From ICANNWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
100px x 500px

ICANN 76 was a Community Forum that happened at Cancun Center in Cancun, Mexico from March 11 through 16 and had a hybrid format.[1]

Prep Week[edit | edit source]

From 27 February to 1 March, there were sessions[2] on the

Topics[edit | edit source]

Sub Pro (aka next round of new TLDs)[edit | edit source]

ICANN Board[edit | edit source]

The ICANN Board adopted the Sub Pro Final Report Scorecard in full; Section A identifies the adopted outputs. Section B identifies the pending outputs. Section C identifies dependencies. The board also explained that before a launch date is set for the next round of new gTLDs, ICANN must

  1. process the 38 pending SubPro recommendations.
  2. determine an expedited approach for the Implementation Review Team (IRT) process
  3. complete and apply the outcomes of the Closed Generics Facilitated Dialogue
  4. ensure charter questions of the EPDP on Internationalized Domain Names impact the next Applicant Guidebook.

GNSO[edit | edit source]

  • The NCUC focused on developing Applicant Support, which in the past led to the Applicant Guidebook, and ensuring new applicants have more than 18 months to apply in the next round and significantly slashing the application fee (estimated USD$$240,000) for people from developing countries. The board is afraid that if they pay someone's attorney fee, it may create a conflict of interest as in "who does the attorney represent?" Kathy Kleiman recommended creating boards or groups willing to work at low cost or pro bono (she explained the EFF does this).[4]

RSSAC[edit | edit source]

The RSSAC responded that three hypothetical growth rates for the root zone (100, 1,000, or 10,000 new top-level domains) in the next round of new gTLDs would not be worrisome but RSOs would need advanced notice of expected changes to the root zone to adapt and a projection of the change rate would be helpful since it is largely an administrative function.[5]

The ALAC[edit | edit source]

The ALAC expressed concerns about the annual cycles proposed in Option 2 of Operational Design Assessment for the next round of new TLDs; the enforceability of registry voluntary commitments; the nature and scope of applicant support; and the resourcing and marketing for the Applicant Support Program; and potential gaming of auctions and community objections.[6] At-Large also introduced an initial framework to its members that will be used to identify New gTLDs SubPro recommendations to consider as prerequisites ahead of opening the next round of gTLDs.

The GAC[edit | edit source]

The GAC had concerns over Registry voluntary commitments, Applicant Support, GAC Consensus Advice and GAC Early Warnings, community applications, auctions of last resort, and Closed Generics.[7]

RDDS aks WDS aka SSAD[edit | edit source]

  • The Board adopted the ODA on the Whois Disclosure System and the ICANN Org renamed it “Registration Data Request Service.” This service should be operative by the end of 2023 and run as a pilot for two years to gather disclosure request volumes to determine whether to build the full Standardized System for Access and Disclosure of non-public domain registration data.[8] Law enforcement will not be forced to use RDRS, but there is nothing precluding them from using it. The RDRS will not solve the problem of access to data caused by the GDPR.
  • The GAC PSWG noted a lack of functionality to maintain the confidentiality of requests for Law Enforcement Agencies, which will likely lead to reduced engagement from them.[9] The GAC also noted the importance of maximizing voluntary participation in the system through potential incentive structures.

UA[edit | edit source]

  • ICANN Organization and the UASG outlined progress on UA-readiness and IDNs
  • EPDP on Internationalized Domain Names Team held two working sessions toward publishing the Phase 1 Initial Report focusing on top-level IDN gTLD definition and variant management.
  • ISPCP recommended making a UA roadmap for public resolvers[10]
  • The new Chair of the Universal Acceptance and Internationalized Domain Names Working Group briefed the GAC; reminded them of the upcoming UA Day 2023, which took place in 53 locations around the world on March 28, 2023; and said the EPDP on IDNs was expected to deliver an Initial Report in April 2023 and a Final Report by the end of the year.

Transfer Policy Review[edit | edit source]

The Transfer Policy Review PDP Working Group focused on Phase 2 (aka Group 2) Topics and discussed:[11]

  • reducing the cost to reduce barriers to entry; introducing formality, such as accreditation; whether registrants are getting what they need – what current channels are available – settlement, courts (costly), through a registrar (TDRP);
  • whether to adjust the TDRP to accommodate registrants, which would require substantial changes or a new separate system.
  • gaming or potential gaming of TDRP if available to registrants – could be adjusted for that.
  • This WG focuses on transfers between contracted parties, so disputes among registrants could be out of scope.
  • if out of scope the WG could make a recommendation to GNSO Council that a process for registrants could be considered separately.
  • Issues raised by George Kirikos (limitation period of 12 months; with Temp Spec, the Losing Registrar can win 100 percent of the TDRP disputes because the Gaining Registrar doesn’t have access to the Whois info for the FOA because of GDPR; long registration period creating confusion with ownership of the domain name in case of an invalid transfer)[12]
  • Gap Analysis - Reversal of Inter-Registrar Transfers[13]

Geopolitical & Regulatory Developments[edit | edit source]

  • The impacts of NIS2
  • WSIS+20[14]
  • Proposal of the Internet General Law in Peru[15]; the ICANN Board plans to coordinate with other partner Internet governance organizations.
  • The ccNSO discussed getting more involved by developing an Internet Governance Liaison[16]

DNS Abuse[edit | edit source]

GNSO[edit | edit source]

  • The CPH hosted a DNS Abuse outreach session that included an update on DNS abuse negotiations, CPH responses to GNSO correspondence on DNS abuse, and upcoming ICANN community work on DNS abuse.
  • A team of Registrar and Registry representatives are negotiating changes to the RAA and Registry Agreement (RA) with ICANN Staff. The revised contractual language will be published for comment by June 2023 (ICANN 77)[17]
  • The Business Constituency session included a presentation about Whois Extensible Markup Language Application Programming Interface research findings on DNS abuse.

