ICANN 68
| Event | |
|---|---|
| |
| Process | ICANN |
| Date | Jun. 21, 2020 – Jun. 15, 2020 |
| City | Online |
| Websites | |
ICANN 68 was held as a Virtual Policy Forum from June 22–25, 2020 in the UTC+8 time zone corresponding to Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.[1] The meeting had originally been scheduled as an in-person Policy Forum in Kuala Lumpur, hosted by the Internet Society Malaysia Chapter, but was converted to a remote-participation-only meeting following ICANN Board action in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.[2][3][4] ICANN 68 was the fifth ICANN Policy Forum, the second ICANN Public Meeting to be held entirely virtually, and the first Public Meeting that was both planned and executed as a fully online event with ICANN org support teams working remotely.[1][5]
The policy agenda at ICANN 68 was organized around three cross-community plenary themes: DNS Abuse and malicious registrations during the COVID-19 pandemic, the relationship between the DNS and the Internet of Things (IoT), and approaches to advancing policy work under pandemic-driven constraints, alongside ongoing work in the GNSO, ccNSO, ALAC, GAC, RSSAC and SSAC on new gTLD policy, registration data, DNS Abuse, ccTLD/IDN policy, and implementation of review recommendations.[6][4]
Meeting Information[edit | edit source]
ICANN 68 was held from 22 to 25 June 2020 as a four-day virtual Policy Forum, with the program aligned to Kuala Lumpur local time (UTC+8), the time zone of the original in-person host city.[1][4] The meeting was converted from an in-person event to a remote-only meeting by an 8 April 2020 ICANN Board resolution addressing the global COVID-19 public health emergency; the decision was announced publicly the following day.[3][4] In Board materials associated with the June 11, 2020 special Board meeting, ICANN 68 was cited as the first ICANN Public Meeting to test a Public Meeting that was fully planned and executed as a virtual event, in contrast to ICANN 67, which had been converted at short notice.[5]
Cross-Community Plenary Themes[edit | edit source]
DNS Abuse and Malicious Registrations During the COVID-19 Pandemic[edit | edit source]
One of the three ICANN 68 plenary sessions focused on DNS Abuse and malicious domain registrations during the COVID-19 pandemic. The session brought together contracted parties, ccTLD operators, end-user representatives, business interests, public safety officials, SSAC members and ICANN org’s Office of the CTO (OCTO) to discuss the evolution of DNS Abuse since ICANN 66 and the specific challenges posed by COVID-19-related abuse campaigns.
Contracted party representatives from the RySG and RrSG provided updates on the development and uptake of DNS Abuse best practices, highlighting individual operators’ success stories and lessons learned during the pandemic. A ccNSO speaker described increased collaboration between registrars and law enforcement agencies to respond to malicious registrations, while the ALAC vice chair contributed an end-user perspective on the growth in phishing and malware campaigns affecting individuals and communities. Business stakeholders framed DNS Abuse mitigation in terms of the "tragedy of the commons," stressing the need for clearer accountability mechanisms and contractual tools to incentivize good behavior and penalize abusive registrations.
SSAC members outlined plans to develop tools and processes for more structured reporting and handling of DNS Abuse, including guidance on what information should be present in an abuse report and expectations of timeliness for responses. ICANN's Chief Technology Officer presented on enhancements to the DNS Abuse Activity Reporting (DAAR) project and introduced the DNS Security Facilitation Initiative, intended to improve community understanding of DNS ecosystem risks and mitigation options. Next steps identified in the session included continued community-wide work on incremental, implementable measures and the potential development of a framework or set of processes for effective abuse resolution involving registries, registrars and other DNS actors.[6]
The DNS and the Internet of Things (IoT)[edit | edit source]
A second plenary session, organized jointly by the ccNSO and SSAC, examined opportunities, risks and challenges for the DNS in the context of the Internet of Things. This session built on earlier ccNSO discussions and SSAC's SAC105 report, which had been intended to trigger community debate on DNS–IoT interactions. Presentations from DNS operators, IoT experts and connectivity providers explored how IoT devices interact with the DNS, including the impact of encryption and the emergence of 5G networks on naming and addressing.
