EURALO Multilingual Read-Out ICANN86

European Regional At-Large Organization - 23 June 2026

VIDEO | AUDIO | RECAP EN / ES / FR | ARCHIVE | PERMALINK

Speakers: Frédéric Taes - Chair, EURALO; Joanna Kulesza - ICANN Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC); Philippe Fouquart - Chair, Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers Constituency (ISPCP), ICANN GNSO; Michael Bauland - Chair, Latin Script Diacritics PDP, ICANN GNSO; Ajith Francis - Registry Stakeholder Group (RySG), ICANN GNSO; Irina Danelia - ICANN Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO); Constance de Leusse - ICANN Board; Andrea Beccalli - Senior Director, Global Stakeholder Engagement, ICANN; Kristina Ivanova - ICANN86 NextGen; Natalia Filina - EURALO; Maciek Piasecki - ICANN Fellow; Sébastien Bachollet - Former EURALO Chair; Hisham Ibrahim - Chief Community Officer, RIPE NCC.

Moderator: Frédéric Taes

Overview

Frédéric Taes opened the webinar by explaining that the session would review the principal outcomes of ICANN86 in Seville from multiple stakeholder perspectives, examine forthcoming policy work, and identify opportunities for EURALO members to participate more actively in the ICANN multistakeholder process.

Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC)

Joanna Kulesza summarized the recently published GAC Communiqué, noting participation by 46 GAC members and 11 observers. She focused on issues most relevant to end users rather than providing a comprehensive review of all GAC work.

DNS abuse remained the dominant policy issue. Although the Policy Forum format eliminated formal bilateral meetings, the GAC continued extensive discussions through thematic sessions. Briefings from the Spanish National Police on cybercrime and presentations from Interisle Consulting informed discussions about DNS abuse mitigation, particularly in light of the upcoming new gTLD round. Joanna emphasized that EURALO’s emphasis extended beyond mitigation to prevention through awareness raising and capacity building.

She highlighted domain registration data accuracy as another continuing priority. The GAC welcomed ICANN’s publication of the 24-hour response timeline while continuing to stress the importance of maintaining accurate registration data. Applicant Support also remained an important concern, with governments seeking to ensure that underserved and underrepresented communities would not be disadvantaged during the next application round.

Joanna also addressed the “Review of Reviews,” noting that while the GAC shared many concerns expressed by ALAC regarding ICANN accountability, governments had not yet achieved as strong a consensus as At-Large had hoped.

Looking ahead, she welcomed Ian Sheldon of Australia as the incoming GAC Chair, describing him as a long-time supporter of end-user interests and local Internet Society chapters. She encouraged continued regional cooperation between GAC and At-Large communities through thematic meetings.

Responding to a question about Internet fragmentation, Joanna argued that the ICANN multistakeholder model remains the strongest available response to geopolitical pressures toward digital sovereignty. While acknowledging there is no simple answer to fragmentation, she maintained that transparent, equitable and inclusive policy development remains the best defense against those trends.

Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers Constituency (ISPCP)

Philippe Fouquart identified four principal observations from ICANN86.

He reported steady progress within the DNS Abuse Mitigation PDP, particularly regarding contractual language and implementation considerations. He viewed discussions as increasingly constructive and noted positive movement toward organizing later phases of the policy work. At the same time, he cautioned that policy alone would not be sufficient without substantial operational investment and improved technical tools, given that much abuse is machine-driven.

Artificial intelligence generated mixed impressions. Philippe observed that anecdotal evidence suggested AI was influencing domain registrations, yet available data had not clearly demonstrated this, partly because of current ICANN definitions. Technical presentations nevertheless confirmed AI’s growing operational impact on DNS infrastructure.

Institutional reform also drew his attention. Philippe expressed surprise at relatively limited community participation in sessions on bylaw amendments and observed that ISPCP had been the only GNSO constituency to submit Review of Reviews input collectively as a constituency at that stage of the process.

Finally, he highlighted a joint ISPCP-SSAC session examining data sharing for abuse mitigation. The discussion explored the balance between protecting registrant privacy and enabling effective responses to DNS abuse. Remote participation in that session was particularly strong.

Latin Script Diacritics PDP

Michael Bauland presented progress on the Latin Script Diacritics Policy Development Process.

He explained that the PDP seeks to establish an exceptions procedure allowing ASCII top-level domains and visually similar Latin-script diacritic versions to coexist when operated by the same registry. Current similarity rules would generally place such applications into contention, preventing both versions from operating simultaneously even when owned by a single entity.

