ICANN83 Readout – Highlights & Take-Aways from the Policy Forum

1:48PM Jun 18, 2025

Speakers:

Christopher Mondini

Lars Steffen

Keywords:

ICANN 83

policy forum

DNS abuse

WISIS+20

gTLD evaluation

ASP challenges

ICP2 review

digital inclusion

SSAC 127

technical community

multi stakeholder

public comment

internet governance

regional internet registries

bulk registrations.

Join please stay on the line. You

so again, good morning, good afternoon, good evening. Welcome to the ICANN 83 readout webinar highlights and takeaways from the policy forum in

Prague, and

this, I would like to think started. So the host of today's session will be Christopher modini. He's vice president stakeholder engagement and Managing Director of ICANN Europe, and they Thomas Rickert is not able to join us, and so I will take the lead on guiding you today's sessions. I'm not Steffen. I'm Head of International digital infrastructures and resilience at the Eco association. So thank you for joining. We also have a excellent line of speakers again today. So with us for the first time, I welcome Constance BOGON, she's member of the ASO

address council for being with us. Also have

Caballero with us, chair of the gag. Jordan Carter, member of the CCNSO Council. Unfortunately, just a few minutes ago, Greg Dibiase had to send us regards because there was an alarm in the background and you had to leave the room. So let's see if he can join us on short notice. Again, we also have from the DNS, Philippe Bucha as chair of the ispcp with us,

Mohan Chair of the ASAC

and also with us is today, last but not least, Nick wendon Smith today wearing the head of the tccm, the technical community coalition called multi stakeholder

rhythm. Thank you very much. You

so before we start the session, I would like to take you to our housekeeping rules. So of course, this webinar will be recorded. Recording will be available after the meeting. Of course, this is with ICANN, and this ICANN webinar is following this expanded expected standards of behavior.

You will be

muted throughout the webinar, but of course, you can always ask questions through the questions part of the GoToWebinar dashboard that you can find on your on the right hand side of your screen, usually, or you can also raise your hand and ask your question verbally, before we unmute you after we have unmuted you, to be precise, please state your name and your affiliation and happy to take your questions and also this way. And after the webinar, when you close the GoToWebinar dashboard, we'll see a short survey, which is always very helpful for us. If you could provide feedback on the quality the topics and everything else about the webinar, do you think we can improve the recommendations for the next events and webinars? So next week, on Monday, there will be a webinar on the most recent study from Dotson about digital market brands. If you're interested in the next round of new gTLDs, and especially on geotl These also next week, on the 26th of June, you can meet Thomas and me at the domain summit in Frankfurt, which is organized by Internet IX, if you're interested in the next ICANN read out webinar. This will take place on the 12th of November for the ICANN 84 meeting. You can find all the dates and also the registration links our websites, or you can also follow them the events on our newsletter. I will also shortly post the links to the mentioned events in the chat. And with this, I would like to hand over to Christopher mondini, thank you very much.

Thank you, Lars, thank you everyone. It's a pleasure to co host this with you. These readouts at one point were really vision for people who couldn't attend ICANN meetings to get an update and a summary, and they still serve that role. Importantly, I think also, they're a very good, balanced assimilation of the high points, highlights, hot topics, and I think the way that echo organizes them really brings out some useful review and reflection on what transpired last week. So it's just great to be with you. Let me just start with usual statistics. I have some numbers of attendees in my ceremonial role as the convener of the Prague Policy Forum last week, we had we had been in Prague before 12 years ago, and so it was delightful to be there again, and an excellent host city with fantastic local hosts. We had over 1300 on site participants and over 550 online participants, which exceeded our estimates and expectations as usual, European stakeholders for a meeting in Europe were very well presented among the 130 countries that made it onto the country list of attendees and for the four days of the policy work, there were over, or just under, rather 100 separate sessions. It was a policy forum, so it doesn't have any of the ceremonial openings or any of the plenary open mics before the board. And really there were no conflicted sessions, no plenary sessions, but there were some sessions of interest and some milestones. So on the next slide, I've just listed a few the milestones. These were largely celebrated and noted in the evenings, at the close of the working day, but we did acknowledge and honor and thank the universal acceptance steering group for their 10 year anniversary. They've transitioned now to a more community driven model, and we're really grateful for all that they've done over the last decade. We had a recognition for the very hard working working group chairs and I was very honored to participate in a in a session from Nigel Hixon, who we remember very fondly our late fellow stakeholder and colleague and friend. I was really grateful for everyone who participated in that as well. We did have, as I said, Not plenary sessions, but so called sessions of interest, and one of them was a very well attended session on the wisis plus 20 and what's coming up in the weeks ahead, leading to that summit later this year in New York, and we did close the last session Thursday was an assimilation, or a review of the inputs for what we're calling how we meet, which is a discussion of how to evolve our public meeting strategy. If you want a structurally based read out, you can have a look at the blog that came out today from Russ Weinstein. It goes through the various SOs and ACs with highlights what they each worked on. But again, as I mentioned, I think the format here today is also very topic based and gets input from diverse stakeholders. And so in many ways, I find it a more interesting way to reflect on what transpired and all the hard work of last week. Again, I'm delighted to be with you. I'm here to answer any questions from the org I'm able to and I'll ask you to take it away with our speakers and topics, please. Lars, thanks.

Thank you very much, Chris. And as you just rightfully mentioned, for those who are already familiar with the format of this webinar, we don't go through the ICANN structure and going through all that and supporting organizations and advisory committees, and we always prepare a list of topics that we would like to go through, where the different constituencies contribute to to facilitate a discussion, also among the speakers and hopefully also with the audience. And the first topic that we would like to discuss today is the review of reviews, or the pilot statistic review that's also included in this. And Robin Carter volunteered to get things started and to cover this topic. Jordan, the floor is yours.

