- ALAC - lists.icann.org

We need to say something about this. I think.
by carlos dionisio aguirre Nov. 8, 2025

Nov. 8, 2025

15 18

APRALO Bytes - Latin Script Diacritics, 6 Nov 2025
by Justine Chew Nov. 7, 2025

Nov. 7, 2025

Dear all, Here is the next *APRALO Byte*, which is on the topic of *Latin Script Diacritics*, published at https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/APRALO/pages/412844037/AP… (click on 'Read more'). Kind regards, APRALO Leadership Team ---------------------- *APRALO Bytes* (see: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/BYCbG) is aimed at *keeping the community apprised *of issues or topics of importance to the At-Large and/or APRALO community in a manner that is *issue/topic-focused, informative yet lightweight, while encouraging community interest and discours*e in such issues/topics. Feedback and contributions are welcomed; please reach out if you wish to contribute a Byte.

1 0

Latin Diacritics: Where we are, how we got here and what's next
by Jonathan Zuck Nov. 4, 2025

Nov. 4, 2025

Dear ALAC colleagues, You will no doubt be aware of the disaffection expressed during ICANN84 regarding the lack of treatment for Latin script diacritics in the 2026 Applicant Guidebook (“the Issue”). Here are some background facts on the Issue and next steps proposed to be taken to address the Issue. Background Facts The GNSO EPDP on IDNs (Phase 1, which started in May 2023) was tasked with developing policy on the treatment of gTLD variants at the top level; where variants is simply defined as two or more labels being considered by script panels as the same (word) - the best example of this is the traditional version and simplified version of the same Chinese word. In the case of the Latin Script, the Latin Script Label Generation Panel (managed by ICANN org) determined that a Latin ASCII label (i.e. without diacritics, eg. Quebec) and a Diacritic version of that label (i.e. Québec) were NOT to be considered as variants of each other, based on an ‘analysis’ of the standard method of writing the languages of Western and Central Europe, most of sub-Saharan Africa, the Americas, and Oceania, as well as many languages in other parts of the world. This meant that the matter of a Latin ASCII label and a Diacritic version of that label being considered as the same word was out of scope for the EPDP on IDNs (which only dealt with policy for variants). Knowing that this was the case, as ALAC Chair, I had, as far back as June 2023, written<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2023/correspondence/zuck-…> to the then GNSO Chair, Sebastien Ducos, drawing attention to the issue and requesting for action to resolve the issue. This was on the counsel of Justine Chew, who was then the Vice-Chair of the GNSO EPDP on IDNs, and ALAC Liaison to the GNSO. The GNSO Council subsequently set a path - albeit a long one and with the understanding that the outcome not be a prerequisite for the Next Round - for the Latin Diacritics PDP to be initiated to develop an exception by considering a single issue: In circumstances where a base ASCII gTLD and the Latin script diacritic version of the gTLD are NOT variants of each other, what mechanism is needed in order to allow a single registry operator to simultaneously operate both gTLDs? The GNSO adopts a detailed process for PDP<https://gnso.icann.org/en/basics/consensus-policy/pdp>s which is consistently adhered to for completeness, but at times, the GNSO Council may agree to drop steps which it deems unnecessary (normally only limited to a call for an Issue Report). Where the GNSO is developing policy for an issue, the ICANN Board will only act when the GNSO Council-approved PDP Final Report is submitted for the Board’s consideration. Adoption by the ICANN Board of GNSO policy recommendations is required for ICANN org to implement the same. As it currently stands, the revised timeline for the public comment on the PDP’s initial recommendations is December 2025 - January 2026, with submission of its Final Report to the GNSO Council targeted for August 2026 (as opposed to the original estimate of Nov 2026). [image.png] ALAC Leadership also raised this Issue with the GAC during the ICANN84 ALAC-GAC Bilateral and understood that the GAC will include a response in its ICANN84 GAC Communique. Alan Barrett, ICANN Board member and Board liaison to the Latin Diacritics PDP has, in response to Sergio Salinas Porto and Bill Jouris’ comments during ICANN84 public sessions, lamented the omission of Latin diacritics treatment in the 2026 Applicant Guidebook, but is hopeful that something could be done to rectify this omission. “Unfortunately, with the timing of this work I think it is probably too late for it to be included but ICANN Org staff will try to see if something is possible. We can't commit to anything, but we can try.” “I very much agree that it is important but on the other hand we do have to follow our process. We have not received policy or guidance from the GNSO Council on what to do and maybe the GNSO Council would like to make a request to the Board to put in some kind of placeholder. Personally, I would very much welcome that, but it has not happened and for now I think our hands are tied.” This hope was confirmed during Justine’s and my very brief conversation with Leon Sanchez and Alan Barrett right before the ICANN Board meeting on 30 October 2025. Accordingly, on 30 October 2025, the ICANN Board adopted the draft 2026 Applicant Guidebook for the Next Round, without any reference to Latin script diacritics. I am informed that immediately after that ICANN Board meeting and based on Alan Barrett’s remarks, Justine had brief words with Sebastien Ducos (currently the GNSO Liaison to the GAC) on a possible GNSO Council request to the ICANN Board for a solution to this issue, even if a temporary one to tie us over until such time that the ICANN Board adopts the Latin Diacritics Final Report well after August 2026. She also alerted incoming GNSO Chair, Susan Payne, to expect a GAC intervention on the same issue. (see: https://gac.icann.org/contentMigrated/icann84-dublin-communique, item IV.1(c) on page 6) Proposed Next Steps That a letter from the ALAC Chair to the GNSO Chair be prepared and sent to inquire after and to support such a GNSO Council request, which could include “some kind of placeholder” in the 2026 Applicant Guidebook, for the ICANN Board’s consideration and adoption. Then follow up on further action, as needed. Ultimately, the quicker the Final Report of Latin Diacritics PDP reaches the ICANN Board for consideration and adoption, the better it is for all concerned. Jonathan Zuck ALAC Chair Jonathan Zuck Director, Future of Work Project Innovators Network Foundation www.InnovatorsNetwork.org<http://www.InnovatorsNetwork.org>