The proposed policy would introduce safeguards to prevent user confusion, including synchronized registration requirements across corresponding domains and alignment with existing IDN variant policies.

Michael reported that public comments had largely been reviewed, with the working group expecting to finalize its report in August and submit it to the GNSO Council in September—approximately two months ahead of its original schedule.

When asked how similar issues might be avoided in future application rounds, he acknowledged that work needed to begin earlier and that the final report would likely identify related issues requiring subsequent policy work.

Registry Stakeholder Group (RySG)

Ajith Francis described significant progress from the Registry Stakeholder Group’s perspective.

He considered the DNS Abuse PDP one of the meeting’s most encouraging developments. Language across all eight charter questions had matured considerably, with previously contentious issues evolving toward broader consensus. He praised the emerging balance between sufficiently detailed policy language and flexibility for future implementation.

Regarding the Review of Reviews, Ajith said the Registry Stakeholder Group generally supported the draft recommendations, including categorizing reviews into accountability and transparency reviews, structural reviews, and on-demand reviews. The group also supported creation of a standing committee to oversee review planning.

Looking ahead, he highlighted several priorities:

• Planning future DNS Abuse PDP phases rather than waiting for completion of PDP-1.

• Continuing dialogue with the GAC on registration data accuracy and transparency reporting.

• Supporting predictable implementation of the next gTLD round.

• Following WSIS+20 implementation, particularly discussions affecting the Internet Governance Forum.

Ajith also explained that registries wished to clarify misunderstandings surrounding the 15-day registration accuracy process, emphasizing that current procedures primarily verify contact syntax rather than identity.

Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO)

Irina Danelia reported that ccNSO currently had no active Policy Development Processes, with one recently completed policy in implementation and another awaiting Board approval.

Instead, attention focused on two study groups investigating possible policy gaps identified through IANA communications.

One study group examined disaster recovery responsibilities for ccTLD operators, exploring whether IANA should have a greater role in supporting business continuity during exceptional circumstances.

The second studied IANA public records for ccTLDs, investigating the purpose, expected accuracy and possible compliance mechanisms associated with those records.

Like other ICANN groups, the ccNSO devoted substantial attention to DNS abuse, holding practical discussions between ccTLD managers and registrars on improving operational cooperation.

Irina also paid tribute to Bart Boswinkel, who was retiring after many years leading the ccNSO Secretariat. She described the recognition ceremony as a particularly warm and emotional moment for the community.

ICANN Board Perspective

Constance de Leusse reflected on ICANN86 from the Board’s perspective.

She noted continued progress by the DNS Abuse Mitigation PDP working group toward publication of its Initial Report and highlighted ongoing review of public comments on the Latin Script Diacritics PDP.

She also drew attention to progress by the Address Supporting Organization on replacing ICP-2 through development of a new Regional Internet Registry governance framework.

Beyond policy work, Constance highlighted numerous knowledge-sharing sessions covering regulation, resilience, applicant review processes and community participation.

She joined previous speakers in recognizing Bart Boswinkel’s retirement and also paid tribute to former Board member Alan Barrett, whose contributions were celebrated during the meeting. She noted recognition of 61 ICANN working group chairs and vice chairs as another significant community moment.

Looking ahead, she encouraged community participation in the upcoming Review of Reviews public comment period. She also noted that following WSIS+20, ICANN would closely monitor preparations for the ITU Plenipotentiary Conference in Doha to ensure continued recognition of the multistakeholder model and the technical community’s responsibilities.

ICANN Global Stakeholder Engagement

Andrea Beccalli summarized meeting statistics.

ICANN86 attracted 1,374 in-person participants, making it one of the largest post-pandemic Policy Forums. Europe accounted for 44% of in-person attendees and 21% of remote participants. Including online participation, nearly 2,000 people took part from 124 countries and territories.

The meeting featured 116 public sessions. Andrea highlighted recognition of ICANN’s volunteer leadership, participation by Fellows and NextGen participants from almost 30 countries, and particularly strong attendance at the AI and DNS Abuse session, which became the most heavily attended session of the meeting.

He also noted the successful Europe Space session, involving RIPE NCC, the Internet Society, the IETF and other technical organizations, and observed growing attention across the meeting to the forthcoming new gTLD application round.

NextGen Perspective

Kristina Ivanova reflected on her experience as an ICANN86 NextGen participant.

She described the programme as a significant personal and professional milestone, emphasizing how the ICANN community encouraged early-career researchers by engaging seriously with their ideas.

