ICANN 78

Event
Process	ICANN
Date	Oct. 21, 2023 – Oct. 26, 2023
Region	EUR
Country	Germany
City	Hamburg
Venue	Congress Center Hamburg
Websites	icann78.sched.com
← ICANN 77 ICANN 79 →

ICANN 78 was ICANN's 25th Annual General Meeting (AGM), held from October 21-26, 2023 at the CCH – Congress Center Hamburg in Hamburg, Germany. It was hosted by eco-Verband der Internetwirtschaft e.V. and DENIC eG in partnership with the Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg.

Policy discussions at ICANN 78 focused on preparing the New gTLD Program: Next Round for implementation, advancing work on IDNs, addressing DNS Abuse and registration data access, and positioning ICANN within external processes such as the Global Digital Compact (GDC) and the WSIS+20 review.

New gTLD Program: Next Round

Board Action on Pending SubPro Recommendations

A central milestone at ICANN 78 was the ICANN Board’s adoption of resolutions on the New gTLD Program: Next Round, including approval of an updated scorecard responding to remaining recommendations from the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures (SubPro) PDP. The Board confirmed that implementation of the Next Round would proceed on the basis of the vast majority of the PDP outcomes, while indicating that certain areas – such as single-registrant TLDs, applicant support, and string similarity – would need adjusted implementation or additional work with the community.

In its discussion with the GNSO Council at ICANN 78, the Board clarified that it was not comfortable with a broad blanket waiver for single-registrant applicants, pointing to the need for preventive and proactive checks to mitigate potential misuse even in single-user spaces. The Board indicated it might be more amenable to a narrower, more targeted waiver framework and noted that the evolving DNS Abuse-related contract amendments could inform further analysis once adopted. On string similarity, Board members expressed a preference for a visually confusing similarity standard applied more consistently and reliably, and signaled openness to a supplemental community recommendation to clarify the design of any appeal mechanism.

On applicant support, the Board reiterated its support for the objective but explained that the corresponding SubPro recommendation had not been adopted as written; ICANN org was developing proposals as input for the Implementation Review Team (IRT) and for further Board consideration. Across these topics, the Board emphasised the need to finalize the Applicant Guidebook (AGB), resolve outstanding policy questions and complete the implementation planning before setting a firm application window date for the Next Round.

Community Pressure for a Predictable Launch Timeline

Both the GNSO Council and the Contracted Parties House (CPH) used their ICANN 78 joint sessions with the Board to press for more clarity on the timing of the Next Round. The CPH argued that a concrete target date is necessary for potential applicants (including governments and smaller organizations) to secure funding, set budgets and decide whether to apply, and warned that uncertainty could create inadvertent barriers to entry and reputational risk for ICANN. The Board agreed that a realistic date would become clearer as implementation progressed, but insisted that work could not be rushed and that resources had been allocated to support careful completion of the remaining tasks.

Within the GNSO, stakeholder and constituency sessions, particularly in the Non-Contracted Parties House (NCPH) and its Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG), also examined the implications of the Next Round for registrants, rights-holders and intermediaries, including how registry voluntary commitments (RVCs) and registry/registrar obligations should be interpreted in light of the evolving regulatory environment.

GAC Advice and Concerns

The GAC Hamburg Communiqué welcomed the Board’s progress on SubPro recommendations, but provided further advice and follow-up on several Next Round issues. The GAC reiterated concerns around the treatment of “closed generics” and single-registrant TLDs, urging that any framework ensure that TLDs serving essentially public or general-purpose functions are operated in the public interest and with appropriate safeguards. It also commented on contention resolution mechanisms, stressing that auctions of last resort should remain a backstop measure and encouraging exploration of mechanisms that reduce purely speculative applications and promote public-interest outcomes within and beyond contention sets.

The Communiqué underscored the importance of meaningful applicant support, especially for applicants from underserved regions and communities, and called on the Board and org to ensure that support mechanisms are available and effective before the application window opens. The GAC asked for continued transparency about implementation timelines and requested ongoing opportunities to engage on outstanding policy questions that have implications for public policy and national regulatory environments. .