1 0

Summary Report GNSO Council 29 October 2025 meeting @ ICANN84
by Justine Chew Nov. 4, 2025

Nov. 4, 2025

Dear all, Please find following my Summary Report on Matters of Interest. You can also find all the information at this link <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/atlarge/pages/265846872/G…> under the relevant tabs. Happy to answer any questions received to this email. *Summary Report to the ALAC on GNSO Council Meeting #10 held on 29 October 2025* For brevity, I will just highlight outcomes on key issues here. For some of the issues, you can get more information under the Agenda, Matters of Interest and/or Meeting Records tabs. *1. Protection for IGO/INGO Identifiers* - I had previously reported on and discussed this issue extensively during the CPWG call of 24 Sep 2025 <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AQBFHQ>. During Council’s Extraordinary Meeting held on 9 Oct 2025, I spoke in support of the IGO/INGO Group’s position <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/download/attachments/514097153/G…> and submitted a letter <https://atlarge.icann.org/en/advice_statements/14043> to Council expressing support for the ICANN Board, ICANN org IRT implementation staff and the minority of SubPro IRT members' preference for the inclusion of protected IGO/INGO Identifiers in String Similarity Review for the Next Round as the correct and logical interpretation of relevant adopted policy recommendations. - However, a majority of Councilors (with RrSG abstaining, one BC councilor and the NCPH councilor disagreeing) favored the stricter interpretation of the relevant adopted policy recommendations text which was silent as to the treatment protected IGO/INGO Identifiers in String Similarity Review. They see extending protections for IGO and INGO names from exact match to string similarity as constituting new policy, and not mere implementation. This effectively means, a third party applicant could potentially apply for and secure a string which is confusingly similar to a protected IGO/INGO Identifier (i.e. a full name of an IGO/INGO from a specified list) and if the designated IGO/INGO did not also apply for its protected identifier string or objected to an application for a string which deemed confusingly similar to the protected IGO/INGO Identifier, then IGO/INGO would be from obtaining its protected identifier string due to the overarching policy for not allowing confusingly similar strings to be delegated into the root. - Noting this undesirable consequence, Councilors rallied to propose an amended motion Option 4 <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/VKifBg> to effectively allow ICANN org to notify a designated IGO/INGO in the event a string which deemed confusingly similar to its protected IGO/INGO Identifier is applied for (as was suggested <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/sinha-to-samme-nlar-am…> by the Board). This is to provide notice to the designated IGO/INGO to take action as it deems appropriate. - Council went to defer the vote of the amended motion Option 4 <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/VKifBg> as the RySG expressed concern on Resolved Clause 3(f) and requested time to propose further amendment. The vote will now be taken at Council’s November 2025 meeting. *2. Prioritization of GNSO Upcoming Work* - Council discussed, yet again, the list of potential upcoming work, with *some* councilors citing reservations over staff and volunteer resources concerns, and others dissenting. Specifically, Council discussed: (i) a newly-started PDP: Latin Diacritics; (ii) a previously committed to PDP: Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in gTLDs, Phase 2, and (iii) identified topics for potential future work: - DNS Abuse - RDDS (Accuracy, RDRS, PPSAI) - New gTLDs (from rounds to open process) - Expiration Policies - Transfers (dispute mechanism for registrants) - Council will explore this matter in more detail at its Strategic Planning Session in January 2026. *3. DNS Abuse* - While Council did not have this topic on its Council meeting agenda, GNSO did conduct a DNS Abuse Work Session on 26 October 2025 <https://icann84.sched.com/event/29QJN> to begin preparations for the anticipated Policy Development Process (PDP) by discussing the three pre-identified priority topics and for each, to gain an initial understanding of the various goals and interests across the community and ideally, a sense of what a good outcome looks like. - This Work Session was