March 2017 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

Re: [ALAC] The Role of the At-Large Community - Discussion with the Board
by Alan Greenberg March 6, 2017

March 6, 2017

I need to stop sending off e-mails late at night which are not sufficiently clear. In my defence, I am on a very tight timeline to finalize the questions for the Board and needed to find out if my analysis was close to acceptable. Like it or not, we WILL be judged, and I think it time that we started to manage the criteria which will be used. Those implied in the survey questions are NOT, in my mind, acceptable and I thought that establishing that first might be a good way to start a more productive discussion with the Board as to what IS reasonable. Alan (heading out for several hours) At 03/03/2017 04:27 AM, Yrjö Länsipuro wrote: >Hi Alan, > > >I agree with your analysis. > > >Most ALS'es (at least in Europe) are previously >existing, established organizations, some older >that ICANN, that have a life of their own in >their national context. The fact that they have >applied for an ALS status means that their own, >national level goals and interests coincide at >least to some extent with those of ICANN and >that they thus probably defend the interests of >ICANN in their national level multistakeholder >setting. This important role is something that >the review seems to be oblivious of. > > >If "representing" 3,5 billion people in the >classic sense of representative democracy would >be possible, we would have had a world >government long ago... But each ALS can try to >figure out how end users in its particular >environment would be best served and bring forth >their points of view, as you say. To get a >deeper understanding of the grassroots needs and >views of their countries and regions, they might >liaise with academia - another reason for enhanced cooperation with the NCUC. > > >Best, > > >Yrjö > > > > > > > > >---------- >From: alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org ><alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf >of Andrei Kolesnikov <andrei(a)rol.ru> >Sent: Friday, March 3, 2017 10:40 AM >To: Alan Greenberg >Cc: ALAC >Subject: Re: [ALAC] The Role of the At-Large >Community - Discussion with the Board > >Alan - I agree with your proposed dandy's >approach to manage the discussion over the flawed topics. >However nothing stops me and any other ALAC >members to express opinion aired by Evan. The >whole deal - to framework AtLarge complex and >uneasy environment, dealing with diverse domain >cultures through ALSs all over the world into >the best-western style management is insane. >"We try to bring forth such a PoV informed by a >geographical and linguistic diversity unmatched >elsewhere in ICANN except for the GAC." - agree. > >--andrei > >2017-03-03 8:52 GMT+03:00 Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>: >The survey question is, in my mind, deeply >flawed, but I think it is a dandy way to get >into a discussion of what Board members actually expect. > >And yes, other communities are now (finally) >being asked the same question, and I think we >are in a better position than most to answer it. > >But back to my original message, we can only use >this as a start if we have a generally agreed >upon analysis of those answers. Thus the question I asked. > >Alan > > > >At 03/03/2017 12:33 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >>This whole process is insane. >> >>Is the Business Constituency ever asked if it >>represents or speaks for every business -- >>domain owner or not -- in the world? Is NPOC >>asked if it represents every NGO? Do the people >>who attend from law enforcement speak for all police and military? >> >>Contracted parties -- ie, the domain industry >>-- generally do have reasonably full >>representation, in part because there are >>relatively few players and in part because they >>are so fully invested in -- and dependent on -- >>ICANN's pseudo-regulation more than other communities or constituencies. >> >>But it seems that At-Large alone is singled out >>for this kind of analysis, because -- unlike >>the others -- we wouldn't be able to be >>involved without the charitable resources -- >>travel and staff support -- that ICANN >>bequeaths upon us. Such support clearly bothers >>other communities who believe that we are >>skimming off revenues THEY bring to ICANN just so we can trash them. >> >>In my experience, the "who the hell are YOU >>speaking for?" comment has been used whenever >>we have something to say that poses a >>legitimate end-user-driven challenge to ICANN's >>standard operation. Hearing that in a debate >>would embolden me because it indicates that our >>logic and evidence was superior and the only >>rebuttal was to challenge our legitimacy. >> >>At the end of the day, we do the job that is >>asked of us to the extent we are able -- that >>is, to bring the end-user point of view into >>ICANN to the best of our individual >>capabilities. That is all that Bylaw 12.2(d) >>asks of us and I believe we have generally done >>that as well as possible given the constraints >>in place. We try to bring forth such a PoV >>informed by a geographical and linguistic >>diversity unmatched elsewhere in ICANN except >>for the GAC. But even here we are deeply >>flawed, considering how the