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

[Rafik Dammak]

Thanks all,
please share your comments/suggestions. The call is scheduled for this
Tuesday.

Rafik



Le jeu. 5 févr. 2026 à 23:00, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com> a
écrit :

> 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/20260209/2283bfe0/attachment-0001.htm>