- ALAC - lists.icann.org

GNSO Council 12 March 2025 meeting agenda is out
by Justine Chew March 18, 2025

March 18, 2025

Dear all, Please find following the agenda for the GNSO Council's 12 March 2025 meeting during ICANN82. Owing to the ongoing migration work for the ICANN wiki, I am unable to point to the relevant wiki page per my usual practice. Instead, I am including highlights within this email. *GNSO Council Meeting #3 of 2025 held on 12 Mar 2025 * - *Item 1: Administrative Matters* - *Minutes <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2025/minutes/minutes-gnso…> of the GNSO Council Meeting on 09 January 2025 were posted on 26 January 2025.* - *Minutes <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2024/minutes/minutes-gnso…> of the GNSO Council Meeting on 13 February 2025 will be posted on 03 March 2025* - Item 2: Opening Remarks / Review of Projects Action List - 2.1 - Review focus areas and provide updates on specific key themes / topics, to include review of Projects List <https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/project> and Action Item List <https://community.icann.org/x/RgZlAg> - Item 3: Consent Agenda - Confirm the GNSO Standing Committee on Continuous Improvement (SCCI) Leadership Team - Acknowledgment of the appointment of Greg DiBiase to seat 13 on the ICANN Board. - *Item 4: COUNCIL VOTE - Final Report from the Transfer Policy Review (“TPR”) Policy Development Process (“PDP”) Working Group* - The TPR PDP WG which Council initiated <https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions/2020-current#20210218-2> on 18 Feb 2021 to review the Transfer Policy <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/transfer-policy-2016-06-01-en>, the policy that governs the process of transferring a domain name from one registrar to another, was tasked to determine if changes to the policy are needed to improve the ease, security, and efficacy of inter-registrar and inter-registrant transfers. - Having started work in May 2021, the TPR PDP WG delivered a comprehensive Initial Report <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=347734037&preview=…>, which it published on 1 August 2024, and delivered its Final Report <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2025/correspondence/tpr-t…> to Council in February 2025. - The Initial Report covers all topics in the working group’s charter, including inter-registrar transfers, change of registrant, the Transfer Dispute Resolution Policy, ICANN-approved transfers, and others. - The Final Report contains 47 policy recommendations. - The TPR Working Group introduced a new format to its Initial and Final Report, where it endeavors to indicate the “Policy Impact Level” of each policy recommendation. The Policy Impact Indicator is a new feature to help the reader understand the degree of change being proposed by the Working Group, i.e., how much does this recommendation differ from the current Transfer Policy? - Council will vote on the Final Report (voting threshold: supermajority) - *Item 5: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Next Steps for Registration Data Accuracy * - *During Council’s July 2024 meeting <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2024/minutes/minutes-gnso…>, it was agreed that restarting the Scoping Team at this time is not recommended. However, during the August meeting <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2024/minutes/minutes-gnso…>, some Councilors suggested potentially convening a small team to discuss how to make progress on this topic. * - *Council Leadership distributed a proposal <https://lists.icann.org/hyperkitty/list/council@icann.org/thread/DPFGXG6WTL…> of how to solicit additional feedback from ICANN org and GNSO groups with directed questions, in order to receive information from which Council can decide how to handle the important topic of accuracy. Following full Council review and feedback, the Council distributed these questions to Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees. * - *Council received feedback from the following groups: ALAC, BC, GAC, IPC, ISPCP, NCSG, RrSG, and RySG.* - *Separately, Council Leadership sent a communication re: RDS-WHOIS2 Recommendation CC.1 <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/resolutions-board-action-rds-wh…> from 2020. This recommendation deals with the accuracy of RDS data, particularly names suspended due to inaccurate data. The recommendation essentially recommends that registrars note in the RDS record that the name is suspended due to incorrect data and also recommends the name should not be “unsuspended” until the data is corrected. As this recommendation also falls under the topic of accuracy, Leadership noted that folding Recommendation CC.1 into the broader discussion of accuracy (when that takes place) may make sense. * - *Council will discuss the feedback received and determine next steps for making progress on registration data accuracy. * - *Item 6: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - EPDP Phase 1 on the Temporary Specification - Implementation Question re: Billing Contact* - *During the ICANN81 GNSO Council Wrap-Up <https://icann81.sched.com/event/1p2Gu/gnso-council-wrap-up>, Thomas Rickert provided an update regarding the implementation of EPDP Temp Spec Phase 1 recommendations. Thomas is the current GNSO Council Liaison to the EPDP Temp Spec Phase 1 Implementation Review Team (IRT). Thomas noted that the IRT expressed the view that the absence of a reference to billing contact data was a drafting error, and the EPDP Team intended for the collection of billing contact data to be optional and not mandatory.* - *The Registration Data Policy <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/registration-data-policy-2024-02-21-en> was published on 21 February 2024, and the policy has an effective date of 21 August 2025. The EPDP Phase 1 policy recommendations <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/epdp-gtld…> do not reference billing contact data, and the Registration Data Policy <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/registration-data-policy-2024-02-21-en> also makes no reference to billing contact data.* - *In the interest of transparency, Thomas requested that all Councilors consult with their respective groups to ensure that others are properly informed and agree with the interpretation raised by the IRT. Accordingly, Councilors were asked to consult with their groups. Council discussed this topic during its meeting on 19 December 2024 <https://icann.zoom.us/rec/play/wMLdawWw7g5mSvuAbgKmzJKUiRDCBU1sSYKHcwg3nb8O…> and asked for additional background information on the topic. * - * During its February meeting, the Council considered the questions below:* * 1. Does the Council confirm billing contact was in scope for the EPDP on the Temp Spec - Phase 1 Team? 2. Does the Council confirm:* a. the collection of billing contacts by registrars should continue to be required as per current RAA requirements because EPDP Phase 1, by being silent on this, did not mean to change this requirement, OR *b. the collection of billing contacts by registrars should become optional because EPDP Phase 1, by being silent on this, meant to change the RAA requirement?* - *Council will continue discussing at ICANN82 options for resolving this Billing Contact question. * - *Item 7: COUNCIL DISCUSSION: Update on Trilateral Meeting on Urgent Requests * - *ICANN org convened an Implementation Review Team to assist ICANN in implementing the EPDP on the Temporary Specification Phase 1 Final Report <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/epdp-gtld…>, which began meeting in May 2019. ICANN org published the draft Registration Data Policy for public comment <https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/registration-data-consen…> on 24 August 2022. Several commenters expressed dissatisfaction with the implementation of Recommendation 18, specifically around the issue of the response timeline for urgent requests. The relevant portion of Recommendation 18 reads, “A separate timeline of [less than X business days] will considered for the response to ‘Urgent’ Reasonable Disclosure Requests, those Requests for which evidence is supplied to show an immediate need for disclosure [time frame to be finalized and criteria set for Urgent requests during implementation].”* - *On 3 June 2024 <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2024/correspondence/tsinh…>, the Board wrote to Council, noting concerns with the proposed urgent request timeline of business days as not fit for purpose, as truly urgent requests should be responded to within minutes or hours rather than business days. Recognizing this, the Board also noted there is no universal mechanism for registrars to authenticate law enforcement entities. Council responded on 29 August 2024 <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2024/correspondence/dibia…>, agreeing with the Board’s concerns and suggesting a trilateral meeting between the Board, Council, and GAC to discuss a potential path forward in light of the concerns. * - *A trilateral meeting was held on 4 November 2024 <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Dialogue+with+GAC%2…> and the Board, GAC, and GNSO Council discussed next steps, including potentially resuming discussions with the IRT. The Council discussed this issue in detail during its meeting on 19 December 2024 <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Final+Proposed+Agen…> and responded to the GAC on 15 January 2025 <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2025/correspondence/dibia…>. A second trilateral meeting was held on 12 February 2025 <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Dialogue+with+GAC%2…>. * - *Council will hear an update from that trilateral meeting and discuss next steps. * - *Item 8: COUNCIL DISCUSSION: Outcomes of Strategic Planning Session* - *Item 9: Any Other Business * - *9.1 - GNSO Chair Election Timeline <https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/proposed-…> Announcement* - *9.2 - Update from the GNSO Informal Internet Governance Tracking Group\* - *9.3 - Accuracy Scoping Deferral Expiration* - *9.4 - Open Mic* This Council meeting will take place on 12 March at 20:15 UTC: https://tinyurl.com/ym7f48uc for 2 hours and is open to observers either in-person ICANN registered participants, or remotely in listen-only mode via Zoom (except for the Open Mic session). Please check *https://icann82.sched.com/event/1vpbt/gnso-council-meeting* <https://icann82.sched.com/event/1vpbt/gnso-council-meeting> for the designated meeting room and the Zoom room link. The Zoom room link will only be published 24 hours prior to the meeting. Thanks for reading / considering. Justine Chew ALAC Liaison to the GNSO GNSO Liaison Report Workspace <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/GNSO+Liaison+Report%2C+post-Oct…>

