- ALAC - lists.icann.org

Input Requested - Draft Public Comment Statement - String Similarity Review Guidelines
by ICANN At-Large Staff March 13, 2024

March 13, 2024

Dear ALAC Members, In preparation for the Public Comment<https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/string-similarity-review…> Statement submission for the String Similarity Review Guidelines, please see linked below the Draft Public Comment Statement for the String Similarity Review Guidelines Public Comment Proceeding. This may be discussed further during subsequent CPWG meetings. If possible, please review and provide your input for finalization by 20 March 2024. The ALAC may vote to endorse this statement between 22 and 26 March 2024. Draft Public Comment Statement: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FEUBq0x4KfVZ92FooNZD9Xo4zgsYxMDnoqI27-s…

1 0

ccNSO Council Meeting Agenda 203 - March 7th. 2024
by Laura Margolis March 6, 2024

March 6, 2024

Dear All, I would like to share with you the Draft Agenda of the meeting #203, that will take place on Thursday 7th., at 15:00 (local time). If anyone wants to join me, you will be more than welcome to attend. As the ALAC Wrap up is at the same day and time, I will be sending a written report post meeting as soon as possible. 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…>

1 0

RrSG Informational Documents
by Justine Chew Feb. 28, 2024

Feb. 28, 2024

Sharing Registrar Stakeholder Group-produced informational documents for registrars, in case you're interested to know about the same. Kind regards, Justine --------- ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: aheineman Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2024, 07:10 Subject: [ICANN Community Leaders] RrSG Informational Documents To: so-ac-sg-cleaders(a)icann.org Cc: Sarah Wyld <swyld(a)tucows.com> Dear SO/AC/SG leaders, Please find below links to recent Registrar Stakeholder Group (RrSG) informational documents that we have produced for registrars and interested community members. Please feel free to share these with your members and elsewhere. 1. Registrar Approaches to Registration Data Accuracy - https://rrsg.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/RrSG-Approach-to-Registration-D… 2. RAA DNS Abuse Amendments and Next Seps - https://rrsg.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/RAA-DNS-Abuse-Amendments-next-s… Happy to answer any questions, but otherwise look forward to seeing you all in San Juan at ICANN 79! Regards, Ashley Heineman Chair, RrSG _______________________________________________ SO-AC-SG-CLeaders mailing list SO-AC-SG-CLeaders(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/so-ac-sg-cleaders _______________________________________________ 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

ccNSO Prep Meeting and ICANN79 schedule
by Laura Margolis Feb. 26, 2024

Feb. 26, 2024

Dear All, In preparation for ICANN79, a Council meeting was held today. The topics discussed were specifically about the preparation of the ICANN79 meeting, so I don't have anything specific to highlight. In the ALAC Liaison to ccNSO wiki space <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/ALAC+Liaison+to+the+ccNSO+Repor…> you will find the links to both agenda and notes. Please, take a look to the ccNSO sessions scheduled for ICANN79 *ICANN79 ccNSO Schedule* ccNSO Schedule https://community.icann.org/x/MIEJEQ ccNSO Session Highlights *https://community.icann.org/x/jIEvEQ <https://community.icann.org/x/jIEvEQ>* Tech Day *https://community.icann.org/x/T4EJEQ <https://community.icann.org/x/T4EJEQ> * I would like to specially recommend you some sessions to attend that can be of your interest: *ccNSO: Internet Fragmentation* Tuesday 5th., 10.30 – 12.00 Room: 209ABC *The ccNSO Internet Governance Liaison Committee (IGLC) organizes a session to inform and share views on Internet fragmentation to ccTLDs present and explore why it matters to ccTLDs and may affect them.* *ccPDP4 Community Update* Tuesday 5th., 16.30 – 17.30 Room 209ABC *The ccPDP4 IDN WG will present its final recommendations with respect to the (de-)selection of IDNccTLDs and related areas, including the proposed members vote timeline* *ccTLD News* Wednesday 6th., 10.30 – 12.00 Room: 209ABC *In the ccTLD News Sessions, which have been part of the ccNSO Members Meetings for over 20 years, ccTLD mnagers provide updates, share information, and discuss ccTLD related operational and policy matters with their peers.* You are invited to join me in any of the sessions. If there is any specific topic you would like me to deep dive, just let me know. 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…>

5 4

Final Report ccNSO PDP4
by Laura Margolis Feb. 25, 2024

Feb. 25, 2024

Dear All: After 67 meetings, last February 20th., the ccPDP on the (de-)selection of IDN ccTLD Working Group issued its Final Report, as required under Annex B section 9.c of the ICANN Bylaws. The Final Report as included will also be posted on the ccPDP4 Webpage and announced to the community. The Council will be asked to: 1. Vote on the recommendation in Part A of the Report 2. Adopt the advises to the ccTLD Managers in part B of the Report All issues identified in the Report have been addressed, as well as the request by the Board to coordinate the development efforts with the GNSO EPDP WG and the Council’s request includes recommendations with respect to the relevancy of the ccTLD review mechanism and the exclusion of claims etc. relating to the selection of IDN ccTLDs strings from ICANN’s IRP and Reconsideration processes. Report is attached. 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…>

