Services, please still speak not 100 miles an hour. That would be. That would be very nice if you could avoid doing that. So I think Christina, you were the one to the right of Satish. It looks like you get the Guernsey. And I might ask you to Yes, and if you would put up the the introductory slide and but however, spotlight the speakers as we go forward, but at least with the introductory slide, they'll know who's up next. So we'll be going in the order clockwise. So Christina, over to you.
Everyone. My name is Christina, and I'm advisor to God Armenia representation, also gag liaison to large advisory committee. So it is pleasure to join this, to join you today for icon 80 to read out and as a representative from CAG, as I said, I'm glad to have a opportunity to share my key insights from the discussions that took took place during this meeting. I look forward to highlighting some key takeaways and engaging in productive discussion, as Cheryl mentioned, and wish everybody
good meeting. Thank you.
Thanks, Christina, you can take a little bit more time and perhaps give us two or three particular highlights of what the GAC discussed, and what it was that you thought was important, important work or notable things that the GAC did it, be it a bilateral or another capacity building or something,
yes, sure,
Exactly. I would emphasize two or three even takeaways, because during the bilateral meeting, we're discussing them versus plus 20, let's say issues, but it is not not only issues, but I will start with discussion around new gTLD program, which is Gen D, his momentum, let's say, especially regarding policy developments and implementation planning there. There was a strong focus on ensuring the next round of gTLD applications, which was conducted in a fair, predictable and transparent manner, central topics included implement, included applicant support mechanisms and way how to prevent the game gaming in the system, and the role of auctions as a last result. So while progress has been made, there are still outstanding questions about how to balance competition, consumer, trust and security in this evolving landscape. The second major takeaways was continuing, let's say, focus on DNS abuse medication. This topic remains a priority for across across different ICANN constituencies, and for sure, for CoQ and other contracted parties, we saw productive discussions on how to define DNS abuse more precisely and what measures are needed to strengthen enforcement. So there is a growing consensus on the necessity for improved data sharing mechanism, clearer contractual contractual obligations and increased accountability for domain registries and registrars in mitigating abuse, we I'm encouraging. I can't I can't handle community who is taking a more proactive approach to addressing these challenges. However, both this, both these topics, which I mentioned above, was, let's say, circulating across the communities, all communities, and do it with, with the meaning of collaboration to ensure that policies are effective and serve for the public interests. I mentioned, first of all, the topic of versus plus 20, which is also going through all communities. And I will talk about it later in the let's say what we are planning for ICANN 83 and with this, I will pass the word to you, Jean.
Thank you very much, Christina. I really appreciate that. No surprises. Anneliese, providing you haven't lost your audio link with us again, that you'll be next cab off the rank. Annalise, the CCNSO perspective, if you wouldn't mind,
thanks, Cheryl. And hello everyone. It's lovely to be here. For those who don't know me, I'm AnneLise Williams from the.au domain administration. The CCNs was a pretty busy meeting for the CCNSO, and there's lots going on, things like DNS abuse and registration data accuracy are important across the community, but I might just focus on the things that are sort of specific to the CCNSO. So one of the pieces of work that we've been sort of focusing on since about August last year, I think, is some analysis of the existing policies that are relevant to the CCNSO or relevant to ccTLDs, just to identify where there might be any gaps and that work. It's about the policy framework for how IANA relates to ccTLDs. It's not about the policies of specific or any individual ccTLDs. And this work was launched following a case where an organization was listed that was listed as the manager for a ccTLD in the IANA registry decided that it no longer wanted to be the manager, and there wasn't an alternative manager identified, which meant that the country sort of didn't have a there was no, sort of no manager incoming, so that this work sort of arose out of that, just to explore what to do in situations like this, and conduct a bit of a deep dive into the existing policies. So in Seattle, the CCNs so agreed to further explore the policies, and a study group is expected to start work before the the June ICANN meetings, just looking into accuracy and relevance of Iona public records, and they'll also be considering disaster recovery and business continuity practices for ccTLDs. CC managers are responsible for ensuring there are plans in place to deal with natural disasters or other emergencies or interruptions to service for every for any reason. But sometimes plans don't work for whatever reason, and sometimes people might come to IANA and looking for help. So this work will sort of explore the role of IANA and what role they can or should play, given the given its narrow role, just in supporting business continuity for ccTLDs. And the other highlight for me, I think, was the joint meeting between the CCNSO and the GAC
that was, you know, we
gave an update of the policy, gaps analysis work. And then there was a an interactive speed dating style session where GAC members could move around to, I think there were six or eight different stations where there was a cc TLD manager, you know, a range of large and small ccTLDs was just an opportunity to, you know, exchange, really, for GAC members, to hear about the different governance and operation models for for different cclds, and to ask questions. And I hope the GAC found that interesting and useful. I think it was quite interesting from the CCNSO perspective. We certainly enjoyed the opportunity to engage with the GAC. And the other thing specific to CCNSO was a board seat 12 the CCNSO had elected Byron Holland, and he took up that, that seat on the board in the Seattle meeting.
And there's
an opportunity at the end, Cheryl, I'd like to sort of just highlight the the how we work meet, and if somebody else doesn't, doesn't relate that as one of their issues. If we could just sort of come back to that very briefly. Thank
you. Over to you.