Cross-Community[edit | edit source]

  • the ALAC, BC, and IPC sent a joint letter seeking consultation on the DNS abuse negotiations with the Contracted Parties (precedent from 2009 and 2013). ICANN Board said Contracted Parties entered DNS abuse negotiations with a specific scope with ICANN Contractual Compliance for more enforcement tools. ICANN Board will consider conducting a listening session with the ICANN community.

GAC[edit | edit source]

  • The GAC Public Safety Working Group (PSWG) advocated for improved measures to combat DNS Abuse, explained the importance of WHOIS data and mitigating DNS Abuse, shared U.K. and U.S. cybercrime statistics, and updated the GAC on initiatives from the community.[18]
  • The GAC expressed concerns over the negotiations in relation to Recommendations 14 (ICANN should include provisions in the agreements to provide incentives, including financial incentives for registries, especially open registries, to adopt proactive anti-abuse measures[19]) and 15 (ICANN should establish thresholds of abuse at which Contractual Compliance inquiries are automatically triggered, with a higher threshold at which registrars and registries are presumed to be in default of their agreements. For example, if the community determines that ICANN org itself is ill-suited or unable to enforce such provisions, then a DNS Abuse Dispute Resolution Policy (DADRP) should be considered as an additional means to enforce policies and deter DNS Security Abuse[20]) from the Competition, Consumer Trust, and Consumer Choice Review.
  • The Internet and Jurisdiction Policy Network explained to the GAC in detail its framework for DNS Abuse Responses

The GAC reaffirmed the importance of increasing the number and geographical distribution of applications from underrepresented regions through the Applicant Support Program and its support for proposals to reduce or eliminate ongoing ICANN registry fees to expand financial support.

DNSSEC[edit | edit source]

SSAC asked ICANN Board and Org to promote DNSSEC similarly to how it has approached UA. Specifically, Russ Mundy asked for an analysis of the gaps and requirements to accomplish widespread use of DNSSEC.[21] The SSAC also held a workshop on DNSSEC about novel usages; proposals to solve bottlenecks; DNSSEC provision automation by registries, registrars, and handling multiple signing parties; and the challenges of blockchain-based naming systems for malware defenders.[22]

Curative Rights[edit | edit source]

The ICANN Board said: The GAC Consensus Advice on the EPDP for Specific Curative Rights Protections for IGOs aka "curative rights" called for a permanent pre-registration notification system. The ICANN Board does not support that approach and proposed an alternative post-registration notification system. The ICANN organization was remiss in delivering that alternative system and the board will consult with the GAC to determine if its curative rights are still consistent.[23] The GAC advised the Board to approve the recommendations of the EPDP on Specific Curative Rights Protections for implementation and to maintain the current moratorium on the registration of IGO acronyms as domain names in New gTLDs presently in place until the full implementation of the recommendations of the EPDP on Specific Curative Rights Protections.

ICANN-Wide Process Improvements[edit | edit source]

Work Stream 2[edit | edit source]

The HRILWG updated the GAC on the implementation of Work Stream 2 (WS2) Recommendation 1 on diversity, including the work of the WS2 Community Coordination Group (CCG) on developing tools and reminded the GAC to make the Fiscal Year 2024 Additional Budget Request for sign language at ICANN Meetings.[24]

Volunteer Appreciation[edit | edit source]

  • The ALAC and ICANN Board grappled with the ICANN-wide issue of volunteer burnout and how to help volunteers feel appreciated and heard. Ideas included: emeritus status for leaders to ensure support going to newcomers; tools to make engagement in ICANN more accessible and sustainable; and recognizing contributions through travel support tied to emeritus status. ALAC explained that it is having trouble retaining newcomers, despite their use of the ICANN Fellow Program and subscription features on the ICANN Information Transparency Initiative Platform. ICANN CEO Sally Costerton proposed focused, topic-based engagement on issue tracks. RALOs and the regional Global Stakeholder Engagement are also trying to work better together.[25]
  • To mitigate volunteer burnout, SSAC wants[26]
    • earlier engagement and dialogue between the ICANN Board, SSAC, and ICANN organization;
    • to share its advice broadly via the ALAC or ICANN Global Communications; and
    • to receive honest feedback from the multistakeholder community and the ICANN Board when its advice is not adopted.

Matthew Shears proposed an interactive session to raise awareness of security from the SSAC perspective.

