[Ncsg-discuss] ICANN85 Prep Week & ICANN85 Board/Stakeholders session

Wed Feb 25 06:12:46 EET 2026

Hi

I consolidated what others said and added my own questions, we can also
briefly go over independent studies and multistakeholder model as well.

*Question 1: RDRS and Law Enforcement Authentication*

NCSG’s December 2025 letter asked the Board to revise its explanatory text
to reflect that law enforcement authentication requires safeguards,
transparency, and accountability—and to recognize registrants and end users
as affected stakeholders. The Board’s February 2026 response declined both
requests, pointing to Section 10 of the Registration Data Policy and the
GNSO Standing Committee’s consensus. However, Section 10 addresses
individual request handling, not systemic transparency and accountability
for the authentication mechanism itself. In the past we have asked the
Board to consider human rights when drafting its resolutions. You told us
that we should show you what a human rights check looks like. We would like
to offer the Board a way to write a human rights respecting resolution when
it matters (we are not asking for every instance, but authentication of law
enforcement for requests to access people’s data is a human rights issue.).
so we will briefly discuss a sample “resolution” using this instance as an
example. " (see the sample amendments attached, please comment)

*Question 2: ICP-2 and RIR Independence*

The revised RIR Governance Document gives ICANN new powers to initiate
derecognition, conduct ad hoc audits, and appoint third parties to override
RIR objections to new recognition. Is the Board concerned that this
accumulation of institutional authority over RIRs could undermine the
distributed governance model that protects the independence of number
resource management? And given the governance significance of these
changes, does the Board believe the current consultation process—primarily
driven by the ASO/NRO with a public comment period—constitutes adequate
multistakeholder input?

*Question 3: Multistakeholder Resilience *

For many years, you asked us, how can PDP and ICANN be more efficient and
effective. These two factors actually make the processes better but
efficiency which means cost and time. Time shouldn’t cost us the
multistakeholder model. How does the Board envision reinforcing the
resilience of the multistakeholder And how does the Board reconcile its
external advocacy for multistakeholderism with the internal patterns.

Farzaneh

On Tue, Feb 24, 2026 at 7:19 AM Rafik Dammak <
00001e06d4af460b-dmarc-request at listserv.syr.edu> wrote:

> Hi,
>
>  Reminder that we have to prepare our topics for board meeting by 25th
> February.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 20, 2026, 10:09 Maureen Owusu-Addae <
> maureenowusuaddae2 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Rafik,
>>
>> Thank you for sharing the Board’s message and for the additional context
>> regarding the previous discussion.
>>
>> For the upcoming bilateral session in Mumbai, I agree that this is a
>> valuable opportunity to focus on a topic that is both strategic and
>> distinctly relevant to NCSG. Building on the Board’s Question 1 regarding
>> emerging trends, I support highlighting the increasing external pressures
>> on the multistakeholder model;  particularly in light of WSIS+20 and the
>> forthcoming Plenipotentiary Conference.
>>
>> From an NCSG perspective, one emerging trend worth emphasizing is the
>> gradual shift toward more state-centric or multilateral internet governance
>> approaches, which may risk narrowing space for civil society and
>> noncommercial participation. It may be useful to frame our engagement
>> around how ICANN intends to proactively safeguard meaningful, not merely
>> formal, multistakeholder participation; especially for noncommercial users
>> in a rapidly evolving global governance environment.
>>
>> One possible way to shape the discussion could be:
>> “How does the Board envision reinforcing the resilience of the
>> multistakeholder model in the context of WSIS+20 and related global
>> processes, and what concrete measures is ICANN considering to ensure that
>> noncommercial stakeholders continue to have substantive influence in policy
>> development and strategic decision-making?”
>>
>> I believe this keeps the discussion strategic while clearly grounding it
>> in NCSG’s mandate to protect civil society and individual user interests.
>> Happy to refine further based on the group’s priorities.
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Maureen
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 18, 2026, 4:04 AM Rafik Dammak <
>> 00001e06d4af460b-dmarc-request at listserv.syr.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks Adebunmi and Kathy .
>>> To answer your question, I shared  the question about UDRP study and
>>> independent studies in general and to summarize they didn't give positive
>>> or negative answer. Russ asked if we don't trust ICANN reports, also asked
>>> about specifics as those are for budgeting and planning and we are in
>>> middle of FY27 budgeting. I would wait for the minutes and share them with
>>> the list for more details
>>>
>>> Regardless of that, this is interaction with board instead and we need
>>> to figure out what topic we want to discuss with them in depth.
>>>
>>> Rafik
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 17, 2026, 23:54 Kathy Kleiman <kathy at dnrc.tech> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Could we hear what happened with each of our questions to the CEO?
>>>> That could help us shape our questions for the Board.
>>>>
>>>> I may have missed an email on this topic since I have been traveling.
>>>>
>>>> Best, Kathy
>>>> On 2/16/2026 7:25 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>>>
>>>> hi all,
>>>>
>>>> We got the communication from the board to prepare for our joint
>>>> session in the Mumbai meeting. They are asking us if we have any
>>>> questions/topics we want to share with them and they give us their 2
>>>> questions for discussion.
>>>>
>>>> Please share your input/comments.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> Rafik
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
>>>>
>>>> *Sent on behalf of Tripti Sinha, Chair, ICANN Board of Directors*
>>>>
>>>> Dear Noncommercial Stakeholder Group Chair,
>>>>
>>>> While global challenges continue to shape and, at times, complicate
>>>> our work, our shared commitment to a stable, secure, and unified Internet
>>>> remains as important as ever. I would like to express how much the Board
>>>> and I look forward to continuing working with you to advance ICANN’s
>>>> mission.
>>>>
>>>> In this spirit, we also very much look forward to seeing you in person
>>>> at our upcoming ICANN meeting in Mumbai, India, 9–12 March. This meeting
>>>> will provide an important opportunity to reconnect, exchange views, and
>>>> reinforce our collaboration as we enter important phases for ICANN,
>>>> with the launch of the New gTLD Program 2026 Round but also
>>>> considering the forthcoming steps related to the WSIS+20 Outcomes Document
>>>> and the upcoming Plenipotentiary Conference.
>>>>
>>>> Over the years, strengthening collaboration and maintaining clear,
>>>> fluid communication between the Board and the community has proven
>>>> essential. Ongoing dialogue with the community continues to be a key focus
>>>> for the Board; however, it is equally important that these interactions
>>>> represent a meaningful and effective use of everyone’s time. As no critical
>>>> topics requiring discussion ahead of ICANN85 have been identified at this
>>>> stage, the Prep Week community session originally scheduled for 24 February
>>>> will be canceled. The Board remains committed to open dialogue and will
>>>> continue to convene community discussions as substantive matters emerge.
>>>>
>>>> During the meeting in Mumbai, we will listen carefully to your specific
>>>> needs during our bilateral sessions. In keeping with our established
>>>> practice, we would like to ask the following questions of your group in
>>>> advance of our joint session. *Please choose one of those questions if
>>>> you don’t feel you have the time to address both*:
>>>>
>>>>    1. *The ICANN Five Year FY26-30 Strategic plan highlights
>>>>    priorities that support ICANN’s vision for 2030.*
>>>>
>>>> *The annual strategy review program is launching at ICANN85. *
>>>>
>>>>    - *This program provides a structured way to assess whether updates
>>>>       to the FY26-30 Strategic Plan are needed, to reflect changes in the
>>>>       external environment and ICANN’s internal capability*
>>>>
>>>> *From your perspective, what is the top emerging trend that may impact **ICANN
>>>> that you think the Board should consider?  *
>>>>
>>>>    2.
>>>> *How is your group participating in the Review of Reviews Cross
>>>>    Community Group and what are your thoughts on how the proposals to date are
>>>>    evolving reviews to be more fit for purpose and sustainable? In particular,
>>>>    would **you **share your views on the respective roles of
>>>>    self-assessment (as in the Continuous Improvement Program) and contemplated
>>>>    assessment of SOs and ACs by the broader community in the context of a
>>>>    Reviews program?*
>>>>
>>>> We kindly request that you send any questions you would like the Board
>>>> to address during our face-to-face meetings to Board Operations  *no
>>>> later than Wednesday 25th February*. Given the limited time available for
>>>> the discussion, please prioritize your questions.
>>>>
>>>> We look forward to our discussions together in Mumbai.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for your continued commitment to ICANN’s mission.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Tripti Sinha
>>>> Chair, ICANN Board of Directors
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Kathy Kleiman
>>>> Past President, Domain Name Rights Coalition
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20260224/b62b7126/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: NCSG_HR_Resolution_Proposal.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 194529 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20260224/b62b7126/attachment-0001.pdf>