The At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) is currently developing (3) responses to public comment proceedings, and AFRALO is developing (1) statement:
AFRALO commends the team that worked on the development of the AFRALO-APRALO statement on ICANN MEAC Strategy, and is also drafting a response to the public comment on the ICANN Africa Strategy.
The ALAC submitted (17) policy comments since the last AFRALO Newsletter:
The ALAC noted that At-Large is unique within the ICANN community in that virtually all volunteers in At-Large activities, including those involving travel, do so as true volunteers. Without ICANN travel support, the number of active At-Large participants at ICANN meetings would be few in number. The ALAC specifically commented on wire transfer and foreign exchange fees/losses, visa reimbursement, travel insurance, ICANN arranged travel, room guarantees, forced overnight delays, early check-in and late check-out, as they pertain to the successful participation of the community during ICANN meetings.
The AFRALO and APRALO joint statement was the first joint RALO statement within the At-Large Community, in response to the ICANN MEAC Strategy 2021-2025. The countries that fall under the MEAC Strategy within AFRALO and APRALO provided feedback on strategy topics as security, ICANN's governance, unique identifier systems, and geopolitics. Note: Ratified by the AFRALO & APRALO Leadership Teams and the ALAC.
The ALAC suggested several significant recommendations to the NextGen@ICANN Program, to the benefit of the community by opening the program and ensuring a welcoming environment to all NextGenners, including first time participants. The ALAC's recommendations would ensure that participants are selected with a stronger focus on their work and can then attend more than one meeting to engage with the community and find their "policy home". As a part of its recommendations, the ALAC stated that At-Large would welcome a more active participation of NextGenners in its community.
The ALAC acknowledged the report as a useful primer on the subject of Name Collisions. The ALAC noted that they look forward to further deliberation by the relevant groups and their onward action with respect to the third goal of Study 1, which is to determine if the NCAP Project will proceed onto a Study 2.
For all recommendations not listed in the ALAC statement, the ALAC noted that they they "Support as written". The ALAC "supported wording with change" for several other recommendations - 1, 6, 7, 9, 15, 19 - and made a general comment that differentiation between natural and legal persons would offload the system from unnecessary queries that are permissible under GDPR.
The ALAC noted that ensuring the security, stability and resiliency of the DNS is arguably ICANN's single most important role. The ALAC has a particular interest in the recommendations related to DNS Abuse, and notes that several of the recommendations overlap with and complement those issued by the RDS WHOIS2-RT and the CCT RT. DNS Security, stability and resiliency is not something that we can afford to ignore.
The ALAC has a particular focus on and interest in DNS Abuse. To address this may require contractual changes to facilitate Contractual Compliance action. Such changes require either negotiations with the contracted parties or a PDP, and the ALAC recommends against a PDP and instead encourages ICANN to come to an agreement with contracted parties. Known vulnerabilities need to be corrected with the utmost haste.
Note: Not an ICANN Public Comment. The Public Interest Registry (PIR) held a Public Comment proceeding on the issue of the ISOC/PIR. (8) responses were submitted on behalf the ALAC to the PIR Public Comment proceeding.
The ALAC made several suggestions to PIR regarding the issue of ISOC/PIR. The ALAC noted that PICs are the best mechanism with which to enshrine the essential characteristics of a .ORG registry, yet there are significant issues with PIC enforcement that need to be addressed for PICs to be considered a trustworthy assurance. They noted that from the standpoint of an "individual end user," a 10 annual price cap would add a lot of predictability. The ALAC also noted that the stewardship council for .ORG is a good start, but its mandate should be wider than just free speech and privacy, and suggested a few board seats reserved for 501c(3) organizations, chosen by the community, would be more powerful. Reserving certain seats to be selected by NPOC and perhaps the ALAC (to represent the individual registrants) would help a great deal.
The ALAC's objective is to enshrine PIR's best practices in its contract with ICANN such that they survive any further transitions of ownership.
