- CPWG - lists.icann.org

REVIEW REMINDER: ALAC Statement on Draft Evaluation Guide for Community Priority Evaluation
by ICANN At-Large Staff April 17, 2026

April 17, 2026

Dear CPWG members, ALAC Statement on Draft Evaluation Guide for Community Priority Evaluation is currently under review: https://docs.google.com/document/d/17i-D95r5WOJscewIECtbnjiwcfgTyg0gexeZ7Zy… Please review the document and add your comments by Tuesday 21 April 2026. Presentation of the final draft statement will be on the agenda of the 22 April 2026 CPWG meeting. This is the wiki page for the public comment: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AQAbOw Kind regards, At-Large Support Team

1 0

Meeting Invitation: At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call on Wednesday, 22 April 2026 at 14:00 UTC
by ICANN At-Large Staff April 16, 2026

April 16, 2026

Dear All, The next At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call has been scheduled for Wednesday, 22 April 2026 at 14:00 UTC for 90 mins. For other times: HERE<https://tinyurl.com/ye26h4tr> The agenda (to be updated) and call details can be found at: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AYAxPg Zoom Room: https://icann.zoom.us/j/765717566?pwd=UTJCdWRSZVdJNEhOYW02OVBqQVQ1Zz09[ican…<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann.zoom.us/j/765717566?pwd=UTJCdWRSZV…> / Passcode: #CPWG2345* Real time transcription (RTT) available at (subject to availability): https://www.streamtext.net/player?event=ICANN [streamtext.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.streamtext.net/player?event=ICANN__;…> At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Wiki Space: https://community.icann.org/x/jYDpB Thank you. Kind regards, At-Large Staff ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org/>

1 0

Privacy, proxies and resellers
by John McCormac April 15, 2026

April 15, 2026

As Alan pointed out on today's call, the reseller issue is complex. The problem is that resellers are a significant part of the gTLD market and it is difficult to measure the size of the reseller market. (And I have been doing this for decades.) Where resellers operate their own DNS, it is somewhat easier. However, many resellers use the DNS service of their registrar or others while running their own web hosting. To put this in some form of context, Godaddy has over 12,000 potential resellers using its DNS while having their web hosting outside of Godaddy's web hosting. Tucows is even more complex and has thousands of resellers. That is a large part of its business model. Most medium to large sized hosters will have web hosting spread over various providers and often have their own resellers that are often web developers.The terminology can get confusing here. A hoster hosts domain names. A web hoster (or web hosting provider hosts websites). There may be an overlap. Some registrars have their own web hosting operations. Die to ICANN's registrar model, some countries have no ICANN accredited registrars and their gTLD registratrions are completely outsourced to registrars in other countries. The typical ICANN registrar model (3R) is Registry -> Registrar -> Registrant That was the way that it was originally envisaged. In reality, it is often something like this: Registry-> Registrar -> (Resellers) -> Registrant As was mentioned on the call, there are mutiple registrar business models with some registrars having now public-facing buisness (they sell only ro resellers). Privacy and proxies also have to fit somewhere in the second chain. When the GDPR was introduced in 2018, some registrars took the opportunity to go completely dark on WHOIS data and redacted everything or almost everything. Others made WHOIS privacy a default.The current model works well for many existing registrars and there is likely to be pushback to anything that would increase costs. For most registrars, registrations are not high profit products. ICANN's registrar model was formulated in a much simpler time. What has happened since then is that the Internet has evolved and many ccTLDs have become the market leaders in their own countries. For gTLDs, that means that the ccTLDs are outselling them in those markets and there is an accreditation overlap between the gTLD registrars operating in those countries. If there is a substantial market for its customers, a gTLD registrars will acquire ccTLD accreditation. The rise of the ccTLDs has also encouraged some ccTLD registrars to give up their gTLD registrar accreditation. I think that there was some ICANN sponsored academic survey of privacy/ proxy gTLD domain names. It might be useful to get some idea of the scale of the issue. Things have probably changed a lot since 2012 and since any work was done one msauring the numbers of proxy/privacy domain names. Every month, I track the registrar and reseller market at a domain name level for the reports that I publish. The impact of privacy/proxy registrations even on reseller domain names has made things a lot more difficult since 2018.In terms of proxy/privacy, the country field in the WHOIS/RDAP records may no longer be reliable due to privacy being enabled by default on some large registrars. Regards...jmcc -- ********************************************************** John McCormac * e-mail: jmcc(a)hosterstats.com MC2 * web: http://www.hosterstats.com/ 22 Viewmount * Domain Registrations Statistics Waterford * Domnomics - the business of domain names Ireland * https://amzn.to/2OPtEIO IE * Skype: hosterstats.com ********************************************************** -- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com

