- ALAC - lists.icann.org

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

Feb. 17, 2025

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> Enviado el: lunes, 17 de febrero de 2025 10:15 Para: Steinar Grøtterød <steinar(a)recito.no>; alberto(a)soto.net.ar; 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 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

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

Feb. 17, 2025

Agreed, but it should be noted that the registry will be secure, and that there are also government service providers, free of charge. Perhaps this merits a thorough survey of free digital signature providers, or to see what the implementation cost is in certain places. Perhaps even an ICANN agreement with free services. Regards Alberto De: Steinar Grøtterød <steinar(a)recito.no> Enviado el: lunes, 17 de febrero de 2025 09:23 Para: alberto(a)soto.net.ar; 'Carlton Samuels' <carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com>; '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> Asunto: Re: [CPWG] Re: [ALAC] Re: Statement on Registration Data Accuracy 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 Im still gobsmacked how easy it is to connive at error. Leadingwell, 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 persistregistrars are required to warrant that registrants provide valid contact details, yet verification remains weak. ICANNs 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 dont 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 lets 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 shouldnt 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 were 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-29UKc46ycgGKADbRA4NCp66 eDA 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+(ALA C) _______________________________________________ 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.

2 1

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

Feb. 17, 2025

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

3 2

ccNSO Report on last Council meeting and updates
by Laura Margolis Feb. 17, 2025

Feb. 17, 2025

Dear All: Here is the report of the ccNSO meeting *#214* held on February 13th., 2025, at noon UTC. *LINKS to:* Full AGENDA <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/ALAC+Liaison+to+the+ccNSO+Repor…> Last written WG updates <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dq2PC7nw08VF0hObdvfrZPd2UmJjOYcPFx9L92f…> (February) ccNSO wikipage <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=486014979> with meeting documents and information Full REPORT #214 <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/ALAC+Liaison+to+the+ccNSO+Repor…> Before going to through the agenda meeting, I would like to *highlight *the following topics: *DNS ABUSE Standing Committee (DASC <https://ccnso.icann.org/en/workinggroups/dasc.htm>):* This committee will present the final results of the survey during a webinar on *February 26th. 2025 at noon UTC.* If you would like to Register in advance for this meeting: https://icann.zoom.us/meeting/register/tJMqdOqvrTwtE93KSPSuDIZpqN4rO72QfPLz After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the meeting. *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://ccnso.icann.org/en/workinggroups/dasc.htm>, focusing on trends in DNS abuse mitigation across ccTLDs. Key findings were presented at ICANN81 (Recording <https://icann.zoom.us/rec/share/zWumndZHMqGn4sjgKNNynoziqxyfOMpDDmfPzhN_gwl…> | Slides <https://static.sched.com/hosted_files/icann81/c1/ICANN81%20_%20DASC%20_%209…> ). *I will send this link in a separate email as a reminder* *POLICY GAP ANALYSIS WORKING GROUP (PGA WG <https://ccnso.icann.org/en/workinggroups/pga-wg.htm>)* Link to the full document of the prioritization framework The PGA-WG has completed its analysis of potential issues identified by IANA and now needs to prioritize them for testing with the ccTLD community at ICANN82. This document proposes a draft prioritization framework based on three key factors: IANA priority, impact on ccTLDs, and the level of effort required for resolution. Each factor is scored from 0 to 5, with equal weighting, and the results will be aggregated and reviewed by the group. The identified issues will be addressed through ccNSO Study Groups, with the possibility of a Policy Development Process (PDP) if formal policy changes are needed. The prioritization process aims to ensure efficiency, addressing the most impactful and least complex issues first while maintaining consistency with IANA’s recommendations. *RESULTS of the COUNCIL WORKSHOPS to INCREASE THE CAPACITY OF THE ccNSO* The ccNSO Council workshops focused on increasing capacity to enhance efficiency, effectiveness, and legitimacy within the ccTLD community. The discussions centered on two key areas: *increasing resourcing* and *improving working methods*. To boost participation, strategies such as outreach to regional organizations, targeted engagement with ccTLD managers, onboarding programs, branding efforts, and enhanced collaboration with other groups were proposed. Improving working methods involves fostering active collaboration during meetings, forming smaller, goal-oriented working groups, using standardized tools, and maintaining a focus on measurable deliverables. A roadmap with KPIs will be developed, discussed, and executed by the Council, with community support. Additionally, the workshops emphasized the importance of clearly defining goals and staying focused on ccTLD-specific challenges while avoiding distractions outside their scope. *If you want the document with full results, I can email it.