Your pleasure to do so. Not a problem at all. I'm sure many people would like to talk about the how we meet, aspects of it. Okay? If yes, signaled me to note that, in fact, for whatever reason, the spotlighting of speakers was not working how we would like it to have so I do hope you all remember where you are in around the clock, in our in our cycle of speakers, although I have made a note of it. We won't be showing our introductory slide until we get back into conversation mode a little bit later on now. So next up is Yin Chen. Yin Chen, if you wouldn't mind, please over to
you. Sharon, Hi
everyone. I'm Yan Chin from I cannot. I'm basically based in Singapore. I mean, the APAC, global stakeholder engagement team. So in terms of key takeaways, I'm gonna so two main ones, I would say. So the first one would be, there were a lot of discussions. And I would say, How will Internet governance look like moving ahead? So this is basically at the global level, at the, you know, across several multilateral platforms, discussions as well. So basically, a very broad type of discussion. Of course, there was a session zooming into this past training review process as well, and then also fits and pieces discussions here and there. And how will, you know, multi stakeholder model of internet governance look like moving ahead. So this year, generally, we do have a lot of strong focus on this discussion, also zooming in a little bit as an ICANN itself, I would say, the multi stakeholder model of ICANN so different organizational reviews, as well as, I think, analyst mentioned briefly how we meet communities, you know, in terms of, like ICANN meetings, how do we align in terms of communities evolving needs? So for at large, at least, I was also at the session, I think at large had this discussion for continuous improvement initiatives, and then Jean as well, as well. They had the STI session as well. So I think a lot of those discussions actually started in Seattle, where the different community groups actually start discussing on how the stakeholder groups can work on continuous improvements, as well as try to review in terms of, like cross community collaboration, how can the community work better together across the different stakeholder groups? So I think a lot of those discussions started at Seattle, and I think it's definitely a good starting point as we continue this conversation, I would say, throughout this year. And then in terms of topics, I would say the key takeaway, of course, on top of the stable topics that curiosity speakers mentioned as well. So next round, DNS abuse, registration, data accuracy, I did want to focus a bit on universal acceptance. So this is also a key focus topic that we have been working on with the community for the past few years. And I think we have progressed quite a bit on this. This time at Seattle, there were about, I think, three sessions sharing on achievements and progress, so from the gTLD, ccTLD side. So I think those were good sharing. And we also had like larger providers as well, like meta coming in to share progress in terms of adopting universal acceptance. So I think, yeah, for me, those were the really key takeaways and progress and achievements that I feel were pretty, you know, salient, and from Seattle did share.
Thanks very much. And we will circle back and perhaps dig into some of that aspect, not only in the how we meet, but some of us would like to know where the IGF might be heading as well. Now, Jennifer, you're next. What was going on behind the GNSO cloak?
Thanks, Cheryl. This is Jean Chun. Hi to everyone. And for those who don't know me, I am on the GNSO Council, and actually from the registry stakeholder group my second year on council. So I'll give you a little bit of an, I guess, very high level key takeaways for GSO Council in Seattle. So I'm going to focus on two parts. The first is really big pieces of work that are that is coming on, the pipeline has reached Council, and these are possibly work that will require policy development, but we don't know quite yet. So two things that we're looking at our next steps on DNS abuse, and the second one is accuracy. So for both items, I'm going to go back to DNS abuse. We have formed a dnss Council small team, and we're going to be looking at the insights that were provided by ICANN or compliance team, and also the informal study, and we will also look at the previous small team recommendations and implementation to see if anything needs to be closed in that loop. And then finally, the potential next steps on whatever work that might be needed done there in terms of policy, in terms of future research and other items that I guess the community, especially, I guess contract party house, has done to further the work of DNS abuse mitigation. I think we're also going to be looking at a lot of the lessons learned from the DNS abuse amendments. I think that was a lot of the key data that the compliance team gave us, and they did a really in depth look. That was a six month report. So this small team from Council will be really digging through all of this and making sense of it, and then we'll know next steps on what might happen. So the second part of the work coming down for a council is also accuracy. So I think all of the sgcs, and of course, I think at large, also received this accuracy assignment, accuracy framing assignment from the council. And we received input from a lack from the BC, GAC, IPC, ISP and csgr. R, S G R, y, s g, and also org. So we are looking at this. We will be looking at this. The feedback we got from ICANN org is they don't they don't see any or they haven't identified any current or near term legislation globally that will force any changes in accuracy requirements. Also that NIST two is the primary new regulatory development on accuracy, but the mandates are largely in line with the ICANN requirements from the input we've received. There's also really broad overlap that more information is needed, whether you know, whether accuracy the situation is is termed as bad or termed as very good, and also to look at what measures has worked in other places. Broadly, a few of the constituencies have suggested for policy work to begin without further delay. These is coming from the BC, the IPC and the GAC contract parties and ncsg also suggest actually to wait until after seeing what NIST two, what the effects are from this two. And also, there was a point that there was a lack of definition of what accuracy actually means and what data covers before proceeding from a lack I think you guys are quite familiar with this. You have suggested for preparatory phase in a third party study before new policy work. We'll be also looking at the informal study and other items in this small group before we we decide what, what next steps to take. So the second part of the highlight, sorry, this is taking longer than I then I it's, there's a lot of stuff going on. I think in Shin has mentioned this a little earlier. This is really the reviews and the continuous improvement work. So during a Seattle meeting, I think all of the different parts of ICANN has been asked the same question from the board about how to move forward with the pilot holistic review and ATR t4 so the council is going to be scheduling, or maybe staff has already scheduled for us an informal meeting with the board and the co chairs of the pilot holistic review to see how we can be in alignment on next steps. You has also mentioned the council Standing Committee on continuous improvement. So Psy as CCI, we've just started work, and that work will be looking first at continuous improvement, but we'll be splitting that into two. The other part that we're going to be looking at is a policy implementation and the policy status report review. This is looking at reviewing the, I guess, the tools that the council has in its arsenal to to do policy development, which is the PDP, the expedited policy development process, the GDP, the GNS of guidance process, and the gip, which is the GNSS input process. And we'll also be looking at the PDP 3.0 at the end of this year. One more thing I wanted to highlight is that the council also confirmed board seat 13, and this is actually our current council chair, Greg, who will be moving on up onto the board after Becky burr steps down after the Oman meeting, so I will stop here and hand it right back to Cheryl.
Thank you very much, Jean. And the work of the jean so is always very extensive, but I do want to point out that it also does the majority of the policy work in ICANN.