3 5

Final Results of the ccNSO DNS Abuse Survey
by Laura Margolis March 1, 2025

March 1, 2025

Dear All, I would like to share with you the final results of the DNS Abuse survey conducted by the ccNSO DNS Abuse Standing Committee (DASC) <https://ccnso.icann.org/en/workinggroups/dasc.htm>. You can access the full report here: 🔗 DNS Abuse Survey Results <https://ccnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/field-attached/ccnso-dasc-surve…> Additionally, if you are interested in the presentation of the results, I have included the link to the webinar recording from last Wednesday, February 26th: 🔗 Webinar Recording <https://community.icann.org/display/ccnsowkspc/ccNSO+Webinars> (currently and during this weekend out of service for website maintenance) The 2024 survey results highlight important trends in the ccTLD community’s approach to DNS abuse. Notably, awareness of abuse levels has improved, with a significant drop in respondents unsure about their domain abuse rates (from 35% in 2022 to 21% in 2024). The majority of ccTLDs continue to report low levels of abuse, with 69% indicating rates below 0.1%, a notable improvement from 49% in the previous survey. Additionally, while there remains no clear correlation between domain pricing and abuse levels, ccTLDs are increasingly adopting AI and machine learning for detection. The survey also provides valuable insights into the adoption of ICANN gTLD contract DNS abuse clauses and the ongoing efforts in abuse mitigation. Thank you! Best regards, -- *Laura Margolis* ALAC Liaison to ccNSO margolisl(a)gmail.com +59899690992 skype: lauri.margolis ccNSO Liaison Workspace <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/ALAC+Liaison+to+the+ccNSO+Repor…>

2 1

iDNS WOMEN at IACNN 82
by Vanda Scartezini Feb. 22, 2025

Feb. 22, 2025

Dear friends Attached are the invitation and agenda for our meeting during ICANN 82. Hope you can join us once mere !! Lots of kisses Vanda Scartezini DNS WOMEN Sao Paulo, Brazil + 55 11 98181-1464 Vanda(a)Scartezini.org www.dnswomen.org

1 0

CALL FOR COMMENTS- by Feb 25 - ALAC statement on the Proposed Updates for Operating Standards for Specific Reviews
by Silvia Vivanco Feb. 21, 2025

Feb. 21, 2025

Dear OFB WG members and ALAC members, Kindly see the first draft of the ALAC statement on the Proposed Updates for Operating Standards for Specific Reviews<https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Workspace%3A+Pro…>. If you have comments, please insert them using the comment function so your contribution is identifiable by author, by next Tuesday 25 February 23:59 UTC See Draft statement Google doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/10NtEB66t6HRSv71TK8tMtdYOqH-PeFei0Wamse5… Timeline for Statement completion: * First Draft Statement Presentation: Thursday Feb 20 * Community Comment Period: Friday Feb 21 - Tuesday Feb 25 * ALAC Vote: Monday 17 March - 20 (TBC) * Submission: Friday March 21 (TBC) Thank you very much! Silvia Silvia Vivanco Senior Manager, At-Large Regional Affairs Website: atlarge.icann.org<http://atlarge.icann.org/> Facebook: facebook.com/icannatlarge<http://facebook.com/icannatlarge> Twitter: @ICANNAtLarge<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge> [signature_3823591255]

1 0

Fwd: [council] ICANN82 GNSO Policy Briefing and Policy Outlook Report
by Justine Chew Feb. 20, 2025

Feb. 20, 2025

Sharing for your reading pleasure. Kind regards, Justine ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Terri Agnew via council <council(a)icann.org> Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2025 at 06:58 Subject: [council] ICANN82 GNSO Policy Briefing and Policy Outlook Report Dear All, On behalf of the GNSO Team, I am happy to report for ICANN82 the following are now available for download. - *GNSO Policy Briefing: *http://go.icann.org/gnsobriefing - *Policy Outlook Report*: https://go.icann.org/outlook82 Happy reading! With kind regards, *Terri* * ---* *Terri Agnew* Policy Team Supporting the GNSO Policy Operations Senior Specialist (GNSO) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) *Skype ID:* terri.agnew.icann Find out more about the GNSO by visiting: https://learn.icann.org/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__learn.icann.org_&d=DwM…> Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANN-5FGN…> Transcripts and recordings of GNSO Working Group and Council events are located on the GNSO Master Calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_grou…> _______________________________________________ council mailing list -- council(a)icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to council-leave(a)icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos) You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

