Difference between revisions of "ICANN 76"

From ICANNWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 19: Line 19:
 
* updates on or from [[Universal Acceptance]], [[Finance|Planning and Finance]], [[GNSO]] policy work<ref>[https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active Active Group Activities, GNSO]</ref>, [[Contractual Compliance]], [[SUBPRO]], [[Name_Collision#NCAP|NCAP]] study 2, and [[IDN]]s
 
* updates on or from [[Universal Acceptance]], [[Finance|Planning and Finance]], [[GNSO]] policy work<ref>[https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active Active Group Activities, GNSO]</ref>, [[Contractual Compliance]], [[SUBPRO]], [[Name_Collision#NCAP|NCAP]] study 2, and [[IDN]]s
 
==Topics==
 
==Topics==
At ICANN 76,
+
At ICANN 76,  
 +
===Sub Pro===
 
* 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;
Line 27: Line 28:
 
* [[ICANN Organization]] and the [[UASG]] outlined progress on [[Universal Acceptance|UA]]-readiness and [[IDN]]s
 
* [[ICANN Organization]] and the [[UASG]] outlined progress on [[Universal Acceptance|UA]]-readiness and [[IDN]]s
 
* [[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.
 
* [[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.
 
 
===Transfer Policy Review===
 
===Transfer Policy Review===
 
The Transfer Policy Review PDP Working Group focused on Phase 2 (aka Group 2) Topics and discussed:<ref>[https://community.icann.org/display/TPRPDP/2023-03-11+ICANN76+Transfer+Policy+Review+PDP+WG+Call Transfer Policy Review WG Session 1, ICANN 76]</ref>  
 
The Transfer Policy Review PDP Working Group focused on Phase 2 (aka Group 2) Topics and discussed:<ref>[https://community.icann.org/display/TPRPDP/2023-03-11+ICANN76+Transfer+Policy+Review+PDP+WG+Call Transfer Policy Review WG Session 1, ICANN 76]</ref>  
Line 41: Line 41:
 
* [[WSIS]]+20<ref>[https://itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/government-engagement-ge/ge-012-13-03-2023-en.pdf ICANN GE on WSIS+20]</ref>
 
* [[WSIS]]+20<ref>[https://itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/government-engagement-ge/ge-012-13-03-2023-en.pdf ICANN GE on WSIS+20]</ref>
 
* Proposal of the Internet General Law in Peru<ref>[https://wb2server.congreso.gob.pe/spley-portal/#/expediente/2021/878 IGL in Peru] Accessed April 6, 2023</ref>
 
* Proposal of the Internet General Law in Peru<ref>[https://wb2server.congreso.gob.pe/spley-portal/#/expediente/2021/878 IGL in Peru] Accessed April 6, 2023</ref>
 +
===ODPs===
 +
ALAC hosted a community-wide discussion of the efficacy of [[ODP]]s, asking:<ref>[https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Meetings+-+Thursday%2C+16+March+2023 ALAC Community Discussion Agenda, ICANN 76]</ref>
 +
# What criteria should determine when a policy discussion is to be sent to ICANN org vs the ICANN community?
 +
# Could changes to the policy development process decrease the burden on the org during an Operational Design Phase?
 +
# When should outside expertise be brought in (such as system scoping)?
 +
# What would have been improved through additional community input without adding to the overall timing?
  
 
==References==
 
==References==
  
 
[[Category:ICANN Meetings]]
 
[[Category:ICANN Meetings]]

Revision as of 19:33, 6 April 2023

ICANN76 Zoom Backgrounds dark 02 icann-meeting.jpg
Dates: 11-16 March 2023

Community Forum

Location: Cancun, Mexico
Venue: Cancun Center
Website: https://76.schedule.icann.org/

ICANN 76 is a Community Forum that will happen in Cancun, Mexico from March 11 through 16 and will have a hybrid format. Registration is available here.

Prep Week

From 27 February to 1 March, there will be sessions[1] on the

Topics

At ICANN 76,

Sub Pro

UA

Transfer Policy Review

The Transfer Policy Review PDP Working Group focused on Phase 2 (aka Group 2) Topics and discussed:[4]

  • 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)[5]
  • Gap Analysis - Reversal of Inter-Registrar Transfers[6]

Geopolitical & Regulatory Developments

  • The impacts of NIS2
  • WSIS+20[7]
  • Proposal of the Internet General Law in Peru[8]

ODPs

ALAC hosted a community-wide discussion of the efficacy of ODPs, asking:[9]

  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?

References