regions are sliced >>and a structure that is so complex so as to >>churn more volunteer time on process than on policy input. >> >>Still, there is decent output. I see our policy >>diversions from NCSG as a (positive) reflection >>that grassroots population don't always share >>the same priorities and perspectives of the >>civil society that is supposedly protecting it. >>This divergence exists on the street, so seeing >>it in play within ICANN tells me that At-Large >>is indeed doing a reasonable -- and >>surprisingly accurate -- job at conveying the end-user perspective. >> >>Whether or not we get listened to is a different story. >> >>- Evan >> >> >>On 2 March 2017 at 23:54, Alberto Soto >><<mailto:asoto@ibero-americano.org> asoto(a)ibero-americano.org> wrote: >>I agree with Alan. I would just add that those 10 chosen, and the rest of >>the non-elected members, through their ALS are the FINAL USER-RALOS-ALAC >>ICANN interface. And through them feedback is done with the end users. From >>there it is clear that we interpret and defend the interests of the end >>users. >>Regards >> >>Alberto >>-----Mensaje original----- >>De: >><mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org>alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> >>[ mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] En nombre de Alan Greenberg >>Enviado el: Friday, March 3, 2017 1:34 AM >>Para: ALAC >><<mailto:alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >>Asunto: [ALAC] The Role of the At-Large Community - Discussion with the >>Board >>One of the topics suggested (by Rinalia) for discussion with the Board in >>CPH is the challenges of engaging with end-users. >>I would like to start the discussion by presenting the results of Table 3 in >>the At-Large Review report describing a survey question on the role of the >>A-L Community. >>The question read: In your opinion which of the following statements most >>accurately describes the role played by the At-Large Community within ICANN? >>There were five answers shown here with the % of Board/SO/AC respondents for >>each option. >>1. The At-Large Community is made up of ALSes and individual RALO members >>that mainly act in their own interests. (58%) >>2. The At-Large Community is made up of At-Large Structures (ALSes) and >>individual RALO members that engage in ICANN policy development processes on >>behalf of Internet end users worldwide. (13%) >>3. At-Large is the body within ICANN that allows all Internet end-users to >>engage in ICANN policy development processes in an equal and >>non-discriminatory fashion. (6%) >>4. The At-Large Community is made up of At-Large Structures (ALSes) and >>individual RALO members that effectively engage with the global community of >>Internet end-users in a bottom-up, consensus- driven fashion. (13%) >>5. The elected members of the ALAC have a mandate to speak in the interests >>and on behalf of end users in ICANN policy development processes. (10%) >>My analysis: >>1. is largely correct. ALSes are independent entities that generally exist >>outside of the ICANN context. They of course act in their own interests >>(which may well coincide with the interests of other including the interests >>of 3.5 billion users. However, by consolidating these regionally diverse >>inputs, the RALOs and the ALAC can reasonably claim to represent the needs >>and interests of users world-wide. >>2. is also correct. We certainly do need to get MORE people involved, but if >>the component parts listed in 2 are not us, who are we? >>3. is impossible. How can ANYTHING claim to engage all 3.5 billion users, or >>even provide the mechanisms to allow such participation? Do 6% of >>respondents really think we do?? >>4. is either impossible if it implies that ALSes and individual members >>engage with the ENTIRE global community, or is a reasonable target if we >>mean that each part engages in some subset of their local community, or is >>based on experience with such a community. >>5. is false. No one of the 10 RALO-selected (presumably that is what they >>meant by "elected") Member has a mandate to speak on behalf of all users or >>the users of their region. But together, along with the NomCom-appointed >>Members have a mandate to formulate statements which they believe will serve >>the global user community well. >>What do people think of this analysis? >>Alan >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>ALAC mailing list >><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac >>At-Large Online: >><http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: >><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA >> >>C) >>_______________________________________________ >>ALAC mailing list >><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac >>At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org >>ALAC Working Wiki: >><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… >> >> >> >> >> >>-- >>Evan Leibovitch >>Toronto, Canada >>Em: evan at telly dot org >>Sk: evanleibovitch >>Tw: el56 > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list ><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > >At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: ><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > > > > >-- >Andrey Kolesnikov ><http://RIPN.NET>RIPN.NET

