- At-Large - lists.icann.org

SSAC has published SAC127: DNS Blocking Revisited
by Matthias M. Hudobnik May 24, 2025

May 24, 2025

Hi colleagues, the SSAC has published SAC127. ### SSAC has published SAC127: DNS Blocking Revisited: What Is DNS and DNS Blocking? · The Domain Name System (DNS) translates human-readable domain names (e.g., example.com) into IP addresses that computers use to communicate. · DNS blocking is a technique to restrict access to online content by interfering with DNS queries. This can involve: o Pretending a domain doesn't exist. o Providing false IP addresses. Why DNS Blocking Is Used · Often implemented because it’s technically simple and low-cost. · Commonly used by governments and organizations for: o Public safety (e.g., blocking illegal content). o Censorship or regulation of online resources. How DNS Blocking Works · By altering the behavior of recursive resolvers (DNS servers that respond to user queries). · DNS blocking modifies the translation of a domain name into an IP address, effectively preventing access via DNS. Effectiveness and Limitations · Blocking only works if users rely on the DNS infrastructure where the block is applied. · It can be bypassed through: o Alternative DNS resolvers. o VPNs or other routing methods. · Important: DNS blocking does not remove the content—only access through DNS is affected. Potential Side Effects · Collateral damage: Can impact unrelated services or domains. · Cross-border effects: May unintentionally affect users outside the blocking jurisdiction. · User confusion: May appear as a technical error, leading to risky behavior. · Legal ambiguity: Laws vary; determining whether DNS blocking is lawful or constitutes censorship depends on local context. SSAC Recommendations Recommendation 1 · Any entity implementing DNS blocking should fully understand its technical and policy implications. Recommendation 2 · Entities implementing DNS blocking (governments, ISPs, organizations) should follow these principles: o A. Clear Objectives: Ensure DNS blocking aligns with intended goals. o B. Defined Policy: Maintain transparent, reviewed processes for deciding what to block. o C. Minimize Damage: Use methods that avoid overblocking or harming unrelated users. o D. Respect Boundaries: Do not affect users or networks outside your administrative control. Recommendation 3 · Recursive DNS server operators should use Extended DNS Error (EDE) codes to inform users when DNS blocking is active and aid troubleshooting. This report updates previous SSAC advisories (SAC050 and SAC056 from 2011–2012) to reflect changes in technology and growing use cases for DNS blocking. 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: At-Large Digest, Vol 201, Issue 39
by mohammed bamidele May 21, 2025