IDNs and Latin Script Diacritics

EPDP on IDNs

During ICANN 78, the Expedited Policy Development Process on Internationalized Domain Names (EPDP-IDNs) held three working sessions dedicated to Phase 2 charter questions on second-level variant management. The team clarified key concepts such as “source domain name” and “variant domain set”, and agreed not to prescribe a specific mechanism for identifying the “same registrant” across variants, leaving implementation details to contracted parties within agreed policy parameters. It also discussed whether ICANN’s per-domain fee should apply to each activated variant domain name under different activation models, considering the impact on both registries and registrants.

By ICANN 78 the EPDP-IDNs had completed initial deliberations on 12 of 19 Phase 2 charter questions, and its 69 Phase 1 recommendations had reached full consensus support within the team. The Phase 1 Final Report was delivered to the GNSO Council shortly after the meeting, clearing the way for Council consideration of IDN-related gTLD policy recommendations and subsequent Board action. The team planned an in-person workshop in early December 2023 in Kuala Lumpur to accelerate completion of Phase 2.

Latin Script Diacritics in TLDs

The GNSO Council devoted a specific agenda item at its ICANN 78 meeting to the “Diacritics Issue in Latin Script”, prompted by concerns from PointQuébec, CORE Association and the ALAC. The issue arises where an applied-for Latin-script IDN gTLD containing diacritics is not an allocatable variant of an existing ASCII string under the Root Zone Label Generation Rules (RZ-LGR), but is treated as confusingly similar and therefore ineligible during String Similarity Review, for example, “.québec” versus the existing “.quebec”.

Council materials noted that similar challenges could affect other registries seeking IDN equivalents of ASCII TLDs, and that future applicants might face inconsistent outcomes if the problem is not addressed. At ICANN 78, the Council used the session primarily for issue scoping; it signalled that requesting an Issue Report appeared to be the appropriate next step towards a dedicated PDP to consider an exception mechanism or other policy responses, while asking staff and interested parties to continue refining the problem statement.

ccTLD IDNs and ccPDP4

On the ccTLD side, ICANN 78 sessions provided updates on the status of ccPDP4 on the (de)selection of IDN ccTLD strings, which defines criteria and processes for IDN ccTLDs associated with ISO-3166-1 country codes and addresses variant management questions in coordination with the GNSO and the Board. The ICANN78 Policy Outcomes Report noted that once adopted by the Board and implemented, the ccPDP4 policy is expected to replace the IDN ccTLD Fast Track process and to integrate more closely with the RZ-LGR framework for IDN labels at the top level.

Registration Data, RDRS and Related Topics

RDRS Implementation and Promotion

The EPDP on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data (TempSpec) Phase 2 Small Team held a session at ICANN 78 focused on the implementation and adoption of the Registration Data Request Service (RDRS), a centralized ticketing system for requests for redacted registration data. Discussions with ICANN org centered on how to promote comprehensive use of the RDRS by both potential requestors (such as law enforcement and rights-holders) and ICANN-accredited registrars, including outreach, user experience and reporting considerations. At the time of the meeting, RDRS was expected to launch in November 2023.

Within the Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG) and other GNSO constituencies, sessions examined how RDRS would fit into broader strategies for “fixing WHOIS” under current privacy and data-protection constraints, including the relationship between RDRS and existing or future policy commitments arising from the EPDP and the Registration Data Policy Implementation Review Team (IRT).

Registration Data Policy and Urgent Requests

The CPH–Board joint session at ICANN 78 treated the forthcoming Registration Data Policy as a critical deliverable, both in terms of resolving legal uncertainties and demonstrating the effectiveness of ICANN’s multistakeholder model. Board members explained that, at the request of the GAC, they were re-examining Section 10.6 of the draft policy, which deals with “urgent” requests for registration data, and that further consultation with the GNSO Council would be needed on this specific provision. With that exception, the Board indicated support for moving ahead with policy implementation once the IRT completed its work.