The ALAC congratulated the ICANN Finance and Planning team, as the draft plans and budget have shown great improvement over the past few years. Not only in how the information is provided, but in the way the plans and budget are structured. The ALAC made several suggestions with regards to the Operating & Financial Plan and Budget, emphasizing that there is not an exact correlation between the number of domains and the income of ICANN. This is important because ICANN relies upon the number of contracted registries and registrars and the number of domains a gTLD has.
The ALAC drafted a separate response to Appendix C, relating to the Evolution of the Multistakeholder Model, following their statement. The At-Large community registered its surprise and disappointment at seeing this important subject, which has been such a major topic of discussion, now relegated to an appendix in this Public Comment - in which it is unlikely to get the time and attention it deserves from the ICANN community.
While several Members of the ALAC Auction Proceeds team originally preferred Mechanism B - where ICANN worked with a non-profit organization already adept in the evaluation, selection and the allocation and distribution of grant funds - ALAC consensus was arrive at for Mechanism A. (Mechanism A allows outsourcing if viewed as advantageous, and in fact ICANN often outsources parts of its responsibilities which are not core to overseeing its Bylaw-mandated responsibilities. Thus Mechanism A could end up being comparable to Mechanism B, but provided more management flexibility in deciding how the varying aspects of the project would be carried out).
The ALAC notes that presumption of the independent panel, with no connection to or control by either ICANN Org or the ICANN Board (preferably contracted to a suitable non-profit or a set of experts in the field of grant selection and allocation) is a critical part of this decision and the ALAC would strongly object and withdraw its support if that condition changes.
An “At-Large Valentine”, regarding the Proposed Amendment 3 to the .COM Registry Agreement, written in good faith and good humor, was submitted to the ICANN Board on 13 February 2020. Jonathan Zuck, ALAC Vice Chair for Policy and CPWG Co-Chair, drafted the letter on behalf of At-Large. ALAC Members and At-Large community members reviewed and approved the letter during the CPWG meeting on Wednesday, 12 February 2020.
The ALAC welcomed the LOI between Verisign and ICANN as a commitment to expand efforts to identify and promulgate best practices by contracted parties to mitigate DNS Abuse. While there are many whose efforts exceed those of others, the At-Large Community believes that even more can be done both in terms of best practices and in terms of bringing along those whose practices are not the best.
The ALAC noted that ICANN has been striving to be more inclusive in an effort to engage more volunteers with diverse backgrounds. ICANN acknowledges the difficulty in getting new people to join and engage within ICANN and to increase the diversity of participants. The Multistakeholder Model Work Plan takes note of the importance to ICANN to develop pathways to enable effective participation. One of the more practical ways for ICANN to facilitate participation is for ICANN Org, to be more aware of and to avoid clashing with important holidays and religious days observed by volunteers who work countless hours to improve ICANN’s multistakeholder advisory work. By avoiding these dates as much as possible it is showing all volunteers that ICANN Org understands their concerns and does its best to avoid conflicts.
The ALAC made several other suggestions regarding ICANN meeting dates in 2022 and from 2024-2028.
The ALAC noted the ATRT review has produced a considerable amount of work in little time and this is laudable. Nevertheless, from an end-user perspective, ATRT should consider deliberating the following questions: (1) How can ICANN better address conflicts of interest? The ICANN community is relatively small, with relatively few actors involved in the process. Conflicts of interest, perceived or real, can impact negatively on ICANN’s standing; (2) How can transparency be increased? (3) How can ICANN ensure that in cases where issues persist, processes are initiated to correct trajectory? (For example, if multiple reviews identify the same issue or if they find implementation to be lacking, how can this be fast-tracked transparently and effectively?) (4) Might it be necessary to “silo off” or ring-fence certain functions, including reviews, compliance, and other types of community oversight? (5) How can ICANN improve their responsiveness to community and review team questions and affairs, and what policies should be created to ensure these are dealt with? The ALAC also suggested taking several noted options into consideration, emphasizing from an end user perspective, more, not less, accountability and transparency is required from the ICANN community and org.
Overall, the ALAC supports the suggested changes to the ICANN Public Comment, public input as well as the accountability indicators. We believe those changes would make the Public Comments more effective and show better transparency. We strongly believe that a wide, open and inclusive process should be maintained in policy development process especially with input representing the multistakeholder environment. Policy development must be transparent, efficient and should not be biased or skewed towards a group.