May 21, 2025

Hi What Is the purpose of this organisation? On Wed, 21 May 2025, 14:38 , <at-large-request(a)icann.org> wrote: > Send At-Large mailing list submissions to > at-large(a)icann.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via email, send a message with subject or > body 'help' to > at-large-request(a)icann.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > at-large-owner(a)icann.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of At-Large digest..."Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: ICANN bows to Trump (Evan Leibovitch) > 2. Re: ICANN bows to Trump (Seun Ojedeji) > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch(a)gmail.com> > To: John McCormac <jmcc(a)hosterstats.com> > Cc: At-Large Worldwide <at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > Bcc: > Date: Wed, 21 May 2025 06:13:18 -0400 > Subject: [At-Large] Re: ICANN bows to Trump > On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 1:01 PM John McCormac via At-Large < > at-large(a)icann.org> wrote: > > >> There seems to be a bit of a disconnect between ICANN management and the industry >> despite the best efforts of ICANN staff and ALAC. >> > > ICANN, which regularly reminds us all that it is not a regulator, asserts > its policies through contracts with registries and registrars. As far as > it's concerned, nothing further down the supply chain matters, beyond > whatever influence the non-contracted-party constituencies can assert > through GNSO (such as trademark protection). Certainly there is no heed > paid to the non-registrant Internet user which is completely outside the > revenue chain. > > As for ALAC having made "best efforts" ... I'll leave that one alone. > > Remember the convulsions ICANN went through over "vertical integration", > the idea that an organization could be both registry and registrar? ICANN's > registrars fought so incredibly hard against the concept that a registry > could cut them out and sell direct to the public. Whether they had value to > add to the transaction was irrelevant, registrars insisted on being part of > the chain whether they were needed or not. The only other industry where > resellers similarly have forced themselves into the transaction whether > they are needed or not, as far as I can tell, is auto dealerships. > > >> One of the issues that has come up again and again in the At Large/CPWG discussions >> is the importance of resellers in the market. Despite ICANN paying lip >> service to the reseller issue, to be diplomatic about it, ICANN really >> doesn't understand the whole registry-registrar-reseller model. >> > > Please demonstrate *why* ICANN even needs to acknowledge this model, let > alone understand it. > To me it's the registrars that are the domain resellers in a practical > sense. What you call resellers are to me simply authorized sales agents of > the registrars, and I personally don't see the need for ICANN to care about > them. Even moreso I wonder how ALAC and CPWG think that the existence of > resellers matters to the global public interest. Sales agents of registrars > are bound by ICANN registrar agreements. The agreements govern how domains > may be sold, and I don't understand why it matters whether sales are made > by registrar employees or contracted agents. The agents are still bound by > the agreements. What more is worth wringing hands over? > > (Disclaimer: In the early 2000s I was a principal in a consultancy that > was one of Tucows' first OpenSRS domain resellers. I'm very familiar with > the model, which is how I know that it's existence is benign and has > minimal need of ICANN's attention. Registrars are accountable for the > actions of their agents.) > > The ICANN registry-registrar model was great for the 1990s but it has not >> evolved. > > > Plenty about ICANN has not evolved. But since the DNS itself is a legacy > technology, I am challenged to understand why it *needs* to evolve any > more than we need new innovation in faxes or wired Ethernet. The only > innovation here that matters to be is in scaling and reliability, which are > technical issues. > > Sure the Internet still needs to translate names to numbers. But in a > world where access to Internet services is increasingly handled in the > foreground by search engines and now AI, the world cares less and less > about the need for memorable or indeed even human-parsed domain names. > > ICANN loves to talk about the diversity and proliferation of TLDs as > evidence of "competition", while willfully ignoring the big-picture > competition between all "memorable" domains and other methods through which > Internet users connect to the services they seek. > > >> The standard upgrade path of web developer - web hoster - ICANN >> registrar no longer exists in the same way as it did in the early 2000s. >> What is happening now is that the upgrade path is web developer - web >> hoster - ccTLD registrar. The ccTLDs, as they develop, are overtaking >> the gTLDs in their home markets and the legacy gTLDs are becoming less >> relevant. >> > > Perhaps that's the case relative to each other, but I suggest that *all* > TLDs are legacy -- even the ones being created in future rounds. To me this > is little difference from the the fact that we're still creating new area > codes even though POTS is a legacy tech too. > > The reseller market is *the* market in many countries with no accredited ICANN >> registrars because many web hosters in these countries outsource their >> registration activity to ICANN registrars in other countries. > > > To me that evokes a massive "so what?" > Becoming a reseller means having a relationship with a registrar. > Becoming a registrar means having a relationship with ICANN. > If you're only selling a few hundred domains a year the choice is clear, > even if both relationships have similar rules for selling. > > >> Despite the whole DEI thing and the aspirations about developing countries, >> the local infrastructure either isn't well developed or the local web >> hosting industries have gone off and focused on their ccTLDs at the >> expense of the gTLDs. >> > > I see this as a feature not a bug. > ccTLDs may have policies that are tuned to local sensibilities in a way > that ICANN's can't. > Then again they may not, but that too is a local choice. > > While ALAC does a lot of good work, the reality is that it is a very complex >> landscape of bungalows and skyscrapers. ICANN doesn't seem to understand >> it. ALAC barely understands it. And the market seems to be moving away >> from the gTLDs and thus away from ICANN. >> > > ALAC's role is not, to me, the probing of business models and domain > supply chains. It's ensuring that the public is served by a DNS that is > reliable and resistant to abuse. Indeed, I assert (and have asserted for a > long time) that the rampant mission creep that has ALAC getting involved > into issues irrelevant to the broad public interest have retarded its > ability to fulfill its actual bylaw mandate. > > If there are deficiencies in the domain-name supply chain that lead to the > DNS being unreliable or untrustworthy from the public PoV that is most > certainly ALAC's business. Generally those issues may lead to suggested > changes in contract language and/or enforcement. To me anything more is > beyond scope. And if some of the problem can be traced to realms beyond > ALAC's influence (ie, the ccTLDs), there's not much that can be done to > address that beyond public education programs. > > Mind, you, such public education programs could be very useful. Imagine if > all the resources wasted to date on Universal Acceptance were used instead > to inform the public about the differences between gTLDs and ccTLDs, and > how .co runs under different rules than .com ... > > Cheers, > Evan > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com> > To: Lutz Donnerhacke <lutz(a)donnerhacke.de> > Cc: At-Large Worldwide <at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > Bcc: > Date: Wed, 21 May 2025 08:37:30 -0500 > Subject: [At-Large] Re: ICANN bows to Trump > Hi, > > This is indeed a concern, however I was a bit relieved when I checked > through the bylaw and found that since 2016 post transition till date, the > occurence of word "diversity" for instance slightly moved from 19 to 20. > > I am of the opinion that ICANN statements/texts in various fora should > continue to reflect the bylaw and if that is no longer the case then > perhaps it's good to hear from our ICANN Board Rep if the various changes > are done inline with the ICANN bylaws. > > For instance ICANN core values has diversity included in it as per the > bylaws, while representation is non-existent. So I am not sure why ICANN > would decide to water that down, perhaps this was done to be "politically > correct" but how far can that go without mis-representing the actual/intent > of the bylaw. > > Regards > > On Mon, 19 May 2025 at 07:21, Lutz Donnerhacke via At-Large < > at-large(a)icann.org> wrote: > >> https://domainincite.com/31049-icann-kills-off-diversity-and-inclusion >> It's a pity. >> >> ICANN establishes the trust in its function of govern the global rules for >> the Internet by representing the whole community of all stakeholders. >> By dropping the representation, ICANN could lose its standing, and >> eventually lose the trust in the rules generated. >> This is the way into meaninglessness. >> >> Lutz >> >> _______________________________________________ >> At-Large mailing list -- at-large(a)icann.org >> To unsubscribe send an email to at-large-leave(a)icann.org >> >> At-Large Official Site: http://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. >> > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > *Seun Ojedeji,* > > Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action! > > > _______________________________________________ > At-Large mailing list -- at-large(a)icann.org > To unsubscribe send an email to at-large-leave(a)icann.org > _______________________________________________ > By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your > personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance > with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and > the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos) You can > visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or > configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or > disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

