March 2019 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

ICANN 64 Social Media Workshop
by John Laprise March 9, 2019

March 9, 2019

I'll be hosting a social media workshop at ICANN64. All are invited. Wednesday | 12:15-13:15 | Emerald Room, Level B1 Best regards, John Laprise NARALO ALAC Representative

2 1

Re: [ALAC] EPDP Final report - commence of public comment
by Evin Erdogdu March 6, 2019

March 6, 2019

Dear Hadia, Thank you for sharing. Dear All, Please use the At-Large workspace<https://community.icann.org/x/EwZIBg> for this public comment. Kind Regards, Evin Ashley Erdoğdu Policy Development Sr. Coordinator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) From: ALAC <alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi <Hadia(a)tra.gov.eg> Date: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 at 10:27 AM To: "cpwg(a)icann.org" <cpwg(a)icann.org>, ALAC <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> Cc: ALAC Members <ALAC-members(a)icann.org> Subject: [ALAC] EPDP Final report - commence of public comment Dear All, As you know the GNSO Council adopted the EPDP Final report on the temporary Specification for registration data https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2019-03-04-en [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_ann…>. Accordingly ICANN org has commenced a Public Comment period [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_public-2…> on 4 March on the EPDP Team's Final Report, which will close on 17 April 2019. Kindest Regards Hadia Eng. Hadia Elminiawi (M.Sc.) Director, DNS-Entrepreneurship Center [escription: Description: Description: Description: Description: Desc][ogo] Tel: +202 3534 4392 Fax: +202 3537 4000 Email: hadia(a)tra.gov.eg [mail.dnsec.eg]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mail.dnsec.eg_owa_redi…>

1 0

EPDP Final report - commence of public comment
by Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi March 6, 2019

March 6, 2019

Dear All, As you know the GNSO Council adopted the EPDP Final report on the temporary Specification for registration data https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2019-03-04-en. Accordingly ICANN org has commenced a Public Comment period<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/epdp-recs-2019-03-04-en> on 4 March on the EPDP Team's Final Report, which will close on 17 April 2019. Kindest Regards Hadia Eng. Hadia Elminiawi (M.Sc.) Director, DNS-Entrepreneurship Center [Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description: https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/268513_1801528887076…] Tel: +202 3534 4392 Fax: +202 3537 4000 Email: hadia(a)tra.gov.eg<https://mail.dnsec.eg/owa/redir.aspx?C=8f4aa197b9f840be8139d76b29a0df99&URL…>

1 0

Ksk rollover report
by Andrei Kolesnikov March 6, 2019

March 6, 2019

For those who followed ksk roll drama detailed report available: https://www.icann.org/review-2018-dnssec-ksk-rollover.pdf —andrei -- -- {ak}

4 3

Fwd: FOLLOW UP (Re: ICANN64 Cross Community Session: Next Steps in ICANN's Response to the GDPR)
by Maureen Hilyard March 5, 2019

March 5, 2019

FYI ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org> Date: Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 6:24 AM Subject: Re: FOLLOW UP (Re: ICANN64 Cross Community Session: Next Steps in ICANN's Response to the GDPR) To: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Cc: Chantelle Doerksen <chantelle.doerksen(a)icann.org>, Carlos Reyes < carlos.reyes(a)icann.org>, Cyrus Namazi <cyrus.namazi(a)icann.org>, Bruna Santos <bruna.mrtns(a)gmail.com>, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard(a)gmail.com>, Manal Ismail <manal(a)tra.gov.eg>, Rod Rasmussen <rod(a)rodrasmussen.com>, Maria Otanes <maria.otanes(a)icann.org>, Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin(a)team.neustar> Mary – now that the Council vote is done, could you please update the Kobe session description as follows: The EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) took effect May-2018, prompting ICANN Org to change how it enforces Whois policies. The GNSO launched an expedited policy development process (EPDP) to replace a Temporary Specification that expires May-2019. Last month, the EPDP produced policy recommendations to replace the Temporary Specification, as approved by the GNSO Council on 4-Mar. The ICANN Board will be accepting public comments before it votes to approve the EPDP policy recommendation. That’s what happened so far with GDPR and Whois. This session will focus on What Happens Next: - ICANN Org will work with a GNSO Implementation Review Team on details for the new policy. - The EPDP will resume its work to resolve open questions from and to develop policy for a system for standardized access to non-public registration data (also known as a Unified Access Model) - ICANN Org and its Technical Study Group will continue work on technical means to support a Unified Access Model. - ICANN Org will continue exploring legal framework to support a Unified Access Model. - The ICANN community must consider how to update existing policies and procedures to ensure consistency with the EPDP recommendations, including: Consistent Labeling and Display Policy; Thick WHOIS Transition Policy for .COM, .NET, .JOBS; UDRP and URS Rules; Transfer Policy and TDRP; and WHOIS Data Reminder Policy. - GNSO must decide whether and how to re-start work that may be dependent on the outcomes of the EPDP, including Privacy & Proxy Services accreditation issues and the procedure for handling Whois conflicts with Privacy Law. Attend this session to understand and comment on policy work to reconcile ICANN’s Whois policies with privacy laws and legitimate needs for registrant data. --