1 0

IANA IPR related Assignment Agreements
by Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond April 15, 2026

April 15, 2026

Dear Tripti, please be so kind to find the attached which is important and urgent. Kindest regards, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond

1 0

CPWG - Recent ICANN Communication wrt Applicant Support Program (ASP)
by mike palage.com April 13, 2026

April 13, 2026

Hello All, Attached please find a communication that I submitted to ICANN last night in connection with the proposed allocation of additional funds from the 2012 auction proceeds to top-off the Applicant Support Program (ASP). While I support this initiative in line with the GAC and ALAC, I believe the way Tripti and the ICANN Board have proposed to proceed is fundamentally flawed. I am posting it here because I believe this communication touches on an important policy matter. I will also be cross-posting this to the OFB mailing list, as I believe it is directly related to some of the organizational problems confronting ICANN. Best regards, Michael

2 1

Re: DNS Abuse PDP
by Vanda Scartezini April 10, 2026

April 10, 2026

Thanks, Daniel, quite interesting. Here in Brazil, our Software Association has set up a hub to receive abuse complaints and route them to the appropriate registrars. The language barrier often prevented end users from reaching the correct, and many times international, registrars, so we do this for free here. kisses Vanda Scartezini From: Vanda Scartezini <vanda(a)scartezini.org> Date: Friday, 10 April 2026 at 14:13 To: Paulo Milliet Roque <paulo.roque(a)digiforte.com.br> Subject: FW: [CPWG] Re: DNS Abuse PDP pode ser interessante a leitura sobre DNS abuse From: DANIEL NANGHAKA via CPWG <cpwg(a)icann.org> Date: Friday, 10 April 2026 at 11:49 To: Murray McKercher <murraymckercher(a)gmail.com> Cc: CPWG <cpwg(a)icann.org> Subject: [CPWG] Re: DNS Abuse PDP Dear All, I find the points raised particularly important from an end-user perspective, especially where structural dynamics within the DNS ecosystem may influence the effectiveness of efforts to address DNS Abuse. From the At-Large perspective, it is useful to recall that DNS Abuse is not only a technical or contractual compliance issue, but also one that directly affects user trust, safety, and confidence in the Internet. Where structural or market dynamics risk creating disincentives to act on abuse mitigation, there may be implications for the stability and accountability of the DNS as a global public resource. I also find the observations regarding vertical integration and potential imbalances in influence between different parts of the contracted parties ecosystem noteworthy. While these questions may extend beyond the narrow scope of DNS Abuse PDP 1, they appear relevant to the broader question of whether existing governance mechanisms adequately support timely and effective responses to systemic risks affecting end users. In that regard, it may be helpful to ensure that discussions taking place in fora such as OFBWG and the Review of Reviews CCG remain visible and accessible to the At-Large community, so that end-user considerations continue to inform any future structural or organizational review processes. Strengthening feedback loops between policy discussions and review mechanisms could help ensure that emerging risks are identified early and addressed in a holistic manner. Ultimately, maintaining confidence in the multistakeholder model requires that all stakeholder groups, including end users, are able to meaningfully contribute to discussions where structural or economic factors may affect policy outcomes related to DNS Abuse. I therefore support the suggestion that we consider how best to channel this discussion into the appropriate fora while ensuring continuity of the issues raised here, particularly where they may have longer-term implications for end-user protection and trust in the DNS. Kind regards, Daniel Nanghaka Daniel Khauka. ICT & Digital Transformation Consultant | Knowledge Management & Innovation Specialist | Governance & Development Advisor Mobile +256 772 898298 (Uganda) ----------------------------------------- "Working for Africa" ----------------------------------------- On Fri, 10 Apr 2026 at 17:33, Murray McKercher via CPWG <cpwg(a)icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> wrote: Hello all, as per Alan's comment, I think the red flag has in fact been raised. I am also interested in this topic. Perhaps I can ask Alan and/or staff to suggest where this online discussion should take place. Best regards, Murray McKercher On Thu, Apr 9, 2026 at 11:47 PM Gbemisola Esho via CPWG <cpwg(a)icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> wrote: This thread is so engaging. For those unaware of the challenges raised, like me, I find it very enlightening. It would be really nice if the raised concerns are addressed holistically so the multistakeholder model can be preserved with power evenly distributed and stable. Thank you @Justine, Alan,Mike and Carlton On Thu, Apr 9, 2026 at 7:15 PM Justine Chew via CPWG <cpwg(a)icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> wrote: Mike, Carlton - the answer to Mike's question on forum is OFBWG. The reason for that is because what I understand Mike is asking pertains to what Alan touched on. It is connected to either a Structural Review or an Organizational Review, the substance of which are being discussed by the Review of Reviews CCG. And OFBWG is the designated forum for RoR discussions. Alan - I too am pessimistic but won't rule it out at this point, although I imagine it will take a lot for us to get there. Kind regards, Justine --------- On Fri, 10 Apr 2026, 03:59 Alan Greenberg via CPWG, <cpwg(a)icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> wrote: This is the kind of issue that a holistic review might have addressed. I have little hope it will be properly addressed in my lifetime... Whether it is worth waving a red flag anyway? Good question. Alan On Thu, Apr 9, 2026 at 3:17 PM Carlton Samuels via CPWG <cpwg(a)icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> wrote: Might I ask if this is a kind of ‘right house, wrong room’ situation here? Or, deemed a distraction being not PDP framed? Given the substance of the issue, engaging the most policy-active and informed end-user representatives is not only appropriate but a necessary first step to any upstream action. Or, is mine a peculiar view of this group? Let us be clear. This group through the ALAC can direct an intervention on any matter whatsoever fitting the description of end user interest. It need not be packaged through the lens of a PDP. I could have missed it but I do believe the case is made the matter under discussion has some end user impact. If the objective is to advance this discussion meaningfully, redirecting purely for ticking the right “venue” box is not persuasive. Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround ============================= On Thu, 9 Apr 2026 at 12:43, Claire Craig via CPWG <cpwg(a)icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> wrote: Dear Mike Thanks for your feedback. I note that it has generated considerable discussion. The concerns raised regarding input by the registries and registrars is valid. This underscores the importance of consistently engaging with and providing feedback to the At-Large community through the CPWG, so that when the team speaks, we accurately reflect the positions of the ALAC/At-Large in advancing the interest of end users. That said, while the discussion is certainly valuable, as Justine noted, much of it extends beyond the scope of the DNS Abuse PDP 1. Thanks for initiating this conversation. CCC On Thu, 9 Apr 2026 at 08:44, Roberto Gaetano via CPWG <cpwg(a)icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> wrote: Hi all Another bit of history. During the Vertical Integration WG - I co-chaired the WG - the issue of unbalancing the relative power between Registries and Registrars has been raised. The problem is that while Registries cannot have a preferential relationship with a Registrar, because if they provide strategic info to one Registrar they are obliged to distribute the same information to all ICANN accredited Registrars, the reverse is not true. The result is, in a vertically integrated Ry&Rar, that if the owner is the Registrar strategy can be developed in the Registry (their subsidiary) but being the Registrar the formal owner there is no obligation to diffuse anything. That only few people in the Vertical Integration WG have seen this coming, while the ICANN Board did not, is quite worrisome, whatever the reason for the underestimation. OTOH, it has taken years before some effects of this situation did surface - like the attempt (failed) to put PIR (.org) under the control of a Registrar. Cheers, Roberto On 09.04.2026, at 00:27, mike palage.com<http://palage.com> via CPWG <cpwg(a)icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> wrote: Alan, This is one of the reasons I have repeatedly been beating the drum about ICANN’s failure to undertake a comprehensive economic study of the unique identifiers that ICANN holds a monopoly over through the IANA function. On the issue of vertical integration, the ICANN Board acted unilaterally in approving the change and has never undertaken a proper economic or legal analysis of its decision. The listing/marketing fees that Registrars are imposing on Registry Operators are a silent tax on prospective TLD applicants that most do not fully appreciate. Reading between the lines of the CPH Summit session on "do not enrage the channel" basically discourages innovation at the Registry Level. Instead of applauding the ZERO instances of DNS abuse in fTLDs TLDs, most Registrars do not want to be bothered. They just want all Registries to be the same cookie-cutter business model. Anyone up for an economic fact-finding excursion? I know where the bodies are buried. I just need some help digging them up and documenting them. Best regards, Michael From: Alan Greenberg <greenberg.alan(a)gmail.com<mailto:greenberg.alan@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, April 8, 2026 at 4:19 PM To: mike palage.com<http://palage.com> <mike(a)palage.com<mailto:mike@palage.com>> Cc: ICANN At-Large Staff via CPWG <cpwg(a)icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CPWG] DNS Abuse PDP Sadly, I tend to agree with Mike. Eons ago when the GNSO Council was reorganized, one of the rationales for two SG (Rr and Ry) was that their interests were different. Vertical integration reduced that, but the overriding consideration that Registries do not want to go against their customers was and has been largely ignored. It takes something VERY important to Registries to disagree with Registrars. Generally, they either agree, or simply stay quiet. That results in a pretty impenetrable barrier. Alan On Wed, Apr 8, 2026 at 12:29 PM mike palage.com<http://palage.com/> via CPWG <cpwg(a)icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> wrote: Hello Claire, I just wanted to document my Zoom intervention on today’s CPWG call here via the mailing list to hopefully spur additional discussion. Claire I will document my concerns here and in the CPWG mailing list. Louie Touton’s original General Counsel had a saying that ICANN’s mission is to protect competition, not individual competitors’ business models. All too often in ICANN’s current PDP, Registrars and Registrars flex their de facto veto authority at the GNSO to impede real, meaningful change. Why this is BAD for ICANN is that it demonstrates that certain aspects of ICANN’s multistakeholder model have been captured, thus leaving disenfranchised members to resort to national laws, see NIS2, Chinese Real Name Verification, India litigation, etc. Sadly, one can see the handwriting on the wall on how this PDP will end, and one needs to look no further back in history than the transfer PDP. The registrars will get almost everything they want, and ALAC will get some consolation footnote about addressing their concerns in future work. Registrars will be out in force in this PDP as they are the tip of the Abuse spear since most Registries have now gone thin. Registries will largely remain silent because they do not want to alienate their channel or incur higher listing/placement fees. In fact, the importance of Registries NOT upsetting their Registrar channel is a topic of an upcoming session at the ICANN Contractual Party Summit, see https://cpsummit2026.sched.com/event/2GbE1/how-to-engage-and-not-enrage-the… Thoughts? Comments? Best regards, Michael _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg(a)icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave(a)icann.org<mailto:cpwg-leave@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. _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg(a)icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave(a)icann.org<mailto:cpwg-leave@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. _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg(a)icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave(a)icann.org<mailto:cpwg-leave@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. -- CCC _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg(a)icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave(a)icann.org<mailto:cpwg-leave@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. _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg(a)icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave(a)icann.org<mailto:cpwg-leave@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. _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg(a)icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave(a)icann.org<mailto:cpwg-leave@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. _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg(a)icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave(a)icann.org<mailto:cpwg-leave@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. _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg(a)icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave(a)icann.org<mailto:cpwg-leave@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. _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg(a)icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave(a)icann.org<mailto:cpwg-leave@icann.org> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos) You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

