term. The timeline includes nominations (26 March – 22 April 2025) and elections if needed (30 April – 21 May 2025), with results announced on 23 May 2025. Joke Braeken was appointed Election Process Manager, and the decision took effect upon publication. *Some Decisions made during the Council Meeting #215 in Seattle* *Council 360 Review* Suggestion: Extend deadline Background: The ccNSO Council 360 feedback process requires at least 10 CouncilLors to respond within a two-week period. In the first 2025 review (11 Feb – 3 Mar 2025), only 6 Councillors responded, failing to meet quorum. Decision: The ccNSO Council has extended the 360 review process until 21 March 2025. Results will be shared with individual Councillors starting 25 March 2025. *Blueprint Review Process – ccNSO Working Groups and Committees* Decision Summary: Following the successful review of the DNS Abuse Standing Committee (DASC) in January 2025, the ccNSO Council approved a standardized review method for other committees and working groups. The Council adopted the review blueprint and requested the ccNSO Chair and Secretariat to develop a review schedule in consultation with the committees, considering workload and necessity. The timeline is expected by Meeting 216 to ensure the launch of a review before ICANN83 in Prague. The resolution will take effect seven days after publication, and the Chair will inform the relevant working groups accordingly. *Update on Pilot Holistic Review (PHR) and ATRT4 Next Steps* An update was provided on the Board’s discussions regarding the Pilot Holistic Review (PHR) and its future direction. The Board has engaged with the PHR co-chairs, SO/AC chairs, and the broader community to determine whether the premises of the review are acceptable. The continuation of the PHR remains subject to both community and Board approval. Concerns were raised about the review process, questioning its necessity and suggesting a return to the drawing board. While there was some opposition, At-Large members largely supported continuing the work. It was suggested that the group should first communicate with the Board before making decisions. The importance of clarity on the Board’s intent regarding ATRT4 and other reviews was emphasized. A note to the Board will be drafted to inquire about their plans. There were discussions about systemic issues within ICANN’s review processes, with a proposal to pause all reviews, including PHR, and consider appointing a design team to improve the overall review system. A drafting team was formed to prepare a communication to the Board. Caution was advised against halting all bylaw reviews, emphasizing the need for a balanced approach. *2.- SOME UPDATES ON THE WORKING GROUPS AND COMMITTEES* *IGLC <https://ccnso.icann.org/en/workinggroups/iglc.htm> – Internet Governance Liaison Committee* The group adopted the New Action Plan <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DGqqze3TWT0oLZv--gkRMBIAPZtysZ7oaJ0pP3P…> during ICANN82 Meeting, which includes the update of the heatmap <https://drive.google.com/file/d/16p_pqHKkeFjWfXBAdOYDMW4i4-9kALso/view> (is a brainstorming of ideas on the hot Internet Governance topics in the different regions) and the napkin pitch exercise, which requests the views of the IGLC members on a topic identified on the heatmap. - The IGLC will monitor key policy trends and regulatory developments that relate to ccTLDs. - When needed the IGLC will inform and share information to the broader ccTLD community to assist community members to assess trends and developments by: Providing written reports for inclusion in the ccNSO newsletter Hosting sessions at ICANN public meetings Arranging intersessional webinars and roundtable discussions Coordinating with other (ccNSO) working groups and committees to discuss and present views on a central topic from different perspectives The New Action Plan also included an impact-effort analysis which concluded the need to prioritize the following topics: 1. The Future of Internet Governance 2. Resilience 3. Artificial Intelligence The IGLC recognizes *Resilience* as a multifaceted topic involving various ccNSO groups. To prevent overlap, it suggests coordinating with other ccNSO working groups to present diverse perspectives, potentially leading to a shared approach for similar topics. Regarding *Artificial Intelligence,* the IGLC will monitor key policy trends and regulations, informing the ccTLD community via the ccNSO Newsletter when relevant. The IGLC is planning for ICANN83 a session on the *Future of Internet Governance.* *PGA WG <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/ccnsowkspc/pages/10841522…> – Policy Gap Analysis Working Group* The group ended its first part in January and created an overview document with policies and guidance related to ccTLDs. <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Jp2WLD6ZfF1nVY3p0xSNkCeo1E4fKIdL/edit> 2 recommendations came out after discussion in the working group. Recommendation is for two ccNSO Study Groups, to look in depth at: 1. IANA Public Records for ccTLDs - what is the purpose, data accuracy and maintenance. 