The CPH emphasized that clear rules and predictable processes for urgent disclosure requests are important for both registrars and requestors, and that delays in implementing the Registration Data Policy could prolong uncertainty in how contracted parties respond to public-interest-driven data requests. Although broader work on Registration Data Accuracy was not a central focus of ICANN 78, the CPH and other groups noted that the combined effect of RDRS, the Registration Data Policy and DNS Abuse contract amendments would significantly shape how registration data is handled in practice.

GAC Perspectives on Registration Data

The GAC Hamburg Communiqué highlighted registration data access and disclosure as an ongoing public policy concern, welcoming the imminent launch of RDRS but calling for robust monitoring of its effectiveness and impact on law-enforcement and rights-holder access. The GAC reiterated that any registration data arrangements should provide timely, predictable and proportionate responses to legitimate requests, and asked to be kept informed as the Registration Data Policy is finalized and implemented.

DNS Abuse

DNS Abuse was a cross-cutting theme at ICANN 78, featuring prominently in ccNSO, GNSO, CPH, CSG and GAC discussions as well as in Board interactions.

ccNSO DNS Abuse Standing Committee (DASC)

The ccNSO DNS Abuse Standing Committee (DASC) held an internal working session at ICANN 78 to plan its work for the coming year, including a follow-up session at ICANN 79 on tools and measurements. The committee discussed findings from its earlier survey of ccTLD practices on DNS Abuse, work on a repository of resources for ccTLDs, and a dedicated mailing list to facilitate information-sharing. A separate open session explored different perspectives on DNS Abuse metrics and tools, including Domain Abuse Activity Reporting (DAAR) and registry-level experiences, and compared ccTLD and gTLD approaches to detection and mitigation.

The DASC also identified new work items around four questions: how ccTLD data validation and registration policies relate to DNS Abuse; how ccTLDs can work effectively with registrars; what tools and measurements are most useful for mitigation; and how governance models and regulatory frameworks impact DNS Abuse outcomes. The committee explicitly framed its role as facilitating understanding and dialogue rather than making binding policy, consistent with the ccNSO’s remit.

Contracted Parties and DNS Abuse Contract Amendments

Within the CPH, DNS Abuse was a central topic of membership and joint sessions at ICANN 78. Registries and registrars discussed the then-ongoing vote on DNS Abuse-related amendments to the Registry Agreement (RA) and Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA), shared threat intelligence on emerging abuse patterns, and considered the relationship between contract obligations and complementary policy work. CSG sessions similarly reviewed recent DNS Abuse studies and threat reports, focusing on registrant protection and the adequacy of current enforcement tools.

Annual General Meeting

Internationalized Domain Name

Generic Top-level Domain

Policy Development Process

Top-Level Domain

Generic Names Supporting Organization. Develops and recommends to the Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains and other responsibilities set forth in the Bylaws (ICANN Bylaws).

Contracted Parties House. Includes the Registries Stakeholder Group and the Registrars Stakeholder Group (ICANN Bylaws).

Non-Contracted Parties House. Includes the Commercial Stakeholder Group and the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (ICANN Bylaws).

Commercial Stakeholder Group. Represents the full range of large and small commercial entities of the Internet, including the Business Constituency, Intellectual Property Constituency and the Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers Constituency (ICANN Bylaws).

Governmental Advisory Committee. Considers and provides advice on the activities of ICANN as they relate to concerns of governments, particularly matters where there may be an interaction between ICANN's policies and various laws and international agreements or where they may affect public policy issues (ICANN Bylaws).

Expedited Policy Development Process

Internationalized Domain Name

At-Large Advisory Committee. Considers and provides advice on the activities of ICANN related to the interests of individual Internet users (ICANN Bylaws). Not to be confused with the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group.

American Standard Code for Information Interchange

Country code top-level domain. Determined by "ISO 3166-1: Codes for the representation of names of countries and their subdivisions — Part 1: Country codes".

Country code top-level domain. Determined by "ISO 3166-1: Codes for the representation of names of countries and their subdivisions — Part 1: Country codes".

International Organization for Standardization

Country Code Names Supporting Organization. Develops and recommends to the Board global policies relating to country-code top-level domains (ICANN Bylaws).

Domain Abuse Activity Reporting

Registrar Accreditation Agreement