2 1

The Role of the At-Large Community - Discussion with the Board
by Alan Greenberg March 5, 2017

March 5, 2017

One of the topics suggested (by Rinalia) for discussion with the Board in CPH is the challenges of engaging with end-users. I would like to start the discussion by presenting the results of Table 3 in the At-Large Review report describing a survey question on the role of the A-L Community. The question read: In your opinion which of the following statements most accurately describes the role played by the At-Large Community within ICANN? There were five answers shown here with the % of Board/SO/AC respondents for each option. 1. The At-Large Community is made up of ALSes and individual RALO members that mainly act in their own interests. (58%) 2. The At-Large Community is made up of At-Large Structures (ALSes) and individual RALO members that engage in ICANN policy development processes on behalf of Internet end users worldwide. (13%) 3. At-Large is the body within ICANN that allows all Internet end-users to engage in ICANN policy development processes in an equal and non-discriminatory fashion. (6%) 4. The At-Large Community is made up of At-Large Structures (ALSes) and individual RALO members that effectively engage with the global community of Internet end-users in a bottom-up, consensus- driven fashion. (13%) 5. The elected members of the ALAC have a mandate to speak in the interests and on behalf of end users in ICANN policy development processes. (10%) My analysis: 1. is largely correct. ALSes are independent entities that generally exist outside of the ICANN context. They of course act in their own interests (which may well coincide with the interests of other including the interests of 3.5 billion users. However, by consolidating these regionally diverse inputs, the RALOs and the ALAC can reasonably claim to represent the needs and interests of users world-wide. 2. is also correct. We certainly do need to get MORE people involved, but if the component parts listed in 2 are not us, who are we? 3. is impossible. How can ANYTHING claim to engage all 3.5 billion users, or even provide the mechanisms to allow such participation? Do 6% of respondents really think we do?? 4. is either impossible if it implies that ALSes and individual members engage with the ENTIRE global community, or is a reasonable target if we mean that each part engages in some subset of their local community, or is based on experience with such a community. 5. is false. No one of the 10 RALO-selected (presumably that is what they meant by "elected") Member has a mandate to speak on behalf of all users or the users of their region. But together, along with the NomCom-appointed Members have a mandate to formulate statements which they believe will serve the global user community well. What do people think of this analysis? Alan

7 10

Re: [ALAC] The Role of the At-Large Community - Discussion with the Board
by Alan Greenberg March 5, 2017