* *ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS* *Completed action items:* *From meeting 212: *Alejandra Reynoso noted that the updates included matters of importance for the ccNSO Council to consider. Firstly, the upcoming public comment on the IANA Function Review (IFR), and secondly, regarding the Root Server System Governance Working Group (RSS GWG). Peter Koch, ccNSO appointee to both IFRT and RSS GWG, suggested that the Council should examine these topics in more detail. Discussion scheduled for meeting 214. *See item 11a. * *Action Item 213-01* As soon as possible and after adoption of the resolution, the Chair of the ccNSO Council is requested to submit the *ccNSO response to the request for public comments on the Continuous Improvement Framework* to ICANN, on behalf of the Council and the GRC. *Action item 213-02* The ccNSO Secretariat is requested to keep the progress of the Pilot Holistic Review as a standing item on the Council agenda. *Action item 213-03* The secretariat is requested to publish the resolution regarding the adoption of the Council Election Report as soon as possible and to inform the GRC about the Council request to review the ccNSO Council Election Guideline, taking into account the recommendations by the Council Election Process Manager as included in the 2025 Election Report. *Action item 213-04* Regarding the appointment of the leadership team to the second ccNSO Finance WG, the secretariat is requested to inform the working group and the secretariat is requested to publish this resolution as soon as possible on the ccNSO website. *Action item 213-05* Regarding the adoption of the DASC Review Report, the secretariat is requested to inform the working group and ask the working group to take appropriate action. The secretariat is requested to publish this resolution as soon as possible on the ccNSO website. *Action item 213-07* The ccNSO Secretariat is requested to circulate the outline and background materials with all invited, prior to the virtual Council workshop on 23 January. *Action item 213-08* The ccNSO Secretariat is requested to circulate to Council the proposed timeline and background materials and to take all other measures necessary to start the next round of Council 360 reviews. *UPDATES:* Please click on the following links for detailed written updates: *WORKING GROUPS and COMMITTEES <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dq2PC7nw08VF0hObdvfrZPd2UmJjOYcPFx9L92f…> * *ccNSO appointed Liaisons (ALAC <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/486014979/ccNSO%20Liason%2…>, GNSO <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/486014979/ccNSO%C2%A0Liais…>, UASG <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/486014979/UASG%C2%A0work%C…>)* *Progress ccPDP3-RM and ccPDP4-IDNs Board Consideration* *a. Update ccPDP4 IDN ccTLDs* The Board Caucus is reviewing the ccPDP4 recommendations, comparing them with Fast Track Process and the GNSO EPDP. ccNSO was asked to align with GNSO PDP efforts. Hence the comparison. The caucus will meet again next week. Staff is following up. *b. Debrief conversation ccPDP3-RM* The ccPDP3-RM debrief conversation was productive, with ICANN lawyers and board members receiving necessary clarifications, led by Becky. No unresolved issues were identified, and the implementation process is expected to proceed smoothly. While the discussion took time, participants acknowledged the value of the process and the lessons learned. *Update IFRT and RRSG working party * *IFRT* Peter Koch, one of the ccNSO appointees to both the IANA Function Review Team (IFRT) and the Root Server System Governance Working Group (RSS GWG), suggested that the Council should examine these topics in more detail. He provided an update on the ongoing IANA Functions Review, which marks the second evaluation of the naming functions contract. The review involves multiple appointees from different stakeholder groups, including three from the ccNSO, supported by ICANN staff and an editor drafting the report, expected to be ready by ICANN82. No systemic issues have been identified, and PTI’s performance is being assessed against the naming functions contract, with the CSC conducting monthly reviews based on service level agreements (SLAs). However, while SLAs measure defined criteria, there can be discrepancies in customer experience. A key carry-over from the previous review was a recommendation leading to a bylaw change that required the inclusion of a non-ccNSO member, which posed challenges. Additionally, the ccNSO and GNSO had suggested adjusting the review frequency, which is now under consideration. The review has also brought attention to the ombuds team’s role in the customer complaint process, though it has never been utilized. A potential overlap with upcoming review mechanisms in ccPDP-RM needs to be analyzed once the draft report is available. Furthermore, to enhance awareness among ccTLDs, a *webinar-style session was proposed* as a lightweight alternative to the public comment process. Discussions also touched upon clarifying the review timeline, emphasizing that the review period should start at the conclusion rather than the initiation of the process to avoid confusion with the IFRT’s five-year cycle and the CSC’s three-year review framework. *RSSG WG - Root Server System Governance WG* The Root Server System Governance Working Group (WG) consists of numerous members, including 12 root server operators, the RZ maintainer, IANA, RySG, and ccNSO. The WG focuses on governance aspects beyond the root zone, such as how to manage the resignation or replacement of a root zone operator. The issue has significant political implications, and after an initial stalled attempt, the group is now in its second iteration. A key discussion point is