Panelists from the ISP and connectivity communities, non-commercial users and the research community provided critical commentary on the presentations to stimulate further discussion, including questions about the appropriate scope of ICANN's role, the boundaries between DNS-related stability issues and broader cybersecurity concerns, and how DNS operators should respond to IoT-driven traffic patterns. The session emphasized that IoT-related work would continue across the community, including in light of ICANN’s strategic objective to improve its assessment of and responsiveness to new technologies that affect the security, stability and resiliency of the Internet’s unique identifier systems.[6]
Advancing Policy Work During the COVID-19 Pandemic[edit | edit source]
A third plenary, "Advancing Policy Work During the COVID-19 Pandemic," gathered ICANN community leaders, ICANN Board members and ICANN org executives to assess how policy development and advisory work should be prioritized and organized under sustained pandemic conditions. The discussion acknowledged that although much of the community was already accustomed to virtual working models, many high-profile processes, such as PDPs and cross-community activities, had historically relied on intense in-person interactions and informal hallway discussions to make progress.
Participants addressed how to sequence work, manage volunteer bandwidth and design virtual interactions that could substitute, where necessary, for in-person engagement. The session pointed to the need for careful coordination between ICANN org, the Board and community leaders when setting timelines and expectations, and concluded that ICANN org would continue adapting its support to sustain effective policy work during the global health crisis.[6]
GNSO[edit | edit source]
During ICANN 68, the GNSO community organized thirteen sessions, including PDP working group meetings, Stakeholder Group and Constituency sessions, a GNSO Council meeting and bilateral meetings with other ICANN bodies. Some GNSO sessions that are typically held in person at ICANN Public Meetings were not scheduled due to the virtual format, with associated work expected to proceed through other channels or at later dates.[6]
Registration Data: EPDP on the Temporary Specification and Implementation[edit | edit source]
The Phase 2 Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP) on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data did not hold sessions in the ICANN 68 formal schedule, but the EPDP team continued its regular calls during the meeting week to work towards its Final Report. A small group of EPDP members met to refine proposed models for a mechanism to evolve the System for Standardized Access/Disclosure (SSAD) over time (Recommendation 19), in parallel with the team’s submission of a Project Change Request (PCR) asking the GNSO Council to extend the deadline for delivering its Final Report on critical-path items from June 11 to July 31, 2020.
The Phase 1 Implementation Review Team (IRT) held a session to update the community on the status of its work and, in a discussion moderated by the GNSO Council liaison to the IRT, to consider implementation of Recommendation 7, which details the requirements for the transfer of registration data from registrars to registries.[6]
New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP[edit | edit source]
As the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures (SubPro) PDP Working Group prepared to publish its draft Final Report for Public Comment, it used its ICANN 68 session to obtain community feedback on two unresolved topics: the use of private auctions to resolve string contention sets and the design of a predictability framework for future rounds.