Thanks Lars and good afternoon everyone. My name is Jordan Carter. I'm one of the two Vice Chairs of the ccnsso Council, and it's a pleasure as always, to be here as part of this readout webinar, the review of reviews, I guess everyone will be familiar with the fact that in May this year, the board decided to kind of push pause on their reviews. It It confirmed in that resolution that the CIP would keep going and deferred all of the organizational reviews until the first continuous improvement process cycle is done. It concluded the pilot holistic review for which the piloting group had locked up about whether it could actually design it or not. It continued the deferral of the atrt four, and it continued to deferral of the SSR review and the RDS specific review, and it called for a community discussion and dialog on what would happen, and just reading that list of things that have been deferred out kind of summons up a bit of the problem that the ICANN review system is very complicated, and the reviews collide with each other, and there's a bit of community dissatisfaction. Excuse me. And so wrote to the board in April, after the discussions that happened in March at Seattle, to suggest a deferral and a reconsideration of how this review system works. And so there was a bit of discussion among so CTOs and a whole bunch of us, I think, in Prague last week, and most people seem to be of the view that it does need to be a look taken at this complicated system, both what's in the bylaws, how the reviews work, and how the implementation process happens. There was a bit of, sort of diverse views about whether the board did the right thing, and pausing everything very transparently and explicitly, and a bit of a tension between two different points about what should happen next. Some people were comfortable there should be a short, sharp, focused review of reviews. Some people were of the view that to do that, you would need to pass a time limited by law amendment, which would kind of validate that review process and the suspension of all of the existing reviews. And some people felt that the existing accountability and transparency review the atrt for that's due to started would be the preferred mechanism to do this reviews, I shared the view of the CCNSO that the atrt option isn't a good one. The way the review is composed and the mandated by laws required scope of it are much broader than just looking at the reviews. If we use that, would break the atrt itself and the CCNSO Council when it discussed this question about whether there needs to be a short term by law tweak to validate the pause and to enable this review, was a bit agnostic. And there are some parts of the community, I think aaalac had a view, or at least some of its participants did, that it was very important that there be the system be brought back into compliance with the bylaws as quickly as possible. So there have been some proposals floating around for how to go about doing a short, sharp review of this process, and I think the SOA CTOs are expecting to talk with ICANN Board and company leadership in the first week of July after the IGF. So I think any feedback that people have on the best road ahead and on that particular question of whether the board, having made this decision to temporarily pause things that's enough to give us space to do this review, or whether a bylaws adjustment is also needed to kind of validate that pause and process that would be helpful feedback for people who are in those discussions to have last I hope that's the kind of rundown you were hoping for, and if it wasn't, you've got it anyway, there you go.

Jon, thank you very much for the update, and I know that maybe Philip, you would like to add anything to this.

Hugh Lars, yeah, I'm a Filipino. I'm with the isbcp constituency. We spent, we spent some time within the constituency discussing this, and not not only this, but also the progress of the holistic review, I think there's some sympathy with the sort of characterization of the problem in terms of resources for the community, and the fact that running up one review on top of the other, it has become a bit of a problem. On the other hand, I think people within the constituency are somewhat frustrated with discussion being solely focused on the form rather than the substance. If you see what I mean, the what, what the whatever form it takes, but what the next review does is probably just as important as the process that will be would be. In that respect, I think at least within the constituency, people feel that maybe point we're at is actually the aftermath of atrt three, and the fact that there was some frustration on with the implementation of the recommendations, as well as even the draft report, as some of you may remember, which created a lot of controversy. It's not a one off. I guess we're just down the road and we are where we are. And on the substance, I think there was some strong views within the constituency, not only within the constituency, but also elsewhere, that the in terms of of the substance, that some point there would be some need to consider, consider some structural form. We have some some participants who just reflect on the fact that the organization, not the but the organization with a small o has has not reviewed the reviewed the structure, and for a company not to do that for 20 years, doesn't I know it's a sort of mantra for a lot of people, but it does make sense for people to review the way they're structured and the way the various bits work together. So I think that there's some Emphasis within the constituency on just what people are going to be doing, just as much as how, and I'm not sure, just like Jordan, I'm not sure people are very, you know, concerned about the the battles, amendments, in terms of, well, surely we need to be rigorous in terms of how we do it, but, but, but the the image I'll take is generally, let's try and explain this to the to an outsider. And it's sometimes people are struggling to explain that this, what we are going to be doing on the review of reviews is important. Brian, moving forward. Thank you.

Thank you. Philip. Jon, do you raise your hand on this

just to Vaughn? Philip, one point. The thing that was most puzzling to me about the pilot holistic review was it seemed very straightforwardly tasked with designing a proper structural review of ICANN, which I agree is something that has to be done from time to time. And without that, we're stuck in a structure that was designed largely in 2002 and as Philip says, that's a long time. And so the sooner we can simplify the review system and have a review like that put in place, and weave it in properly with the continuous improvement program. Ideally, we should get to the point where the whole system is simpler, where the volunteer time that's put into it is actually leading to effective results, and where the whole process gives us confidence that ICANN is fit for purpose. At the moment, the system doesn't seem to be delivering Any of those things.

Just going to say absolutely. Jordan, I don't know if Lars you intend to take the floor here, but, but yeah, I agree entirely in terms of streamlining this prior to to addressing documents. Probably the pilot holistic review was not fit for purpose. Without, in, without objective, in in line.

Over to you,

ours, I think, I think you're on mute. I can't hear you.

Nico, can you hear us now? All right, yeah,

I can hear you. Apparently you were on mute. No, very, very quickly on this topic, you know, more specifically referring to the atrt four, you know, I couldn't agree more with the Jordan in turn, in terms of having something a little bit simpler, more straightforward, you know, more direct, just, just for the record, you know, I wanted to know that we, you know, the gag we called, you know, the essential character of the atrt for, you know, reviews as mandated by the ICANN, but by the bylaws and their central role, you know, for the well functioning of ICANN, multi stakeholder accountability, transparency and governance, you know, and accordingly, the gag calls on the on the board, basically, you know, even though it was provided as not as as consensus advice, but it was included under issues of importance. But we basically called the board to expedite consultations on the matter, with the know, with the with a multi stakeholder community, which, according to my understanding, is already happening, and I stand to be corrected here, and just for the record, and again, to agree with Jon, thank you.

Thank you. Nico. Do we have any other comments on this topic

that doesn't seem to be the case? Thank you very much for the very good summary on this. The next topic that we would like to cover is something that also, also already mentioned in his introduction, and also in the light of the upcoming IGF next week, and also is a very important one, which is Whois plus 20. And for this, I would like to give the floor to Nick to provide an update on the current status of the debate.

Nick now we don't hear you. I

maybe I can

then. So this from our end, the mic is open for you.

Something on Nick's side, yeah.

Maybe we can move on to to the next topic, Nick so that we can give you some more time to get things fixed. So the next topic that we have on our agenda is the next round of gTLD, and we don't have Joanna coolis with us today, and Nico agreed to take the lead on this topic. Nico, please the floor.