attended by Steinar Grøtterød and I (representing the ALAC), and a report is available at the Session Report wiki: At-Large Session Reports from ICANN84 <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/MIAEF> *4. Privacy Proxy Services Accreditation Issues (PPSAI)* - Council has yet to determine next steps after its PPSAI Small Team delivered its proposed responses <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/polic…> to Council on 29 September 2025, and presented <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2025/presentation/ppsai-s…> the same for discussion at this October meeting. - Council agreed on the proposed responses with an amendment by RrSG to Model 4 of four Models of Accreditation are expected to be sent to ICANN org and the PPSAI IRT to progress their work on implementation. - The amendment being that Model 4 should refer to a model of accreditation by association, which recognizes that a lot of what is called for in the policy is already being implemented in registrar contracts and the fact remains that all accredited registrars are responsible for the actions of their affiliated privacy/proxy service providers. *5. Latin Script Diacritics* - Council was informed that the Latin Diacritics PDP working group is making great progress, with its Initial Report due out for public comment in December 2025 - January 2026; and the Final Report due for Council consideration ahead of schedule in August 2026. [image: image.png] - Council liaison to the PDP, Prudence Malinki, flagged that due to timing, the outcomes of the group will not necessarily be included in the Next Round Applicant Guidebook (which was something envisioned in the PDP’s Charter) but that there may be efforts outside of the PDP to try and have outcomes included. - GNSO Liaison to the GAC, Sebastien Ducos, informed Council that GAC intends to approach Council with a request for a solution to address applications that fit the criteria targeted by this PDP in the interim. Thanks for reading / considering *Justine Chew* ALAC Liaison to the GNSO GNSO Liaison Workspace <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/fG7xBQ?atlOrigin=eyJpIjoiNDI1Y…> ------ On Sat, 18 Oct 2025 at 18:26, Justine Chew <justine.chew.icann(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear all, > > Please be informed that the agenda for the GNSO Council Meeting taking > place during ICANN84, is as follows: > > *GNSO Council Meeting held on 29 October 2025 > <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/atlarge/pages/265846872/G…> > * > > *Full Agenda (Part 1)* > <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/QKafBg>* | **Agenda (Part > 2* <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/T4AuGQ>*) | **Documents* > <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/LJqfBg>* | **Motions* > <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/VKifBg> > > - > > *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: COUNCIL VOTE: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP - > Interpretation of Intent for Select IGO/INGO PDP Recommendations* > - > > *Item 4: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Celebrating GNSO Accomplishments between > ICANN Meetings* > - > > *Item 5: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Council PPSAI Small Team Responses to > Threshold Questions* > - > > *Item 6: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Prioritization of Upcoming Work* > - > > *Item 7: Open Mic* > - > > *Item 8: Any Other Business* > - > > *8.1 - Update to Council on Latin Diacritics PDP Timeline * > - > > *8.2 - Proposed Updates to ICANN Bylaws and Customer Standing > Committee (CSC) Charter* > - > > 8.3 - Farewell to Outgoing Councilors > > > For more details on the marked agenda items (except for AOB items), please > visit *this link > <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/atlarge/pages/265846872/G…>* and > click on 'Matters of Interest' > > This Council meeting will take place on *29 October 2025 at 13:15 UTC for > 2 hours* and, except for item 7 Open Mic, is open to observers both > in-person and remotely in observation / listen-only mode. > > Please check the ICANN84 Schedule <https://icann84.sched.com/event/29QND> > for venue details and Zoom link (only published 24 hours prior to the > meeting) > > Thanks for reading / considering. > > > *Justine Chew* > ALAC Liaison to the GNSO > GNSO Liaison Workspace > <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/fG7xBQ?atlOrigin=eyJpIjoiNDI1Y…> > ------ >