1 0

GAC Liaison Report – ALAC Monthly Call
by Joanna Kulesza Feb. 18, 2025

Feb. 18, 2025

Dear ALAC Colleagues, Please find below my GAC Liaison Report for the upcoming ALAC Monthly Call. Item 1: Regulatory Updates Briefing The second GAC-ALAC Regulatory Developments Briefing was successfully held in collaboration with ICANN’s Governmental Engagement Team. The session focused on the impact of the UN Cybercrime Convention and the Second Additional Protocol to the Budapest Convention on the Domain Name System (DNS), covering: - Sovereignty concerns and cross-border data access - The role of ICANN’s multistakeholder model in global Internet governance - Challenges related to data privacy, security, and human rights protections We saw high attendance and strong engagement, helping to build consensus on supporting these instruments as complementary to our WSIS+20 and Global Digital Compact efforts. Session agenda: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/2025-02-13+ALAC-GAC+Regulatory+… Session recording: https://icann.zoom.us/rec/play/-lEqLhJkkqpowvhixjryY7YFyVj6NSPy1Xwd1qVh1mgD… Next Steps - Continue discussions during regular Regulatory Updates sessions, including a face-to-face meeting in Seattle - Organize a dedicated follow-up call in April with a Council of Europe guest speaker ________________________________ Item 2: ALAC-GAC Bilateral in Seattle The ALAC-GAC Bilateral Session is scheduled for Tuesday, 11 March 2025, from 09:00–10:00 UTC. Preparations for the Seattle meeting are progressing well. The agenda is set, and speakers are being arranged to ensure a productive discussion: - Welcome and Introduction – GAC Chair & ALAC Chair (5 min) - Discussion on the INFERMAL Report – Summary and key insights from the authors (20 min) – (speakers tbc) - GAC-ALAC Priorities in the WSIS+20 Context – Multistakeholder governance, digital divide, capacity building, and next steps (20 min) – (speakers tbc) - Q&A and Wrap-Up – Open discussion moderated by GAC/ALAC liaisons, concluding remarks by GAC Chair & ALAC Chair (15 min) This report has also been published on the website for your kind reference https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/GAC+Liaison+Reports. ________________________________ Please kindly note I am out of office this week and regretfully unable to join the ALAC call. I will make sure to follow up with the recording and am at your disposal to answer any questions per e-mail or Skype. -- Kind regards, Joanna Kulesza ------------------- Joanna Kulesza, PhD Professor of International Law Lodz Cyber Hub / University of Lodz Law School / Poland www.cyber.uni.lodz.pl (EURALO ALS 341) ALAC / EURALO / ALAC Liaison to the GAC

1 0

Re: Statement on Registration Data Accuracy
by Jonathan Zuck Feb. 17, 2025

Feb. 17, 2025

You know, DelBianco learned everything from me, right? That’s pretty close, I’d say. Contact-ability, Accountability and Trust is a good lead in. From: mike palage.com <mike(a)palage.com> Sent: Monday, February 17, 2025 10:56 AM To: Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com>; Jonathan Zuck <JZuck(a)innovatorsnetwork.org> Cc: Alan Greenberg <greenberg.alan(a)gmail.com>; CPWG <cpwg(a)icann.org>; ALAC <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [ALAC] Re: Statement on Registration Data Accuracy Carlton, A lot to unpack but allow me to try. So lets start off with what we agree on – “the self-regulated registration data (WHOIS) accuracy model has failes (sic).” What we disagree on “the true goal of the registration data (WHOIS) accuracy is contactability, then who the registrant claims to be is secondary. Whether they identify as Wile E. Coyote, Donald D. Duck, or Jack Schitt shouldn’t matter.So long as they can be reached via a valid phone number or email. And if they cannot be reached, there are consequences.” I think “contactability” is framing the discussion entirely wrong. I think the better perspective is “accountability”. There is a clear trend in national law that DNS is critical infrastructure. While “contactability” was a nice talking point for Contracting parties looking to keep their operating costs down by merely verifying the operation of either an email or a phone number, the use of disposable emails makes ICANN’s current definition of “accuracy” largely meaningless when dealing with bad actors. If we frame the discussion of data accuracy from an accountability perspective, I think this aligns with where the Cooperation Group is headed with its guidance on NIS 2.0 Article 28. With accountability in the ecosystem (see also Article 21 of NIS 2.0) we build trust within that ecosystem that directly benefits are participants (end users) within that ecosystem. One of the great talents of Steve DelBianco is to take complex issues and to distill them down into simple to understand concepts that can be easily repeated to make a lasting impact on this listener. I think we “contactability” is a 1990’s concept that no longer scales to the reality of today’s internet where DNS is widely being recognized as critical infrastructure under national law. This reality I think necessitates that we approach RDDS data accuracy and access from an accountability perspective. Channeling my inner Steve and Jonathan, I think the three key bullet points on a single power point slide would be: Contractability, Accountability and Trust. I would just use these three words on the slide to have the listener pay attention to the message I was conveying. I would then use the following talking points to expand on each bullet point. “Contactability” is an outdated concept from the 1990’s “Accountability” is the proper concept to align with DNS being viewed as critical national infrastructure “Trust” in an eco-system is possible when are participants can be held accountable Jonathan, I welcome your thoughts on how close I got to the Steve DelBianco gold standard? Best regards, Michael From: Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com<mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com>> Date: Sunday, February 16, 2025 at 3:39 PM To: Jonathan Zuck <JZuck(a)innovatorsnetwork.org<mailto:JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org>> Cc: Alan Greenberg <greenberg.alan(a)gmail.com<mailto:greenberg.alan@gmail.com>>, CPWG <cpwg(a)icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>>, ALAC <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org>>, michael palage.com <michael(a)palage.com<mailto:michael@palage.com>> Subject: Re: [ALAC] Re: Statement on Registration Data Accuracy I see all this and I’m still gobsmacked how easy it is to connive at error. Leading……well, um threshold questions are always intended to enforce adaption of a set narrative. That should be rejected for cause. There is no successful contradiction for the evidence of inaccuracy in contact data and the registration system still lacks meaningful enforcement of the existing data accuracy policy for the DNS. It remains astonishing how easily errors persist—registrars are required to warrant that registrants provide valid contact details, yet verification remains weak. ICANN’s policy demands that registrars validate and periodically review phone and email contacts, even as these are constantly changing and too often left unchecked. Here is what we know for sure. The self-regulated registration data (WHOIS) accuracy model has failed. We have undeniable proof: emails don’t resolve, phone numbers are unreachable, and registrars face no real consequences for non-compliance. What we have here is a policy that exists in theory but not in practice. ICANN, the supposed master regulator, has failed to enforce its own policy. Evidence of oversight is weak to non-existent, and without penalties, registrars have no incentive to comply. Enter NIS2, which flips the script on registration data (WHOIS) accuracy. It raises the bar on verification, intends enforcement of legally binding government oversight and introduces penalties for non-compliance. So now, the hue and cry. Because if the EU enforces this directive as law, it would fragment the domain registration landscape, resulting in divergent verification standards, conflicting enforcement mechanisms, and inevitable clashes with GDPR. Lawyers will thrive with the legal grey areas now at play. But let’s not get lost in the noise. If the true goal of the registration data (WHOIS) accuracy is contactability, then who the registrant claims to be is secondary. Whether they identify as Wile E. Coyote, Donald D. Duck, or Jack Schitt shouldn’t matter. So long as they can be reached via a valid phone number or email. And if they cannot be reached, there are consequences. Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround ============================= On Fri, 14 Feb 2025 at 14:02, Jonathan Zuck via ALAC <alac(a)icann.org<mailto:alac@icann.org>> wrote: Thanks for your work on this! As I read it, it seems to be missing the end user impact assessment that we have begun to incorporate in such comments. We make the point that we’re not the experts but instead rely on the expertise of others but could we site some of those experts to lay out a few bullets that tie this exercise back to our mandate and remit? From: Alan Greenberg <greenberg.alan(a)gmail.com<mailto:greenberg.alan@gmail.com>> Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2025 12:10 PM To: Jonathan Zuck <JZuck(a)innovatorsnetwork.org<mailto:JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org>> Cc: CPWG <cpwg(a)icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>>; ALAC <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org>>; Michael Palage <michael(a)palage.com<mailto:michael@palage.com>> Subject: Statement on Registration Data Accuracy Jonathan, the statement in response to the GNSO query related to registration data accuracy is not finalized. It is a significant enhancement on the version discussed during yesterday's CPWG meeting, but is identical in its overall intent. It is a much stronger and hopefully effective message. It was a collaborative effort of Michael, Cheryl, Justine and me. You can find it at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uvGxFjlKMscGweIb-29UKc46ycgGKADbRA4NCp6… Alan _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list -- alac(a)icann.org<mailto:alac@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to alac-leave(a)icann.org<mailto:alac-leave@icann.org> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos) You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