Can you hear me? Yes, loud and clear,

yes. Thumbs up or something. Okay, so, you know, the I have, I have, I prepared basically for four main topics for, for, for, for today. The first one being the IRT progress. The second being urgent priorities, you know, as pertaining to the applicant, to the ASP, the applicant support program, and some recommendations and some some other comments, the gap, you know, the gaps point of view, as regarding, you know, readiness for, For for, for the next round gTLD evaluation, and then finally, some forward looking, looking actions. And I'll try to be quick and straight to the point. So we basically, you know, we recognize the the critical milestone, you know, achieved by the IRT with with the submission of the complete draft applicant guidebook, the AGB for public comment. That's a very good thing. This document basically lays the groundwork, according to our view, you know, for for a structured and transparent application process in the next round of gTLDs. We also, you know, extend our gratitude, you know, to the IRT members, including our dedicated guide representatives, for their tireless efforts in delivering this again, as I said before, foundational work, right? Some key observations I could, I can share with you at this point is that the the draft, you know, that the guidebook reflects, you know, extensive community input and aligns with ICANN multi stakeholder model. So we're, we're fine with that. The, you know, another, another another observation is that the public comment period is the pivotal opportunity, you know, for stakeholders to refine policies, particularly on stream contention, rights protection and DNS abuse mitigation, which is a big thing for the GAC, and we can talk about that later on, right. And also that the gag will actively, you know, monitor feedback to ensure public interest concerns like, for example, Geographic Names and consumer protection and so on and so forth. Are addressed, you know, are duly addressed in the final version. So, so that that's about the IRT, you know, the implementation review team progress now as regarding urgent priorities, and I hope I'm doing fine in terms of timing, please wave to me or let me know. Lars, if you know I'm running out of time. But as pertaining to the, you know, the urgent priorities, you know, the applicant support, the ASP, applicant support program, we also acknowledge, you know, excuse me, the board's compromised. You know, to review the ASP at the halfway mark, that's an important thing, the halfway mark, that is 20 qualified applications. But, you know, current data raises some, some alarms for the gag like, you know, there are some critical challenges from from our point of view, like, for example, low application volume. You know, only a small fraction of expected applications have been completed. You know, with just five months remaining in the 12 the 12 month window, you know, there are, there are, there are some geographic disparities as well. You know, early metrics this point, at least, you know, suggest under representation for developing regions or global South, or whatever name we want to use for that, you know, risking, you know, the program's goal of

inclusivity, I would say

we have also identified some some systemic barriers, like, like, like, potential applicants, especially those new to the ICANN processes, you know, facing hurdles you know, such as, on the one hand, very complex paperwork you know, limited, very limited awareness and lack of local support, local support in some cases. So in that regard, you know, the guy recommended, you know, an immediate review. You know, conducting, you know, the ASP assessment now and not after 20 applications. You know, who, on the one hand, diagnose obstacles, like, for example, outreach gaps, you know, funding accessibility. And we can talk about that because we also gave some ideas about having access to funding and everything else, but that, that would be a different conversation. And on the other hand, to propose mitigations, like, for example, simplified forms, you know, and you know, regional workshops that that's something else we suggested, right? Another thing would be targeted outreach. You know, re redirecting resources to, for example, you know, high potential and underserved regions, you know, via, and this is again, just an idea, you know, government, government led awareness campaigns. You know, leveraging, leveraging somehow, ICANN stakeholder teams whenever possible. And partnership, partnerships in general, you know, with local registries and ccTLDs whenever possible. And then in this regard, finally, some sort of budget flexibility, preparing to expand funding if qualified applications exceed the 40. I think it was 40 to 45 cap, if I recall correctly, ensuring again, that that no disturbing candidate is excluded, which was the whole idea right from the beginning, right? And I can, I can quote, you know, something coming directly from, from, from the guy communicate, which is that, you know, at the current pace. You know, the current pace may not allow, and I'm quoting, may not allow for timely adjustments. You know, the gap urges immediate action to salvage the ASPs, inclusive purpose. End quote that that's coming directly from, from from there, from the gap, communicate so very quickly. Again. The third point was gang readiness, you know, for gTLD evaluation. So, so again, as the application window nears, you know, the gang must our view, you know, strengthen. You know, our preparatory efforts. You know, on some strategic focus, focus areas like early interventions, you know, in order to maximize tools like, like the early warnings, you know, to flag problematic strings, like, for example, culturally, let's say culturally sensitive terms, you know, and fishing risks and so on and so forth. And, you know, we can, we can have some, some deeper conversations in that regard later on. But for the sake of time, you know, I would also like to address at this point, you know, abuse mitigation, you know, preemptively addressing concerns about DNS abuse escalation. No, again, I'm not going to refer to spam Mal, where fishing, farming and so on, tied directly tied to gTLD expansion and and also collaborative vigilance, you know, got volunteers you know to work, and we have already expressed that in many different places to work with topic leads, on timeline tracking, on the one hand, and also developing position papers for high risk categories like, for example, health, a very important thing in terms of public interest and finance, another very sensitive area. You know, some, some gag delegations highlighted. You know, the spam and fishing risks. You know, from, from, from rapid, let's say DNS growth. You know, urging the GAC, GAC members again, urging the GAC itself, you know, to advise applicants on mandatory abuse mitigation plans on the one hand, and pushing ICANN or pushing in a good sense, you know, like, like for enforceable SLAs with register registrars whenever possible. Again, SLA, standing for service level agreements. We can talk about details, you know, later on, but, but again, for the second, for the sake of time, you know, I'll pause here and hand it back to you, Lars, and my apologies if I run out of time. So I have more things, but, but again, over to you

know that that's absolutely fine. And then there was one comment and the questions part that supports your observation that the main barrier for new gTLD applicants from the global south is continuing, continuing to be the cost factor. You also already addressed some questions on the on the technical layer, and I already see the hand from Ron up, and I know that you would like to this topic as well. Yes, just to

finish, Larson, sorry to interrupt very quickly. You know, to ensure you know that the next round balances, you know, innovation with accountability, you know, we, I mean, the gag, you know, will basically be advocating for, you know, ASP reforms, like, like, you know, press I can all to implement review findings within 60 days. Just to give an example, right to engage more, engage more in public comment. You know, submitting consolidated gag feedback on the guidebook, again, emphasizing, you know, developing develop global south or developing economy support and rights protection mechanisms. You know, and if possible, host, again, as I mentioned before, you know, regional webinars in order to educate potential applicants on ASP opportunities. Again, just for the record, sorry to interrupt.

