[Ncsg-discuss] 1 to 1 call with ICANN CEO

[farzaneh badii]

I would like to support Kathy’s question. I think generally we need
independent studies that we are comfortable with their design and method
rather than research papers and white papers done by external orgs.

As to Haziq’s questions, the first question should be discussed by the
community and SSAC writes reports etc on that. The second question, it
would actually be good to know how they use AI in their work but some of
the issues mentioned might get the answer that ICANN doesnt do that. So
maybe a broader question would be better. Do you have a strategy for using
AI for auditing for example?



Farzaneh


On Thu, Feb 5, 2026 at 12:08 AM Haziq Jeelani <
00001dcb9a40d560-dmarc-request at listserv.syr.edu> wrote:

> Hi Rafik,
>
> Two topics from my perspective :
>
>    1.
>
>    How is ICANN addressing AI-enabled DNS abuse (automated phishing,
>    fraudulent domain generation at scale)?
>    2.
>
>    Is ICANN developing AI/ML tools internally for policy analysis, abuse
>    detection, or WHOIS data quality — and if so, how is the non-commercial
>    community being consulted on algorithmic transparency and bias?
>
> Happy to elaborate if useful.
>
> Best, Haziq
>
> On Wed, Feb 4, 2026 at 6:41 PM Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Kathy for the comments.
>> Everyone, please share your questions/topics/
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>>
>> Le mer. 4 févr. 2026 à 02:23, Kathy Kleiman <kathy at dnrc.tech> a écrit :
>>
>>> On 2/3/2026 9:28 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Sending a reminder to get your suggestions and topics for the meeting
>>> with ICANN CEO.
>>>
>>> Hi Rafik, Juan and Wisdom,
>>>
>>> Yes, I have a topic. I’m concerned that ICANN, for the sake of its own
>>> integrity and in completion of clear commitments made long ago (1999),
>>> needs to hold *a full and fair review of the Uniform Dispute Resolution
>>> Policy (UDRP).*  The UDRP was ICANN’s first consensus policy and it is
>>> just over 25 years old.  Noncommercials and the ICANN Community were
>>> promised a full and fair review of the UDRP – its rules and procedures –
>>> within a few years of adoption and that never happened.
>>>
>>> Then again in 2016, at the start of the Review of All Rights Protection
>>> Mechanisms – Phase 1 [Uniform Rapid Suspension and Trademark
>>> Clearinghouse], *we were promised a full and fair review of the UDRP
>>> when Phase 2 started*. If you check the charter materials of the GNSO
>>> Council, the UDRP review should include the questions asked by NCSG,
>>> including: examining freedom of expression protections, assessing the
>>> fairness and balance, checking whether notices to registrants are being a)
>>> received and b) in a language they understand, and much more.
>>>
>>> You were in Dublin and I was not, but from a distance, I saw WIPO and
>>> its representatives lobbying ICANN and the GNSO for a *fast and short
>>> UDRP review* – one focused on the issues that “insiders” care about,
>>> particularly attorneys who regularly work on UDRP cases before WIPO.
>>>
>>> *But no one is talking about the 97% of the Registrants who are
>>> defaulting* *– nor what we can do to ensure the UDRP Review is full and
>>> fair.*  Before we expand the DNS with New gTLDs with IDNs, how do we
>>> ensure that the UDRP is “fit for purpose” and fully and fairly reviewed,
>>> and that registrants and trademark owners alike are being treated equally
>>> and fairly by the UDRP providers?
>>>
>>> *Particularly for Registrants who do not speak English, cannot afford
>>> lawyers, and have never heard of WIPO or the UDRP (the very registrants we
>>> were promised would be protected in 1999), how can Kurt and the Board help
>>> us to facilitate a full and fair review of the UDRP?*
>>>
>>> Best and tx,
>>>
>>> Kathy
>>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20260205/bf18b897/attachment.htm>