1 0

ccNSO meeting 202 - February 15th., 2024
by Laura Margolis Feb. 21, 2024

Feb. 21, 2024

Dear All: ccNSO Council meeting #202 was held on February 15th. Here is the full agenda <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/ALAC+Liaison+to+the+ccNSO+Repor…> and notes <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/ALAC+Liaison+to+the+ccNSO+Repor…> . I would like to highlight some important updates regarding ccPDP4: *Updates on ccPDP4 <https://ccnso.icann.org/en/workinggroups/idn-cctld-strings.htm>* *a.* *Progress and expected timeline ccNSO Decision making* The ccPDP4 WG expects to complete its work by 20 February 2024, and the Issue manager will submit the report prior to ICANN79 for consideration and decision making by the Council. *The Final report does include both policy recommendations* *and advice to ccTLDs*. The advice is on topics that were considered out of scope of the PDP by the WG, and the decision-making process is not defined through Annex B of the Bylaws, but through the Internal rules of the ccNSO. *Two different tracks*: 1) *Set of policy recommendations*. That was the task of the WG, to develop this policy and propose it. 2) *Advice to ccTLD managers*. Submitting IDN tables for second level domains. Secondly, about *registering IDN domain names and variants to the same entity*. It will have 2 sides: one is for *policy making*. As per the ccPDP process. First council will be asked to support the recommendations, and then the membership, before being sent to board. The advice is governed by the internal rules of the ccNSO. That will be a council decision, with the option to have a veto by the members. There is also a proposed timeline for the member's vote. After the June’s meeting, the recommendations can be submitted to the board. *Note: * 2 types of decisions · One within the context of the PDP itself · Second one out of scope of the PDP, and will be a regular resolution. *b.* *Discussion and views Draft Recommendation 14 on participation of ccNSO in developing IDN Guidelines.* The *IDNccPDP4 WG* was requested to provide feedback on a draft recommendation by the Phase 2 GNSO IDN EPDP WG on proposal to create a formal process for convening a group that would *propose amendments to IDN Guidelines*. These Guidelines may affect (IDN & ASCII)) ccTLDs, with IDN second level domains under management and were developed by a group of experts, including members of the ccTLD community. According to the proposal, the ccNSO and GNSO Councils will have a role in developing the charter for the community group that will develop future versions of the IDN Implementation Guidelines. *EPDP GNSO* *has a phase 2,* currently in drafting mode. One of the recommendations (draft rec. 14 in the report) is about *suggesting a more predictable process on changing the IDN* *implementation guidelines*. Board development guideline on the format how to submit tables to IANA. Board initiated process. CcNSO appointed some members. Suggestion is to make the process more rigorous. Reason for raising it now: they foresee a role for ccNSO council *Firstly, to approve the process to be designed*, every time the board is initiating the process *Secondly, to appoint members to this WG and monitor the outcome for the community* This is relevant for ccTLDS, *IDN tables need to have a format*. Determined by the implementation guideline. Therefore ccNSO will be involved in the evolution of the IDN implementation guideline. Also, please take a look at the February newsletter <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/ALAC+Liaison+to+the+ccNSO+Repor…> . Thank you and have a nice week! *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…>

5 6

ICANN79 Prep Week Session: Name Collision Analysis Project Study 2 Update
by Matthias M. Hudobnik Feb. 20, 2024