1 0

About Llatin Diacritics
by Sergio Salinas Porto Oct. 28, 2025

Oct. 28, 2025

Dear all, I wish to express my concern about the absence of a placeholder in the current draft of the ICANN Applicant Guidebook for the outcome of the Latin Script Diacritics Policy Development Process. This PDP addresses the ability for end-users to see their languages correctly represented in the Domain Name System (DNS), including the use of diacritics in Latin labels. This is not a theoretical issue: it affects how entire language communities write their names and identify themselves online. We are not requesting any extensions for the next round of applications or changes to the published timeline. This request is specific and procedural: that the Applicant Guidebook include a clear clause stating that if the Latin Script Diacritics PDP submits its recommendations within the expected timeframe, they will be incorporated into this round. We view this as a reasonable accommodation of ongoing community work that has a direct impact on linguistic and cultural accuracy for users. My two cents regards *Sergio Salinas Porto**Presidente Internauta Argentina - LACRALO/ICANN <https://atlarge.icann.org/ralos/lacralo>**Asociación Argentina de Usuarios de Internet <http://www.internauta.org.ar/>/FeTIA <http://www.fetia.org.ar/>**FUILAC- Federación de Usuarios de Internet de LAC <https://fuilac.org>**facebook: salinasporto <http://www.facebook.com/salinasporto> **twitter: sergiosalinas <http://twitter.com/sergiosalinas>**Mobi:+54 9 223 5 215819**"Ojalá podamos ser desobedientes, cada vez que recibimos órdenes que humillan nuestra * * conciencia o violan nuestro sentido común" Eduardo Galeano*