Just time
right now, there's the enormous amount of additional work going on, contributing to, if not complimenting, getting ready for the next round of new gTLD. So there's an enormous amount going on. They want to come back to a couple of things in our next cycle. So so be prepared to talk about a bit more about what you think might happen with the Gen as views on reviews. I had to say that because it rhymed, and I think we might have a bit of a conversation on informal as well. So prepared. Let's now move to take it from a fellowship perspective. Now, please forgive me if I do not say your name properly, but I believe anus, have I got that correct in this? Is that correct? Over to you? Anyway,
hi, no, my name is inas. It's pronounced in us. It's just spelled i n as. Thank you so much for inviting me. Of course, as you all know, I am in as I was eight. I can 82 fellow i i am from Oman. Looking forward to having you all in Oman now, with regards to the, sorry, I'm on holiday at the moment, so in Thailand. So anyway, the key takeaways, of course, for the ICANN 82 for me, it's, it's not my first ICANN meeting, however, is my first fellowship, so it was very informative for me this time. I think one of the key takeaways from the ICANN 82 was the importance of inclusive and consistent participation in the ICANN the ICANN policy development process. As someone who works for the telecom regulator, I'm the International Relations Manager, I appreciate how this multi stakeholder model brings diverse perspective together to build consensus on complex issues, and I also reaffirmed the region like regions like the Middle East, have a crucial role to play, and that we must Continue creating pathways for engagement, especially in the region ICANN 82 help me better understand how policy decisions are made, how we as fellows can bridge local priorities with global government governance conversations with The ICANN yeah, those are my points in general. Yeah.
Yeah, you caught me typing to yes and to say, get ready to display Satish is PowerPoints. My apologies. I was typing and not unmuting. I was, however, paying attention. I think I'd like to come back to you just to warn you, Enos, when we do our next round. I because you've been immersed in as in similar processes in that the regulatory space, I'd like to hear a little bit about your views on how we meet, discussions that Anneliese will be bringing up. So after Annalise digs into that, I really value your response onto that, just just to warn you. And the other thing that might be interesting to hear from you on is as a fellow, are we doing enough to both orient you into the peculiar world of ICANN. And then what happens after you've done your fellowship? Is there something that, if it isn't happening from ICANN wide, is there something that our region can perhaps explore to do a better job to keep the interest in the activity and the get keep you know you've got the juices going, then what happens? So there's a couple of things I'd like you to contemplate when we do our next round. Sure, I believe I will have filibustered in just the right amount of time for for yes to get your slides ready to go, so it's over to you and yes and if you would display that's great. Thank you.
Thanks very much, Cheryl for graciously giving me five minutes. I think I can just about complete this now the reason why I need a slide set is because this is the cross community effort, and there are certain aspects that ELAC has been pushing along for the last several years, which has now come to fruition. And so it is a good news for us. And this is about the Latin dia critics, PDP slide please. So a little bit of overview we need. The reason why we need slide set is also because there is a bit to unpack here. So, so we need to start off with, what is IDNs and what, what are these variants and non variants. And what are die critics and why should this be? Should there be an exceptional route, and why is it important for a lack? These are the things that we will cover very shortly. Next slide please. Think all of us know. What are internationalized domain names? This? These came up about a decade back. And these are names, domain names that include at least one non Latin letter, the name, the label. And the Latin in this context refers to the English, A to Z and zero to nine digits. And non Latin refers to things like, you know, Unicode and Chinese and I mean general scripts, Chinese, etc, and some registries also permit emojis. These are not recommended as a safety risk. We are not supposed to be using these ideas have been around since the 2012 round, but something called ID and variance has been a conspicuous absence, and people have been asking for it. Certain language communities, especially have been asking for this, and they've been waiting for more than 10 years now for this to come up next. What are these variants? Many language communities, two words that are written the same script or related scripts are considered identically. For instance, the HSBC, the bank, can be written in two ways in the Chinese scripts. Now there are two Chinese scripts. There are actually more but Thus there are two traditional, which is there in Taiwan, and the simplified, which is there in the mainland. So the same HSBC. Now this is only for illustration. These are not necessarily the actual labels. If you were to write HSBC in these two different scripts, would appear like this. Now, for the language communities, these are identical. Because it's the same bank. They can't be different, but they look different. And depending on where you are, that is what is most accepted in that locality. Now, for example, if you are in Taiwan, then the first one would be applicable to the labels would use that but if you were in the mainland, then the second one would apply. Because they're not exclusive. They are they can be read. They can be understood between each other, but the language communities would consider these to be the same if they are identical. Now we are aware that the labels the DNS do not does not consider anything to be same. They are different. The underlying technology is very different, and now if you want them to behave the same, you have to write the glue, which is a policy ensure that they behave similarly. That glue has come from outside, meaning the ICANN community has to develop the policy for that. Otherwise, the underlying technology remains distinct. The two labels are very different. They are not they're not bound by any kind of, you know, rules, unless it is policy that we create. So when they are users gTLD, they call ID in variants. So in order to make these independent labels to be variants, somebody has to write the policy. In this case, we have written policy for it, and it's the ePdP on IDNs which has created policy to treat this to as one bundle that so that they behave similarly. The idea in variant the concept is that you are try tying to dissimilar labels. The language community is considered to be the same. For the DNS technology, they are distinct, but order to ensure that they behave the same, we tried, we tried through the glue of policy, those are these ad ingredients next. Now, in order to ensure that that things don't descend into chaos the what constitutes a bundle defined very tightly by language communities. They call generation panels, and these are encoded in something called the label generation rules, which basically ensure that they are treated similarly, though they are distinct in the underlying DNS protocol, the policy that we create, that the ICANN community creates, ensures that they are treated the same, and they are called as the variant. They call it the variants. Now variants from different language communities, because, yes, we have so many language community they all merged into a single thing called the road zone. LGBT, which is used by the the for the road zone. By this is called the integration panels, IPS, and all road zone labels have to comply with these and many generation panels handle multiple scripts. And one such thing is a Latin panel, which we will see, handles a number of scripts. Normally, you know, like Chinese panel handles Chinese the Latin panel handles a number of scripts, which is quite unusual slide please, because they were historically derived from the Greek script. The I mean related script Armenians like Latin the Latin script covers more than 1000 languages, listed on the omnitor page. Now this is again, very unusual, that one language panel writes to see for more than 1000 scripts. That's the way the script is. That's the way it's been handled. But because of this, the Latin generation panel has taken many conservative decisions, including limiting or tightly limiting variants, so there's only actually one variant, which is nothing, not something that we use on a daily basis. So this has left the language communities in a very difficult situation, because, I mean, the policy has been developed by on through the EPD and ID and variants. So the idea in variant policy is ready, but Latin generation panel does not cover these variants. They don't even cover any variant except for one variant, which is very unusual thing. Now this has actually created a lot of problems for different language communities, particularly for the French communities from Canada who come in, who who really kind of consider multiple words to be the same, like normal variants, but unfortunately, they are not treated as variants by the the Latin GP. Now this has created a dissonance, a cognitive dissonance, which makes it difficult for the language communities to live with this situation.