2 1

Re: [ALAC] Bad Actor Admission
by Evan Leibovitch March 5, 2019

March 5, 2019

Hi Bastiaan, > It does confirm to me there is all the more need for civil society and > end-user influence and push back. I take it we all agree on that. Of course > the discussion we’re having is not only about the ‘why’ but especially > about the ‘how’. I do not have the answer. Although I find the almost > academic discourses of some of our colleagues in this thread very > interesting, I think the real challenge is to translate our concerns into > practical and feasible measures which we can also clearly communicate to > our constituencies in order to engage them. > My thoughts on constructive action going forward have been expressed elsewhere. But here's one more time. *TL;DR version: Baby steps won't work. ALAC needs a hard look at itself and the impact it's making, which is currently ... not much as seen by the outside world.* ICANN At-Large seriously needs to re-envision its purpose and how it can faithfully serve the public interest while staying true to its role as defined in the ICANN bylaws. This means a conscious decision to re-evaluate what the public interest in the DNS is, well beyond the current policy processes currently limiting ICANN's governance. As just one example (but a big one): ICANN has stated emphatically that it is not a regulator. Implied in that is the assertion that the DNS does not need regulation, just the bare oversight-by-contract that ICANN currently provides. So in the DNS world there are no rules, just contract terms. Is this sufficient? Isn't ICANN in a conflict of interest by being financially dependent on the industry it is supposed to oversee? Is the public interest served by having the DNS unregulated? What are the risks of continuing lack of regulation? And If ICANN won't regulate, who should? The ITU? (shudder) If not them, then who? These questions (and others) desperately need to be asked. Industry won't ask them, because it is fine with a status quo in which it has control. The GAC, if pressed, will happily fall back on multilateralism which may be no better than the current industry capture. It's up to ALAC, and we're too busy in reacting to micro-crises (Public comments! Working groups! Combined working groups!) to actually perform our role of sober reflection on how ICANN serves the interests of end users. ALAC advice is not and never has been limited to domain policy. We are able -- we are MANDATED -- to comment on every aspect of ICANN including its own scope, governance and methods of operation. And yet ... when was the last piece of real advice that ALAC gave to ICANN about its dereliction of duty to the public interest by refusing to regulate? No, the ALAC of today is content to changing paragraphs here and there on the edges of industry-crafted policy. This tactic, while it creates occasional small victories and fleeting alliances, solves none of the larger problems. As many of you know I was deeply involved in ALAC for a long time, and now I've had sufficient time outside the bubble to see just how tiny our victories were. Meanwhile the community of billions for whom the ICANN Board have entrusted ALAC to speak sees ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to show for our thousands of person-hours and air miles. Domains remain abused, expanding in numbers without evidence of demand, locked away by speculation, only truly owned by the domain service industry, resistant to real competition and dedicated to growth at the expense of utility. What have we successfully done about any of that except smooth a few of the roughest edges? I do not hold all the answers, or even most of them. I personally believe that ALAC needs to divert a substantial portion of its budget away from travel and outreach and into R&D and public education, and that it should have enough independence so that it is able to successfully fund-raise outside ICANN without jeopardizing its core finances. These solutions of mine may be way off, but I haven't seen any alternatives beyond just continuing to run the maze assigned to us. Why must we think so small when so much needs to be done and nobody else is doing it? We need to be more than simply ICANN's response when it's accused of insufficient public accountability. I *beg* for the push-back you ask for, Bastiaan; is ALAC capable? Does it have the will? Or is it too comfortable with members playing politics? I really do hope this topic gets sufficient breathing room at the next Summit, for that IMO seems the only real forum where this can be aired in a way that can hope for any traction. - Evan