5 7

Re: [ALAC-Announce] Renewal of Liaisons
by Abdulkarim Oloyede Oct. 26, 2025

Oct. 26, 2025

*Hi,* 2021 to 2026 — that’s 5 years!!! That is a long time in a community like ICANN. I think we need to give opportunities to others. I think it’s okay to renew those appointed in 2023 but not those appointed in 2021. It’s totally unfair, and At-Large seems like a circle... Anyway, it is a reflection of most of the RALOs. By the way. Since I know ALAC, it has always been a rubber stamp to WHATEVER the chair does. So I'm not surprised. The circle favours some people, and they always manage to use them to have their way, using various 'nice' tactics. I recall trying to change this narrative when I was on ALAC, with the support of a few other ALAC members; we almost achieved it once or twice, but never secured the majority. Why do I care? I have refrained from commenting on the mailing list, but this is too much for me to ignore. AK *Prof. Abdulkarim Ayopo Oloyede*. *Full Professor of Wireless Telecommunications* *Department of Telecommunications Science, University of Ilorin, Nigeria* *Director, Centre for Research Development and In-House Training (CREDIT) University of Ilorin * On Sat, Oct 25, 2025 at 8:52 AM Jonathan Zuck via ALAC-Announce < alac-announce(a)icann.org> wrote: > Dear All, > > > > On 14 October, I sent a note to the ALAC recommending that the ALAC > re-appoint current ALAC Liaisons to the ccNSO, GAC, GNSO, and SSAC for > another year. > > > > This recommendation was made using Article 18.2 of the *ALAC Rules of > Procedure [icann-community.atlassian.net] > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/downl…>* (ROP) > allows the ALAC to reappoint ALAC Liaisons without a new call for > volunteers if we believe that the incumbent is doing a good job and that > the ALAC is well served by their continuing in that role. Experience has > shown that it is extremely important that the Liaison develop/maintain a > good working relationship with the target Supporting > Organization/Advisory Committee. > > > > The ALAC Liaisons are noted below along with their first appointment > dates: > > > > - GAC: *Joanna Kulesza* (October 2021) > > > *Joanna,* as the ALAC Liaison to the GAC brings with her significant > familiarity with the protocols of the GAC. She has developed excellent > working relations with the GAC Chair and the GAC Liaison to the ALAC and > continues to actively facilitate intersessional cooperation between the > ALAC and the GAC. She will continue to serve the ALAC well in her role as > the ALAC Liaison to the GAC. > > > > - GNSO: *Justine Chew* (October 2021) > > *Justine*, in her role as the ALAC Liaison to the GNSO, has been > extremely productive in ensuring that the interests of the of ALAC are > understood in the GNSO. Justine has gained and shared her significant > expertise in the GNSO policies and processes by explaining issues and > discussing them with the members of the CPWG and ALAC. She will continue to > serve the ALAC well in her role as the ALAC Liaison to the GNSO. > > > - ccNSO: *Laura Margolis *(October 2023) > > *Laura, *in her role as the ALAC Liaison to the ccNSO, utilizes her > experience as a ccNSO Council Member in her work as the ALAC Liaison. She > has explained and reported on ccNSO policy activities in a clear and > comprehensive manner since being appointed in 2023,identifying areas that > might benefit from an end-user perspective to the ALAC. Laura will continue > to serve the ALAC well in her role as ALAC Liaison to the ccNSO. > > > > - SSAC: *Matthias Hudobnik * (October 2023) > > *Matthias, *in his role as ALAC Liaison to the SSAC, has grown into his > role very successfully through his work with the SSAC. He has taken to > distilling new SSAC publications for easier comprehension by non-technical > readers and providing regular updates, even explanations,on SSAC > activities. Matthias will continue to serve the ALAC well in his role as > ALAC Liaison to the SSAC. > > > All the liaisons have agreed to continue for one more year. > > > > I received support from the ALAC for my recommended re-appointments. > > > > Accordingly, the current ALAC Liaisons to the GAC, GNSO, ccNSO, and SSAC > have been re-appointed for the period of one year starting at the close of > ICANN84 on 30 October 2025 and ending at the close of ICANN87 on 22 October > 2026. > > > > Please note that until such time as an ALAC Appointee Metrics framework is > adopted by the ALAC, the ALAC Appointed-Liaisons will be requested by the > ALAC Leadership to participate in selected ALAC/At-Large activities. He/She > may also be requested to provide periodic reports on his/her liaison work. > Such reports may be verbal or in written form, and notice will be given to > the ALAC Appointee on the timing of such reports. > > > > Thank you! > > > > Jonathan > > ALAC Chair > > > > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC-Announce mailing list -- alac-announce(a)icann.org > To unsubscribe send an email to alac-announce-leave(a)icann.org > > At-Large Official Site: http://www.atlarge.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. -- Website <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng>, Weekly Bulletin <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/bulletin> UGPortal <http://uilugportal.unilorin.edu.ng/> PGPortal <https://uilpgportal.unilorin.edu.ng/> HelpDesk <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/more-resources/e-notices/6845-how-to-r…>