the power dynamics of RZ operators, including their rights to remain, exit, or be succeeded. Additionally, financial concerns have emerged, particularly regarding funding for the governance structure and root server operators, who are currently self-funded. The group is also deliberating on whether the structure should be incorporated similarly to PTI or remain independent of ICANN, with resistance against a domain tax on ccTLDs. A proposed governance model suggests equal representation between operators and TLDs (12 root server operators, 6 ccTLDs, 6 gTLDs), but finding consistent ccTLD and gTLD representatives remains a challenge, potentially requiring weighted votes. ICANN's Board Chair expressed concerns about the slow progress at ICANN 81, urging clarity on governance commitments and financial models, as these factors could delay decisions. Discussions also touched on the historical evolution of root server operations, their non-profit nature, and the risks of political influence. The next steps involve determining whether outstanding governance and funding issues should be resolved before establishing the structure or integrated into it. A working paper is expected before the upcoming Prague meeting, with further discussions planned for Seattle. A small council group may also be formed to develop a ccNSO position for public comment. *ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS and DECISIONS* *Board Seat 12 Nomination Process by the Nomination Process Manager* *a. Update Voting Process* Voting for the election opened on February 4th. and will close on Tuesday, February 18th., at 23:59 UTC. Candidates Byron and Nick have participated in a Q&A session at ICANN 81 and a virtual Q&A with ccNSO members and the broader ccTLD community last February 4th.. As of the time of the current council meeting, 82 votes have been received, representing 46% of the total emissaries. There is no quorum requirement under the ccNSO Rules and applicable guidelines, and no irregularities have been reported. Link to vote tracker: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/15e87XDydXstbUmUuy5d50grH_f5B-v9lDXw… *b. Continuous Improvement initiatives* On January 31st., Pablo Rodriguez participated in the Trinidad and Tobago IGF, invited by the Caribbean ITU, engaging with representatives from 29 island states. The session introduced the ccNSO, highlighted its benefits, and promoted participation in Board Seat 12 voting. The importance of regional involvement was emphasized, and ongoing discussions will continue in the LAC Space Session in Seattle. Alejandra Reynoso, who also attended, noted the positive reception but questioned measurable success. Pablo emphasized that awareness was raised, but the impact on participation and potential new members remains to be seen. Alejandra suggested tracking votes and considering other events that promoted the vote for inclusion in the report. *Roles and Responsibilities Councillors, including Chair and Vice-Chair Election* The upcoming Seattle meeting will focus on assigning individual roles and responsibilities within various committees. A detailed overview is available here <https://ccnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/field-attached/roles-responsibi…>. Participants will be required to sign up for a role, so early consideration is encouraged. Additionally, the election for Chair and Vice-chair will take place, with nominations, secondments, and acceptances occurring during the Council meeting. It is expected that these positions will be filled by representatives from different regions. *Appointment members and chairs/vice chairs to committees and working groups* *New Members appointed:* *IGLC: <https://ccnso.icann.org/en/workinggroups/iglc.htm>* Devesh Tyagi (.in) Davi Severiano Goia Cabral D'almada (.gw) Maria Camila Rojas Azula (.co) Margarita Valdés (.cl) *MPC: <https://ccnso.icann.org/en/workinggroups/mpwg.htm>* Devesh Tyagi (.in) Heidy Isabel Hernández Lopez (.gt) Erdem Bayrak (.tr) *SUBSTANTIVE MATTERS & DECISIONS* *Assessment feedback on change of affiliation of elected Councillor* *Draft Resolution* *Background* Over the years Councillors selected by ccNSO members have changed their affiliation, during their term, starting in 2004. To deal with this type of situations, a practice has evolved that the ccNSO members from the region who have selected the Councillor, do not object that the selected Councillor continues to serve for the duration of the term. In addition, in case the former employer of the Councillor was a ccTLD Manager, this Manager should not object, as well as the new organization, if any, to which the Councillor would be affiliated. To date this practice is not documented as such. *Decision* The ccNSO Council requests the ccNSO Guideline Review Committee (GRC, to document the current practice regarding the change of affiliation of elected Councillors, and include it in the review of the ccNSO Council Election Process Guideline, which is already undertaken. If, in documenting the practice, issues become apparent, the GRC is requested to suggest to Council ways in which these issues may be addressed. The secretariat is requested to publish this resolution as soon as feasible. This resolution becomes effective seven (7) days after publication. The secretariat is requested to inform the GRC, as soon as this resolution becomes effective. *Note:** This has been discussed because of a situation with a new Councillor recently elected that left his position at the NIC before starting his position as a Councillor.* If you have any questions, or you would like me to deep dive into any of these topics, please let me know. 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