1 0

Fwd: The latest ccNSO news for you
by Laura Margolis Feb. 17, 2025

Feb. 17, 2025

Dear All: Please take a moment to review the latest ccNSO news. February 2025 [image: Screenshot 2021-08-02 at 12.51.32.png] [image: ccNSO_Lockup_W_B_bg_RGB.jpg] ccNSO News February 2025 | Issue 59 Call for volunteers: GRC welcomes new members The ccNSO is seeking additional volunteers for the Guidelines Review Committee (GRC). The call for volunteers closes on Friday, 21 February 2025, at 23:59 UTC. Interested individuals can watch a short webinar <https://danh45uab.cc.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001Urd3snSAlgzQ5bOlLTDbreeKLSzvcI_iy8…> or read the call for volunteers <https://danh45uab.cc.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001Urd3snSAlgzQ5bOlLTDbreeKLSzvcI_iy8…> to learn about the GRC’s work, membership requirements, key topics, and working methods. The GRC’s role is to review existing guidelines, assess their alignment with current practices, identify gaps, and recommend updates to the ccNSO Council. Read more <https://danh45uab.cc.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001Urd3snSAlgzQ5bOlLTDbreeKLSzvcI_iy8…> Keep informed about the work of the ccNSO In preparation of each ccNSO Council meeting, a written update regarding the work by the various working groups and committees is drafted. It includes information about the current status, next steps and what the activities are about. Read more <https://danh45uab.cc.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001Urd3snSAlgzQ5bOlLTDbreeKLSzvcI_iy8…> 2024 ccNSO Achievements Report A note from Alejandra Reynoso Dear Colleagues, I hope that you are having a great start of the year! May 2025 bring you an abundance of good news. I would like to share with you the achievements of the ccNSO over 2024 and what this new year has in store for us. I am very proud of the hard work you all put into the ccNSO, whether in-person or remotely, joining actively or as an interested observer. It’s a privilege and an honor to work with you all. Warm regards, Alejandra Reynoso ccNSO Council Chair Read the report <https://danh45uab.cc.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001Urd3snSAlgzQ5bOlLTDbreeKLSzvcI_iy8…> Join the ccNSO DASC Survey Webinar Join the ccNSO DNS Abuse Standing Committee (DASC) for a 90-minute webinar on Wednesday, 26 February 2025, at noon UTC. This session will present the final results of the 2024 DASC Survey, highlighting trends in ccTLD abuse mitigation. Wednesday, 26 February 2025, at noon UTC. Register in advance for this meeting. After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the meeting. REGISTER HERE <https://danh45uab.cc.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001Urd3snSAlgzQ5bOlLTDbreeKLSzvcI_iy8…> Recordings will be posted here <https://danh45uab.cc.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001Urd3snSAlgzQ5bOlLTDbreeKLSzvcI_iy8…> . About the DASC Survey The DASC conducted its first survey in late 2022, collecting insights from ccTLDs across different regions and governance models. The findings revealed that ccTLDs experience low levels of abuse and that even those with limited resources—such as funding and staff—can effectively combat DNS abuse through well-defined policies, procedures, and monitoring tools. The second survey, conducted in August–September 2024, builds on the 2022 results <https://danh45uab.cc.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001Urd3snSAlgzQ5bOlLTDbreeKLSzvcI_iy8…>, focusing on trends in DNS abuse mitigation across ccTLDs. Key findings were presented at ICANN81. Read more <https://danh45uab.cc.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001Urd3snSAlgzQ5bOlLTDbreeKLSzvcI_iy8…> DASC Survey Subgroup Members: Angela Matlapeng (.bw) Bruce Tonkin (.au) | Chair DASC survey subgroup Nick Wenban Smith (.uk) | Chair DASC Olga Cavalli | NomCom appointed Councillor Tatiana Tropina (former member) Respondent Quotes: - “Comprehensive survey” - “Opened my eyes on how much we could be doing” - “DNS Abuse mitigation has always been key for the ccTLDs operational and security processes” - “Abuse moves around between both TLDs and registrars” - “Our biggest issue are false positives” - “Compromised websites are challenging: often the registration is compliant with registry policies” - “Reports of DNS Abuse are often poorly presented or misreported” - “It is challenging to explain the legal and regulatory framework our registry operates in” DASC LIBRARY The DASC has created a library to share DNS Abuse-relevant information. The DNS abuse library <https://danh45uab.cc.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001Urd3snSAlgzQ5bOlLTDbreeKLSzvcI_iy8…> includes links to tools, articles, reports and more. You can do both searches and suggestions for content in the library. We invite you to have a look. ABUSE DISCUSSION LIST The Committee has also launched a DNS abuse discussion email list <https://danh45uab.cc.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001Urd3snSAlgzQ5bOlLTDbreeKLSzvcI_iy8…>, open to all persons associated with a ccTLD with an interest in DNS abuse. The list will be used to regularly inform you about new additions to the library, discussions, and relevant upcoming events for ccTLDs. SOPC Submits Comments on ICANN and PTI FY26 Plans The Strategic and Operational Planning Committee (SOPC) has submitted its comments on the ICANN FY26–30 Operating & Financial Plan and the ICANN/IANA FY26 Operating Plans & Budgets. As part of its role, the SOPC reviews these plans to ensure they reflect the needs and priorities of the ccTLD community. In its submission, the SOPC emphasized transparency, financial sustainability, and strategic alignment with ccNSO interests. The committee also identified areas for improvement in resource allocation and community engagement. Andreas Musielak, SOPC Chair: "The SOPC values the opportunity to contribute to ICANN’s planning process and encourages ccTLD managers to remain actively involved in these discussions." More details on the submission: 🔗 ICANN Plans <https://danh45uab.cc.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001Urd3snSAlgzQ5bOlLTDbreeKLSzvcI_iy8…> 🔗 PTI Plan <https://danh45uab.cc.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001Urd3snSAlgzQ5bOlLTDbreeKLSzvcI_iy8…> Final Reminder: Board Seat 12 vote Don't miss the deadline: 18 February at 23:59 UTC The ccNSO community is in the final stage of electing a representative for Board Seat 12, one of two ccNSO-designated seats on the ICANN Board of Directors. All eligible ccNSO Emissaries are encouraged to cast their vote before the deadline on Tuesday, 18 February 2025, at 23:59 UTC. Read more <https://danh45uab.cc.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001Urd3snSAlgzQ5bOlLTDbreeKLSzvcI_iy8…> NEW! A list of Countries/Territories involved in the Board nomination process for Seat 12 (FY25) is published, showing which voted and their ICANN Region. Consult the list here <https://danh45uab.cc.