1 1

LIVE NOW -- UA Day 2025 North America Regional Event: Breaking Barriers: Universal Acceptance and Multilingualism as Gateways to Digital Access
by Joly MacFie May 20, 2025

May 20, 2025

[image: isoc live] <https://isoc.live/19323> *LIVESTREAM <https://youtu.be/NlBs3ejRKxA>* | *PARTICIPATE VIA ZOOM <https://icann.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_zmbQPXGXTmSZxbigzqVLGg#/registrat…>* | *PERMALINK <https://isoc.live/19323> | **REAL TIME TEXT* <https://otter.ai/u/cgm57mTJpnaXFnz9CDaB-Qk7B74> On *Tuesday May 20 2025* at *09:00-13:00 EDT* (13:00 – 17:00 UTC) the *i2Coalition <https://i2coalition.com/>* (i2C), *Identity Digital <https://www.identity.digital/>*, and the *Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers <https://www.icann.org/>* (ICANN), will host a half-day hybrid event ‘*Breaking Barriers: Universal Acceptance and Multilingualism as Gateways to Digital Access <https://www.icann.org/ar/engagement-calendar/details/ua-day-2025-north-amer…>*‘ at ICANN’s Washington DC Engagement Center. Leading experts in language, Internet infrastructure and AI will discuss how digital access is the key to unlocking the Internet’s full potential for all users. The event also serves to launch the newly formed *Coalition on Digital Impact <https://codi.global/>* (CODI). *PROGRAM* *09:00 Welcome Remarks* *Christian Dawson* – Executive Director, i2Coalition / Co-Founder, Coalition on Digital Impact *09:10 Fireside Chat: The Importance of Language in Digital Access* *Rebecca MacKinnon* -Vice President of Global Advocacy, Wikimedia Foundation *Ram Mohan* – CSO, Identity Digital / Chairman, Coalition on Digital Impact *09:30 Lightning Talk: Meaningful Connection in a Multilingual World* *Steve Crocker* – CEO /co-founder, Shinkuro, Inc. *09:40 Panel 1: Will AI Break or Build Barriers? Linguistic and Cultural Divides on the Internet* *Jennifer Chung* – Vice President, Policy, DotAsia *Steve Crocker* – CEO / co-founder, Shinkuro, Inc. *George Sadowsky* – Information Technology consultant / ex-ICANN Director (2009-2018) Moderator: *Christian Dawson –* i2C *11:00 Lightning Talk: Bridging Digital Divides: The Evolution and Future of A Multilingual Internet* *Vint Cerf* – Chief Internet Evangelist, Google *11:10 Panel 2: Will AI Break or Build Barriers? Linguistic and Cultural Divides on the Internet* *Chaula Gupta*, Vice President / Chief Program Officer, Digital Promise *Vint Cerf* – Chief Internet Evangelist, Google *AJ Bhadelia* – North America Government Affairs and Public Policy, Cohere Moderator: *Aliya Bhatia –* Senior Policy Analyst, CDT *12:15 Closing Keynote: One Internet, Many Languages. A Common Future* *Theresa Swinehart* – Senior Vice President, Global Domains & Strategy, ICANN *12:25 Wrap-up Remarks* Ram Mohan – CSO, Identity Digital / Chairman, Coalition on Digital Impact Christian Dawson – Executive Director, i2Coalition / Co-Founder, Coalition on Digital Impact *#UniversalAcceptance <https://x.com/hashtag/UniversalAcceptance?src=hashtag_click&f=live> @i2Coalition @ICANN @UASG @Wikimedia @IdentityDig @stevencrocker @dotasia @CenDemTech @DigitalPromise @CohereForAI @vgcerf* | *MASTODON <https://mastodon.social/tags/UniversalAcceptance>* | *BLUESKY <https://bsky.app/search?q=%23UniversalAcceptance>* | *INSTA <https://www.instagram.com/explore/search/keyword/?q=%23UniversalAcceptance> * | *LI <https://www.linkedin.com/search/results/all/?keywords=%23UniversalAcceptance>* - -- -------------------------------------- Joly MacFie +12185659365 -------------------------------------- -