It's the purpose of this webinar to have a discussion. So no worries. And RAM, I would like to hand it over to you.

Thank you. Lars, from the SX point of view, we are in the process of developing a public comment for the applicant guidebook. In particular, we're concerned about collisions that may happen from identifiers in the blockchain namespace that leak over, if you will, into the DNS name space, we have participants in the blockchain identifier space who have expressed their intent to apply for the same names that they are using or providing in the blockchain space to apply for the same names in the DNS space, the place where we have some caution for the community, and in particular for ICANN org to exercise, is The concern about promises made in the blockchain identifier space that have an implication, or maybe even a promise of care being carried over in the DNS space, and being really clear and understanding that there is no way to tie one namespace to a completely different namespace in a complete and guaranteed manner, and there is a strong likelihood of confusion, especially because you have people In the blockchain identifier space who have appropriated the nomenclature and the syntax that is being used in the DNS space. You hear people calling the blockchain identifier space identifiers. You hear them calling them blockchain domain names. You hear call, you know it being called as resolvers in the blockchain space. So a lot of the words and the forms, and, more importantly, the trust model that has been built in the DNS space is being, I don't know what the right word is, is being leveraged in the blockchain space, and that is a normal occurrence. What we're concerned about is the linkage between the blockchain space and the DNS space, and doing it in a responsible and predictable way. So we're going to be issuing a public comment on this, and specifically our focus will be on ICANN org to help ensure that when they issue identifiers in the DNS space, new TLDs in the DNS space to operators who claim to have links from those TLDs to identifiers in the blockchain space that a lot of care and a lot of extra work has to go in. It shouldn't be automatic.

Thanks. Thank you. RAM Nico, you would like to respond to this,

not to respond as a matter of fact, but just for the record, I just wanted to point out that you know, from the point of view, the guides point of view, you know, the success of the next, the next gTLD round basically hinges on inclusivity. You know, transparency, and I would say proactive governance. We, you know, we as government representatives, you know, the gag remains committed, you know, to one hand, championing equitable access, you know, for under represented regions or global south or underdeveloped countries, or however we want to call, you know, those, those regions. On the other hand, safeguarding the DNS from abuse vectors. And that's why I refer to DNS abuse. And we can have a whole, you know, separate conversation in that regard, and getting more technical and everything else. And finally, you know, collaborating across ICANN to turn challenges into opportunities. I would say, as in general, we really think that at this point, you know, this is not merely a policy exercise, but you know, a test of our, I would say, a collective resolve. So to say, to be like a trusted global, global internet, as we always say. So I'll stop. I'll stop there. And sorry for taking the floor so many times.

That's that's absolutely fine. Nico, thank you very much. And of course, this wouldn't be a complete I can read out, and we wouldn't have a DNS abuse later on the agenda as well, but I would like to give the flow to Philly. You. Police.

Thank you. Thank you, Lars. Just to reflect on Ram's intervention, I totally agree. Ultimately, it's a matter of liability, and where you put the responsibility. Can being responsible for the quote, unquote public DNS, I think it should make it clear that ultimately, the community with a small c that manages one side of of the name space, one side of one space, cannot be responsible for the like the shortcomings of the others, if you see what I mean last time in 2012 and a number of us have been involved in in assessing the risks of of the collisions that came up in in the what was called the internal report back then, was clear that that it was down to the to the applicant to figure out what The risks were. Ultimately, the source of leakage was responsible for managing, and it's the spirit of the of the framework that we've got. There's no commitment, as you know, minimizing the what may result from the other side's decisions, because it moving forward, that's that's a frightening practice. There's no way you can keep consistent within two things that were designed for different purposes. So just to say that, yeah, I think the responsibility should be to be clear moving forward. And just as a side note to Nico's observation on the figures that we've got so far on the ASB, I would add that the those that we have for each of the RSP are, I would say, equally puzzling in terms of, you know, the variety within the ecosystem. There are certainly reasons for that, and economics at scale, and I understand that. But on the other hand, what is it? Are 40 altogether RSPs, or maybe 45 I don't know, grand scheme of things. It's not, it's not a lot, if we consider the sheer number of applications we may have.

Back to you now, thank you, Philip, because there's an old hand. Or would you like to respond to this? Okay, it's an open Okay, okay. Thank you very much. So with this, I would like to take the opportunity to go back to the wiz plus 20, and let's see if your audio is working now.

I can't hear you.

Obviously you can hear us, but your microphone is not working. But this would give us the opportunity. Oh, no, now we

how's that much better?

Perfect. Oh, all right, please.

