Bureaucrats, steward, Administrators, translator
875
edits
Changes
mLine 37:
Line 37: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + − + − + − + − + + + Line 54:
Line 74: + + Line 66:
Line 88: + + + + − + − + + + + +
Christiane moved page ICANN 75 - Kuala Lumpur to ICANN 75 over redirect: Standardize
*The [[Closed Generics]] Facilitation arrangement is underway and signifies a new type of process for ICANN.
*The [[Closed Generics]] Facilitation arrangement is underway and signifies a new type of process for ICANN.
==Topics discussed in KL==
==Topics discussed in KL==
===SubPro===
ICANN Org gave an update on its [[Sub Pro]] [[ODP]],<ref>[https://75.schedule.icann.org/meetings/eknEHQ7RRudJMoyQF SubPro ODP Update, ICANN 75]</ref> which has four phases:
# Analysis: of outcomes of the final report, concerns, implementation, nearly 400 assumptions, and questions. This phase is complete
# end-to-end process development: this phase is nearly complete
# Implementation assessment and how it will impact ICANN org: this phase is underway
# [[ODA]] drafting: this phase has begun; the ODA will be sent to the [[ICANN Board]] in December 2022.
====Highlights from Q&A====
# Q: The application process will rely on new tools (nothing from 2012); how long will it take for them to be built? A: IT says the timeline for them will be ready for ODA
# Q: How will changes to applications be made public? A: people will subscribe to an application to receive notifications of changes
# Q: how about [[NTAG]]? A: will be important
# Q: How firm is the timeline? A: pretty firm
# Q: Are there any changes from 2012? A: The rules will be different, and there will be much more applicant support, communication, and awareness building. The RSP pre-approval program should streamline the application process.
# Q: [[IDN]]s will be prioritized? A: yes, but only within their groups. See Rec 19.3 from SubPro final report on prioritization to understand the formula
# Q: [[PIC]]s? A: will be handled more or less the same way
# Q: COI needed? A: yes for some, not for others
# Q: Why is the pre-application period 18 months? A: So that there will be 12 months for applicant support and RSP preapproval, and results from those programs available at least 6 months ahead of the application period
# Q: Will questions and concerns get to evaluation panels faster (clarifying questions)? A: yes, we learned a lot from 2012 about what is or isn’t possible; this will be handled in implementation, and there will be an appeal process
===Whois Disclosure System===
===Whois Disclosure System===
* [[ICANN Organization]] presented its ideas for a [[SSAD|WHOIS Disclosure System]]
* [[ICANN Organization]] presented its ideas for a [[SSAD|WHOIS Disclosure System]]
===Transfer Policy Review PDP===
===Transfer Policy Review PDP===
* The Transfer Policy Review PDP Working Group discussed the Public Comment report concerning the Phase 1A Initial Report
* The Transfer Policy Review PDP Working Group discussed the Public Comment report concerning the Phase 1A Initial Report. They focused on the possibility of eliminating the Losing and Gaining Forms of Authorization (FOA) and replacing them with notifications to the Registered Name Holder and stronger security measures for the Transfer Authorization Code.
===IDNs===
===IDNs===
* The working group for the [[EPDP-IDNs|Expedited Policy Development Process for Internationalized Domain Names]] discussed its progress, namely that it will break the process into "chunks." The WG will publish the Initial Report in two parts. Part 1 will cover charter questions and recommendations about TLD variant management and part 2 will concern charter questions and recommendations about second-level variant management.<ref>[https://75.schedule.icann.org/meetings/LNAKr9E4yGB5kw6mZ EPDP-IDN Working Group Session 1, ICANN75]</ref> The team also reviewed a strawman process flow of [[the New gTLD Program]] to analyze the feasibility of a stand-alone round for existing gTLD registries to apply for variants and/or activating variants between application rounds.