PDP[edit | edit source]

The ICANN Board asked the CSG about how to balance agility in policy development with accountability and transparency, to which they responded that they should allow the GNSO Guidance Process to work through applicant support first and then evaluate it as a mechanism, form expert working groups for specific problems, create Rapid Response Teams, and rely on limited scopes and small teams.

ODPs[edit | edit source]

ALAC hosted a community-wide discussion of the efficacy of ODPs, asking:[27]

  1. What criteria should determine when a policy discussion is to be sent to ICANN org vs the ICANN community?
  2. Could changes to the policy development process decrease the burden on the org during an Operational Design Phase?
  3. When should outside expertise be brought in (such as system scoping)?
  4. What would have been improved through additional community input without adding to the overall timing?

IRT[edit | edit source]

The ICANN Board asked the CPH about concrete steps for improving the Implementation Review Team process. Complexity is often a result of PDP scoping. The RySG responded that they plan to: more narrowly tailor their PDPs with a more clearly defined charter, have the early involvement of the ICANN Board and ICANN organization liaisons, include observations from the ODA during the PDP, and break up the IRT. The RrSG responded that it would be helpful to have a more regular cadence and detailed agendas for IRT work sessions, include default language for IRT work from the PDP, and escalate issues to the GNSO Council or ICANN Board.[28]

Reviews[edit | edit source]

Holistic Review[edit | edit source]
  • ccNSO sought a progress update from the ICANN Board on the holistic review and expressed concerns with its vague and undefined scope.[29]
Second NomCom Organizational Review[edit | edit source]

The ICANN Board accepted the Second NomCom Organizational Review

Prioritization[edit | edit source]

  • ICANN Chief Financial Officer Xavier Calvez said the prioritization pilot had been a success and ICANN Org planned to integrate prioritization across ICANN.ref>ICANN76 policy outcome report, published 10 Apr 2023, pg5</ref>

CEO Search[edit | edit source]

SO/AC Process Improvements[edit | edit source]

GNSO[edit | edit source]

The SOI Task Force team within the GNSO agreed on proposed changes to enhance representative transparency. However, some members are concerned they cannot disclose their clients’ identities.[31] The Council Committee for Overseeing and Implementing Continuous Improvement (CCOICI) Working Group Self-Assessment (WGSA) into a single Recommendations Report about SOIs. The CCOICI integrated public comments and submitted its Recommendations Report to the Council on 5 January 2023.[32] GAC Members were concerned about a proposed exception in the SOI that could permit GNSO participants to refrain from disclosing the identity of the entities they represent in GNSO working groups.

GAC[edit | edit source]

The GAC Operating Principles Evolution Working Group (GOPE WG) finalized its review of the Preliminary Analysis of GAC Operating Principles, which will be the basis for prioritizing the review of the GAC Operating Principles.[33]

ASO[edit | edit source]

The ASO Address Council worked on its operating procedures concerning officers, meetings, global policy development, voting, and ICANN Board member selection.[34]

Thanks[edit | edit source]

References[edit | edit source]

  1. ICANN 76 Schedule
  2. ICANN 76 Prep Week, ICANN Announcements
  3. Active Group Activities, GNSO
  4. NCUC Membership Meeting Transcript, ICANN 76
  5. RSSAC031
  6. ICANN76 policy outcome report, published 10 Apr 2023, pgs15
  7. ICANN76 Cancun Communique, GAC, ICANN.org
  8. ICANN76 Recap, OPENSRS
  9. ICANN76 Cancun Communique, GAC, ICANN.org
  10. ISPCP Transcript, ICANN 76
  11. Transfer Policy Review WG Session 1, ICANN 76
  12. Transfer Policy Review WG Session 2, ICANN 76
  13. Gap Analysis - Reversal of Inter-Registrar Transfers Accessed April 6, 2023
  14. ICANN GE on WSIS+20
  15. IGL in Peru Accessed April 6, 2023
  16. IGLC Session, ICANN 76
  17. ICANN76 Recap, OPENSRS
  18. ICANN76 Cancun Communique, GAC, ICANN.org
  19. CCT Review 1 Final Report, pg98
  20. CCT Review 1 Final Report, pg99
  21. ICANN76 Policy Outcomes Report, pg 19
  22. ICANN76 Policy Outcomes Report, pg36
  23. ICANN76 policy outcome report, published 10 Apr 2023, pgs7-8
  24. ICANN76 Cancun Communique, GAC, ICANN.org
  25. ICANN76 policy outcome report, published 10 Apr 2023, pgs15
  26. ICANN76 Policy Outcomes Report, pg 19
  27. ALAC Community Discussion Agenda, ICANN 76
  28. ICANN76 policy outcome report, published 10 Apr 2023, pgs9
  29. ICANN76 policy outcome report, published 10 Apr 2023, pg5
  30. ICANN76 policy outcome report, published 10 Apr 2023, pg6
  31. ICANN76 Recap, OPENSRS
  32. CCOICI, Community, ICANN
  33. ICANN76 Cancun Communique, GAC, ICANN.org
  34. ICANN76 Policy Outcomes Report, pg 20
  35. ICANN Board Resolutions, March 16, 2023