Yeah. So the moment of horror when you unmute and the doesn't unmute, it's like, oh my god. Anyway, so good. Good for this, good for the resilience of your soul when you're presenting. So I've got the with this plus 20 discussion topic. So this came up numerous different points across the Prague meeting. So Chris always already mentioned the community discussion on the WIS plus 20. The CCNSO, for example, had a 20 years of wises and what is the road ahead? Session, very well intended, lots of engagement, and it also came up as one of the high priority areas for coordination as between the gTLD registries and the ccTLD registries. So what are we talking about? So this, this relates to the World Summit of the Information Society, and the past 20 is because this is the 20th year anniversary of the original Well, it was two conferences, but it finalized in 2005 so here we are 2025 that's 20 years. That's with this plus 20. So this is an intergovernmental process around the digitization of the world and society and culture. And I would say that there was a witness plus 10, but that was fairly straightforward renewal the there was a 10 year mandate from the original voices. It was renewed for 10 years in 2015 so this is the 2020 this renewal mandate not so straightforward. This is essentially a revisiting and reopening of all of the governmental compromises and trade offs that were made 20 years ago. And I think everybody appreciates in the last 20 years, a lot has changed. So there are lots and lots of areas of topics, and I should say that in terms of the technical architecture and internet interoperability, this is only a very small part of an overall arching piece of UN treaty which covers everything from sort of data flows and governance and looking forwards areas like aI obviously weren't included in the original with this document, so there's A lot of scope for pretty much every, every subject of importance to the nation states of today, which touches on digital, which is basically everything is bundled up in this. But one important part of it is this, the technical layer. And think, for those of us who are sort of following these things, and I'll talk about the tccm just briefly in a moment, essentially, this is our engagement is largely focused around preserving the technical security and stability the internet architecture, and in particular, the roles of the Istar organizations in terms of how that has operated really very well for the last 20 years. So tccm started probably about two years ago, because this is a bit like Christmas, in the sense that a lot of people seem to be panicking the last minute now that this is the wizards plus 20 year. But I think this was foreseen a number of the particularly ccTLDs couple of years ago, and it started from founding group of four, which is to say UK, Australia, Canada and New Zealand, the four original founders, and we now have 38 members across other continents of the world, fundamentally technical operators. I'll put a link to our website and mission statement, but essentially what we're trying to do to coordinate and encourage the engagement of the technical community to preserve the stability architecture of the Thank you. Thank you, Lars, to preserve the the technical stability and security, the good, strong, well functioning operations of the technical layers of the internet and the roles of the Istar organizations. And you'll see we position papers, thought leadership, trying to coordinate with the Istar organizations. We have bilateral meetings with the likes of ICANN and ISOC. So that is essentially what we're doing, the next steps, really. So we have next week. It is the Internet Governance Forum in Norway. The Internet Governance Forum is itself an output of wiisis, and so that'll be a very strong element of next week's meeting in Norway. Then we'll have, essentially, we have two in the UN process, they appoint co facilitators from different nation states. So we've got two co facilitators already been appointed. And who will they will be have been already seeking input. So for example, the tccm, one of my colleagues, spoke last week at the UN open consultation. So they're getting input and all of these things. There will then be a, what's called a zero draft used by these co facilitators. And there'll be opportunities for consultation and comment, particularly in the WIS Forum, which comes up in Geneva in July, and then going forwards. I think we all understand that although the UN vote is not until December, a large largely, these things are done in advance, right? So now's the time when lots of different things are in the air for negotiation, discussion, debate, and in the next couple of months, I think we'll have a lot better idea as to where we are all going. So I think probably up there. I would be interested in Jordan, obviously, knows a lot about this as well, but a member of the TCM from the from the early days, two years ago, I'd say that last year, there was another UN process, and this was in relation to something called the global digital compact. And I think from our perspective, that was a rather unsatisfactory process, in the sense that it did seek to get engagement from the wider multi stakeholder community, but it was very difficult for non government people, I think, actually talking to governments, or very difficult for governments to engage, sometimes in the process, and understand what was going on. But certainly for non government operators, it was very opaque, difficult to engage with and information as to what was happening was was difficult to do that. And so we were very nervous ahead of the wishes plus 20 this year, it was going to follow a similar track, but I would say that there seems to be a lot more positive engagement with the wider multi stakeholder community, including the, obviously, the technical operators. And I think we're cautiously optimistic about the renewal of the with this mandate preserving some of the things that we say are pretty much essential for the continuing smooth air functioning. So I'll hand it over to Jordan and anybody else who wants to chip in. It's a very interesting topic. I think my final, final point would be that part of the reason of forming a coalition that is a technical community coalition, not the only one that could possibly exist. But the reason for doing this is because it's such a large piece of work that we want to a work collectively together, because that's more effective in terms of consistency of what our different governments are hearing from us as a technical community, but also there's a huge amount of consultations, meetings to cover, and so it's very difficult for any one organization to do that. And so we try to share information insights and essentially crowdsource our collective input to be to make less of a strain on us individually, and to be more effective as a collective. So that's broadly speaking, where we're at. Thank

you very much, Nick. And yes, it's definitely important work. This is also why eco is one of the supporting organizations for the tccm and Jordan. Would you like to add anything to this?

It was like, Nick was reading off my notes in part. But I'll just add a couple of points of emphasis, I guess, speaking kind of personally as someone who's looked into this, this isn't representing a CCNSO position or anything. The thing that came out of this was this originally, was the sort of intergovernmental recognition that there is an internet technical community and that it does its stuff through the coordination of mechanisms like ICANN, IETF, the IRS and so on. It didn't indent multi stakeholder Internet governance, but it kind of the moment where governments officially noticed it. And what that does is it creates a bit of a safe spot for us to keep doing our work under the shield of that. While some countries would rather that all of the business that we do at ICANN was done in formats like the ITU, it's only vote by vote, member state by Member State. So while it can seem quite abstract and political and New York based, it's actually ends up being a line from our ability, within the ICANN framework, within the Regional Internet Registries framework, to do our jobs versus not being able to do them. So that's part of why we're all interested, I think, in this, and why it is important if the you know, the bargain that was made 20 years ago was that we could have a broad based discussion forum like the IGF, rather than a narrowly scoped decision making forum that internet names and numbers and other critical resources, which is what Some other countries wanted, and that tension hasn't gone away. It's changed partly since 2005 is that the geopolitics of the world has changed, and some of the countries that would rather there was a more intergovernmental slant to some of these technology policies are much more powerful than they were 20 years ago. So that makes it even more important for communities like ours to be having some kind of a say in some kind of a way. And the point of that the tccm was to make it easier for people to do that, really,

that's all I'll add. Thank

you very much, Jon and thank you again, Nick for the update on the WIS plus 20 process. And with this, I would like to move on in our agenda

to topic that

people are always looking forward to, which is the discussion on DNS abuse. We originally planned to have the intro from the ix, but because Jon wasn't able to join us today, I would like to give the opportunity to get us started from Nico. Because there was multiple sessions on DNS abuse, of course, but one was also very well attended by the gag. So maybe Nico, you can introduce us into the current discussion of DNS abuse that that happened at ICANN 83 Oh,