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001Urd3snSAlgzQ5bOlLTDbreeKLSzvcI_iy8…> . Join the ccNSO Newcomer Webinar Are you new to the ccNSO, or looking to deepen your understanding of its work? Do you know colleagues or peers who would benefit from an introductory session on the ccNSO? Join ccNSO Council Vice Chair Biyi Oladipo (.ng) for a 1-hour ccTLD Webinar for newcomers! This session will provide an overview of: - The role and work of the ccNSO - What to expect from the ccNSO at ICANN82 - How ccTLD community representatives can get involved This is a great opportunity to gain insights, ask questions, and connect with the global ccTLD community. When? Tuesday, 25 February 2025 at noon UTC How to participate? Register in advance for this meeting. REGISTER HERE <https://danh45uab.cc.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001Urd3snSAlgzQ5bOlLTDbreeKLSzvcI_iy8…> After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the meeting. Recordings will become available here <https://danh45uab.cc.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001Urd3snSAlgzQ5bOlLTDbreeKLSzvcI_iy8…> . ccNSO at ICANN82 The ICANN82 Community Forum <https://danh45uab.cc.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001Urd3snSAlgzQ5bOlLTDbreeKLSzvcI_iy8…> will be held 8-13 March 2025 in Seattle, USA. Find out more <https://danh45uab.cc.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001Urd3snSAlgzQ5bOlLTDbreeKLSzvcI_iy8…> about the ccNSO session highlights, the overall ccNSO schedule at ICANN82, and Tech Day. ICANN82 links to bookmark now - ccNSO Schedule & Session Highlights https://community.icann.org/x/EoCRG <https://danh45uab.cc.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001Urd3snSAlgzQ5bOlLTDbreeKLSzvcI_iy8…> - Tech Day Agenda https://community.icann.org/x/HAA9HQ <https://danh45uab.cc.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001Urd3snSAlgzQ5bOlLTDbreeKLSzvcI_iy8…> Seattle changes to daylight saving time (Pacific Daylight Saving Time, PDT / UTC -7) on Sunday, March 9, 2025 at 2:00 am local time PDF Block Schedule ccNSO ICANN82 <#m_7728248085134716463_> ccNSO working groups and committees The ccNSO program will begin on Saturday, 8 March. Various ccNSO Working Groups and Committees will all hold working sessions. The ccNSO schedule continues on Sunday, 9 March, when the ccNSO Council will meet in preparation of its 215th meeting at ICANN82. Furthermore, to ensure the future resilience and continuity of Council’s operations, the ccNSO Council conducts its annual review of the distribution of the relevant roles and responsibilities, and discusses the roadmap related to increasing the ccNSO capacity. There will also be working sessions by further working groups and committees. Policy Gap Analysis (PGA Working Group) The ccNSO Policy Gap Analysis (PGA) Working Group began its work in August 2024. Its objective is to identify, analyze, and advise the Council whether and how to address gaps in existing ccNSO policies, guidance, or practices pertaining to the delegation, transfer, revocation, and retirement of ccTLDs, and other related IANA Naming Functions for ccTLDs. The DASC will hold an internal working session over the weekend, among others to continue the discussions on the gaps and the policy consolidation. PGA WG will hold a public session on Wednesday during day 1 of the ccNSO members meeting. Internet Governance Liaison Committee (IGLC) The ccNSO established the IGLC to coordinate, facilitate and increase the participation of ccTLD managers in Internet governance discussions and processes. The IGLC will hold a working session to refine its work plan. Focus topics for IGLC include among others resilience, and the United Nations (UN) led review of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) being held in 2025 on the twentieth anniversary of the original WSIS. DNS Abuse Standing Committee (DASC) The ccNSO DASC is the focal point for the ccTLD community’s global efforts to address DNS abuse under the ICANN umbrella. It serves as a dedicated forum for ccTLD managers to discuss DNS abuse, share insights, and exchange best practices. The DASC will hold an internal working session over the weekend and a public session on Wednesday during the ccNSO members meeting. Universal Acceptance Committee (UAC) The purpose of the ccNSO Universal Acceptance Committee (UAC) is to provide the ccTLD community a platform to interact and share information at a global level and with other groups under the ICANN umbrella on topics related to UA and acceptance of IDNs. The UAC will hold an internal working session. Topics for discussion include among other drivers and blockers for UA Readiness. Guidelines Review Committee (GRC) The ccNSO Guidelines Review Committee (GRC) will hold an internal work session. The purpose of the GRC is to review the current guidelines and to ascertain whether they reflect current practices and working methods, identify potential gaps, and based on this analysis propose changes to the current guidelines to the Council. Current topics for discussion include among others efforts to increase the participation of ccNSO members in voting processes, updates to the Council Selection Guideline, as well as the creation of a template to effectively review the functioning of ccNSO working groups and committees. Finance Working Group (FIN2) The second ccNSO Finance Working Group (FIN2 WG) will hold an internal work session. The objective of the second Finance Working Group is to review, explore and propose financial contribution models that are fair and equitable, and encourage ccTLDs to contribute at a level deemed reasonable, while preserving the principle of voluntary contributions. Strategic & Operational Planning Committee (SOPC) The SOPC provides input on ICANN and PTI's strategic, operational, and budget planning from a ccTLD and ccNSO perspective. It also facilitates and encourages ccTLD managers' participation in these processes. In December 2024, ICANN released the draft FY25 Operating Plan and Budget for both ICANN and PTI, along with the draft 5-Year Plans, for public comment. During this workshop, the SOPC will meet with ICANN staff to discuss its recent submission and the overall submission process. TLD-OPS Standing Committee The Top-Level Domain Operations (TLD-OPS) Standing Committee is the oversight body of the TLD-OPS mailing list <https://danh45uab.cc.