So since Latin GPS cut down on variants, the following pairs which are considered equivalent by the language communities not treated the same or not treated as variants by the MG, example, Montreal, then with an accent and E without an accent for the language communities, the French Francophone Canadians, the same, but the DNS says these are not variants. Cannot be considered variants. There is no way to handle them. They have to be handled independently, as independent labels, mainly Quebec, similarly, cafe, similarly, a bunch of the big list of labels which cannot be considered under the ePdP policy that we have just created. Although we are treated as variants by the British communities, the way the Latin GP has treated them, prevents us from handling them under the same policy, the current policy, which is ready for all other labels, variants, not be used for some of these Latin pairs. Which creates a big problem for us, because our Canadian members, at large members, they have been asked. They have been after us, saying that, look, you have to resolve this. We've been saying, look, there's no way to resolve this because the policy is out the language. Your Latin panel has said, these are not variants. So there is very little we can do this long standing requirement. We've been having meetings every ICANN meeting in the last four or five, different things. We've been trying to take this up an issue, go to GNSO and J for GNSO. This is an exceptional policy. It is not a routine thing, because the routine thing has been already developed under dpdp. This doesn't apply there. So it has been hard for GNSS to kind of handle this after a long set of, you know, kind of meetings with them, letters written by Jonathan to GNSO. Finally, they have decided that they have to create some alternative methodology, an exceptional route whereby such cases can be considered.
So finally, after all this push and pull, especially from the Francophone Canadians, Jean has actually created a special purpose. Single purpose, actually not even special purpose. Single purpose. Latin dia critics, PDP, create a single issue. PDP. And last meeting, ICANN, 82 this PDP was kicked off and is now well on its way. We just finished the second meeting yesterday, and the current timeline is to kind of ensure that finish the work by end of 2026 and this will solve a long standing issue of different language communities. Next slide, that's it. So, so we are actually the kickoff has happened in the last ICANN meeting, and now the it's an open model. So any anybody from our community who wants to join this are welcome. It is not a tightly kind of controlled model. So please come and join and please participate in this. Thank you. And back to you, shell
Thank you, Satish, and you and I are going to have to have a chat about what a tad means, or indeed what eight minutes means. Let me, however, because there was a lot to unpack in that presentation, I want to do two things. I want to open just for a couple of minutes now to anyone who has a question for Satish on this very informative presentation he's done. He managed to give, I think, a very clear background on on what it is about in terms of variants and things, and I can assure you, he can go into greater detail on all of that, but don't take us down too many rabbit holes. But if you have some clarifying questions, please do ask them now. And in particular, you might want to ask him about this, and Jennifer might want to answer here as well. The open model, you know, to Jennifer mentioned something about the policy development process, 3.0 which is what's running at the moment, the manner in which the generic name support organization does its policy work, and what choices it makes about how it sets things up. Well, one of those choices is this open model. And so if you, if you're thinking, you know, I'm interested in all of that label generation, rule things, and I might just be interested in watching a bit of policy, see how the sausage is made. Take a cue for a minute or two so you can make sure you don't leave with questions. We have a question from Abdullah. Did you wish to use the microphone? Or you're more than welcome to unmute and ask directly.
Yeah. Thank you so much for giving me the opportunity. I just have question regarding the Urdu script. Any effort done to include the Urdu script or epic script in the current scenario? So I just get the information regarding the latent script. But what would the epic and Urdu and how to get involved on the effort of putting work in the Urdu and Arabic script.
Ritesh, thanks very much. So the question about Urdu is quite valid, because there is a bunch of people in South Asia who use Urdu. Now the good news is that Urdu is covered, not just that. We have our ICANN language expert Saruman, who's from Pakistan, who is an Urdu speaker. So the shortest way would be to for you to ask saraman Any clarifying questions about Urdu, who's covered. There is no issue regarding Urdu. There are no issues regarding Urdu variants. Those are all covered. Urdu is atypical because it is right to left script, and there are certain challenges and complexities. When you mix, you know, suppose you have an email id where the mailbox is in English and the domain name is in Urdu, you have a problem because you know you have to go left to right and then right to left. So those have, those things have been largely taken care of, but you have a prime resource in Sarmad, who is right there in Pakistan. You might want to kind of consult him on any questions that you have. But the good news is that you're discovered.
Thank you so much. But to follow up,
though, if you're interested in getting involved in not necessarily that particular script, but this type of policy work, take the opportunity to at least observe the work that's going to go on in this new PDP. So if things like label generation rules excite you and they get reviewed from time to time, so future work may come your way, please join the group. Jennifer, did you want to pitch for why these different models are used,
sure, not sure if it's a good pitch. It's just a little bit more information that for the current policy development process, there are several different ways to participate, or participation models. One is the open practice of the open membership, which the Latin script diacritics VP is using. That means anybody can join as a full member and be able to speak. In that case, another mode of this, I guess participation structure is called a representative model, and this, depending on the charter, will specify certain number of representatives from each stakeholder group or constituency, and that makes up the actual official members. There's usually also, or at least in the idea and the internationalized domain names, expedited policy development process working group, they had also an observer category, or they also allowed the individual participants to also be part of this. The only difference in the decision making is, if there was to be a vote, then those observers would not be able to vote. So it's there are pros and cons for all of these different models, and the council has actually sent this work to the scci, sorry, the size so the Standing Committee on continuous improvement to take a look at all of this and see if it makes sense still or if there needs to be further improvements, or how we develop policy at ICANN.