of course, it will be my pleasure, and sorry that we can't have Joanna with us today. Um, so yes, as you correctly pointed out, you know, the DNS abuse remains a very, a very important, a very significant concern, you know, for governments involved in ICANN, we welcome, you know, last year's amendments, contractual amendments, establishing obligations for for for the CPS, that is for the, for the contracted parties. You know, to mitigate and whenever possible, you know, disrupt DNS abuse. That's the first step. You know, I would say, of course, you know more work. You know further work is necessary to stem the you know, the increasing cost, you know, to the public, of fishing malware, botnets, spam, you know, and farming, even though, even though fishing is, I would say 90 95% I don't remember the exact statistics, but I think it makes up around 90 95% of, you know, of as a form of DNS abuse. So we addressed, you know, those, those issues under issues of importance in our, in our, in our GAC, ICANN 83 communicate on the one hand and on the other hand, we also gave consensus advice. I'll get to that point a little bit later. But in general, I just, you know, for the record, I just wanted to point out that you know, we, I mean, the the GAC you know, believes that you know the full of the full spectrum of ideas you know so far discussed, including both proactive and reactive measures, you know, deserve, deserve attention. You know, the many different discussions have included specific issue areas such as, you know, associated domain checking, bulk registrations, gating, application APIs. You know, application programming interfaces. I understand everybody is familiar with, you know, APIs and investigating, you know, sub domains, public reporting of abuse statistics, you know, shared more openly. And we can have a whole different conversation about open data and open data policies and open source policies and many different things, but that's again, for a different discussion. Another extent was the relationship between the timeliness, you know, of registration data, registration data verification, right, and DNS abuse and the correlation, you know, and transparency reporting obligation so, so basically, the GAC provided, provided consensus advice during, during ICANN 83 let me read it for You, and I'll quote the communicate, you know, the GAC communicate. Quote, to urge the gnsso Council to undertake all necessary preparations prior to ICANN 84 towards starting targeted and narrowly scoped. That's an important thing as well a narrowly scope policy development processes on DNS abuse issues, prioritizing bulk registration of malicious domain names and the responsibility of registrars to investigate domains associated with registrant accounts that are the subject actionable reports DNS abuse. So I'll stop here in order to see if there are reactions. But that's more or less, you know, broadly speaking, our take on on this very important issue for the gang, which is DNS abuse. So I'll pause here, Lars, in order to see if there are comments or questions. Over to you.

Thank you, Nicole. Um,

you just switch up the camera. And I just wanted to move on to the desk session. CNS, Oh,

you are yes. Sorry. My my computer tried to change camera and mic on me. It was trying to do a nick to me. But here we go. The DNS, abuse Standing Committee, and then CCS, I did write a session, and the focus this time was on online scams and financial crime, which, which is sort of a topic that was identified at the last meeting, and compared to the gnsso definitions, and what's in the contractors, the contracts for contracted parties, as far as a little bit beyond the traditional scope, scope, the purpose in the Prague meeting. And you know, Nick is the vice the chair, or the vice chair of this group, so you can probably add more details. Was to look at the role of ccTLDs and dealing with this bigger picture and raising awareness of the issues. So there were a couple of CCS that positioned what they did, and Auda did.au, and the Singaporeans, as well as G neck.sg there was also a chance to present the work of the internet infrastructure Forum, which is trying to come at this by also saying that, beyond the DNS, hosting providers are a key component in effectively dealing with these problems of financial abuse or scams. And there was also, because you want law enforcement in the room, there was a presentation from the FBI as well, on the scale of online, internet mediated crime. This is a factoid out of that $16 billion in internet related crime that they identified in 2024 and that was up 33% on 2023 so I think that helps to explain the scale the problem, why there is pressure coming from GAC and governments in dealing with this. So for the ccnsos track, obviously each each registry does its own policy and conformance with its national law and community expectations, and they want to deepen that group wants to deepen the understanding of this topic with other stakeholder and other perspectives in the room in Oman. So there'll be more to come here. So that's my potted review of what came up in Prague, and there you go.

Thank you very much. Jon and Philippe, would you like to add anything from the GNSS perspective, even also especially due to the fact that Greg is obviously not able to rejoin us?

Thanks. Last I'm not sure I can cover everything that the genital does on this, but just to let people know that on one hand, on sort of pre policy side of things, genital Council has had what they call a small team on the topic that's been resuscitated. There's been a small team for ages, but I think it was recreated a couple of months ago, probably to consider the various avenues for to tackle the topic. During ICANN 83 they've been at least three or three or four tracks within the genocide, we were to consider a potential a way to address the problem. I don't know if I'm cautious enough, but one of which was indeed a PDP, others argued for another round of negotiate, direct negotiation between the organization and and the contracted parties for this being around the timeline, who's in, in terms of, know, the PDP manual, by by half, but, but we're not, we're talking at least 14 months, and it's when you when you deal with on the other side, things like aI generated registrations. It's losing rates, as it were, so. So the commercial stakeholder group in particular has been put together. A number of issues that that Nico alluded to was sort of aligned with what Nico said in terms of addressing bulk registrations, imposed domain names, the need to pivot, as they say, to sort of generalize when you identified an issue and address the case at hand, try to generalize it in terms of the account for example, that would facilitate addressing the problem holistically. I guess that's the word, rather than, you know, just being welcome all. So we've, we've been dealing with this, I think so we don't have a solution. I guess all of this, at least, as far as the gener is concerned, we'll go through Council, ultimately, with with the various various inputs, but at least within the commercial stakeholder group, people are acutely aware of the need to address that as quickly as possible. And I think, I think people realize that I know there are existential issues where I can but this one as nature bought the bacon, as we say. And ultimately, if, as far as G's are concerned, if ICANN doesn't do anything on this, the lawmakers will and and it's, it's not good for fragmentation. It so, which I think we're and we know that, by and large. And there was a session with the between the CSG and the contracted parties, I like an 83 on reviewing the cases and trying to understand why, why, some way, some of the abuse reports were written were not fit for purpose, as far as a legal team from a registrar, for instance, would read that report. So it's really hands on work. But ultimately we appreciate that there aren't just probably a handful, maybe another handful, but a marginal part of of the attractive parties who actually Rob, if I may use the word registrars and the other part is good, willing, so I think it's, it's within the interest overall of the community to address that. We just hope that we can do it timely, moving forward.

Thank you, Philip, please.