7 9

[ALAC-Announce] Renewal of Liaisons
by Maureen Hilyard Oct. 25, 2025

Oct. 25, 2025

Hi Jonathan I totally support the current Liaison holders to retain their positions. They are all very active in their liaison roles as well as within At-Large. This is important to maintain a consistent and relevant interactive knowledge-based relationship. I believe that these relationships have also been strengthened due to the committed and mutually respected connections these individuals have made between At-Large and our other key organisations within ICANN. Im sure that if they are willing to do another year, we need to thank them and let them get on with it. Maureen On Sat, 25 Oct 2025, 8:52 am Jonathan Zuck via ALAC-Announce, < alac-announce(a)icann.org> wrote: > Dear All, > > > > On 14 October, I sent a note to the ALAC recommending that the ALAC > re-appoint current ALAC Liaisons to the ccNSO, GAC, GNSO, and SSAC for > another year. > > > > This recommendation was made using Article 18.2 of the *ALAC Rules of > Procedure [icann-community.atlassian.net] > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/downl…>* (ROP) > allows the ALAC to reappoint ALAC Liaisons without a new call for > volunteers if we believe that the incumbent is doing a good job and that > the ALAC is well served by their continuing in that role. Experience has > shown that it is extremely important that the Liaison develop/maintain a > good working relationship with the target Supporting > Organization/Advisory Committee. > > > > The ALAC Liaisons are noted below along with their first appointment > dates: > > > > - GAC: *Joanna Kulesza* (October 2021) > > > *Joanna,* as the ALAC Liaison to the GAC brings with her significant > familiarity with the protocols of the GAC. She has developed excellent > working relations with the GAC Chair and the GAC Liaison to the ALAC and > continues to actively facilitate intersessional cooperation between the > ALAC and the GAC. She will continue to serve the ALAC well in her role as > the ALAC Liaison to the GAC. > > > > - GNSO: *Justine Chew* (October 2021) > > *Justine*, in her role as the ALAC Liaison to the GNSO, has been > extremely productive in ensuring that the interests of the of ALAC are > understood in the GNSO. Justine has gained and shared her significant > expertise in the GNSO policies and processes by explaining issues and > discussing them with the members of the CPWG and ALAC. She will continue to > serve the ALAC well in her role as the ALAC Liaison to the GNSO. > > > - ccNSO: *Laura Margolis *(October 2023) > > *Laura, *in her role as the ALAC Liaison to the ccNSO, utilizes her > experience as a ccNSO Council Member in her work as the ALAC Liaison. She > has explained and reported on ccNSO policy activities in a clear and > comprehensive manner since being appointed in 2023,identifying areas that > might benefit from an end-user perspective to the ALAC. Laura will continue > to serve the ALAC well in her role as ALAC Liaison to the ccNSO. > > > > - SSAC: *Matthias Hudobnik * (October 2023) > > *Matthias, *in his role as ALAC Liaison to the SSAC, has grown into his > role very successfully through his work with the SSAC. He has taken to > distilling new SSAC publications for easier comprehension by non-technical > readers and providing regular updates, even explanations,on SSAC > activities. Matthias will continue to serve the ALAC well in his role as > ALAC Liaison to the SSAC. > > > All the liaisons have agreed to continue for one more year. > > > > I received support from the ALAC for my recommended re-appointments. > > > > Accordingly, the current ALAC Liaisons to the GAC, GNSO, ccNSO, and SSAC > have been re-appointed for the period of one year starting at the close of > ICANN84 on 30 October 2025 and ending at the close of ICANN87 on 22 October > 2026. > > > > Please note that until such time as an ALAC Appointee Metrics framework is > adopted by the ALAC, the ALAC Appointed-Liaisons will be requested by the > ALAC Leadership to participate in selected ALAC/At-Large activities. He/She > may also be requested to provide periodic reports on his/her liaison work. > Such reports may be verbal or in written form, and notice will be given to > the ALAC Appointee on the timing of such reports. > > > > Thank you! > > > > Jonathan > > ALAC Chair > > > > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC-Announce mailing list -- alac-announce(a)icann.org > To unsubscribe send an email to alac-announce-leave(a)icann.org > > At-Large Official Site: http://www.atlarge.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.