1 0

Re: [External] Re: ICANN bows to Trump
by Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi May 20, 2025

May 20, 2025

That’s a follow-up post a few days ago <https://domainincite.com/31072-icann-reaffirms-its-commitment-to-diversity-…> Best Hadia From: Evan Leibovitch via At-Large <at-large(a)icann.org<mailto:at-large@icann.org>> Sent: 20 May 2025 10:37 To: Gunela Astbrink <g.astbrink(a)gsa.com.au<mailto:g.astbrink@gsa.com.au>>; Karl Auerbach <karl(a)cavebear.com<mailto:karl@cavebear.com>> Cc: at-large(a)icann.org<mailto:at-large@icann.org> Subject: [External] [At-Large] Re: ICANN bows to Trump On Mon, May 19, 2025 at 8:02 PM Karl Auerbach via At-Large <at-large(a)icann.org<mailto:at-large@icann.org>> wrote: More than a pity. ICANN's footprint is worldwide. Yet here is ICANN dancing to a foul tune of hate, bias, and discrimination being played by exactly one of the more than 150 national governments. What is truly amazing is that anyone is surprised by this. The footprint may be worldwide but the feet belong to that one government. Others foresaw the problem. The RISC-V Foundation moved its headquarters from the USA to Switzerland in 2019<https://www.techspot.com/news/82930-risc-v-standards-body-moving-switzerlan…> because, unlike ICANN, it actually WANTED to be an international body rather than just cosplay as one. On Mon, May 19, 2025 at 10:09 PM Gunela Astbrink via At-Large <at-large(a)icann.org<mailto:at-large@icann.org>> wrote: Will ALAC be discussing and making a statement? It can, but it is guaranteed to be pointless and powerless. That ship sailed away years ago when ALAC abrogated its commitment to speak for the world's end-users at the time of the IANA transition. Given the opportunity to become a truly international body accountable to the people of the world, ALAC bought into the utter bullshit of an "Empowered Community" that would ensure ongoing capture by American commercial interests who like playing by American rules. And if that means bending to the American political winds of the day, so be it. THAT was the time to take the courageous stand in support of the public interest that ALAC is charged to represent: to refuse to merely pass the accountability torch from American state interest to American commercial interest. It is these commercial interests that are threatened more by White House DEI rants than ICANN itself, but ... you reap what you sow. ALAC's self-selected elite forgot why they were there and chose willingly to be co-opted. Sitting on bureaucratic committees and redlining documents is a game you understand well; the thought of actively opposing the common wisdom OTOH was a source of raw fear and intense risk-aversion. What will ICANN staff think of us? Will GNSO invite us to meetings anymore? Will anyone allow us to have liaisons? Will they cut our travel funding? And out of this fear, ALAC continued to play the game, with a few tweaks here and there, rather than advocate for real ICANN accountability to the diversity of the world. And you now see the result. ALAC's true power is -- or at least could be -- not in the daily minutiae of statements and comments, but serving as ICANN's conscience. After all, its bylaw mandate is to advise the Board directly, everything else is secondary. Every few years a major occasion arises that enables ALAC to give voice to a world that doesn't buy domains yet is impacted by them. By and large every time these have happened -- treatment of TLD applicants from the global south, Universal Acceptance, the IANA transition, the proposed sale of .ORG -- ALAC has taken the easy paths, the ones that don't actually anger ICANN staff or the commercial interests (though ALAC is allowed to annoy them on occasion for the sake of appearances). While taking the path of least resistance may sometimes be a better choice, it should not be the default stance. Statements now might make the writers feel good but will struggle to find an audience. ALAC's complicity in ICANN's current trajectory is too well established for a meek objection at this point to have any credibility at all outside the bubble (and even inside). If there is any interest AT ALL in re-establishing credibility, perhaps ALAC may want to reflect on its actions, learn from them and may even take some back. Next year is the 10th anniversary of the IANA transition: an in-depth and honest study and review of its effects on ICANN's accountability to the world -- including the events that started this thread -- would be a good start. - Evan