* The working group for the [[EPDP-IDNs|Expedited Policy Development Process for Internationalized Domain Names]] discussed its progress, namely that it will break the process into "chunks." The WG will publish the Initial Report in two parts. Part 1 will cover charter questions and recommendations about TLD variant management and part 2 will concern charter questions and recommendations about second-level variant management.<ref>[https://75.schedule.icann.org/meetings/LNAKr9E4yGB5kw6mZ EPDP-IDN Working Group Session 1, ICANN75]</ref> The team also reviewed a strawman process flow of the [[New gTLD Program]] to analyze the feasibility of a stand-alone round for existing gTLD registries to apply for variants and/or activating variants between application rounds.
* [[James Caulfield]] of ICANN Org's [[Risk Management]] discussed issues around introducing TLD variant labels and the need for a common understanding and an agreed mechanism to quantify the risks, in terms of likelihood (occurrence) and severity (seriousness of the consequences). He recommended considering the String Similarity Review as a way to understand the proportionality of the proposed Hybrid Model in addressing the risks associated with failure modes. Issues could include denial of service if a user attempts to visit http://example.X, reading it as being the same as http://example.Y, and after typing the address (http://example.X), the connection does not work as http://example.X is not registered. There could be a misconnection if a user attempts to visit http://example.X, reading it as being the same as http://example.Y. After clicking on http://example.Y, the user arrives at a site controlled by a registrant different from http://example.X, or a misconnection due to variants blocked to avoid string similarity.<ref>[https://75.schedule.icann.org/meetings/LNAKr9E4yGB5kw6mZ EPDP-IDN Working Group Session 1, ICANN75]</ref>
* [[James Caulfield]] of ICANN Org's [[Risk Management]] discussed issues around introducing TLD variant labels and the need for a common understanding and an agreed mechanism to quantify the risks, in terms of likelihood (occurrence) and severity (seriousness of the consequences). He recommended considering the String Similarity Review as a way to understand the proportionality of the proposed Hybrid Model in addressing the risks associated with failure modes. Issues could include denial of service if a user attempts to visit example.X, reading it as being the same as example.Y, and after typing the address (example.X), the connection does not work as example.X is not registered. There could be a misconnection if a user attempts to visit example.X, reading it as being the same as example.Y. After clicking on example.Y, the user arrives at a site controlled by a registrant different from http://example.X, or a misconnection due to variants blocked to avoid string similarity.<ref>[https://75.schedule.icann.org/meetings/LNAKr9E4yGB5kw6mZ EPDP-IDN Working Group Session 1, ICANN75]</ref>
===Registration Data Accuracy===
===Registration Data Accuracy===
* The gTLD Registration Data Accuracy Scoping Team discussed options for implementing two recommendations
* The gTLD Registration Data [[Accuracy]] Scoping Team discussed options for implementing two recommendations on current enforcement and reporting and measurement of accuracy. The team also began deliberating on performing a [[registrar]] survey for reporting on the status of the accuracy of their domains to inform work on reporting effectiveness, impact, and improvements.