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001Urd3snSAlgzQ5bOlLTDbreeKLSzvcI_iy8…> . The purpose of the standing committee is to govern the daily operation of the TLD-OPS email list and, when necessary, to develop and implement progress plans for future improvements and developments of the TLD-OPS email list, including its ecosystem. TLD-OPS is the incident response community for and by ccTLDs and brings together those who are responsible for the overall security and stability of their ccTLD. The goal of the TLD-OPS community is to enable ccTLD operators worldwide to collaboratively strengthen their incident response capabilities. The TLD-OPS Standing Committee will hold an internal working session. ccNSO Members Meeting - day 1 Welcome Session The ccNSO Council Chair and MPC Chair will welcome participants to the ccNSO Members Meeting. In addition, the review of the ICANN meeting strategy - developed in 2014 - will be discussed with the ccTLD community: is the strategy able to meet the evolving needs of the community while also being cost-effective? ccTLD News Session The ccTLD News Sessions have been part of the ccNSO Members Meetings for several years. They have provided a global platform for both experienced and new people to meet, share experiences, and discuss ccTLD-related aspects. Session Chair: Pablo Rodriguez (.pr) - News from .us | Name TBC - Findings APTLD Research in DNS Next-Generation | Sameer Gahlot (.in) - ccTLDs as the Cornerstone of Local Digital Identity: Leveraging AI for Growth and Innovation | Veronica Motloutsi (.za) - .ua: 3 years under fire | Dmytro Kohmanyuk (.ua) - Strengthening Digital Bonds: A Vision from the Lusophone Community | Marta Moreira Dias (.pt) ccNSO Working Group Updates Several ccNSO working groups and committees will provide an update on their progress and seek input on the next steps. ccTLD Financial Contributions Session The objective of the second ccNSO Finance Working Group (FIN2 WG) is to review, explore and propose financial contribution models that are fair and equitable, and encourage ccTLDs to contribute at a level deemed reasonable, while preserving the principle of voluntary contributions. This session provides an opportunity to inform and consult the broader ccTLD community on the working group’s progress and approach. Ultimately, the group aims to deliver community-endorsed recommendations to the ccNSO Council by ICANN83 in Prague. The FIN2 WG will also hold a working session on Saturday, 8 March at ICANN82. Policy Gap Analysis Session The ccNSO Policy Gap Analysis (PGA) Working Group began its work in August 2024. Its objective is to identify, analyze, and advise the Council whether and how to address gaps in existing ccNSO policies, guidance, or practices pertaining to the delegation, transfer, revocation, and retirement of ccTLDs, and other related IANA Naming Functions for ccTLDs. The PGA Working Group expects to present and discuss its initial findings during the ICANN82 ccNSO Members Meeting. The PGA Working Group will also hold a working session on Saturday, 8 March at ICANN82. ccNSO Members Meeting - day 2 Joint Session: ccNSO & GAC The ccNSO and the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) will hold a joint meeting to discuss work by the ccNSO Policy Gap Analysis Working Group. Furthermore, the diversity of ccTLD governance models will be explored in smaller groups by both ccNSO and GAC participants. Data Accuracy & Validation The ccNSO DNS Abuse Standing Committee (DASC) is organizing a session DASC delves into the topic of domain name registration data accuracy and its relevance to DNS abuse. How important is it for ccTLD registries to maintain correct and accurate domain name registration data in combating abuse? What role does accurate data play? This session invites the ccTLD community and other stakeholders to share diverse perspectives, recognizing that while approaches vary globally, ccTLDs consistently demonstrate low levels of abuse. The DASC will also hold a working session on Saturday, 8 March at ICANN82. Q&A with ccNSO-appointed ICANN Board members The ccNSO appointed ICANN Board members have been invited to attend a question and answer session and to share their experiences as ICANN Board members. Drivers for Universal Acceptance Readiness The ccNSO Universal Acceptance Committee (UAC) is hosting an interactive session to explore key drivers for UA readiness within the global ccTLD community. Session Highlights: - Presentation by UNESCO on UA readiness and its impact on local language communities. - ccTLD case studies on their UA experiences. - Interactive discussion with in-person and remote participants. Universal Acceptance (UA) ensures that all domain names, including IDNs, are recognized, accepted, and functional across internet applications, systems, and devices. The UAC provides a platform for the ccTLD community to exchange insights on UA and IDN acceptance at a global level and within ICANN. In addition to this session, the UAC will hold a working session on Saturday, 8 March, at ICANN82. ccNSO Council at ICANN82 At ICANN82, the ccNSO Council will meet over the weekend to prepare for its 215th meeting. As part of its commitment to resilience and continuity, the Council will review the distribution of roles and responsibilities and discuss the roadmap to enhance the ccNSO’s capacity. ccNSO Council meeting 215 will be held on the the final day of ICANN82. Key topics for discussion include outcomes from the recent Council workshop on resourcing, the ccNSO session on policy gaps in ccTLD post-delegation processes, and the roles and responsibilities of Council members. The Council will also hold elections for its leadership team, selecting a chair and two vice chairs. Additional agenda items will be available on the ccNSO Council’s workspace <https://danh45uab.cc.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001Urd3snSAlgzQ5bOlLTDbreeKLSzvcI_iy8…> . country code Names Supporting Organisation https://ccnso.icann.org <https://danh45uab.cc.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001Urd3snSAlgzQ5bOlLTDbreeKLSzvcI_iy8…> | ccnsosecretariat(a)icann.org <https://danh45uab.cc.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001Urd3snSAlgzQ5bOlLTDbreeKLSzvcI_iy8…> [image: Facebook] <https://danh45uab.cc.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001Urd3snSAlgzQ5bOlLTDbreeKLSzvcI_iy8…> [image: Twitter] <https://danh45uab.cc.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001Urd3snSAlgzQ5bOlLTDbreeKLSzvcI_iy8…> ICANN | 12025 Waterfront Drive Suite 300 | Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 US Unsubscribe <https://visitor.constantcontact.com/do?p=un&m=00115LrDzKl3LoTB9FWCDiE2A%3D&…> | Update Profile <https://visitor.constantcontact.com/do?p=oo&m=00115LrDzKl3LoTB9FWCDiE2A%3D&…> | Constant Contact Data Notice <https://www.constantcontact.com/legal/customer-contact-data-notice> [image: Constant Contact] <https://www.constantcontact.com/landing1/vr/home?cc=nge&utm_campaign=nge&rm…> Thank you. Best Regards, -- *Laura Margolis* ALAC Liaison to ccNSO margolisl(a)gmail.com +59899690992 skype: lauri.margolis ccNSO Liaison Workspace <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/ALAC+Liaison+to+the+ccNSO+Repor…>