2 1

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 matthias(a)hudobnik.at http://www.hudobnik.at @mhudobnik

1 0

Celebrating Mother's day
by Vanda Scartezini May 10, 2025

May 10, 2025

Dear Friend, On this special day, I celebrate all MOTHERS around the world… For every gentle word, every quiet strength, every dream you’ve helped bloom. Whether you’re a mother, a grandmother, a godmother, or a soul who mothers others with kindness, Mother’slove makes the world more beautiful! Wishing a day filled with joy, peace, and sweet memories. Mothers deserve all the love you so freely give. Best wishes to all mothers in your life! Vanda Scartezini DNS WOMEN Sao Paulo, Brazil + 55 11 98181-1464 Vanda(a)Scartezini.org www.dnswomen.org

1 0

Fwd: Invitation to ESDC Cyber Diplomacy Advanced Course – Rome, 18–20 June 2025
by Joanna Kulesza May 10, 2025

May 10, 2025

Dear colleagues, Please let me draw your attention to the upcoming *ESDC course “Cyber Diplomacy Advanced”*, which will take place from *18 to 20 June 2025* at the *CEIDA Campus in Rome, Italy* (fully residential). The *deadline for nominations is 21 May 2025*. The official invitation and agenda can be found here <https://goalkeeper.eeas.europa.eu/goalkeeper/course/1691>. This advanced course is particularly relevant for those in the community with an interest in *cybersecurity, international law,** and Internet governance*. It offers a unique opportunity to deepen your understanding of global cyber diplomacy, governance structures, EU tools for responding to cyber threats, and mechanisms for international cooperation and capacity building. Topics include: - Geopolitical dynamics in cyberspace - Cyber threat landscape - Confidence-building measures and cyber diplomacy tools - Multilateral engagement and cyber capacity building - EU responses to cybersecurity challenges The course is designed for *mid- to senior-level professionals*, and it provides an excellent platform for networking, peer exchange, and the development of practical competencies in cyber diplomacy. As a *member of the ESDC network*, *Lodz Cyber Hub*, an EURALO ALS, encourages interested individuals from the At-Large and Internet governance communities to consider applying. We would be grateful if you could share this opportunity within your networks. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Giuseppe Zuffanti at *giuseppe.zuffanti(a)eeas.europa.eu <giuseppe.zuffanti(a)eeas.europa.eu>*. -- Kind regards, Joanna Kulesza ------------------- Joanna Kulesza, PhD Professor of International Law Lodz Cyber Hub / University of Lodz Law School / Poland www.cyber.uni.lodz.pl (EURALO ALS 341) ALAC / EURALO / ALAC Liaison to the GAC