GNSO Council 13 February 2025 meeting agenda is out
by Justine Chew Feb. 15, 2025

Feb. 15, 2025

Dear all, Just a note to inform you that the agenda for the GNSO Council meeting on 13 February 2025 is out. For a curated version of the highlighted agenda items, please visit this link. *GNSO Council Meeting #2 of 2025 held on 13 Feb 2025 <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/GNSO+Liaison+Report%2C+post-Oct…> * *Full Agenda <https://community.icann.org/x/eQByG> | Documents <https://community.icann.org/x/HgBbGQ> | Motions <https://community.icann.org/x/NABbGQ>* - *Item 1: Administrative Matters* - 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-nominated ICANN Fellowship Program Mentor and Selection Committee Member positions - Mentor: Glen De Saint Géry - Selection Committee Member: Maud Adjeley Ashong Elliot - Confirm the Latin Script Diacritics PDP WG Chair - Michael Bauland - *Item 4: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Update on ICANN’s Enforcement of DNS Abuse Mitigation Requirements - Six Month Progress Update* - *Item 5: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - Next Steps for Policy and Implementation Policy Status Report* - *Item 6: COUNCIL DISCUSSION - EPDP Phase 1 on the Temporary Specification - Implementation Question re: Billing Contact* - *Item 7: COUNCIL DISCUSSION: Final Report of the Transfer Policy Review PDP Working Group* - Item 8: COUNCIL DISCUSSION: Outcomes of Strategic Planning Session - Item 9: Any Other Business - 9.1 - ICANN82 planning update This Council meeting will take place on 13 February at 21:00 - 23:00 UTC and is open to observers remotely in listen-only mode via Zoom. If you would like to observe the meeting, please check this link for details. 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…> ------