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Bad Actor Admission
by John Laprise March 4, 2019

March 4, 2019

I do worry about that Evan but I think their control over human behavior is tenuous if not fleeting at best. IP law is a great example. Yes IP interests are striving to impose it on the Internet, and yet in those places that are bastions, we see IP ebbing. This week’s rebellion by the UC system from Elsevier for example. Additionally the US IP lobby’s unwillingness to even try for another copyright extension because of previous resistance to SOPA/PIPA suggests that IP has reached a high water mark in the US. Outside the western world, IP is just another expression of colonialism and exists only to the extent that governments feel compelled to acknowledge it; shallow roots indeed. Private (corporate) interests are rising and they contend with governments more than with civil society. It’s a three sided struggle where western governments invited civil society into the game because they knew that despite the former’s reservations and hostility, at the end of the day civil society would be more likely to side with the West. Commercial interests are a mixed bag to the degree they are beholden to states. I disagree that damage to trust in the DNS that has pushed people to search engines; that’s practicality. The tyranny of abundant choice drives people to search engines just as the need to limit noise drives people to use apps rather surf the net on their phones. It’s the convenience/lower cognitive load, not trust. While we’re at it, let’s also take a moment to remember that the Internet ~50 years old and the web is about ~25 year old…in the US (which largely had earlier better access). Simultaneously, we’ve had paradigmatic (yes I used it so there!) shifts in every other related technology including storage, processing, software, bandwidth, infrastructure, and user interface. All this is to say in a deadpan Buddhist way that there is no control; just the momentary, fleeting illusion of control. Just ask AOL, MySpace, IBM PC division, Lucent, MCI, 3COM, Motorola etc. I empathize with your frustration, Evan. I choose to persist. “Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.” ― H.L. Mencken Best regards, John PS I swear that I’m going to make that Mencken quote my official sig line at ICANN. From: Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch(a)gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, March 2, 2019 1:43 PM To: John Laprise <jlaprise(a)gmail.com> Cc: Javier Rua <javrua(a)gmail.com>; ICANN ALAC list <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>; Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> Subject: Re: [ALAC] Bad Actor Admission I don't agree. Completely absent from Javier's analysis - the most important factor in the negative side of the growth of the Internet - is the rise of supranational monopolies who now exercise more control over human behavior than any government outside China. The abuse of personal data by PRIVATE interests is now proven to be a real and current threat to democracy itself, let alone personal freedom. And the inclusion of token public interest representation - be it Facebook's content moderators or ICANN At-Large or Amazon's review editors - has only served to obfuscate and provide cover for the larger harm. Consider the speed at which private interests have worked to ensure that intellectual property law and treaty is applied to the Internet. Yet laws such as defamation and slander have moved not at all, to the clear detriment of society. The former benefits the monopolists, the latter the public interest. If anything, a strong and competent public sector - supported rather than fought by civil society - is more needed than ever to check the excesses of greed that we clearly know will not be addressed through self-governance. This is as true of ICANN as it is of Facebook. (and we need to be honest with ourselves and recognize how powerless ALAC has been to do anything more than tweak ICANN at the edges. We have not, despite our various efforts and supposed alliances, contained any of the damage done to trust in the DNS such that the public has fled en mass to search engines... which has led to mass exploitation of internet users. This is our fault for not even trying to get ICANN to do the right thing. Either we have been window dressing, designed