March 5, 2017

The survey question is, in my mind, deeply flawed, but I think it is a dandy way to get into a discussion of what Board members actually expect. And yes, other communities are now (finally) being asked the same question, and I think we are in a better position than most to answer it. But back to my original message, we can only use this as a start if we have a generally agreed upon analysis of those answers. Thus the question I asked. Alan At 03/03/2017 12:33 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >This whole process is insane. > >Is the Business Constituency ever asked if it represents or speaks >for every business -- domain owner or not -- in the world? Is NPOC >asked if it represents every NGO? Do the people who attend from law >enforcement speak for all police and military? > >Contracted parties -- ie, the domain industry -- generally do have >reasonably full representation, in part because there are relatively >few players and in part because they are so fully invested in -- and >dependent on -- ICANN's pseudo-regulation more than other >communities or constituencies. > >But it seems that At-Large alone is singled out for this kind of >analysis, because -- unlike the others -- we wouldn't be able to be >involved without the charitable resources -- travel and staff >support -- that ICANN bequeaths upon us. Such support clearly >bothers other communities who believe that we are skimming off >revenues THEY bring to ICANN just so we can trash them. > >In my experience, the "who the hell are YOU speaking for?" comment >has been used whenever we have something to say that poses a >legitimate end-user-driven challenge to ICANN's standard operation. >Hearing that in a debate would embolden me because it indicates that >our logic and evidence was superior and the only rebuttal was to >challenge our legitimacy. > >At the end of the day, we do the job that is asked of us to the >extent we are able -- that is, to bring the end-user point of view >into ICANN to the best of our individual capabilities. That is all >that Bylaw 12.2(d) asks of us and I believe we have generally done >that as well as possible given the constraints in place. We try to >bring forth such a PoV informed by a geographical and linguistic >diversity unmatched elsewhere in ICANN except for the GAC. But even >here we are deeply flawed, considering how the regions are sliced >and a structure that is so complex so as to churn more volunteer >time on process than on policy input. > >Still, there is decent output. I see our policy diversions from NCSG >as a (positive) reflection that grassroots population don't always >share the same priorities and perspectives of the civil society that >is supposedly protecting it. This divergence exists on the street, >so seeing it in play within ICANN tells me that At-Large is indeed >doing a reasonable -- and surprisingly accurate -- job at conveying >the end-user perspective. > >Whether or not we get listened to is a different story. > >- Evan > > >On 2 March 2017 at 23:54, Alberto Soto ><<mailto:asoto@ibero-americano.org>asoto(a)ibero-americano.org> wrote: >I agree with Alan. I would just add that those 10 chosen, and the rest of >the non-elected members, through their ALS are the FINAL USER-RALOS-ALAC >ICANN interface. And through them feedback is done with the end users. From >there it is clear that we interpret and defend the interests of the end >users. > >Regards > >Alberto > >-----Mensaje original----- >De: ><mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org>alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >[mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] En nombre de Alan Greenberg >Enviado el: Friday, March 3, 2017 1:34 AM >Para: ALAC <<mailto:alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org>alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Asunto: [ALAC] The Role of the At-Large Community - Discussion with the >Board > >One of the topics suggested (by Rinalia) for discussion with the Board in >CPH is the challenges of engaging with end-users. > >I would like to start the discussion by presenting the results of Table 3 in >the At-Large Review report describing a survey question on the role of the >A-L Community. > >The question read: In your opinion which of the following statements most >accurately describes the role played by the At-Large Community within ICANN? > >There were five answers shown here with the % of Board/SO/AC respondents for >each option. > >1. The At-Large Community is made up of ALSes and individual RALO members >that mainly act in their own interests. (58%) > >2. The At-Large Community is made up of At-Large Structures (ALSes) and >individual RALO members that engage in ICANN policy development processes on >behalf of Internet end users worldwide. (13%) > >3. At-Large is the body within ICANN that allows all Internet end-users to >engage in ICANN policy development processes in an equal and >non-discriminatory fashion. (6%) > >4. The At-Large Community is made up of At-Large Structures (ALSes) and >individual RALO members that effectively engage with the global community of >Internet end-users in a bottom-up, consensus- driven fashion. (13%) > >5. The elected members of the ALAC have a mandate to speak in the interests >and on behalf of end users in ICANN policy development processes. (10%) > >My analysis: > >1. is largely correct. ALSes are independent entities that generally exist >outside of the ICANN context. They of course act in their own interests >(which may well coincide with the interests of other including the interests >of 3.5 billion users. However, by consolidating these regionally diverse >inputs, the RALOs and the ALAC can reasonably claim to represent the needs >and interests of users world-wide. > >2. is also correct. We certainly do need to get MORE people involved, but if >the component parts listed in 2 are not us, who are we? > >3. is impossible. How can ANYTHING claim to engage all 3.5 billion users, or >even provide the mechanisms to allow such participation? Do 6% of >respondents really think we do?? > >4. is either impossible if it implies that ALSes and individual members >engage with the ENTIRE global community, or is a reasonable target if we >mean that each part engages in some subset of their local community, or is >based on experience with such a community. > >5. is false. No one of the 10 RALO-selected (presumably that is what they >meant by "elected") Member has a mandate to speak on behalf of all users or >the users of their region. But together, along with the NomCom-appointed >Members have a mandate to formulate statements which they believe will serve >the global user community well. > >What do people think of this analysis? > >Alan > > > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list ><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > >At-Large Online: ><http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: ><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA >C) > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list ><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > >At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: ><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > > > > >-- >Evan Leibovitch >Toronto, Canada >Em: evan at telly dot org >Sk: evanleibovitch >Tw: el56

