Jump to content

ICANN 76: Difference between revisions

From ICANNWiki
Jessica (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Jessica (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Line 13: Line 13:
===Sub Pro (aka next round of new TLDs)===  
===Sub Pro (aka next round of new TLDs)===  
*the [[ICANN Board]]:  
*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;
**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;  
** explained that before a launch date is set for the next round of new gTLDs, icann must
#  process the 38 pending SubPro recommendations.
#  determine an expedited approach for the [[Implementation Review Team]] (IRT) process
# complete and apply the outcomes of the [[Closed Generics]] Facilitated Dialogue
# ensure charter questions of the [[EPDP on Internationalized Domain Names]] impact the next Applicant Guidebook.
*[[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$$240,000) for people from developing countries. The board is afraid that if they pay someone's attorney fee, it may create a conflict of interest as in "who does the attorney represent?" [[Kathy Kleiman]] recommended creating boards or groups willing to work at low cost or pro bono (she explained the [[EFF]] does this).<ref>[https://static.sched.com/hosted_files/icann76/c0/TRANSC_I76CUN_Sat11Mar2023_GNSO-%20NCUC%20Membership%20Meet-en.pdf NCUC Membership Meeting Transcript, ICANN 76]</ref>
*[[NCUC]] focused on developing Applicant Support, which in the past led to the [[Applicant Guidebook]], and ensuring new applicants have more than 18 months to apply in the next round and significantly slashing the application fee (estimated USD$$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).<ref>[https://static.sched.com/hosted_files/icann76/c0/TRANSC_I76CUN_Sat11Mar2023_GNSO-%20NCUC%20Membership%20Meet-en.pdf NCUC Membership Meeting Transcript, ICANN 76]</ref>
===WDS (aka [[SSAD]]) ===
===WDS (aka [[SSAD]]) ===

Revision as of 17:47, 12 April 2023

100px x 500px
100px x 500px



ICANN 76 is 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 will be sessions[2] on the

Topics[edit | edit source]

Sub Pro (aka next round of new TLDs)[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;
    • 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.
  • 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]

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.[5]

UA[edit | edit source]

Transfer Policy Review[edit | edit source]

The Transfer Policy Review PDP Working Group focused on Phase 2 (aka Group 2) Topics and discussed:[7]

  • 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 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)[8]
  • Gap Analysis - Reversal of Inter-Registrar Transfers[9]

Geopolitical & Regulatory Developments[edit | edit source]

  • The impacts of NIS2
  • WSIS+20[10]
  • Proposal of the Internet General Law in Peru[11]; the ICANN Board plans to coordinate with other partner Internet governance organizations.
  • The ccNSO discussed getting more involved by developing an Internet Governance Liaison[12]

ODPs[edit | edit source]

ALAC hosted a community-wide discussion of the efficacy of ODPs, asking:[13]

  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?

DNS Abuse[edit | edit source]

SOIs[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.[15] * 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 [gnso.icann.org] to the Council on 5 January 2023.

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.[16]

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]

Thanks[edit | edit source]

References[edit | edit source]