1 0

Re: Moving this Thread to OFB mailing list to continue this important discussion
by ICANN At-Large Staff April 10, 2026

April 10, 2026

Dear CPWG, Please be advised that Mr. Palage’s instructions are only partially correct. If you have not accessed ICANN Join before, please follow these instructions<https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/download/attachments/658899266/A…> for first-time users, also posted on the At-Large website<https://atlarge.icann.org/#working-groups>. Kind regards, At-Large Support Team From: CPWG <cpwg(a)icann.org> Reply-To: "mike palage.com" <mike(a)palage.com> Date: Friday, April 10, 2026 at 11:19 To: CPWG <cpwg(a)icann.org>, Sally Costerton <sally.costerton(a)icann.org>, Patrick Jones <patrick.jones(a)icann.org> Subject: [CPWG] Moving this Thread to OFB mailing list to continue this important discussion Hello All, Per ALAC leadership we will be migrating this important discussion to the OFB mailing list. For those not signed up for the OFB mailing list, see instructions below. Log in to your ICANN account and go to https://account.icann.org/app/userhome [account.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/account.icann.org/app/userhome__;!!PtGJa…> Click on ICANN Join icon. Click on the HOME tab in the upper navigation bar to see if you are an active member in the OFB mailing list. If you are, get ready to continue the discussion there. If you are not a member of the OFB mailing list, click Join Groups in the top navigation bar and select the OFB. Please note that you will need to have your time zone selected to complete the sign-up. After successfully completing the sign-up process, you will get a confirmation email from ICANN. Big shout-out to Olivier for helping me navigate the ICANN user portal. I am old-school; signing up for a mailing list was much easier back then. That being said, I think the important work that Sally Costerton and Patrick Jones are doing with the ICANN engagement team will prove invaluable to some of the issues we will be discussing. Best regards, Michael