To you. Thanks very much. Couldn't resist giving an opportunity. Go ahead. Please
jump in. The apps. So I think you have raised a very important point regarding the mode of participation. I think this is a this is a golden opportunity for people who would like to kind of see because I think we from from at large, we have to at least observe how GNSS operates the very different way. And we have seen cases where, I think there was one case where he was a member of ePdP on IDNs. He was so kind of disruptive in the genus system, we had to withdraw him. So it is actually very important that from at large, we observe how GMs operates, and then we use this opportunity to maybe participate in some of these open models, because not all of the working group models are open, and this is therefore, as you point out, it's a golden opportunity. Another point is relating to the whole languages that are not which don't have scripts. Now, the whole Jean so domain name system is based on scripts. If your language does not have a script, and it's pretty hard, as Amrita has pointed out, to kind of have a domain name system in that script. So the solution would be to kind of create a script. Has been done before. It's not very new, but it does take some effort and some expertise that you have to create first language script, then you try to kind of get into a domain name model. Thanks.
Can I add something here? I Sango here from Nick Lee, certainly, please. Go ahead. Yeah. I'm kind of very interested in the discussion here in regard to how, as we can assimilate our languages into the IDN system. I understand that in order for coral languages to be assimilated into the ID system, there needs to be a script in place, as for my country, Papua, New Guinea, all of our education system, everything in the workplace, we speak in English. So is there a possibility where our local languages, like can be translated into Latin script, like English, for instance, then later it can be degraded into the ID and system, like, for instance, this Bible, where English version is there, but they have developed a talk vision, which is a national language in our country. But then there is this, another person, where they have developed a a local language vessel called Cafe. Cafe is my entire lecture. I was thinking that, if it is possible that, like, we can translate our own languages into Latin scripts like English, and then data, it can be integrated into the the ID and system. Yeah.
Satish, did you want to cover off and also note about the fact that language generation rules do keep getting added,
please. Yeah, thanks. Schedule. So there are examples of Bahasa, example in Malay which are using the Latin script for their languages. You have examples. The only issue is in the need for standardization. Someone like a university or a government has to standardize. So you can use the Latin script, but it has got to be consistent, otherwise we will run into problems. When you start looking at LGs. Someone has to ensure that it is standardized. And once that is done, approach ICANN, and they will help you to kind of create LGs, the language has been done before, so it is nothing new, but there is a certain amount of effort involved in that.
This is these are conversations which often, as Amrita pointed out, go beyond the particular remit that ICANN has in in its mandate. But that being said, many of the people that you work with and will come in contact with in this ICANN context and within our region are quite passionate about a multilingual internet. And of course, I'm not going to miss the opportunity to suggest that perhaps some innovative thinking may even utilize a potential new name in the G space to explore what how oral dialects that are currently captured in a written form may be discussed and dealt with, but you know that's that's not exactly what we're doing here. But thank you very much for the interesting questions. Rita noted one other thing in chat I wanted to bring to everybody's attention, where she mentioned the U as G, that's the universal extent acceptance study group, and it would be sad to not note that that the very important work that that that group does not only on international let me try that again, on internationalized domain names, but also on the universal acceptance of things that might be Latin script but just too long, things that are assuming there's only going to be three characters after a dot, that sort of thing deals with all sorts of stuff you're interested in. UAS G, please have a look at the web space and consider joining up to one of the several. I think they got three or four working groups running and UAS G spent a, I hope, a little bit of time during the Seattle meeting. I didn't cross paths with them, unfortunately, I was too busy doing other things, but they had their 10th year anniversary during the Seattle meeting. So a decade worth of work you could have access to if you get involved with the UAS G Well, hopefully we've answered most of the questions that have come out of this particular presentation from Satish, and as We move into our next group of around the table, and I might even take it in reverse order, just to switch it up a bit. So watch out. Jennifer, oh no. Ina, Jon, you're going to be called upon fairly soon
with the how do I say this?
If there are things that our presenters are raising, if you would like to just put just the fact that you've got a question into chat, we'll try and make the rest of our 30 odd minutes together as interactive as possible. Now that means that our panelists can interact with each other and ask each other's questions. I've certainly got pages of questions I could ask if we had this dead air space. That's not a problem. But if you find you've got something that piques your interest here audience, then please pop it into chat so we don't leave you wanting to know something. This is an opportunity for all of us to share information that we had gleaned or we were engaged in discussing during ICANN 82 so let's not miss the opportunity to share as far as possible. Right now, I really did want to set in as next opportunity to talk to us by perhaps having a little bit more discussion about the how we meet. So, Anneliese, I know you wanted to come back to that. Instead of making any other business at the end, how about we jam it in the middle of this sandwich. And you give us a bit of a framework here, and then we'll, we'll move to, you know, next to you. Anneliese,
thanks, Cheryl.
And you know, to be clear, I'm not really sure what I wanted to say on this. I just really wanted to bring it make sure it was on the radar of this group, because it is an issue that is very dear to my heart, and has been for for some years. But ICANN is currently, you know, considering there's some sort of cross community consideration on how we meet, sort of, there are three public meetings a year. It's, it costs a lot of money to put those on, and in the post COVID world, it's even more costly, so there's sort of some work to consider
how we eat going in the future.
So I understand there's going to be a report and a public comment period, but discussions so far, there's sort of a range of perspectives on cost and travel and time zone challenges, and I think this is sort of potentially particularly relevant for participants from this region. It is, you know, a huge region, sort of spans half the globe, but we have sort of one meeting in five, perhaps in the Asia Pacific region. When we have a meeting in Istanbul, which is the the Asia Pacific meeting, it's, it makes it extremely difficult for people from the Pacific. It's sort of, it was a 22 hour journey for me to come from Australia. I think it would have been sort of 32 hours or something if you were coming from Fiji, compared to maybe four hours from from London. So
I will be think
it's been raised in a couple of other meetings by people from this region. You know that the time zone challenges of participating in the intersessional work as well, where we often have to choose to either be on calls or at two o'clock in the morning or just to not be part of that committee. And I think you know by
putting additional hurdles
to participation from, you know, a region that is is certainly not over represented within icann's processes and internet governance processes in general. So I just wanted to flag, but there is an opportunity to consider how we how ICANN meets. I think we need to get creative about how we sort of do intersessional work, and how we meet, and how we make sure that we're not, you know, when we're relying on virtual meetings as the as the the way to progress work, that we're not excluding the voices of people who perhaps can't participate online. I think I made the point in another public meeting at ICANN that, just as one example, many people in the Pacific don't have internet access at home. So when their local meeting is happening at you know, what is 11 o'clock at night for them, they can't they can't participate at all. So I just wanted to sort of bring the issue to the attention of the community, to watch out for the comments. I'm keen to hear what other people on this call think, and just as a shout out to the ICANN staff, you know, I'm not, certainly not asking that they work all hours of the day and night either. Certainly the CCNSO staff are already very accommodating, but yeah, I think as a community, it's an issue that needs to be grappled with. And it's just it's not enough to just say, Oh yeah, we understand. It's hard. You know, it's the burden of participation has to be shared equally across all regions.