On private auctions, participants discussed approaches to reduce speculative applications from parties with no intention of operating a TLD, while still permitting creative contention-resolution mechanisms that could support legitimate applicants.[6]
On private auctions, participants discussed approaches to reduce speculative applications from parties with no intention of operating a TLD, while still permitting creative contention-resolution mechanisms that could support legitimate applicants.[6] On predictability, the working group presented a draft framework for triaging issues that arise from changes to the New gTLD Program after finalization of the Applicant Guidebook, including the proposed Standing Predictability Implementation Review Team (SPIRT), and explored concerns about the framework’s complexity and potential overlap with existing structures. The working group planned to finalize its draft recommendations after ICANN 68, taking into account the feedback received, and to open a Public Comment proceeding on the draft Final Report in the weeks following the meeting.[6][4]
Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDs PDP[edit | edit source]
The Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDs (RPMs) PDP Working Group held a working session in which its two subgroups reported on their analysis of fifty-five Public Comment submissions on the Phase 1 Initial Report. The working group used the session to review subgroup outputs, identify areas where comments might warrant changes or clarifications to preliminary recommendations, and begin the analysis of comments on individual proposals that had not reached the level of preliminary recommendations in the Initial Report.[6]
The working group completed review of five individual proposals related to the Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) system, deciding to keep three proposals for further refinement ahead of a future consensus call. The RPMs Working Group planned to continue its Public Comment analysis after ICANN 68 with a target of delivering its Phase 1 Final Report to the GNSO Council by mid-October 2020.[6]
GNSO Council Meeting and Interactions[edit | edit source]
The GNSO Council met on June 24, 2020. Its agenda included consideration of the EPDP Phase 2 Project Change Request and next steps for “Priority 2” items, the Final Report of the Cross-Community Working Group on New gTLD Auction Proceeds, the GNSO’s implementation responsibilities for Work Stream 2 (WS2) accountability recommendations, composition of the group to select the Independent Review Process (IRP) Standing Panel, work prioritization and program management, and a draft response on the recommendations of the Registration Directory Service Review Team (RDS2) that had been sent to the Council. The Council also adopted a resolution requesting an Issue Report on the Transfer Policy, formally initiating scoping work for potential future policy development in that area.
In a joint meeting with the ICANN Board, the GNSO Council discussed the status of pending consensus policy recommendations under Board consideration, the evolution of the multistakeholder model, and community expectations regarding the role of the GNSO in responding to DNS Abuse, including definitions, tools and potential new policy work. A bilateral meeting with the ccNSO Council focused on the newly-initiated ccPDP4 on IDN ccTLD strings, a joint letter to the Board concerning the procedure used to adopt the FY21 budget and Five-Year Operating Plan, and approval of the full membership slate of the Customer Standing Committee (CSC).[6]
ccNSO[edit | edit source]
At ICANN 68, the ccNSO adapted its activities to the virtual format by holding its first virtual ccNSO Council workshop ahead of the meeting and conducting its regular monthly Council meeting during the week, alongside Tech Day and a ccNSO Members Meeting. The Members Meeting featured sessions on governance models for ccTLD managers, "DNS in Times of COVID-19: The ccTLD Experience," and a question-and-answer session with ccNSO-appointed Board members.
The ccNSO Council meeting on June 24, 2020 addressed several internal governance and review matters. The Council adopted an amended charter for the Strategic and Operational Planning Committee (SOPC), endorsed the Review Working Party’s proposed assessment and initial implementation plan for the ccNSO Organizational Review, and approved the timeline and process for the 2021 ccNSO Council nominations and elections, including appointment of an election process manager. The Council also reviewed the outcome of its first virtual workshop and discussed the expected adoption, at a later meeting, of the Final Report of the Cross-Community Working Group on New gTLD Auction Proceeds.
Only selected ccNSO working groups and committees—namely the SOPC and the Internet Governance Liaison Committee (IGLC)—held sessions during ICANN 68, focusing on engagement with the broader community. The IGLC curated Internet governance-related content for ccTLD managers, including contributions to the "DNS in Times of COVID-19" session and work on topics such as cybersecurity, capacity building and inclusion, the digital divide, IDNs, local content, regulation and the role of ccTLDs in national and regional IGF processes.
The TLD-OPS Standing Committee continued its work on operational security and incident response, building on its Disaster Recovery and Business Continuity Playbook for small ccTLD operators and surveying TLD-OPS members about their activation of business continuity plans during the COVID-19 pandemic. Survey results were intended to inform a subsequent workshop at ICANN 69 and further iterations of the playbook.
In terms of formal policy development, the ccNSO’s third Policy Development Process (ccPDP3) on the retirement of ccTLDs and associated review mechanisms continued. The ccPDP3-RET Working Group sought community input on its proposed process for retiring ccTLDs when the corresponding country code is removed from the ISO 3166 list, with Public Comment submissions to be reviewed in developing final policy recommendations. The ccPDP3-RM Working Group advanced its work on designing review mechanisms for delegation, transfer, revocation and retirement of ccTLDs, including identifying decision points in IANA and Board processes, determining scope, and cataloguing existing dispute resolution mechanisms such as the Remedial Action Process and the Independent Review Process (IRP) for potential reuse.