2 1

Moving this Thread to OFB mailing list to continue this important discussion
by mike palage.com April 10, 2026

April 10, 2026

Hello All, Per ALAC leadership we will be migrating this important discussion to the OFB mailing list. For those not signed up for the OFB mailing list, see instructions below. Log in to your ICANN account and go to https://account.icann.org/app/userhome Click on ICANN Join icon. Click on the HOME tab in the upper navigation bar to see if you are an active member in the OFB mailing list. If you are, get ready to continue the discussion there. If you are not a member of the OFB mailing list, click Join Groups in the top navigation bar and select the OFB. Please note that you will need to have your time zone selected to complete the sign-up. After successfully completing the sign-up process, you will get a confirmation email from ICANN. Big shout-out to Olivier for helping me navigate the ICANN user portal. I am old-school; signing up for a mailing list was much easier back then. That being said, I think the important work that Sally Costerton and Patrick Jones are doing with the ICANN engagement team will prove invaluable to some of the issues we will be discussing. Best regards, Michael

1 0

DNS Abuse PDP
by mike palage.com April 10, 2026

April 10, 2026

Hello Claire, I just wanted to document my Zoom intervention on today’s CPWG call here via the mailing list to hopefully spur additional discussion. Claire I will document my concerns here and in the CPWG mailing list. Louie Touton’s original General Counsel had a saying that ICANN’s mission is to protect competition, not individual competitors’ business models. All too often in ICANN’s current PDP, Registrars and Registrars flex their de facto veto authority at the GNSO to impede real, meaningful change. Why this is BAD for ICANN is that it demonstrates that certain aspects of ICANN’s multistakeholder model have been captured, thus leaving disenfranchised members to resort to national laws, see NIS2, Chinese Real Name Verification, India litigation, etc. Sadly, one can see the handwriting on the wall on how this PDP will end, and one needs to look no further back in history than the transfer PDP. The registrars will get almost everything they want, and ALAC will get some consolation footnote about addressing their concerns in future work. Registrars will be out in force in this PDP as they are the tip of the Abuse spear since most Registries have now gone thin. Registries will largely remain silent because they do not want to alienate their channel or incur higher listing/placement fees. In fact, the importance of Registries NOT upsetting their Registrar channel is a topic of an upcoming session at the ICANN Contractual Party Summit, see https://cpsummit2026.sched.com/event/2GbE1/how-to-engage-and-not-enrage-the… Thoughts? Comments? Best regards, Michael

13 17

Meeting invitation: At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call on Wednesday, 15 April 2026 at 19:00 UTC
by ICANN At-Large Staff April 10, 2026

April 10, 2026

Dear All, The next At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call has been scheduled for Wednesday, 15 April 2026 at 19:00 UTC for 90 mins. For other times: <https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AgCiOw> <https://tinyurl.com/yeypn8mk> HERE<https://tinyurl.com/yeypn8mk> The agenda (to be updated) and call details can be found at: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/AYAwPQ Zoom Room: https://icann.zoom.us/j/765717566?pwd=UTJCdWRSZVdJNEhOYW02OVBqQVQ1Zz09[ican…<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/icann.zoom.us/j/765717566?pwd=UTJCdWRSZV…> / Passcode: #CPWG2345* Real time transcription (RTT) available at (subject to availability): https://www.streamtext.net/player?event=ICANN [streamtext.net]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.streamtext.net/player?event=ICANN__;…> At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Wiki Space: https://community.icann.org/x/jYDpB Thank you. Kind regards, At-Large Staff ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community www.icann.org<http://www.icann.org/>

1 0