5 4

ALAC website - UA ready!
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim March 4, 2017

March 4, 2017

Dear ALAC and Regional Leaders, Staff have informed me that the ALAC's new website is Universal Acceptance ready with the features listed below. Can you provide confirmation that community members with IDNs in their email addresses and those with non-Latin script URLs are able to use it, and are using it? Features of the ALAC website: · Where you enter a URL (AtLarge asks you to identify your website) o The URL can be in any character set (Arabic, Cyrillic, Kanji, etc.) o Each domain in the URL can be up to 63 characters long ( www.buysomething.shopping) · Where you enter an email (when applying to join the group) o The domains of the email address can be in any character set o The domains of the email address can be up to 63 characters long o The user name must be in ASCII. (This is temporary) o Email example: username(a)domain.topleveldomain · There is no immediately visible change to the AtLarge user interface o If you have an email from the .cloud domain, it will work now (too long a top-level domain before) o If you have a website in Cyrillic (there are a couple of Cyrillic top-level domains now), it will recognize and use it o If you have an email from a Katakana top-level domain, that will work too – but only as long as your username is in English characters Please let me know. Thanks! Best regards, Rinalia

3 7

Re: [ALAC] [At-Large] Weekly posting summary for at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Maureen Hilyard March 4, 2017

March 4, 2017

(With thanks to Narten) This is a good example of at-large contribution by individual members (some belonging to ALSes) - seems to be working well to me. Maureen On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 7:53 PM, <narten(a)us.ibm.com> wrote: > Total of 28 messages in the last 7 days. > > script run at: Fri Mar 3 00:53:28 EST 2017 > > Messages | Bytes | Who > --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ > 3.57% | 1 | 10.59% | 123834 | kankaili at gmail.com > 3.57% | 1 | 10.29% | 120348 | maureen.hilyard at gmail.com > 3.57% | 1 | 10.23% | 119603 | program-admin at atlarge.icann.org > 7.14% | 2 | 6.04% | 70697 | gbruen at knujon.com > 3.57% | 1 | 9.46% | 110643 | erich.schweighofer at univie.ac.at > 3.57% | 1 | 4.88% | 57067 | jason.hynds at partsinc.biz > 3.57% | 1 | 3.86% | 45126 | lsymek at gmail.com > 3.57% | 1 | 3.85% | 45002 | ch.sohaib at gmail.com > 3.57% | 1 | 3.55% | 41496 | at-large at atlarge-lists.icann.org > 3.57% | 1 | 3.51% | 41016 | sb at inapp.com > 3.57% | 1 | 3.39% | 39597 | svg at milathan.ltd > 3.57% | 1 | 3.37% | 39359 | skiden at gmail.com > 3.57% | 1 | 3.21% | 37513 | jjs at dyalog.net > 3.57% | 1 | 3.01% | 35187 | leonfelipe at sanchez.mx > 3.57% | 1 | 2.95% | 34517 | louis.houle at oricom.ca > 3.57% | 1 | 2.49% | 29080 | cveraq at gmail.com > 3.57% | 1 | 2.39% | 27957 | erik.huesca at gmail.com > 3.57% | 1 | 2.09% | 24399 | remmyn at gmail.com > 3.57% | 1 | 1.69% | 19742 | alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca > 3.57% | 1 | 1.61% | 18877 | joly at punkcast.com > 3.57% | 1 | 1.26% | 14686 | mercefalcone at hotmail.com > 3.57% | 1 | 1.24% | 14472 | fsylla at gmail.com > 3.57% | 1 | 1.15% | 13449 | roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com > 3.57% | 1 | 1.15% | 13404 | otieno.barrack at gmail.com > 3.57% | 1 | 1.07% | 12473 | narten at us.ibm.com > 3.57% | 1 | 0.99% | 11628 | wolfgang.kleinwaechter at > medienkomm.uni-halle.de > 3.57% | 1 | 0.73% | 8484 | joywaychan at mail.bnu.edu.cn > --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ > 100.00% | 28 |100.00% | 1169656 | Total > > _______________________________________________ > At-Large mailing list > At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large > > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org >