Thanks very much for that. Annalise Cheryl here, and you know, I'm a card carrying member of that sort of approach to things. I would like to ask, of course, the question of, you know what? What's the risk? If we just look at the cost effectiveness of these meetings, I can see one simple result, you will no longer have a global organization. Will be hemispherically based, and that will ruin care. So there's a little risk assessment to consider, let alone any of the other aspects.
Now, whilst
Elise was framing this, I did get a little message from in Chen, and she said that she would be able to talk us through some of the data that the survey that ICANN org did during ICANN 82 so without asking you to give away, you know, pre publication secrets here. Can you help us know what the undoubtedly very biased group of people, because we were whack back in the middle of North America, were saying on our survey? Over to you, please? Yeah,
thanks. Sharon, so it's public information, so it's not secret. And anyway, this was basically the survey done during the plenary at ICANN 82 itself. And I thought to just give a quick overview, and this is really like a quick note that my team got together. So later on, I guess, as analyst mentioned, there will be a report and public comment as well. So definitely more details there. But just to give a quick overview and highlight of what was discussed and what the survey results were like, broadly, we had five topics I would say that was discussed during the plenary. So it's on meeting costs and locations. That's the first and then the second one is on virtual and hybrid meetings, and the third one would be on meeting duration and structure, and then for funding and sponsorships, and then the fifth one would be on equity and accessibility. So this is a five broad areas that were discussed or surveyed among the audience. And you're right. It might have been biased, because basically, the ones that are participating are the ones in the room, or maybe even participating online and noting the time zone issue that analyst mentioned, potentially a lot from APAC did not participate at all. But the good thing is, there were no questions on specifically, like, do we, you know, which region should we go to, and things like that. It's not as specific as that, but this is just the first kind of survey to just get a sentencing so into the data itself on meeting cost and location. Sorry, I'm looking this side because the data is here. It's not that, you know, so in our meeting cost and location, I think it was more of a question on, okay, how do we prioritize location? Do you agree that we choose locations with more economical flights, direct flights, hotel and venue options as well as return to prior locations and get multi year contracts, because typically you'll get a discount if you do multi year contracts. So I'd say the results just briefly. 84% of the participating people basically agreed to this. So to prioritize locations with more economical flights, hotel and venues, and then multi year contracts as well. And then for virtual and hybrid meetings, it's not so much of a yes or no. Do you agree on this or that kind but then there were kind of three options that were put out there. So, and this is in terms of the preference from the, again, the respondents. So in terms of in the broad question was, do we want to move one out of the three ICANN meetings to virtual setting? So that was the broad question. And then they had, like, some sort of ranking on how we can change that to other formats. So in terms of, like, the highest preference, it would be to hold one virtual meeting every four to six ICANN meeting. Second would be to pilot a virtual meeting as the fourth meeting of the year. The third would be to pilot virtual meeting, where sessions are virtual, but attendees are gathered in a single location. So that's the in terms of preference, and then for meeting duration and structure. Broadly, 51% agreed that the community forum, which is the farm that we attended in Seattle, is the first meeting, basically, of the year that the duration should be reduced by one day. But this is just a broad, again, broad sensing of what was so many um funding and sponsorships. There were two main questions that were discussed. So question one would be on networking reception. So for you, for those who attended ICANN meetings before, if you look at the schedule, typically that would be one or two networking reception during ICANN meeting. And the question was basically whether, you know, we should continue holding this because it does take up quite a bit of the cost is there to hold the networking reception. And so the survey basically had 62% agreed to reduce the number of networking receptions, unless there's an external sponsorship. Then the second question would be on registration fees. So for ICANN meetings, it's three to 10 as possible register Well, technically the free part is for registration fee, but you need to fly yourself. That's what that does cost. But in terms of registration fee, currently there's no registration fee for ICANN meetings. But on this question, 77% of the respondents disagree on introducing a registration fee. So that's the broad results. And in terms of equity and accessibility, there was no specific survey that was done, but just general discussions. And from the floor the audience was sharing that, you know, it should be more inclusive taking into account of economic disparities, linguistic diversity, human rights consideration, etc, etc. So all of this, I guess should, shouldn't, would be considered, and then it's actually done what we would able to see more details through the report that's shared later on as well. Yeah, see you. Cheryl,
thanks, Kim. And I guess I need to put a stake in the ground here and say my concern about this is that this will be declared as part of, you know, data driven decision making. And when you have data driven decision making, making designed and influenced by penny pinching, you have a decline of an organization at real risk, so we do need to be extraordinarily cautious here. And multi year contracts make absolute perfect FIS sense. Are you going to be doing them in Central Asia or on Vanuatu, let's have a 10 year contract Wak bang in the middle of Oceania. I'm sure many of us would be delighted to see the majority of ICANN traveling 32 and 40 hours to get on both ends of a meeting to get to a meeting that is then one day shorter, because the people who need to get back to their office want to do it quicker.
So the in
inverted commas, return on investment on these things can be hastily decided upon, and I hope that our region, as AnneLise has called for, is able to just do a bit of wear of what you wish for in this process as well, because it is going to be very Scary if we end up making ICANN irrelevant No, you've got to defend
No, I agree with that, but I just, I wanted to take this opportunity actually, to urge the APAC region to actually submit comments when the public comments proceeding open, because we tend to, you know, be a little shy sometimes with Our comments, and though that might impact us negatively, so I do want to encourage the community, definitely, to share your input, and definitely from the arc side, we'll push through our mailing list, but we would want to and need to tap on this community here as well, to share with your, you know, your audiences, so that we can get more
valuable input.