Her presentation explored how agentic AI systems could support—not replace—human policy deliberation by processing large volumes of documentation, identifying stakeholder positions, mapping evidence, summarizing trade-offs and preserving minority viewpoints.

She stressed that AI should remain an assistive tool rather than replacing working groups or policy decisions, while improving participants’ ability to navigate ICANN’s increasingly complex documentation.

Kristina concluded that the experience strengthened her commitment to future work at the intersection of AI, Internet governance and public policy.

EURALO Survey Results

Natalia Filina presented findings from a survey of EURALO At-Large Structures.

More than half of EURALO organizations participated. The survey identified members’ principal interests as:

• Domain names

• DNS abuse

• Privacy and personal data protection

• DNSSEC

• Online security and trust

• Artificial intelligence

• Human rights

• Universal Acceptance

• Intellectual property

• Internet governance

• ICANN accountability and transparency

Trust on the Internet emerged as the highest-ranked broad topic. Natalia emphasized that EURALO intentionally avoids importing geopolitical conflicts into ICANN policy discussions while remaining attentive to broader regulatory developments.

Future priorities identified by respondents included transatlantic digital policy, Internet resilience, digital civil rights and AI’s impact on the domain name industry.

Survey respondents particularly valued EURALO’s collaborative culture, multilingual environment, partnerships with organizations including RIPE, EuroDIG and ICANN, and opportunities for learning and networking.

Respondents also identified challenges to volunteer participation, including limited human resources, the need for greater collaboration among ALSes, clearer participation guidance and increased transparency.

Community Discussion

Maciek Piasecki encouraged ALSes to participate in an ongoing phishing awareness campaign, offering training that local organizations could deliver within their own communities. He also noted that future participation metrics could influence selection for the upcoming ATLAS event.

Sébastien Bachollet questioned aspects of the survey map and expressed concern that participation in future ATLAS meetings might become overly competitive between ALSes. He reiterated his interest in organizing a dedicated EURALO discussion on the Review of Reviews. Frédéric Taes confirmed that such a session was already being planned.

RIPE NCC Perspective

Hisham Ibrahim presented ideas from his recent work on the Internet’s trust architecture.

He argued that the Internet’s success depends not simply on technology but on shared trust among thousands of independently operated networks. Trust, he suggested, is “a confident relationship with the unknown,” enabling autonomous organizations to cooperate without central control.

He explained that the Internet’s architecture relies on:

• Open standards

• Globally unique identifiers

• Community-led governance

• Shared operational norms

Hisham described a framework developed within the RIPE NCC that evaluates Internet communities along two dimensions: trust (technical knowledge, leadership and awareness) and execution (organizational capacity and political environment). This framework helps determine whether communities need technical training, policymaker engagement, leadership development or support for self-organization.

He also discussed digital sovereignty, observing that the term is increasingly used in different ways across jurisdictions. Maintaining the Internet commons, he argued, requires preserving the trust architecture that enables global interoperability despite growing geopolitical pressures.

Closing

Frédéric Taes concluded that the presentations demonstrated the breadth of policy work underway across ICANN’s stakeholder groups. He emphasized continuing cooperation among EURALO, ICANN staff, RIPE NCC and other technical organizations, noted growing attention to the Balkans within EURALO outreach efforts, thanked all speakers and participants, and formally closed the meeting.

RESOURCES

• EURALO ALS Survey 2026 — Natalia Filina’s slide deck on member interests and partnerships

• Latin Script Diacritics (LD) PDP Update — Michael Bauland’s slides on the diacritic gTLD exceptions procedure

• The Internet’s Trust Architecture — Hisham Ibrahim’s slides on trust and coordination across the network

• NextGen@ICANN86 Presentations — the ICANN86 NextGen student presentations, referenced by Kristina Ivanova

• Latin Script Diacritics PDP — GNSO working-group page for the PDP chaired by Michael Bauland

• LD PDP Initial Report Public Comment — the comment proceeding on the 54 preliminary recommendations

• ICANN Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) — home of the ICANN86 Seville Communiqué discussed by Joanna Kulesza

• New gTLD Program: Next Round — the 2026 application round referenced throughout on DNS abuse and diacritics

• The Internet’s Trust Architecture (RIPE Labs) — Hisham Ibrahim’s article behind his presentation

• Sustaining the Commons in an Age of Digital Sovereignty — companion RIPE Labs article by Hisham Ibrahim

• EuroDIG — the European Dialogue on Internet Governance, cited as a key EURALO partner

• Internet Society (ISOC) — named repeatedly as a EURALO collaboration partner