The ccNSO also formally initiated ccPDP4 on the (de)selection of IDN ccTLD strings, following Council adoption of the relevant Issue Report in May 2020. During the ICANN 68 period, the ccNSO prepared webinars to explain the proposed scope and working methods for ccPDP4, with a call for volunteers to follow. The long-term objective is for the ccPDP4 policy to replace the IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process as the framework guiding selection of IDN ccTLD strings.[6]
ALAC and RALOs[edit | edit source]
The At-Large community, including the ALAC, RALO leaders and liaisons, held eleven sessions at ICANN 68 focused on policy issues affecting individual Internet users, complemented by pre-meeting capacity-building webinars. At-Large policy sessions addressed DNS Abuse, Public Interest Commitments and the PIC Dispute Resolution Procedure (PICDRP), new gTLD applicants and applicant support, and Universal Acceptance and the multilingual Internet.
Two At-Large sessions focused specifically on DNS Abuse. "DNS Abuse, COVID-19, and End-User Issues" looked at how the pandemic was redefining multistakeholder consensus development and the protection of individual rights, while "DNS Abuse: Setting an Acceptable Threshold" examined data-driven enforcement approaches and presented information on the DAAR project, registrar data collection and objective measures of DNS Abuse.[6] These sessions connected At-Large's end-user perspective to broader community debates on DNS Abuse occurring in GNSO, GAC and plenary settings.[6][4]
Other At-Large sessions examined the functioning of PICs and the PICDRP, asking whether the current system meets consumer expectations and how ICANN Compliance and the PICDRP interact in practice. A dedicated session on new gTLD applicants considered challenges experienced by not-for-profit and grassroots applicants in the 2012 round, including limitations in the Applicant Support Program (ASP) and Community Priority Evaluation (CPE), and explored policy ideas aimed at improving access and outcomes for less conventional community applicants in future rounds.
At ICANN 68, the At-Large community also held a session on Universal Acceptance and IDNs, which discussed regional experiences (including in Africa and Europe), industry adoption and the support At-Large can provide for UA readiness through analysis, training and remediation work. The session emphasized the link between UA, IDNs and the multilingual Internet from an end-user perspective.
During the At-Large Leadership Wrap-Up Session, the ALAC chair sought and obtained strong ALAC endorsement of the At-Large Review 2 Implementation Final Report, which was subsequently submitted to the Board's Organizational Effectiveness Committee on June 30, 2020. The session also included a question-and-answer segment with the ICANN President and CEO and Board members, and discussion of post-ATLAS III survey results with implications for At-Large policy, capacity-building, outreach and operations.
In the run-up to ICANN 68, the ALAC submitted twelve policy advice statements, including the first joint statement by AFRALO and APRALO, which responded to the ICANN Middle East and Adjoining Countries (MEAC) Strategy 2021-2025, and an AFRALO statement on ICANN regional strategies affecting countries in its region. During the Joint AFRALO–AfrICANN Meeting at ICANN 68, participants discussed a draft AFRALO–AfrICANN statement on "Enhancing the Resilience of the ICANN Community in the Face of Calamities," offering suggestions to the Board and org on strengthening remote participation and community resilience in times of crisis.[6]
GAC[edit | edit source]
The GAC met remotely during ICANN 68, with 78 Member States and territories and 3 Observer organizations participating. All GAC plenary sessions were held as open meetings.