Becky, it may not be obvious policy, but we won't be able to do policy unless we meet effectively. So perhaps it should be a future activity for this policy forum, Enos. If this has not given you plenty of food for thought, I don't know what else I can share. Whether you go over to you
just, I mean all this in the feedback I'm getting and all the survey results is really amazing. But my main comment here is, there's nothing like a physical meeting, the community, the interaction, it's it's unbelievable. It's really unbelievable. There's no way you can get that on virtual meetings or so. I don't know what they're going to do, cut a day or reduce a day, or I don't know sponsors, whatever it is, but the physical meetings have to continue for the community to thrive. And that's, that's, that's my opinion.
I'd love to say the check is in the mail, but we can't afford to cut the check. Thank you for that. Seriously. I mean, we're bringing fellows on. We're trying to make things as diversified as possible. We're trying to ensure that the multi stakeholder model is widely representative of community. And we need to be very careful about short term gains for long term damage, and you are absolutely right the ability to forward even policy when you have not everything even done face to face, but certain critical pathways dealt With in a face to face context, been shown even in ICANN again and again and again. All right? Well, this is and these are all kinds of conversations that were going on in ICANN 82 so we haven't lost the block to you, ladies and gentlemen, but I do want to go back around and ask any of our panelists who've already spoken on on these two subjects, obviously, the how we meet and the the, I guess we can call it, both policy development processes, but also the dialect that if they'd like to say something more, Think about what you want to do now. I want to go back to you, Jennifer, just briefly, we have the Evergreen of DNS abuse. We're delighted to hear how serious, especially from the at large perspective, how serious that everything is being taken now, and that DNS abuses is pretty much it's a conversation in just about every room. But whilst you're having conversations with the GAC and the GAC focus with it, you're having conversations with a lac and at large, and they're focused on it, having folk conversations amongst yourselves, and they're focused on it. Are we ever actually going to get in one room in one of these meetings, while we're still holding them, and just
talk it through?
I think that might be something that we'll be looking at once, if we're talking from the council point of view, once the small team really takes a look at all the information and data that has been gathered so far. Next steps, really, for at large, a lack AP Rallo do is to engage, I think now, now I'm going to have a different hat on. I'm going to speak in terms of, I guess, the contract party house for us, the current parties, we've done a lot of outreach to the different stakeholder groups, as you've just mentioned, um, Carol, but I think also, um, it's it's good to to have additional and further conversations, especially when, um, you're still looking at the impacts and the benefits of what the DNS abuse amendments actually mean for cutting down and mitigating abuse. Being compliant the six month mark is great, but we still need to take a look also the long term to see if there's anything that needs to be done further also, another reminder is in the ICANN context, there are things that we can develop policy for. And then there are things outside of that, which is the picket fence where industry, so the COVID parties, the registries, registrars do in addition to what they're required to do in their contracts. Obviously, in the course of business, you have to do all of these things, and as an industry, you also have to lead with best practices. So I think this conversation is not ended. I think we've evolved it a lot more over the past few years. I guess the thing I want to say is, you know, stay tuned. You'll hear very soon from the council small team, what will come out of it, and once there are clear indications of what path to take, I would really urge icarullo members and at large as well to participate.
Thanks, Jean, and you're absolutely right to bring out the fact that industry has done a huge amount, the jurisdiction project and all those sorts of things, a lot of work has gone on in the last couple of years. So whilst it seems evergreen, it's not Evergreen. And unattended, it is being, you know, a very deeply dived subject on so many and we actually have, I guess, future opportunities if we want to dig into it as one of another one of our AP ralo Policy Forum pieces, perhaps we could do a fireside chat or have even a more formal presentation later on in the year. It is a watch this space, but it's certainly something that everybody seems to be talking about. And along with that, it might be an idea to perhaps, should we do that in a future policy forum? We might want to have a little bit of a dig into the details out of the in thermal report, which was quoted from a number of you. It was another one of the subjects that were in a number of rooms. And so perhaps, if we can't do it, ICANN wide, perhaps we can do it regionally. Get together and talk a little bit more about the infirm or report, would be a very good idea. And Lisa, you mentioned, speed dating with the GAC, obviously the CCNA. So thought was a pretty good idea. And when we go to Katrina, I want to hear how the GAC felt about their their blind dating. But would you like to tell us a little bit more about what was this innovative way of doing things. Thank you. Just, just, just let Ann lease explain to us what it what it is that's right.
It was just an idea to sort of get people, you know, out of their seats and and talking to people rather than have, you know, a presentation from the CCNSO. And, you know, I think we all sort of have have enough of those throughout an ICANN meeting. And so I think that like six or eight around the room with a representative from a cc TLD manager at each one and half of them were were sort of to talk about the governance aspects of their ccTLD. And the other other three were sort of talking about the the operational aspects. So from a you know, the ccTLD is there's a very wide range of sort of governance arrangements. Some of them are run by the governments themselves. Some are run by, you know, academic organizations, universities. Some are not for profits and you know, some have are run by, you know, a for profit organization. Some of them are large. Some of them are small. Some run the registry themselves. Some, you know, have a third party operating their registry. So there's just a variety of different arrangements, and the GAC members could go around and just like in small groups at each one, I think there was probably 10 minutes or 15 minutes or something at each station, and then they moved around a few times so you could go and hear from different managers about how Bay ccTLD runs and an opportunity to ask questions. So yeah, I found it interesting listening to the questions that the gap members were asking, but also hearing from my CC NSO colleagues about the differences in
the different registries. But I'm not sure how it was
received by the GAC.
Find out now this is easing towards that you see, thanks Anneliese for that. And again, another one of these highly innovative approaches that the CCNs so takes for these meetings. And I'm always pleased to hear about what you're doing next. It gives, gives me, personally, great joy. So Christina, what was the reaction to this very non formal approach to the gaq interaction.