1 0

ALAC OBJECTION PROCEDURE for the new gTLD applications
by Tijani May 8, 2025

May 8, 2025

Dear OFB and ALAC members, On the ALAC Small team for the ALAC Objection (new gTLD applications), we reached a pretty good consensus about the procedure that the team leader (Dev) and Alan shared with you. But there was a point on which we disagreed, and Alan wrote a remark about it that I want to clarify for you to take the final decision: I’m concerned about the option for a conflicted gARG member to recuse him/her self from a specific application(s) instead of resigning. I feels that being the only part of the ICANN community that has the privilege to be funded to object, ALAC shouldn’t allow recusal instead of mandate resignation because this may impact our credibility and lessen the strength of our objections. I do believe 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. For the record, in this very “ALAC Procedure for Filing Comments and Objections in the Next Round” we are providing, it’s clearly mentioned that the main criterion of eligibility for the gARG membership is that members must be free from any actual or perceived conflicts of interest (see gARG membership paragraph). I also think that none is absolutely needed for At Large to make comments, objections or appeals; the gARG is composed of 15 members, and it may work perfectly with 14 when the conflicted member resigns: the ability of the gARG to respond to an application and/or an appeal wouldn’t be affected. This is for our credibility and for avoiding any risk to see our objection rejected because a member of the group (in charge ofidentifying concerns, Drafting ALAC comments, Monitoring responses to ALAC comments and recommend whether to escalate to a formal objection, Drafting ALAC objection statements, Monitoring responses to ALAC objection and if dismissed, recommend whether to appeal; and Drafting ALAC Appeal statement) has a conflict of interest. In case there are many gARG members with a COI, the situation would be worse. Their resignation is more than necessary to keep the group (and ALAC) credible; they may be replaced. Now that I made my point clearly, it’s up to you to take the right decision thereupon. Tijani

16 17

Capacity Building WG - back to track
by Natalia Filina May 6, 2025

May 6, 2025

Dear Jonathan, community, I would like to initiate the renewal of the Capacity Building WG. We have a successful experience, excellent reviews and results (of course participation metrics - we all love metrics), and have been trying to come back to this activity for years (since Hamburg ICANN meeting in November 2023 and earlier - we suggested it with Hadia and had community support). Capacity Building work is a great community mobilization way, as well as strong support for important and complex topics (technological, cybersec, Consolidated Policy, broader ICANN topics to explain with the participation of other ICANN groups - too) is a great way to go. It might help our newcomers to be engaged, be aware, for our experts - to be useful with priceless expertise. If we are not sure it`s needed, we should organise the poll and ask the community about it. I see it as a simple way to use bottom up mode to start or close some processes inside At-Large - Technology Task Force WG, Outreach and Engagement coordinated work, setting up any Subcommittees etc - the way when the community has a decision together with a link to the community opinion - synergy has proven effectiveness. I did not add in the copy of this email Maureen, Hadia, Joanna, Alfredo, Maria - I remember this wonderful team lead the CBWG, but hope some may put comments to my suggestion, as well as other respected community members and leaders. Sincerely, Natalia Filina Secretary of EURALO https://atlarge.icann.org/alses/euralo IGF Dynamic Coalition on the Internet of Things, member DotDucky <https://dotducky.com/> owner 🐣 +7 906 722 54 61 Moscow, Russia

3 4

Invitation: LCH Masterclass on “Data and International Law: Where Do They Meet?” with Dr Eneken Tikk – May 9, 2025
by Joanna Kulesza May 5, 2025

May 5, 2025

Dear Colleagues, I am pleased to invite you to an upcoming Lodz Cyber Hub Legal Masterclass titled *“Data and International Law: Where Do They Meet? <https://www.cyber.uni.lodz.pl/en/news/details/lch-mc-05>”*, taking place on *Friday, 9 May 2025*, from *10:45 to 12:15 CEST* (08:45–10:15 UTC). This session will be conducted in a hybrid format—both in person at the University of Lodz and online via Microsoft Teams. We are honoured to welcome *Dr Eneken Tikk* (Erik Castrén Institute, University of Helsinki; Director, Cyber Policy Institute), a distinguished scholar and practitioner in international cyber diplomacy and cyber policy. This masterclass will examine the legal and geopolitical frameworks surrounding transborder data flows, addressing key issues such as data sovereignty, privacy, and security from an international legal perspective. *Topics to be explored include:* - Data localization, sovereignty, and the concept of “data embassies” - Legal protections for data under international humanitarian law - Data integrity and cross-border enforcement challenges - Tensions between privacy rights and national security *Participation certificates* will be issued upon request (please indicate this in the registration form). *🔹 Registration is open until 7 May 2025 OED UTC.* Please *register here <https://forms.office.com/pages/responsepage.aspx?id=7xpEYw7al0O7fvnUcF6WO-z…>* to secure your spot. This event is hosted as part of the LCH Legal “Masterclasses” series, which is open to students of the University of Lodz as well as external participants with an interest in international law, Internet governance, and geopolitics of data. We look forward to your participation in what promises to be an engaging and thought-provoking discussion. -- Kind regards, Joanna Kulesza ------------------- Joanna Kulesza, PhD Professor of International Law Lodz Cyber Hub / University of Lodz Law School / Poland www.cyber.uni.lodz.pl (EURALO ALS 341) ALAC / EURALO / ALAC Liaison to the GAC

1 0