In its meeting with the ICANN Board, the GAC discussed subsequent rounds of new gTLDs, DNS Abuse mitigation (including privacy/proxy services, proactive anti-abuse measures and the accuracy of gTLD registration data), the future of domain name registration directory services and data protection, and upcoming topics of governmental interest.[4]
Subsequent Rounds of New gTLDs[edit | edit source]
The GAC identified subsequent rounds of new gTLDs as a priority topic for ICANN 68, devoting three GAC sessions to it, reviewing its scorecard on subsequent rounds and engaging with the SubPro PDP Working Group. The communiqué noted an update from the SubPro co-chairs on work since ICANN 67, including their review of individual GAC member input and the timeline for delivering the PDP Final Report. The GAC took note that the draft Final Report was expected to be published for Public Comment in July 2020 for a 40-day period, and some GAC members expressed concern that this duration might be too short for such a high-priority topic.
The GAC highlighted two topics that the SubPro WG had discussed at ICANN 68: private resolutions of string contentions (particularly private auctions) and the Predictability Framework and proposed SPIRT mechanism. Some GAC members reiterated concerns about private auctions and questioned why alternative mechanisms were not being more fully explored. On predictability, the communiqué recorded initial community support for establishing a Predictability Framework but also GAC member doubts about the added value and potential complexity of the SPIRT, including possible inconsistencies with existing roles and responsibilities under the ICANN Bylaws; suggestions were made that any such mechanism should be lean, inclusive and transparent.
GAC vice chairs briefed the committee on priority sub-topics, applicant support, closed generics, PICs and the global public interest, GAC Early Warnings and Advice, and community-based applications, and some members expressed the view that absent a PDP recommendation on closed generics, the Board's 2012 resolution on the matter would continue to apply. The communiqué also recalled GAC member expectations for a cost/benefit analysis prior to launching a new round. The next step identified was coordinated GAC consensus input into the anticipated Public Comment proceeding on the SubPro draft Final Report, using the GAC scorecard as the main reference.[4]
EPDP on gTLD Registration Data and Data Accuracy[edit | edit source]
On registration data, the GAC emphasized several concerns relating to the EPDP on the Temporary Specification. The GAC small group on EPDP issues underlined the need for any SSAD implementation to include a robust mechanism for evolution in response to future legal developments, particularly with regard to categories of disclosures that could become subject to automated responses.
The GAC communiqué requested that the Board seek an update from the GNSO on its plan to pursue further policy development work on unresolved issues around distinguishing legal and natural persons and ensuring data accuracy, asking that such efforts begin as soon as possible after Phase 2 recommendations are finalized, and aiming for completion within six months where practicable. The GAC stressed that other advisory committees, such as SSAC and ALAC, should participate in scoping and terms of reference for these future efforts.
The communiqué also called for more clarity on data controllership in the SSAD model, encouraging ICANN and the contracted parties to conclude data protection agreements and share them in time to support the IRT’s work. It proposed further exploration of anonymized email as a privacy-preserving technique that might enable some level of public contactability while protecting registrant identity, citing data protection authorities' guidance on anonymization and pseudonymization as privacy-enhancing techniques.
In a follow-up section on previous advice, the GAC reiterated earlier positions on maintaining WHOIS access to the fullest extent possible and distinguishing between legal and natural persons' data, recalling its 2007 WHOIS principles and prior communiqués such as San Juan.[4]
DNS Abuse[edit | edit source]
The GAC received briefings on COVID-19-related DNS Abuse and efforts by authorities, contracted parties, SSAC and OCTO to detect and mitigate such abuse and share best practices. The communiqué acknowledged registry and registrar efforts both proactive and reactive, commended initiatives that contributed to cybersecurity, fraud prevention and public health, and called for ICANN to prioritize capacity-building and training for countries most affected or where the benefits of such efforts would be greatest.
The GAC stressed that new initiatives on DNS Abuse should complement, rather than replace, existing work such as the Accuracy Reporting System and the implementation of privacy/proxy policy recommendations, and it urged the Board to implement existing GAC advice on these matters while encouraging the community to advance multiple work streams related to DNS Abuse.[4]
IGO Protections and Work Stream 2 Implementation[edit | edit source]
The communiqué noted that the GNSO Council had adopted a revised charter for a focused working group tasked with developing policy recommendations on International Governmental Organization (IGO) access to curative rights mechanisms, and that the Council was in the process of selecting a chair.