2 1

GNSO Council 29 October 2025 meeting agenda @ ICANN84 is out
by Justine Chew Oct. 18, 2025

Oct. 18, 2025

Dear all, Please be informed that the agenda for the GNSO Council Meeting taking place during ICANN84, is as follows: *GNSO Council Meeting held on 29 October 2025 <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/atlarge/pages/265846872/G…> * *Full Agenda (Part 1)* <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/QKafBg>* | **Agenda (Part 2* <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/T4AuGQ>*) | **Documents* <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/LJqfBg>* | * *Motions* <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/VKifBg> - *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: COUNCIL VOTE: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP - Interpretation of Intent for Select IGO/INGO PDP Recommendations* - *Item 4: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Celebrating GNSO Accomplishments between ICANN Meetings* - *Item 5: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Council PPSAI Small Team Responses to Threshold Questions* - *Item 6: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Prioritization of Upcoming Work* - *Item 7: Open Mic* - *Item 8: Any Other Business* - *8.1 - Update to Council on Latin Diacritics PDP Timeline * - *8.2 - Proposed Updates to ICANN Bylaws and Customer Standing Committee (CSC) Charter* - 8.3 - Farewell to Outgoing Councilors For more details on the marked agenda items (except for AOB items), please visit *this link <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/atlarge/pages/265846872/G…>* and click on 'Matters of Interest' This Council meeting will take place on *29 October 2025 at 13:15 UTC for 2 hours* and, except for item 7 Open Mic, is open to observers both in-person and remotely in observation / listen-only mode. Please check the ICANN84 Schedule <https://icann84.sched.com/event/29QND> for venue details and Zoom link (only published 24 hours prior to the meeting) Thanks for reading / considering. *Justine Chew* ALAC Liaison to the GNSO GNSO Liaison Workspace <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/fG7xBQ?atlOrigin=eyJpIjoiNDI1Y…> ------

1 0

ICANN84 Participation and Travel Details
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 16, 2025

Oct. 16, 2025

For those who want to share their travel information (just for information or to facilitate ride-sharing), the Google spreadsheet is at http://tinyurl.com/ICANN84-At-Large-Travel. Or to simply say you will be attending in person or remotely. If I know the address you use for Google, you should have access, otherwise request access. If you know of someone who is travelling but not on this list, please feel free to share. Staff welcome as well. Alan

5 7

SSAC has published SAC132: The Domain Name System Runs on Free and Open Source Software (FOSS)
by Matthias M. Hudobnik Oct. 14, 2025