1 0

Re: Statement on Registration Data Accuracy
by Carlton Samuels Feb. 17, 2025

Feb. 17, 2025

Hi Mike: I got all that, thank you! Refer this line: "*... If the true goal of the registration data (WHOIS) accuracy is **contactability, then who the registrant claims to be is secondary.....*" I am still persuaded to that position. That construct was intended to convey that my views are in context of the existing policy and the pointers for implementation and execution that still exist. If the ICANN policy on data accuracy has changed, then I am behind the curve here and must update myself. The use of the word *'regulator'* associated with ICANN is not a snark intended to modify its ordinary meaning. So yes to contactability, accountability and trust, principles for normative behaviour usually vested in a regulator. However, accepting an argument for alignment with NIS2 will naturally require abandonment of existing [consensus?] policy and, then, a change in the script. We would add adoption of something congruent to 'legally binding' governmental oversight; verify and hold the actors to account. I can well imagine it'd be, at minimum, an interesting intellectual exercise. Carlton ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 at 13:55, mike palage.com <mike(a)palage.com> wrote: > Carlton, > > > > A lot to unpack but allow me to try. > > > So lets start off with what we agree on – “the self-regulated > registration data (WHOIS) accuracy model has failes (sic).” > > > > What we disagree on “the true goal of the registration data (WHOIS) > accuracy *is *contactability, then who the registrant claims to be is > secondary. Whether they identify as Wile E. Coyote, Donald D. Duck, or Jack > Schitt shouldn’t matter.So long as they can be reached via a valid phone > number or email. And if they cannot be reached, there are consequences.” > > > > I think “contactability” is framing the discussion entirely wrong. I think > the better perspective is “accountability”. There is a clear trend in > national law that DNS is critical infrastructure. While “contactability” > was a nice talking point for Contracting parties looking to keep their > operating costs down by merely verifying the operation of either an email > or a phone number, the use of disposable emails makes ICANN’s current > definition of “accuracy” largely meaningless when dealing with bad actors. > > > > If we frame the discussion of data accuracy from an accountability > perspective, I think this aligns with where the Cooperation Group is headed > with its guidance on NIS 2.0 Article 28. With accountability in the > ecosystem (see also Article 21 of NIS 2.0) we build trust within that > ecosystem that directly benefits are participants (end users) within that > ecosystem. > > > > One of the great talents of Steve DelBianco is to take complex issues and > to distill them down into simple to understand concepts that can be easily > repeated to make a lasting impact on this listener. I think we > “contactability” is a 1990’s concept that no longer scales to the reality > of today’s internet where DNS is widely being recognized as critical > infrastructure under national law. This reality I think necessitates that > we approach RDDS data accuracy and access from an accountability > perspective. > > > > Channeling my inner Steve and Jonathan, I think the three key bullet > points on a single power point slide would be: > > > > Contractability, Accountability and Trust. I would just use these three > words on the slide to have the listener pay attention to the message I was > conveying. I would then use the following talking points to expand on each > bullet point. > > > > “Contactability” is an outdated concept from the 1990’s > > > > “Accountability” is the proper concept to align with DNS being viewed as > critical national infrastructure > > > > “Trust” in an eco-system is possible when are participants can be held > accountable > > > > Jonathan, I welcome your thoughts on how close I got to the Steve > DelBianco gold standard? > > > > Best regards, > > > > Michael > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *From: *Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com> > *Date: *Sunday, February 16, 2025 at 3:39 PM > *To: *Jonathan Zuck <JZuck(a)innovatorsnetwork.org> > *Cc: *Alan Greenberg <greenberg.alan(a)gmail.com>, CPWG <cpwg(a)icann.org>, > ALAC <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, michael palage.com < > michael(a)palage.com> > *Subject: *Re: [ALAC] Re: Statement on Registration Data Accuracy > > I see all this and I’m still gobsmacked how easy it is to connive at > error. Leading……well, um threshold questions are always intended to > enforce adaption of a set narrative. That should be rejected for cause. > > There is no successful contradiction for the evidence of inaccuracy in > contact data and the registration system still lacks meaningful enforcement > of the existing data accuracy policy for the DNS. It remains astonishing > how easily errors persist—registrars are required to warrant that > registrants provide valid contact details, yet verification remains weak. > ICANN’s policy demands that registrars validate and periodically review > phone and email contacts, even as these are constantly changing and too > often left unchecked. > > Here is what we know for sure. The self-regulated registration data > (WHOIS) accuracy model has failed. We have undeniable proof: emails don’t > resolve, phone numbers are unreachable, and registrars face no real > consequences for non-compliance. What we have here is a policy that exists > in theory but not in practice*.* ICANN, the supposed master regulator, > has failed to enforce its own policy. Evidence of oversight is weak to > non-existent, and without penalties, registrars have no incentive to comply. > > Enter NIS2, which flips the script on registration data (WHOIS) accuracy. > It raises the bar on verification, intends enforcement of legally binding > government oversight and introduces penalties for non-compliance. So now, > the hue and cry. Because if the EU enforces this directive as law, it would > fragment the domain registration landscape, resulting in divergent > verification standards, conflicting enforcement mechanisms, and inevitable > clashes with GDPR. Lawyers will thrive with the legal grey areas now at > play. > > But let’s not get lost in the noise. If the true goal of the registration > data (WHOIS) accuracy *is *contactability, then who the registrant claims > to be is secondary. Whether they identify as Wile E. Coyote, Donald D. > Duck, or Jack Schitt shouldn’t matter. So long as they can be reached via a > valid phone number or email. And if they cannot be reached, there are > consequences. > > Carlton > > > ============================== > *Carlton A Samuels* > > *Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & > Turnaround* > ============================= > > > > > > On Fri, 14 Feb 2025 at 14:02, Jonathan Zuck via ALAC <alac(a)icann.org> > wrote: > > Thanks for your work on this! As I read it, it seems to be missing the end > user impact assessment that we have begun to incorporate in such comments. > We make the point that we’re not the experts but instead rely on the > expertise of others but could we site some of those experts to lay out a > few bullets that tie this exercise back to our mandate and remit? > > > > *From:* Alan Greenberg <greenberg.alan(a)gmail.com> > *Sent:* Thursday, February 13, 2025 12:10 PM > *To:* Jonathan Zuck <JZuck(a)innovatorsnetwork.org> > *Cc:* CPWG <cpwg(a)icann.org>; ALAC <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>; Michael > Palage <michael(a)palage.com> > *Subject:* Statement on Registration Data Accuracy > > > > Jonathan, the statement in response to the GNSO query related to > registration data accuracy is not finalized. > > > > It is a significant enhancement on the version discussed during > yesterday's CPWG meeting, but is *identical *in its overall intent. > > > > It is a much stronger and hopefully effective message. > > > > It was a collaborative effort of Michael, Cheryl, Justine and me. > > > > You can find it at > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uvGxFjlKMscGweIb-29UKc46ycgGKADbRA4NCp6… > > > > Alan > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC mailing list -- alac(a)icann.org > To unsubscribe send an email to alac-leave(a)icann.org > > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org > ALAC Working Wiki: > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > _______________________________________________ > By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your > personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance > with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and > the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos) You can > visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or > configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or > disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. > >

1 0

Re: [CPWG] Re: Re: Statement on Registration Data Accuracy
by alberto＠soto.net.ar Feb. 17, 2025