2. IANA role (if any) in disaster recovery for ccTLDs. The ccNSO Council will decide on the next steps in the next few months. Session during ICANN82: https://icann82.sched.com/event/1vpcS *DASC <https://ccnso.icann.org/en/workinggroups/dasc.htm> – DNS Abuse Standing Committee* The session focused on the accuracy of domain name registration data and its role in mitigating DNS abuse. The discussion covered proactive and reactive monitoring strategies designed to improve data accuracy. Early findings suggest a correlation between unverified registration details and potentially harmful domain activity. It was also highlighted that registrant verification can support law enforcement investigations and help ensure that domain owners retain control over their domains. However, verification alone is not considered a complete solution for preventing abuse. Measures implemented by a ccTLD registry to enhance data accuracy were discussed, including incentives for registrars that adopt electronic identification (eID) verification and the launch of a new system in May 2025 to flag domains with inaccurate registration details and set deadlines for correction. The session concluded with a vote to gather participants' perspectives on the effectiveness of accurate registration data in combating online abuse. The group agreed to broaden its scope of discussion to encompass a wider range of topics, including spam, phishing, malware, and other related issues. Additionally, they considered renaming the group to avoid limiting its focus solely to DNS abuse. Session during ICANN82 in Seattle: https://icann82.sched.com/event/1vpcW *TLD-OPS <https://ccnso.icann.org/en/workinggroups/tld-ops-standing.htm> Standing Committee* The purpose of the Standing Committee is to govern the daily operation of the TLD-OPS email list; and, when deemed necessary, to develop and implement progress plans for future improvements and developments of the TLD-OPS email list, including its ecosystem. A new workshop will be held during ICANN84 on concrete demonstration on security software for registries. <https://ccnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/field-attached/tld-monitoring-t…> *3.- SESSIONS DURING ICANN82 – SEATTLE* *ccTLDs NEWS SESSION* The ccTLD News Sessions have been an integral part of the ccNSO Members Meetings for several years, serving as a global forum where both seasoned professionals and newcomers can exchange insights and discuss key issues related to country-code Top-Level Domains (ccTLDs). At ICANN82, the session covered several significant topics, including: - *Proactive Measures Against Domain Abuse in .us* – Crystal Peterson (.us) introduced the Registry Threat Mitigation Service (RTMS), a centralized platform aimed at enhancing domain security by facilitating the detection, blocking, investigation, and reporting of domain abuse threats. - *Research on Next-Generation DNS by APTLD* – Sameer Gahlot (.in) presented findings from two case studies conducted by APTLD. The research explored how registries can integrate emerging technologies to improve security, privacy, and efficiency within the DNS ecosystem, highlighting the necessity of adapting to global technological advancements. - *Updates on the Ukrainian ccTLD* – Dmytro Kohmanyuk (.ua) provided an overview of recent developments in Ukraine's ccTLD, addressing challenges and progress in the context of the ongoing geopolitical situation. - *Lusophone Community Initiatives* – Marta Moreira Dias (.pt) shared insights into projects and initiatives aimed at fostering collaboration and development within the Lusophone ccTLD community. These discussions underscored the evolving landscape of ccTLD management and the importance of collaborative efforts in addressing both technical and strategic challenges. Session during ICANN82: https://icann82.sched.com/event/1vpcH *ccNSO with GAC SESSION* The session was divided into two parts. The first item focused on identifying policy and procedural gaps in IANA's policies related to country-code top-level domains (ccTLDs), conducted in a plenary format. The second item was an interactive engagement session where participants were split into breakout groups to discuss various ccTLD models. This networking session offered an opportunity for meaningful dialogue and idea exchange. The session was both interesting and productive, fostering deeper insights into the challenges and opportunities facing ccTLDs. More information and presentations: https://gac.icann.org/sessions/icann82-session-20-gac-meeting-with-the-ccnso *SIDS - Small Island Developing States within the ICANN Ecosystem* ICANN82 hosted the first official session on Small Island Developing States (SIDS) following informal discussions at previous meetings. The open mic session covered ICANN initiatives for SIDS, improvements in training and engagement, and regional collaboration. Key highlights included ICANN’s capacity-building efforts in Oceania and the LAC Regions. The importance of technical training, collaboration with the SIDS technical community, and anycast deployment for reliable root service was emphasized. Participants proposed enhancing regional cooperation, conducting assessments for tailored training, and addressing financial constraints. LACTLD presented two Caribbean ccTLD initiatives: the Unified Domain Search Engine and LACTLD's Anycast Cloud, used by six regional ccTLDs. The session concluded with a brainstorming, agreeing to revive a mailing list for continued discussions. Session during ICANN82: https://icann82.sched.com/event/1vpeC Please feel free to reach out if you have any questions or need some more information on any of the topics, —I’ll be happy to answer. Thank you. Best Regards, -- *Laura Margolis* ALAC Liaison to ccNSO margolisl(a)gmail.com +59899690992 skype: lauri.margolis ccNSO Liaison Workspace <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/ALAC+Liaison+to+the+ccNSO+Repor…>

2 2