to fail, or incompetent.) Framing the struggle as purely between citizens and governments is, IMO, itself a form of diversion. The old scourge will look toothless next to the new one. ___________________ Evan Leibovitch, Toronto @evanleibovitch/@el56 On Sat., Mar. 2, 2019, 11:54 a.m. John Laprise, <jlaprise(a)gmail.com <mailto:jlaprise@gmail.com> > wrote: Agreed Sent from my Pixel 3XL John Laprise, Ph.D. On Sat, Mar 2, 2019, 6:30 AM Javier Rua <javrua(a)gmail.com <mailto:javrua@gmail.com> > wrote: The system is without doubt imperfect, but it’s a correct baby step in the right direction. The idea that a private “individual” (whether natural or juridical) could somehow be on equal footing as a “state” on any international context (let alone a policy forum) wasn’t only unthinkable until the 20th Century, it is clearly anathema to the international order that rose from the Peace of Westphalia. And this is a good thing: the state-sovereignty and supremacy based model of international governance has been, IMHO, a scourge for humanity, as humanity been unable to tame the Hobbesian state of nature that reigns there with any social-contract that can truly tame that Leviathan. I think the idea of the “individual Internet-end user” as having standing and voice in an international/supranational policy context is one of the great innovations and contributions of multistakeholderism, and as such, one that must be a founding principle of any ICANN 3.0. This, IMHO, is related to the rise of the individual person as a subject of public international law, an unthinkable idea less than century ago (generally derived from post-WWII Universal Human Rights treaties and institutions) and part of the necessary weakening of the State-centered model. The mutistakeholder model, ICANN, or Internet Governance won’t solve that problem of unbound state arbitrariness and caprice, let alone illegal use of force, of course. And these concepts and institutions are not designed nor meant to either. But what they do is start changing the culture and practice of state-supremacy. It’s seems clear, for example, that in ICANN’s super tiny DNS remit, states are in no way the superior beings or overlords, and that’s a good thing. I would even venture to say, that there is mounting state practice and custom piling up that suggests that states are acquiescing to this reality (I wonder if with time, if uninterrupted, maybe this could give rise to a binding international norm?) In any case, what I think IG and multistakeholderism are doing Is transforming the language, the change culture, to eventually change what Foucault called the “episteme”: the a priori paradigms that shape and ground our knowledge and discourse in our epoch. IG occurs within the constant -sometimes rhythmic, sometimes cringe-inducing - dance between multiple players, the diversity of interest groups, individuals, states and countless parties deeply interested in the operation of and access to the Internet. This is a good thing. Because it’s a good thing is why there are always important forces objecting to the nongovernmental and privatized aspects of Internet governance, arguing and pushing towards what their episteme commands: that the only logical and legitimate place for these types of functions must be in states and their exclusive dance clubs, be the United Nations (UN), or one of its specialized agencies, such as the International Telecommunications Union (ITU). But we believe that the multistakehokderism is the necessary ritual to keep all forces engaged to maintain a non-fragmented Internet, as free as possible from purely regional or national considerations (whether public or private), but also duly respecting these. ICANN is perhaps the best IG dancehall yet (and hopefully the experiment will work and a new, even better club can be built in the future, with even better and more diverse music to dance to.) Any future dance club must be fullly aware and cognizant of all these complexities and tensions to strengthen the current model. ALAC or ALAC-like structures that exist to give non-state-bound Individuals a seat at the policy table must be safeguarded and strengthened as centerpieces of multistakeholderism. We need a dancehall with more space for us. We need to keep building that. It’s on the right side of history and I think it’s the right thing to do for humanity as a whole.