On Work Stream 2 (WS2) accountability recommendations, the GAC Human Rights and International Law Working Group (HRIL WG) reported on the status of implementation and introduced the Human Rights Impact Assessment (HRIA) tool developed by the Cross-Community Working Party on ICANN and Human Rights (CCWP-HR) as a means for SO/ACs, including the GAC, to track and organize WS2 implementation efforts. GAC members discussed how to prioritize WS2-related tasks and expressed concerns about some WS2 topics, signaling the need for ongoing cross-community work.[4]
RSSAC[edit | edit source]
According to the Post-ICANN68 Policy Report, the RSSAC did not convene formal sessions during the ICANN 68 Virtual Policy Forum, with its ongoing work on root server system advice and related documents continuing through its regular caucus activities outside the meeting schedule. Community members were directed to RSSAC publications and calendars for updates on active work items.[6]
SSAC[edit | edit source]
The SSAC's contributions at ICANN 68 included participation in the DNS Abuse plenary and the co-organization of the IoT plenary, as well as its traditional DNSSEC and Security Workshop and an SSAC public session. SSAC members at the DNS Abuse plenary described plans to develop community tools and processes for standardized DNS Abuse reporting and response expectations.
At the IoT plenary, SSAC representatives provided an overview of SAC105 and discussed IoT–DNS interactions, including the impact of encrypted DNS and implications for DNS operators. The DNSSEC and Security Workshop and SSAC public session, though not detailed in the Post-ICANN68 report, were positioned as part of SSAC's ongoing engagement on DNSSEC deployment, emerging security technologies such as DNS over HTTPS and DNS over TLS, routing security and other topics related to the security and stability of the DNS.[6]
ASO[edit | edit source]
The Address Supporting Organization Address Council (ASO AC) did not convene during the ICANN 68 Virtual Policy Forum. The Post-ICANN68 report highlighted that ASO AC teleconferences had been opened to observers in line with recommendations from the 2017 ASO Organizational Review and encouraged interested community members to follow Regional Internet Registry (RIR) policy development processes directly through RIR meetings and mailing lists.[6]
Board and Leadership Actions[edit | edit source]
While no major new Board resolutions were adopted during the ICANN 68 meeting week itself, the broader Board context for the meeting included the April 8, 2020 resolution to convert ICANN 68 from an in-person meeting in Kuala Lumpur to a remote-participation-only event and the June 11, 2020 Board materials characterizing ICANN 68 as the first ICANN Public Meeting fully planned and executed in a virtual format.[3][5][4]
Joint meetings between the Board and community bodies at ICANN 68, particularly with the GNSO Council and the GAC, served as key venues for Board-community dialogue on pending consensus policies, subsequent rounds of new gTLDs, DNS Abuse, registration data and the evolution of the multistakeholder model in a predominantly virtual environment.[6][4]
References[edit | edit source]
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 ICANN68 Virtual Policy Forum: Schedule Now Available Retrieved January 13, 2026
- ↑ 2020 ICANN Public Meeting Locations Announced Retrieved January 13, 2026
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 ICANN68 to be Held as Remote Public Meeting Retrieved January 13, 2026
- ↑ 4.00 4.01 4.02 4.03 4.04 4.05 4.06 4.07 4.08 4.09 4.10 4.11 4.12 ICANN68 GAC Communiqué Retrieved January 13, 2026
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 Approved Board Resolutions – Special Meeting of the ICANN Board, 11 June 2020 Retrieved January 13, 2026
- ↑ 6.00 6.01 6.02 6.03 6.04 6.05 6.06 6.07 6.08 6.09 6.10 6.11 6.12 6.13 6.14 6.15 6.16 6.17 6.18 6.19 Post-ICANN68 Policy Report Retrieved January 13, 2026
ICANNWiki resources: Special Pages | Content Guide | Documentation | Development || Maintenance: Articles needing attention | Candidates for deletion || Projects: Internet & Digital Governance Library