Feb. 17, 2025

Let us not forget that the use of this effective tool provides security to the DNS, thus providing security to various members of our multi-stakeholder system. So, perhaps, ICANN could consider the possibility of making some agreement with these government providers so that the cost is zero. I am writing this on behalf of the end users of the Internet. Regards Alberto De: Theo Geurts <atlarge(a)dcx.nl> Enviado el: lunes, 17 de febrero de 2025 11:48 Para: alberto(a)soto.net.ar; Steinar Grøtterød <steinar(a)recito.no>; Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com>; 'Jonathan Zuck' <JZuck(a)innovatorsnetwork.org> CC: Bill Jouris via CPWG <cpwg(a)icann.org>; 'ALAC' <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>; 'Michael Palage' <michael(a)palage.com> Asunto: Re: [CPWG] Re: [ALAC] Re: Statement on Registration Data Accuracy Great suggestion/example Alberto, And yes in Germany and Belgium, you pay for the digital signature, which shifts the costs to the registrant. I do not know if that is bad or a good solution. But I do agree that a better understanding of what the options are of the governments of 193 countries is important to know. Also, what does it mean in terms of accuracy when there are no commercial or governmental services for certain countries? Will there be a shift where registrants decide not to pay 5 USD for a signature because they figured out if they provide country X which has none of the above to avoid those costs? Best, Theo On Mon, Feb 17, 2025, at 2:24 PM, alberto(a)soto.net.ar <mailto:alberto@soto.net.ar> wrote: Agree. In these particular cases, it would be necessary to find out whether the service provided by governments is chargeable or free of charge. I believe that Germany in some cases has a small fee. The Belgian government offers digital signature services through the Belgian Certification Authority (GlobalSign). It should be noted that these digital certificates allow citizens and companies to sign electronic documents in a secure and legally valid manner. The German government provides digital signature services through the Federal Authority for Information Technology and Data Protection (BSI). Best Alberto De: Theo Geurts <atlarge(a)dcx.nl <mailto:atlarge@dcx.nl> > Enviado el: lunes, 17 de febrero de 2025 10:15 Para: Steinar Grøtterød <steinar(a)recito.no <mailto:steinar@recito.no> >; alberto(a)soto.net.ar <mailto:alberto@soto.net.ar> ; Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com <mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com> >; 'Jonathan Zuck' <JZuck(a)innovatorsnetwork.org <mailto:JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> > CC: Bill Jouris via CPWG <cpwg(a)icann.org <mailto:cpwg@icann.org> >; 'ALAC' <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> >; 'Michael Palage' <michael(a)palage.com <mailto:michael@palage.com> > Asunto: Re: [CPWG] Re: [ALAC] Re: Statement on Registration Data Accuracy Steinar, While you raise a valid point, it is part of a more extensive economic discussion. To have better or more accurate data, it needs to be combined with verification systems, or else it does not make sense. Mickey Mouse with a valid address is still not accurate data. These verification systems are costly. To verify Dutch registrants, would cost around 400.000 Euros each year for the registrar I work for. Belgium registrants will set us back around 200.000 Euros. So with only two countries, it is 600.000 Euros a year and I still need to cover 191 other countries. With the current profit margins, the entire thing is not economically feasible. Sure prices can go up, but at some point, people cannot afford a domain name and then the issue of the digital divide enters the discussion. Best, Theo On Mon, Feb 17, 2025, at 12:22 PM, Steinar Grøtterød via CPWG wrote: Please remember that some registrars operate in a global marked with registrants from all over the world. Implementing multiple Digital Signature Systems will - as a minimum - increase the registration fees. Regards, Steinar Grøtterød From: Alberto Soto via CPWG <cpwg(a)icann.org <mailto:cpwg@icann.org> > Date: Monday, 17 February 2025 at 12:04 To: 'Carlton Samuels' <carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com <mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com> >, 'Jonathan Zuck' <JZuck(a)innovatorsnetwork.org <mailto:JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> > Cc: 'CPWG' <cpwg(a)icann.org <mailto:cpwg@icann.org> >, 'ALAC' <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> >, 'Michael Palage' <michael(a)palage.com <mailto:michael@palage.com> > Subject: [CPWG] Re: [ALAC] Re: Statement on Registration Data Accuracy I believe that as an ALAC Member I would suggest that all registration be done through a Digital Signature provider. Currently, multi-million dollar contracts are signed through this system. A and B want to sign that contract. But they are far away, or they do not have a way to verify the identity with correct data on the other side, and they want to make sure that they are specifically identified. Then they turn to C, a Digital Signature service provider. There are many governments that have the system and offer it for free. C is responsible for verifying both A and B, and after doing so, the contract is signed digitally with a double key (public and private), and it is sent partially encrypted to both parties. In C, the security and permanence of the contract is ensured. I proposed it several times, but there was no repercussion. Kind regards Alberto De: Carlton Samuels via ALAC <alac(a)icann.org <mailto:alac@icann.org> > Enviado el: domingo, 16 de febrero de 2025 17:39 Para: Jonathan Zuck <JZuck(a)innovatorsnetwork.org <mailto:JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> > CC: Alan Greenberg <greenberg.alan(a)gmail.com <mailto:greenberg.alan@gmail.com> >; CPWG <cpwg(a)icann.org <mailto:cpwg@icann.org> >; ALAC <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> >; Michael Palage <michael(a)palage.com <mailto:michael@palage.com> > Asunto: [ALAC] Re: Statement on Registration Data Accuracy I see all this and I’m still gobsmacked how easy it is to connive at error. Leading……well, um threshold questions are always intended to enforce adaption of a set narrative. That should be rejected for cause. There is no successful contradiction for the evidence of inaccuracy in contact data and the registration system still lacks meaningful enforcement of the existing data accuracy policy for the DNS. It remains astonishing how easily errors persist—registrars are required to warrant that registrants provide valid contact details, yet verification remains weak. ICANN’s policy demands that registrars validate and periodically review phone and email contacts, even as these are constantly changing and too often left unchecked. Here is what we know for sure. The self-regulated registration data (WHOIS) accuracy model has failed. We have undeniable proof: emails don’t resolve, phone numbers are unreachable, and registrars face no real consequences for non-compliance. What we have here is a policy that exists in theory but not in practice. ICANN, the supposed master regulator, has failed to enforce its own policy. Evidence of oversight is weak to non-existent, and without penalties, registrars have no incentive to comply. Enter NIS2, which flips the script on registration data (WHOIS) accuracy. It raises the bar on verification, intends enforcement of legally binding government oversight and introduces penalties for non-compliance. So now, the hue and cry. Because if the EU enforces this directive as law, it would fragment the domain registration landscape, resulting in divergent verification standards, conflicting enforcement mechanisms, and inevitable clashes with GDPR. Lawyers will thrive with the legal grey areas now at play. But let’s not get lost in the noise. If the true goal of the registration data (WHOIS) accuracy is contactability, then who the registrant claims to be is secondary. Whether they identify as Wile E. Coyote, Donald D. Duck, or Jack Schitt shouldn’t matter. So long as they can be reached via a valid phone number or email. And if they cannot be reached, there are consequences. Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround ============================= On Fri, 14 Feb 2025 at 14:02, Jonathan Zuck via ALAC <alac(a)icann.org <mailto:alac@icann.org> > wrote: Thanks for your work on this! As I read it, it seems to be missing the end user impact assessment that we have begun to incorporate in such comments. We make the point that we’re not the experts but instead rely on the expertise of others but could we site some of those experts to lay out a few bullets that tie this exercise back to our mandate and remit? From: Alan Greenberg <greenberg.alan(a)gmail.com <mailto:greenberg.alan@gmail.com> > Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2025 12:10 PM To: Jonathan Zuck <JZuck(a)innovatorsnetwork.org <mailto:JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> > Cc: CPWG <cpwg(a)icann.org <mailto:cpwg@icann.org> >; ALAC <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> >; Michael Palage <michael(a)palage.com <mailto:michael@palage.com> > Subject: Statement on Registration Data Accuracy Jonathan, the statement in response to the GNSO query related to registration data accuracy is not finalized. It is a significant enhancement on the version discussed during yesterday's CPWG meeting, but is identical in its overall intent. It is a much stronger and hopefully effective message. It was a collaborative effort of Michael, Cheryl, Justine and me. You can find it at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uvGxFjlKMscGweIb-29UKc46ycgGKADbRA4NCp6… Alan _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list -- alac(a)icann.org <mailto:alac@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to alac-leave(a)icann.org <mailto:alac-leave@icann.org> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos) You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg(a)icann.org <mailto:cpwg@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave(a)icann.org <mailto:cpwg-leave@icann.org> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos) You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

1 0