2 1

Re: [ALAC] Bad Actor Admission
by Alan Greenberg March 2, 2019

March 2, 2019

If there is a concern among staff, it must be raised through the CEO to the Board. If he/she can convince the Board, the Board has the power to act. If not, then it does not warrant action (in the minds of those who ARE legally held responsible for the ICANN). Should someone have seen GDPR coming and acted? And when it did become obvious, act faster, you bet. Lots of people saw GDPR coming and said so. Why we didn't act is an interesting discussion. Ask me in Kobe. Alan At 01/03/2019 12:55 PM, John Laprise wrote: So one of the complaints I saw online is that ICANN org legal which presumably saw the GDPR train coming down the track had limited options beyond waving a flag despite it's material impact. ICANN org spends a lot of resources to stay abreast of international law but can only do something at the last minute. (Epdp) The more I think about it, the more giving ICANN org (pres?) the right to ask the community to initiate a PDP has a kind of symmetry with the powers of the enhanced community. Essentially, if the community and the board fail to address an operational, material threat, ICANN org can hold the board and the community to account. Sent from my Pixel 3XL John Laprise, Ph.D. On Fri, Mar 1, 2019, 11:45 AM John Laprise <jlaprise(a)gmail.com<mailto:jlaprise@gmail.com>> wrote: Not just staff...I was thinking ICANN org leadership...needs authority Sent from my Pixel 3XL John Laprise, Ph.D. On Fri, Mar 1, 2019, 9:02 AM Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> > wrote: John, do you really mean "ICANN org", ie staff, to make that decision? Alan -- Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos. On March 1, 2019 9:00:50 AM EST, John Laprise <jlaprise(a)gmail.com<mailto:jlaprise@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi and thanks Olivier, My apologies for not being clear. I was suggesting a possible bylaws change where in ICANN org can ask the community to initiate policy development when it sees an urgent/important need that the community has not noticed. Sent from my Pixel 3XL John Laprise, Ph.D. On Fri, Mar 1, 2019, 7:07 AM Olivier MJ CrÃ©pin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com<mailto:ocl@gih.com>> wrote: Dear John, please be so kind to find my response below: On 01/03/2019 13:31, John Laprise wrote: Well said Evan and I share your concerns. If memory serves, so does the Board as MSM threats is a strategic planning issue. Musing upon waking I was wondering whether it would help if we could implement a mechanism whereby ICANN org could ask the empowered community to implement a pdp? This might've avoided the current epdp issue. The ICANN Board and the Empowered Community cannot implement or launch PDPs relating to gTLDs. The "PDP" as such is a defined term for "Policy Development Process" and in the context of the Generic Names, only the GNSO can launch a PDP. In the context of Country Codes Names, when it relates to global policy, the ccNSO can launch a PDP. The Board can ask the GNSO to launch a PDP on a gTLD related issue, but the GNSO can refuse. The Board can also ask the ICANN communities, SOs/ACs to launch a Cross Community Working Group (CCWG). However, there are doubts expressed in the GNSO that CCWGs should *not* be the basis for policy making for gTLDs as all policy making for gTLDs should go through a PDP. It's a power game and the bottom line is who has the control of policy processes on gTLDs. Kindest regards, Olivier

6 8

Bad Actor Admission
by John Laprise March 1, 2019

March 1, 2019

I didn't expect Ayden to publicly admit to being a bad actor. -- John Laprise Consulting Scholar

11 21

Re: [ALAC] Bad Actor Admission
by Alan Greenberg March 1, 2019

March 1, 2019

John, "ICANN org" is just staff - the CEO and down. Alan At 01/03/2019 12:45 PM, John Laprise wrote: Not just staff...I was thinking ICANN org leadership...needs authority Sent from my Pixel 3XL John Laprise, Ph.D. On Fri, Mar 1, 2019, 9:02 AM Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> > wrote: John, do you really mean "ICANN org", ie staff, to make that decision? Alan -- Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos. On March 1, 2019 9:00:50 AM EST, John Laprise <jlaprise(a)gmail.com<mailto:jlaprise@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi and thanks Olivier, My apologies for not being clear. I was suggesting a possible bylaws change where in ICANN org can ask the community to initiate policy development when it sees an urgent/important need that the community has not noticed. Sent from my Pixel 3XL John Laprise, Ph.D. On Fri, Mar 1, 2019, 7:07 AM Olivier MJ CrÃ©pin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com<mailto:ocl@gih.com>> wrote: Dear John, please be so kind to find my response below: On 01/03/2019 13:31, John Laprise wrote: Well said Evan and I share your concerns. If memory serves, so does the Board as MSM threats is a strategic planning issue. Musing upon waking I was wondering whether it would help if we could implement a mechanism whereby ICANN org could ask the empowered community to implement a pdp? This might've avoided the current epdp issue. The ICANN Board and the Empowered Community cannot implement or launch PDPs relating to gTLDs. The "PDP" as such is a defined term for "Policy Development Process" and in the context of the Generic Names, only the GNSO can launch a PDP. In the context of Country Codes Names, when it relates to global policy, the ccNSO can launch a PDP. The Board can ask the GNSO to launch a PDP on a gTLD related issue, but the GNSO can refuse. The Board can also ask the ICANN communities, SOs/ACs to launch a Cross Community Working Group (CCWG). However, there are doubts expressed in the GNSO that CCWGs should *not* be the basis for policy making for gTLDs as all policy making for gTLDs should go through a PDP. It's a power game and the bottom line is who has the control of policy processes on gTLDs. Kindest regards, Olivier

2 1