* The CPH and CSG membership session thanked the leaving chair for his heroic effort and discussed looking for a new Accuracy chair who can facilitate rather than being a subject matter expert<ref>[https://75.schedule.icann.org/meetings/3fnwEp7nqb5jWddFL CPH & CSG Membership Session, ICANN 75]</ref>
===DNS Abuse===
===DNS Abuse===
* The DNS Abuse Small Team discussed its outputs with the GNSO Council
* The DNS Abuse Small Team discussed its outputs with the GNSO Council
* The ccNSO's standing committee on DNS Abuse met
* The ccNSO's standing committee on DNS Abuse met
* The IPC held a closed working session on DNS Abuse
* The IPC held a closed working session on DNS Abuse
* CPH & CSG advanced toward developing narrowly focused messaging on alignment on DNS abuse at the contractual level to be sent to ICANN org so that not every abuse ticket would be rechecked but to address systemic problems with abuse. The focus will be on maliciously registered. IPC wants to avoid expanding or changing the legal language about DNS abuse definition and is happy to keep the working definition (spec 11 3B of the RA. The goal is to close the gap in the contract because right now there’s no requirement to take action to mitigate abuse.<ref>[https://75.schedule.icann.org/meetings/3fnwEp7nqb5jWddFL CPH & CSG Membership Session, ICANN 75]</ref>
===Universal Acceptance===
===Universal Acceptance===
* ALAC held a session for At-Large members and the ICANN community to review results and discuss the next steps from a survey the ALAC conducted with funding from an Additional Budget Request (ABR) in Fiscal Year 2022. ALAC engaged a professional survey organization to conduct a survey on a topic of interest to Internet end users and it decided to focus on IDNs and Universal Acceptance among Indian end users in the Hindi language.<ref>[https://meetings.icann.org/en/remote75/icann75-policy-outlook-report-05sep22-en, EPDP-IDNs Background, GNSO Sessions, ICANN 75 Policy Outlook]</ref>
* ALAC held a session for At-Large members and the ICANN community to review results and discuss the next steps from a survey the ALAC conducted with funding from an Additional Budget Request (ABR) in Fiscal Year 2022. ALAC engaged a professional survey organization to conduct a survey on a topic of interest to Internet end users and it decided to focus on IDNs and Universal Acceptance among Indian end users in the Hindi language.<ref>[https://meetings.icann.org/en/remote75/icann75-policy-outlook-report-05sep22-en, EPDP-IDNs Background, GNSO Sessions, ICANN 75 Policy Outlook]</ref>
* Wilson emphasized the interruption of data flow at the local level
* Wilson emphasized the interruption of data flow at the local level
* Bladel focused on fragmentation prevents companies from reaching their customers
* Bladel focused on fragmentation prevents companies from reaching their customers
During the Plenary on Geopolitical, Legislative, and Regulatory Developments, [[ICANN]]'s Government [[Engagement]] department discussed governments and IGOs' attempts to address political and social challenges with technological solutions, potentially resulting in negative unintended consequences on the Internet and
ICANN’s activities and multistakeholder model of governance; some governments are especially worried about capture (unilateral decision-making and favoring vested interests).
===Holistic Review===
===Holistic Review===
The ccNSO established a ccNSO Council drafting team to provide feedback on the draft Terms of Reference for the Holistic Review<ref>[https://meetings.icann.org/en/kualalumpur75/icann75-policy-outcome-report-17oct22-en Policy Outcomes Report, ICANN 75]</ref>
The ccNSO established a ccNSO Council drafting team to provide feedback on the draft Terms of Reference for the Holistic Review<ref>[https://meetings.icann.org/en/kualalumpur75/icann75-policy-outcome-report-17oct22-en Policy Outcomes Report, ICANN 75]</ref>
==NomCom Composition==
===NomCom Composition===
ccNSO decided to seek legal clarification on Section 8.8. of the [[ICANN Bylaws]], which dictates that no person who serves on the Nominating Committee is eligible for nomination to any position on the Board or any other ICANN body that the Nominating Committee is responsible for filling, until the conclusion of that person's service on the Nominating Committee.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#article8 8.8, ICANN Bylaws]</ref>
ccNSO decided to seek legal clarification on Section 8.8. of the [[ICANN Bylaws]], which dictates that no person who serves on the Nominating Committee is eligible for nomination to any position on the Board or any other ICANN body that the Nominating Committee is responsible for filling, until the conclusion of that person's service on the Nominating Committee.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#article8 8.8, ICANN Bylaws]</ref>
===RPMs PDP===
The policy status report concerning UDRP, as part of Phase 2 of the [[PDP Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDs]] was presented during the GNSO Council meeting.
==References==
==References==
[[Category:ICANN Meetings]]
[[Category:ICANN Meetings]]