2 3

Fwd: Statement on Registration Data Accuracy
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 14, 2025

Feb. 14, 2025

Resent to ALAC list with correct From address... ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Alan Greenberg <greenberg.alan(a)gmail.com> Date: Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 3:05 PM Subject: Re: Statement on Registration Data Accuracy 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> Given that today is the due-date and this is not a formal ALAC public statement, I would leave it be. You could replace the sentence However, we have strong opinions on the issue based on input from trusted law enforcement entities, and consumer protection and fraud specialists. with However, a prime At-Large mandate is the protection of Internet end users, and on input from trusted law enforcement entities, and consumer protection and fraud specialists indicates that registration data accuracy is a significant problem. Note that the Googledoc pointer is no longer current. See the At-Large Workspace ( https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=543260704) or the link to the google doc that is pending ratification in case the wiki is not working ( https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JJ8u8aSYQYoIwKHLVHTXjDlj5N_umG7AkEQwBgx…) Alan On Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 2:02 PM Jonathan Zuck <JZuck(a)innovatorsnetwork.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 > > > > >

1 0

Fwd: Statement on Registration Data Accuracy
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 13, 2025

Feb. 13, 2025

Original sent from wrong address and rejected. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Alan Greenberg <greenberg.alan(a)gmail.com> Date: Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 3:10 PM Subject: Statement on Registration Data Accuracy 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> 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

1 0

Re: [CPWG] Statement on Registration Data Accuracy
by Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond Feb. 13, 2025

Feb. 13, 2025

Thanks all - note that I have made a minor grammatical suggestion. Best, Olivier On 13/02/2025 20:10, Alan Greenberg via CPWG wrote: > 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 > >

1 0

Re: Follow-Up on OFB Meeting – CIP Comment Timeline Review
by Alfredo Calderon Feb. 11, 2025

Feb. 11, 2025

14 29

Re: Second call for Community Comment & Call for final Endorsement before 09 Feb - ICANN FY26–30 Operating & Financial Plan, ICANN/IANA FY26 Op Plans & Budgets
by Silvia Vivanco Feb. 10, 2025

Feb. 10, 2025

Dear ALAC members and OFB WG members, Kindly see the Final draft of the ALAC statement on the ICANN FY26–30 Operating & Financial Plan, ICANN/IANA FY26 Op Plans & Budgets<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=430473273> This is a second call for comments and Final endorsement. If you have comments, please insert them using the comment function so your contribution is identifiable before Sunday 9 February 23:59 UTC See Google doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1htYDhb5bU-Yy9pScpEekjDepvOllY3CNXrve513… The ALAC vote will be launched from Feb 10-13. Due date is Feb 14th. Thank you very much! Silvia From: Silvia Vivanco <silvia.vivanco(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, February 6, 2025 at 7:59 PM To: OFB-WG <ofb-wg(a)icann.org>, "alac(a)icann.org" <alac(a)icann.org> Cc: At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> Subject: Second call for Community Comment & Call for final Endorsement by 09 Feb - ICANN FY26–30 Operating & Financial Plan, ICANN/IANA FY26 Op Plans & Budgets Dear ALAC members and OFB WG members, Kindly see the Final draft of the ALAC statement on the ICANN FY26–30 Operating & Financial Plan, ICANN/IANA FY26 Op Plans & Budgets<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=430473273> This is a second call for comments and Final endorsement. If you have comments, please insert them using the comment function, so your contribution is identifiable. See Google doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1htYDhb5bU-Yy9pScpEekjDepvOllY3CNXrve513… The ALAC vote will be launched from Feb 10-13. Due date is Feb 14th. 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_1019168058]

2 1