Feb. 20, 2024

Hi all, today was the ICANN79 Prep Week Session: Name Collision Analysis Project Study 2 Update. The slides and recording can now be found here: https://icann79.sched.com/event/1ZUzp/name-collision-analysis-project-study…. Below you can find some background, the findings and recommendations in a nutshell: Why NCAP? 2017: ICANN Board tasked SSAC to conduct studies to present data, analysis and points of view, and provide advice to the Board on name collisions -Specific advice regarding .home/.corp/.mail -General advice regarding name collisions going forward SSACs analysis and recommendations 1. Provide means to preserve security & stability of the internet namespace 2. Analyze real-life impact of name collisions and rationale to take this seriously 3. Directly impact next TLD round FINDINGS Finding 4.1 - The definition of what is a name collision has evolved over time Finding 4.2 - Name Collision Identification and Quantification 4.2.1 - Name collisions continue to persist within the DNS 4.2.2 - There are limitations with using currently available data sources for understanding root cause and risk, or designing mitigation and remediation plans 4.2.3 - .CORP and .HOME demonstrated that high volume is an insufficient measure for analyzing the potential of high-risk impact 4.2.4 - It is possible that future name collisions may occur on the scale of .CORP, .HOME, and .MAIL 4.2.5 - It is impractical to create a do-not-apply list of strings in advance of new requests for delegation Finding 4.3 - Data Manipulation Risks 4.3.1 - There is a risk for CDM (Critical Diagnostic Measurements) data manipulation 4.3.2 - Data manipulation has ramifications beyond the technical aspects of name collision that are influenced by when analysis occurs Finding 4.4 - Quantitative and Qualitative Measurement Considerations 4.4.1 - Critical Diagnostic Measurements are structurally quantitative and benefit from supplemental qualitative information 4.4.2 - The quantitative data in CDMs can be improved Finding 4.5 - Notification to users of name collisions is a critical function and separate from assessment or remediation 4.5.1 - Controlled Interruption as a notification method is effective in some but not all instances 4.5.2 - Other methods for notification may be used but remain untested. 4.5.2 - The criteria for the use of ICANN’s name collision reporting form negatively impacted its use Finding 4.6 - Predicting the rate and scale of change in the root zone is not possible in advance of a new round of gTLDs Finding 4.7 - There is no process for emergency changes to the root zone when considering the temporary delegation of strings Finding 4.8 - The adoption of IPv6 has grown significantly since 2012 Finding 4.9 - Reserved private-use strings may mitigate the risk of name collisions over the long term but not the short term. RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendation 1 - ICANN should treat name collisions as a risk management problem. Recommendation 2 - ICANN should adopt a consistent definition for name collision Recommendation 3 - ICANN should continue its education and outreach efforts to the community on the name-collision topic Recommendation 4 - ICANN should consider the need for mitigation and remediation efforts for high-risk strings 4.1 - ICANN should submit .CORP, .HOME, and .MAIL through the Name Collision Risk Assessment Process Recommendation 5 - ICANN must support the delegation of strings in order to improve the ability to conduct a name collision risk assessment Recommendation 6 - ICANN should establish and maintain a longitudinal DNS name collision repository in order to facilitate risk assessments and help identify potential data manipulation Recommendation 7 - ICANN should establish a dedicated Technical Review Team function Recommendation 8 - ICANN should replace the existing Name Collision Management Framework with the recommended Name Collision Risk Assessment Framework 8.1 - ICANN should not reject a TLD solely based on the volume of name collisions 8.2 - ICANN should request special attention to strings with high-impact risks during the name collision assessment process 8.3 - ICANN should update its public-facing name collision reporting process Recommendation 9 - ICANN should create a Collision String List 9.1 - ICANN should support a mechanism that allows applicants to request a string be removed from the Collision String List Recommendation 10 - ICANN must develop and document a process for the emergency change related to a temporarily delegated string from the root zone due to collision risk or harms Recommendation 11 - ICANN should not move ahead with NCAP Study 3 Have a nice evening! 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

DNS Women Invite
by Vanda Scartezini Feb. 18, 2024

Feb. 18, 2024

Dear friends Once more, here is the invitation to our DNS Women session followed by a Cocktail we hope you can make room to join us !! Thank you for all your support! Kisses Vanda Scartezini DNS WOMEN Sao Paulo, Brazil + 55 11 98181-1464<tel:+5511981811464> Vanda(a)Scartezini.org<mailto:Vanda@Scartezini.org> www.dnswomen.org<http://www.dnswomen.org>

1 0

GNSO Council 15 Feb 2024 meeting agenda is out
by Justine Chew Feb. 17, 2024

Feb. 17, 2024

Dear all, Just a note to inform you that the agenda for the GNSO Council meeting of 15 Feb 2024 is out. For a curated version of the highlighted agenda item, please visit this link <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/GNSO+Liaison+Report%2C+post-Oct…> . *GNSO Council Meeting #2 of 2024 held on 15 Feb 2024 * *Full Agenda <https://community.icann.org/x/6oAvEQ> | Documents <https://community.icann.org/x/8IAvEQ> | Motions <https://community.icann.org/x/9oAvEQ>* - *Item 1: Administrative Matters* - Item 2: Opening Remarks / 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* - Confirm Leadership of Standing Selection Committee (“SSC”) - Confirm GNSO-Nominated ICANN Fellowship Program Mentor - *Item 4: COUNCIL VOTE - Registration Data Accuracy* - *Item 5: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Update on SubPro Small Team Progress* - *Item 6: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Next Steps for Consideration of Expired Domain Deletion Policy (“EDDP”) and Expired Registration Recovery Policy (“ERRP”) * - *Item 7: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - ICANN79 Preparation* - Item 8: COUNCIL UPDATE: Draft NCAP Study 2 Report - *Item 9: ANY OTHER BUSINESS * - 9.1 - ccNSO & GAC Liaison updates (every three months) - 9.2 - Board letter on Closed Generics - *9.3 - Standing Predictability Implementation Review Team (“SPIRT”) Charter Drafting Team Update* - 9.4 - Status Update on Council Requests - 9.5 - Update from Contracted Party House Abuse Subgroup’s Meeting with the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group - 9.6 - GNSO Council Committee for Overseeing and Implementing Continuous Improvement (CCOICI) survey As usual, Council meetings are open to observers in listen-only mode. If you would like to observe the meeting, please check this link <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/GNSO+Liaison+Report%2C+post-Oct…> for details. Thanks for reading / considering. Justine Chew ALAC Liaison to the GNSO GNSO Liaison Report Workspace <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/GNSO+Liaison+Report%2C+post-Oct…> ------

2 2

ccNSO report posted by Laura with comments
by Vanda Scartezini Feb. 15, 2024

Feb. 15, 2024

Tthank you LAura and Glenn for the feedback. Vanda Scartezini DNS WOMEN vanda(a)scartezini.org

1 0