Thank you,
sir. I would like to emphasize that gaq likes very much the format of this interactive bilateral session. And I was also participating as a representative from small ccTLD from Armenia. And also, it was very interesting to listen all group speakers, I mean, about their management, about their policies, etc, etc. And also, I would like to talk about connections between the different registries, like from our registry, I can state that we keep the connection with the Portugal registry, making the call with them and starting to exchange the experience which they are doing and what we are doing. And I think, I hope, of course, and we will develop it to the deep contribution with each other and exchanging like experiences, because it is very important to develop the registry safe and taking the Experience from other more advanced or more, let's say, best practices from other registries. And concerning this session, it was really new and really impressive for all Guard members, and I hope all other constituencies will take this experience and will implement on their sessions as well.
Oh, I suspect we've got a number of people on this call rapidly taking notes, which might be why I wanted to tease out the details from Anneliese a little so we might be seeing these good ideas, as all good ideas should be in a meeting. You providing we're still having meetings that we can attend. Sorry, I'm not going to let that one go. Can't help myself. I'm bit like a dog with a bone at times. Ladies and gentlemen, I want to give the opportunity in the last couple of minutes to see if there's any burning questions, either from any of our panelists or comments from any of our panelists, or indeed, any of our attendees today. Is there anything that anyone like to raise about their experiences, or what would they like to know about other people's experiences at ICANN 82 No, they tell me I'm supposed to wait for a certain amount of time, but being highly impatient, I'll have to talk through that time while you all have enough time to contemplate. Do you want to bring something up in our closing minutes? I'm not seeing people wave at me frantically, and I'm not seeing a great deal going on a group photo. We'll make sure we have enough time for that, because, as we all know, as char has mentioned, if it, if it hasn't got a photograph, it probably didn't happen. All right, then want to cover just a couple of other things that were feature of ICANN 82 so we've just got them on the record. And then I want to do one other very important thing. I wanted to remind everybody that the strategic strategic plan that many of you will have commented on, the next five year strategic plan from 26 to 30 for not only ICANN, but also PTI and the annual naming function was was adopted. That's something important. I wanted to remind you that the community excellence awards was given during ICANN 82 and Steven dear Haq, who is very, very important to many of us, particularly those in CCNSO world, but not trust, was the recipient of that. And as someone who for a long, long, long time ago, won the earth award with a different name. It's delightful to see somebody with the depth of experience that he's had get this recognition. I also wanted to remind you all of something that we will never have the chance to do again, and that is, it was the last opportunity for many of us to share some valuable time with Nigel Hickson from the gap, and I did want to take a couple of minutes, if anyone wished, to put In chat or make a very short intervention in recognition of the amazing work and energy that Nigel has brought to not just ICANN, when he whether he worked for ICANN, whether he worked with ICANN, whether he was in his gap role, whether he was just ex exercising this incredible sharp as attack under assuming wit that he could energize a whole room with his battle with cancer was lost over the weekend, actually, I think, early Monday morning, and he will be sorely missed by many. But whilst he wasn't particularly embedded in our region, believe me, he made a difference to our region, along with ICANN Internet governance matters globally. Amrita, please, over to you.
Thank you. Cheryl, no, my hand was up earlier, but yes, Nigel had a, you know, I would say, whomever he got in touch with, he left his mark from and we dearly miss him for everything, apart from the other things, he was a good dancer too, on the floors, So I do remember that part also. So yes, may he rest in peace. He was our colleague at the IGF support associations. EC, and we have also got Jennifer may want to share a link, in case you want to post some note out there. This will be shared with Adam, and, you know, ultimately, to his family. So anyone, if you want to write a small note, you could do so we'll share the link in the chat. So yes, that's on Nigel, in case I can continue. At Large also had a lot of discussions, because, after all, it is an AP Rallo forum. Say, you know, read out. Also, we discussed a lot of things. DNS abuse definitely is one how we can contribute to the promotion outreach of the next round of gTLD was also something which was greatly discussed. We still await for details. We should be launching a fishing curriculum soon, at least in one or two months, which I think would be helpful, not only for end users, but for others also to build capacity, because that is a problem, and every one of us are battling. Even the GAC has been raising it. We had a lot of discussion on the continuous improvement process, how we can synergize it, between the ALAC, the rallos, and what is, you know, what is the pilot, holistic review, etc, going to have an impact on it? So there was a lot of discussions on the improvements, efficiencies, etc, within at large, the rallies, etc, being discussed better coordination amongst other policy discussions. I just thought I would bring that to the notice. If anything I've missed Cheryl, please feel free to add.
Oh, well, I have to say. What about reviews? That was a topic of many a tables, discussion in many rooms. In fact, I think absolutely everybody the board met had exactly the same questions asked again. One wonders why we weren't all in the one room with the one lot of questions. But a what would I know about organizing things with that said, I want to thank our panelists very, very much for what I think was a spirited and highly collegial exercise of a readout from ICANN 82 and I guess I wanted to note that ICANN 82 itself was very collegial. It was one of the, I thought, in inverted commas, meetings I'd been to for a very, very long time. So there is always the opportunity to do better. But this was a good one. Ladies and gentlemen, if you would be so kind as to put your cameras on if you are able, and I'm not sure who's going to take a pretty picture, but somebody will, and do stay with a fixed smile on your face for long enough, because we never know where you're going to end up on what was probably about two or three screens that have to be photographed. Okay, we want to wrap this up within the next 60 seconds, so if we can get our cameras on, if possible. And then is it you? Jean, are you taking the picky you let us know.
So I'm going to take the picture. Me count to 3123,
and we have a second screen.
Stay smiling, people,
123, okay, I think I got it. Thank you.
Thank you, yes, and thank you all for joining us today. I've had a lovely evening. I hope you've had a very good morning afternoon or part of daytime, because we do go across more time zones than any other region. Ladies and Gentlemen, thanks to the staff that has supported us through today's call. Thank you all, and I look forward to picking up some of these threads in a future AP ralo policy forum with
that for now. Thank you all this meeting is now adjourned. Have a great rest of the day bye. Recording stopped. You.