The ALAC noted the proposed sale of PIR to Ethos Capital has, understandably, created quite a stir, prompting commentary from many perspectives within the ICANN community, and applauds the efforts by the ICANN Board to clarify and make transparent, as much as possible, the process regarding the deal and to take the time to encourage the best possible result.
The ALAC Advice to the ICANN Board suggested (8) recommendations: (1) The Registry for .ORG must be organized as either a charitable non-profit [501c(3) in the US] or a “Benefit Corporation” (B Corporation); (2) One-third of the Registry Corporate Board must be representatives of charitable nonprofits; (3) One Board member selected by the ALAC; (4) The Registry for .ORG must enshrine in its bylaws that the principal focus of the domain is nonprofits and individuals and not commercial interests; (5) The Registry must enshrine in its bylaws a commitment to free speech and a resistance to takedown demands with a political basis; (6) The Registry must provide 6 months prior written notice to its registrants of any increase in wholesale price of their domain names registration renewal fees and the option of a 20-year renewal thereof at the pre-increase price; (7) The Registry Agreement must enshrine PIR prohibited practices such a bulk sales to commercial registrars; and (8) The Registry Agreement must establish a “DNS Abuse Ceiling”.
Background
Prior to ICANN66, At-Large and other community groups within ICANN identified the issue, released several reports on the topic of DNS Abuse. In advance of ICANN66, At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) led by Co-Chairs Jonathan Zuck and Olivier Crépin-Leblond discussed recent DNS Abuse research and how DNS Abuse impacts the Internet end user community, including the erosion of trust and security. During ICANN66, At-Large organized a policy session on “DNS Abuse – End User Concerns”, with a panel presentation. Jonathan Zuck and Joanna Kulesza, ALAC Member, moderated the session and summarized how At-Large can enhance Internet end user protection against DNS Abuse. The ALAC drafted ALAC Advice on the topic during ICANN66, and finalized the draft in subsequent CPWG meetings. The ALAC Advice on DNS Abuse was submitted to the ICANN Board on 24 December 2019.
ALAC Advice
The ALAC made a series of (8) recommendations to the ICANN Board. The ALAC emphasized that community dialogue cannot delay or defer ICANN’s commitments or operations related to DNS Abuse. Their recommendations speak to the insufficiency of the status quo, and stressed their recommendations that no new round will be approved without substantial changes in the area of DNS Abuse. Please read the full advice here.
As a worldwide internationally recognized humanitarian aid organization, and one that has been regularly the target of those seeking to fraudulently extract donations, the ALAC believes that the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (incorporating National Red Cross or Red Crescent Societies, and the International Committee of the Red Cross) should be given the benefit of protection to its various identifiers, designations and/or acronyms as intended by the policy changes proposed for implementation in the said updated consensus policy. This includes the proposed action to recognize changes to the official names of the Red Cross Society entities, including component names, in Eswatini and Macedonia, respectively, an action we view as necessary.
The ALAC finds the report to include very useful information that should be used to guide the development of relevant policies, and appreciates the team's effort and supports the provided recommendations.
The ALAC highlights the importance of the recommendations related to the accuracy of data, and it strongly advises its acceptance by the ICANN Board. In light of the GDPR, the ALAC noted the importance of several other recommendations in the WHOIS Report encouraging a more proactive position of contractual compliance, especially in regards to DNS Abuse, as well as the team's findings with regard to law enforcement needs.
The ALAC noted that the proposed PTI and IANA FY21 Operating Plan and Budgets are aligned with the ICANN Strategic Plan, and are also very similar to previous years' budgets. An adjustment in the PTI budget is noticeable, including adjustments in salaries, services and other administrative cross-charges from ICANN to PTI or IANA.
However, the ALAC pointed out that a change is in process in the Governance of the Root Server System, these changes are not reflected in the proposed PTI and IANA FY21 Operating Plan and Budgets. The ALAC asked several exploratory questions in their response.