1 0

Re: [ALAC] cNSO-SSAC issue
by Alan Greenberg March 2, 2017

March 2, 2017

I think the issue is not a technical problem with the technical root zone, but that increasingly SSAC is considering the potential for user confusion. From a user perspective, that is a good thing. If they had done so earlier in the gTLD process, we might be in a much better position there than we are now. But yes, that is a change. Perhaps you can elaborate on how the potential problems "can be mitigated by the registry or registrars at the local level". That may help ensure that we are all talking about the same thing and perhaps provide a path forward. Alan At 28/02/2017 04:01 PM, Andrei Kolesnikov wrote: >Thank you Maureen, good report. > > The origin of this story goes years back when I was representing > ccTLD with (still world largest) IDN obtained by Fast Track. I know > how important it is for the local market, government and end users > to have an ability to use local script in domain names. The process > of similarity check was in place without expectations to see a real > problematic cases anyday soon. But it happened. The similar process > in new gTLD project was accurately timelin'ed and works well (until > the real confusion case at least). I'd like to mention RFC6912 > paragraph 6 one more time. The visually confusing labels are > potential problem for a registry, not to a root zone in general. > With IDN ccTLD registry procedures (particularly for mentioned > Greek and Cyrillic scripts) if any domain name confusion case > becomes real, it can be mitigated by the registry or registrars at > the local level. I recommend to support ccNSO statement with all > balances and checks they've included into the document. > >best regards, --andrei > >2017-02-28 13:49 GMT+03:00 Maureen Hilyard ><<mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>maureen.hilyard(a)gmail.com>: >Background notes for your information - for the ALAC meeting > >Maureen > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list ><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > >At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: ><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > > > > >-- >Andrey Kolesnikov ><http://RIPN.NET>RIPN.NET

1 0

cNSO-SSAC issue
by Maureen Hilyard March 2, 2017

March 2, 2017

Background notes for your information - for the ALAC meeting Maureen

6 6

New APWG phishing trends report
by Julie Hammer March 1, 2017

March 1, 2017

Hi Everyone As advised by one of my SSAC Colleagues, Greg Aaron, some sobering figures from the Latest Anti-Phishing Working Group report: https://docs.apwg.org/reports/apwg_trends_report_q4_2016.pdf <https://docs.apwg.org/reports/apwg_trends_report_q4_2016.pdf> The APWG has released its latest Phishing Trends Report. Some key findings in this report: 2016 was the worst year for phishing ever. The total number of phishing attacks observed by the APWG in 2016 was a record 1,220,523, a 65% increase over 2015. In the fourth quarter of 2004, the APWG saw 1,609 phishing attacks per month. In the fourth quarter of 2016, APWG saw an average of 92,564 phishing attacks per month, an increase of 5,753% over 12 years. Fraudsters in Brazil are using both traditional phishing and social media to defraud Internet users. They are also using technical tricks to make it harder for responders to stop theses scams. Phishers concentrated on fewer targets during the holiday season, and hit fewer lower-yielding or experimental targets. Phishers didn’t need to choose domain names that help fool victims. I have not yet read the report myself but will plan to do so in the next few days. Cheers, Julie

1 0