Oct. 14, 2025

Hi colleagues, the SSAC has published SAC132. ### SSAC has published SAC132: The Domain Name System Runs on Free and Open Source Software (FOSS): Overview • The Domain Name System (DNS) is critical infrastructure, mapping names to IP addresses for nearly all online activity. • Research confirms the DNS overwhelmingly relies on FOSS. o 9 of 12 root server operators use FOSS exclusively. o 9 of the 10 largest TLD providers use FOSS. • FOSS dominance comes from its economic efficiency, transparency, collaborative security, and resilience. • FOSS is not inherently more or less secure than proprietary software; outcomes depend on processes and maintenance. • However, the FOSS development model differs fundamentally from proprietary supply chains, raising unique risks. 1. Introduction • Policymakers are increasingly intervening in software security (UK voluntary code, US attestation, EU Cyber Resilience Act and NIS2, China’s IT plan). • Risk: regulations designed for proprietary models may harm critical Internet infrastructure if applied to FOSS without adaptation. • Aim: provide context to policymakers to recognize FOSS’s role and avoid destabilizing interventions. 2. DNS Primer • DNS = “address book of the Internet.” • Functions: o Registration: registries manage the authoritative database of domain names. o Publication: authoritative servers publish DNS records. o Resolution: resolvers fetch IP addresses for users. • Structure: Root → TLDs → individual domains. • Resolvers answer ~90% of queries from cache; authoritative servers publish definitive records. 3. The FOSS Model: Characteristics and Implications • Key roles: o Maintainers: guide project direction. o Contributors: submit code/docs/bug fixes. o Operators: deploy and run software. • Four freedoms: use, study, share, change. • Unique characteristics: o Global collaborative development. o No contractual relationships. o Funding decoupled from use. o Often no single responsible legal entity. • Proprietary systems also depend on FOSS components. • Strengths: o Transparency & collaborative security . o Stability & long-term support by non-profits/companies. o Resilience via software diversity. o Enabler of innovation and digital autonomy. • Risks : o Financial sustainability & maintainer burnout. o Shared dependency risks. o No warranties or support guarantees. o Operational risks in deployment. 4. Prevalence of FOSS in DNS • Registration: Platforms like FRED, Nomulus, CoCCA widely used. Large registries use proprietary extensions but built atop FOSS. • Publication: Root and TLD servers overwhelmingly use FOSS. 9 of 12 root operators rely on FOSS. • Resolution: BIND, Unbound, Knot Resolver, CoreDNS common. ISPs, enterprises, and cloud resolvers widely deploy FOSS. 5. Contemporary Cases in FOSS Regulation • Policymakers are adapting rules to reflect FOSS realities. • Examples: o US 2023 Cybersecurity Strategy: exempts volunteer maintainers; responsibility on deployers. o UK 2025 Code of Practice: voluntary guidance. o EU CRA/NIS2: introduces “FOSS steward” role, avoids treating maintainers as suppliers, harmonizes obligations. • Policy lessons: 1. Allocate responsibility to those best able to act. 2. Incentivize cross-industry collaboration on maintenance. 3. Avoid supply chain assumptions based on proprietary models. 4. Avoid conflicting regional obligations. 6. Key Findings 1. FOSS is the foundation of DNS; proprietary is the exception. 2. FOSS model is fundamentally different from proprietary software supply chains. 3. FOSS is not inherently more/less secure; security depends on processes. 4. DNS FOSS strengths: transparency, collaborative security, diversity, long-term stability. 5. Risks: sustainability, burnout, shared dependencies — not solvable by proprietary regulations. 6. Traditional liability is ill-suited: imposing burdens risks discouraging maintainers and harming infrastructure. 7. FOSS enables autonomy and innovation: lowers entry barriers, supports local industry, diversifies markets, reduces cloud dependence. 7. Actionable Guidelines for Policymakers 1. Acknowledge the Critical Role of FOSS o Explicitly recognize in law/regulation that critical infrastructure depends on FOSS; treat it as a strength to preserve. 2. Consult the FOSS Community o Engage maintainers, contributors, non-profits, and companies in policymaking. 3. Make Use of Contemporary Cases o Apply lessons: responsibility on deployers not maintainers, support FOSS steward models, avoid proprietary assumptions, prevent conflicting regional regimes. 4. Incentivize FOSS Sustainability o Promote public/private funding of critical FOSS projects as investments in shared goods. 5. Address Systemic Risks Collectively o Fund ecosystem-wide resilience (dependency tooling, research, security initiatives) instead of overburdening individuals. Conclusion The SSAC concludes: • The DNS runs on FOSS, a global public good central to Internet stability. • Policymakers must avoid treating FOSS with proprietary assumptions. • Following the five guidelines — acknowledge, consult, learn, incentivize, collaborate — ensures security and sustainability of DNS and the Internet as a whole. 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

3 3