Yeah, yeah. Just, just a couple of extra points. Thanks very much to Jon and also to Philly for the points on this. The CC's point of view, we're not so much looking at the main ICANN preoccupations of abusively registered domains, because there's such a small number of abusively registered domains in most ccTLDs, even large open ones, like like.uk or.de the issue of compromised websites, of innocent registrations where you've got an elderly or an aging, increasingly aging population of websites where they've been around for many years and they just have not got the correct counter measures for virus and cyber security that you you would expect. So the majority, or in some some CCT or these, the majority of the phishing attacks are done through compromised websites. So it's actually nothing to do with the domain registration at all. So that is something that we've been socializing it's very interesting to hear from the Singapore industry, for example, how proactive they are at reaching out to their registrants, using their local connections with law enforcement to actually remove that source, which is why it's so interesting and quite a complicated area. So I think that's an area that we're going to continue to discuss, which is, what more can registries do to facilitate that sort of getting to the root cause of it fundamentally things down more effectively. But also, I think, from the CC's point of view, not not removing abuse, but actually preventing it from happening in the first place, is really our priority. The second thing is, and this has been a slightly different hat on, but I sit on the Advisory Council for the net beacon Institute, who do a lot of reports on these sorts of things, and then some thought leadership. And they've recently published a white paper setting out five potential sort of short, narrow focus pdbs, including these things, which seem to be a big problem, and low hanging fruit in terms of bulk registrations, allowing access to APIs for bulk registration. To people with really very little due diligence and checking with, you know, this pivot thing where, if you have a an account as 100 domain names in and one of them is really got actionable DNS abuse, well, it'd be a good idea to have a look at the other 99 on that account. So this is this sort of well, you know, just use a bit of curiosity when you receive your abuse reports and it seems to be linked with clearly, other numerous abusive, abusively registered domain names to carry out phishing attacks. Then you, as a prudent and respectable operator of a technical infrastructure, perhaps do something about the other 99 without having to receive a formal report for all of that 100 and 100 domains. You get one then, you know, use some use some initiative, and that, that sort of thing. So those are, I think, gaining traction, and I think one or two of those will go through to a fairly focused PDP for the next ICANN meeting, if the GSO Council, am I allowed to say this has got any sense, I think they will see, as Philip said, where the wind is blowing and take take on board. I think we're very constructive and positively intentioned proposals to actually make a meaningful difference.

Thank you, Nick for mentioning the paper from the netiquette Institute with the PDP proposals. That's very important. And you just lowered your hand.

Sorry, yeah. I just, I just, you know, building up a little bit on what Jordan mentioned, and and also Philip, you know, again, let me just insist, from the point of view of the gag again, that for the work you know, more work is necessary, you know, again, to stem the increasing cost, you know, to the public, not only to the public, but also the government in general, of fishing malware and the whole, the whole, you know, the other forms of DNS abuse. Now, one very quickly you know, one very quick observation as regarding the timelines, timing in general. You know, not only as regarding the relationship between the timeliness of registration, data verification and DNS abuse, and we could have a technical conversation and and get to see how the whole thing works, right, but also the timing of the PDPs. And that's why, you know, we're a little bit concerned about the, you know, what you know, the kind, the kind of progress we might or might not be able to achieve, as regarding the, you know, speeding up the the PDP processes and, and I gave a ridiculous example, you know, during I can treat during, during our session. In that regard, you know, this guy coming from, from the Small Magellanic Cloud galaxy and seeing how you know the PDP in that case, it was an expedited PDP process taking seven years so far, started in 2018 according to that specific example you know, and you know, trying to find ways to To improve that, because otherwise, it would be detrimental, very especially, taking into account that this is a very, very special year, I would say, you know, as regarding the wishes, plus 20 review and many other things. But again, if that were not the case, let's just say that this, you know, this, this Martian visitor, you know, Martian Ambassador came and, you know, started asking about the way we do PDPs. We develop PDPs and the time it takes and everything,

gentlemen,

you know, let me please allow me to say that we actually need to get some sort of improvement in that regard. So that's all I

wanted to point out. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Nico, the point is well taken. Take a look at the time. I would like to move on to the next topic, if there are no further interventions on DNS abuse, which leads us to the next topic, which is the ICP two review, and also to our speaker in this round, which is Constanze Berger, thank you for being with us. Constanze, the floor is yours.

Thank you for your invitation. I'm Constance. I'm a member of the address supporting organization Council, and I bring you best regards from my colleagues, from heavy Clemont, our chair, and my colleagues who presented also why the ICANN meeting. And I have a short summary from the policy forum, and I want to introduce you a really heavy technical topic. Thank you, Jon and Nick also for your view to your insights. It's very interesting for me to see this and the others, for the issues you figured out in the ICANN meeting. Next slide please, and just a few words about the ISO ASOC the address supporting organization is one of the three supporting organizations in the ICANN community, and reviews and develops recommendations on Internet Protocol issues and internet resources autonomous systems and reverse DNS. The asil advises the ICANN Board on policy issues relating to the operations, assignment and management of IP addresses with the ASO the address Council is an elected body of 2050, members, comprising three volunteers from each five regional Internet registries, and after more than 20 years, the internet coordination policy has to be updated so you mentioned already the political change in the world. So these issues are also affecting the technical internet systems, and we have to strengthen our internet against attacks from outside. So the asil AC conduct an ICANN public comment process on the ICP two, version two, we incorporated inputs from ICANN public comment into and also from the consultations from the RIRs and we drafted our IR governance document as a new document, this next slide And this rar governance document we presented also in the ICANN and we had a participation open from the 14th of April until the 27th of May. We presented this document while rar meetings and also on request for ICANN communities, and also we had presentations at lakshmik arien and right 90 we had buffs, and also open house discussions. We got submissions and received a lot of answers and comments. And through ICANN public comments process, we we offered the ICANN public comments report. It's available. You can see these reports and also the sessions, archives and links to mailing lists are also available. Next slide, please. What did we do while the the ICANN meeting, we the ASOC met at ICANN 83 and we got this significant feedback from all ARIA regions and the ISO AC used the workshop time during ICANN to review all of the feedback in order to determine whether each item is, for instance, actionable and implementation detail or out of scope. So we ranked it and we handled it, and we produced a new spreadsheet, and to put these feedback and spreadsheet Next slide please. So a lot of lot of feedback. So for example, this internet coordination policy is about of managing internet resources, so it's about to run to recognize or to de recognize Regional Internet Registry, and therefore we got some feedbacks about approval thresholds, different opinions we saw on whether it should require Anonymous approval of the existing areas to recognize a new area, or whether a different threshold should be used. Number of the areas was a very important topic. We saw different opinions on how to determine the appropriate number of areas. Moment we have five areas. And so you think you can imagine every new areas coming up is quite is an input, and inputs our ecosystem. And so the discussion about the number of errors is very important as well. So audits desire for more frequent, detailed audit procedures to identify problems early. It's a very important issue we saw, or you know, what happened with AfriNIC so this we want to prevent initiation. Should I can be able to initiate a proposal to recognize an area? These are all questions we have to handle, review, appeal, continuity of handoff. These are samples for feedback. And all these feedback we have to work in the new document. Next slide, please. So what can expect? Next steps? Expect the timeline. So we have this inputs, and we have this documents, and we sit now on the next version of the document, and we want to publish a revised version of the document by late August, early September. We conduct another ICANN public comment process on the revised document. We expect to spend ICANN 84 and all ri meetings in the second half of the year. Green ICANN stakeholder communities the revised document before ICANN 84 to enable them to review the draft and develop their feedback during during ICANN 84 is planned the close of public comment shortly after ICANN 84 is banned for our timeline. So that's all from my perspective. Thank you for your attention Next slide, please. So I have on the last slide the link to the akin org and the bunch of informations we have. If you have any questions, please ask me or my colleagues in the list, we are happy to answer you, and we provide a lot of documents to inform about our work. Please don't hesitate to ask. Thank you. Thank you so much.

Thank you, Constanze, for the update on this very important topic and be part of the ispcp. And I know Philip that also the ispcp anticipated public comments, and maybe you would like to add briefly our position on this.

Thanks, Council. Yeah, very quickly, mindful of time, and we had the benefit of having a joint session with the ISO AC colleagues. We've got a overlap in membership, if you can call that a membership in the ASO. For a long time, we've been lucky. Yes, very briefly, our overarching comments being supported. I should start with this on the latest version was a on the sort of robustness of the process we're all conscious of what's going on in Africa and the elections in a few days. Now we know that our people who are very good at gaming the system or gaming the policy so that, moving forward, this probably a need, or, if not, to review this, but to make sure that is robust off to to prevent this sort of of Capture. Capture is, is something that document focused on. This is on, but we thought there was something worthwhile stressing and and the other was it, but it was a discussion about the balance between the global policies and what happens regionally, and the value of having more global policies, versus leaving much space to the Regional Internet Registry to for their community to define so that we appreciate that's a challenge. There's no simple answer to this, but we had a discussion wrap around this and how much global requirements. So that's the right word to have for a new a new Regional Internet Registry, to be to eat, to be recognized. So I'll stop here else. Thanks. Thanks very much. And thanks constant.

Thank you, Philip and again, thank you constant, and last but not least.

Yeah, least, one let me and thank you, Philip, it's really thank you for your words. And that's not the first step we do in this RENEW process and the review process we figured out there had have been a lot of processes following after this. This step, we have to to set up some implementation procedures, and we have to figure out how many global policies we need. And this is a question, and I ask for support of you. In case of the multi stakeholder development processes are open, and we need your engagement to support this, and also it is a really heavy technical issue, but we have a lot of good people in our registries, and I ask for support and help and thank you for so far, and it's an it's a new process for us, for the for the ASOC, and we give our best. Thank you. Thank you so much.

Thank you constant, and we will follow this topic very closely, also for the upcoming readout, but now I would like to give the floor to ram for the update from the ASIC and also on Cody.

Thank you so much. I appreciate everybody patiently staying on the call. Lots of important topics to cover. From the sax point of view, there were really two major things that we were focused on. We have released a seminal report called sac 127 it's a report that focuses on the the harms and the consequences of DNS blocking, and it really speaks to what is the current state of the art with DNS blocking. Many years ago, the SSAC published a report on DNS blocking, and in that we were relatively speaking, unequivocal about don't do it. Now, we are more nuanced, and we recognize that many jurisdictions governments have programs that impose DNS blocking, and that's a that's kind of where the world has moved to. So our advice now is also more nuanced. It's focused on three things. One actually be cognizant of what it is you're trying to block, and try to make it as precise as possible. There are examples. In our report, you will find lots of examples of overreach or accidental overreach, worse, where a, you know, a an operator, was asked to block a particular domain name, they blocked a TLD. They were asked to block a sub domain name, they blocked the domain name. And the consequences of those are significant. You know, in one case, all of YouTube and all of Google Drive was not available for a few hours for an entire nation. So quite, quite significant impacts. The second thing that the sax report also points to is a set of guidelines that should be adopted when blocking, which include guidelines on transparency, actually being clear that there is blocking happening and not to just hide it behind a DNS error or a site that just suddenly stops resolving right. And the third part of it is recommendation. There is a new IETF protocol standard that has been released that provides a specific DNS error code that can be used when blocking is implemented. So we're recommending that that error code be used because it provides a clear, protocol based way for transparency. That was the biggest thing that the SSAC put out. I want to pivot quickly to the coalition on digital inclusion, digital impact. In fact, Cody. And Cody is a new initiative that got started in it launched officially as part of ICANN UA day in May, on May 20. And it's it's an organization. It's a coalition that includes support from the Internet Society. It includes support from a lot of international organizations, and the focus is on bringing a clarity that digital impact and digital inclusion often does not have language as a key component of it, and we all know that language is essential to reaching the unconnected, to actually getting to meaningful connectivity. And yet there is not a lot of research, not a lot of information on how language can actually be leveraged to improve inclusion, improve impact. The goal of codi is to bring organizations that are focused on the last step, not just the last mile, but the last step in the tech stack, to connect them with organizations that are building technology, building tools and bring them all together. And the goal of coding is to act as a catalyst for language and inclusion. The real vision is that everyone ought to be able to navigate the Internet in their own language. The bad reality is that there are really only seven languages that dominate access to the internet or navigation of the internet, and that means down the road, in a fairly short time, especially with the advent of AI based LLM models, that many languages in the world are at risk of becoming de prioritized and really increasing the digital divide for populations, including populations with indigenous language and cultures. So that's that's a launch. Go to Cody dot global, and you'll get more information on that. Do you? Lars,

thank you ram. I just shared the link on the chat, and as you if you follow the link, you will see that there are already many supporters, also including order with Jordan and also echo. We joined the initiative. So thank you very much for for the great update. We've reached the top of the hour, which means that our time is up, but I think we made it on point with our agenda as always. Thank you very much to all the speakers for taking the time, for providing the updates, also. Thank you very much to all the attendees. I'm always deeply impressed that you stay online for 90 minutes follow the full readout, and that we always see more than 100 registrations for each readout, so there's definitely an interest in this format. Thank you very much again, for everyone and to participate in this and also to prepare for this webinar, I know that this is always a lot of work for everyone involved, and it's very much appreciated. And this is also why I'm already looking forward to the next readout at the end of the year for ICANN 84 and Chris and you would like to make final remarks, and it's now the opportunity

just to say thank you. It was a lovely experience and a wonderful treatment of the of the issues. So thanks to all the participants and to echo for the collaboration.

Always a pleasure. Thank you very much. So this meeting is Adrien, nice rest of the day. See you next time bye, bye. You