- ALAC - lists.icann.org

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

March 4, 2019

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

2 1

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

March 2, 2019

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

6 8

Bad Actor Admission
by John Laprise March 1, 2019

March 1, 2019

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

11 21

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

March 1, 2019

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

2 1

Fwd: FOLLOW UP (Re: ICANN64 Cross Community Session: Next Steps in ICANN's Response to the GDPR)
by Maureen Hilyard March 1, 2019

March 1, 2019

Dear ALAC and ALT+ Here is a thread that has been received from Mary Wong (originally from Steve DelBianco) about ICANN64 Cross Community Session: Next Steps in ICANN's Response to the GDPR. For your information. (Apologies for any cross-posting) Maureen ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Date: Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 7:24 AM Subject: FOLLOW UP (Re: ICANN64 Cross Community Session: Next Steps in ICANN's Response to the GDPR) To: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org> Cc: Chantelle Doerksen <chantelle.doerksen(a)icann.org>, Carlos Reyes < carlos.reyes(a)icann.org>, Cyrus Namazi <cyrus.namazi(a)icann.org>, Bruna Santos <bruna.mrtns(a)gmail.com>, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard(a)gmail.com>, Manal Ismail <manal(a)tra.gov.eg>, Rod Rasmussen <rod(a)rodrasmussen.com>, Maria Otanes <maria.otanes(a)icann.org>, Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin(a)team.neustar> Hello again Steve and everyone, FYI that the session description is now up on the ICANN64 public meeting schedule: https://64.schedule.icann.org/meetings/961913. I hope it is all right that staff took the liberty of not including a mention of the GNSO Council vote, as that will take place only on 4 March and the schedule is viewable as of today. We will be sure to update the description accordingly following the Council’s vote. Once again, we remain available to assist you with planning and managing the session. Please feel free to use this thread to continue any discussions you may wish to have as regards organizing the session. Thank you! Cheers Mary *From: *Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> *Date: *Wednesday, February 27, 2019 at 23:06 *To: *Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org> *Cc: *Chantelle Doerksen <chantelle.doerksen(a)icann.org>, Carlos Reyes < carlos.reyes(a)icann.org>, Cyrus Namazi <cyrus.namazi(a)icann.org>, Bruna Santos <bruna.mrtns(a)gmail.com>, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard(a)gmail.com>, Manal Ismail <manal(a)tra.gov.eg>, Rod Rasmussen <rod(a)rodrasmussen.com>, Maria Otanes <maria.otanes(a)icann.org>, "Austin, Donna" <Donna.Austin(a)team.neustar> *Subject: *Re: [Ext] Re: ICANN64 Cross Community Session: Next Steps in ICANN's Response to the GDPR Thank you, Steve! All, unless anyone has concerns about the proposed session description, we will proceed to post it for now to the public schedule (understanding, of course, that it can be updated following additional discussions among this group) Thanks and cheers Mary *From: *Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org> *Date: *Wednesday, February 27, 2019 at 15:28 *To: *Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> *Cc: *Chantelle Doerksen <chantelle.doerksen(a)icann.org>, Carlos Reyes < carlos.reyes(a)icann.org>, Cyrus Namazi <cyrus.namazi(a)icann.org>, Bruna Santos <bruna.mrtns(a)gmail.com>, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard(a)gmail.com>, Manal Ismail <manal(a)tra.gov.eg>, Rod Rasmussen <rod(a)rodrasmussen.com>, Maria Otanes <maria.otanes(a)icann.org>, "Austin, Donna" <Donna.Austin(a)team.neustar> *Subject: *[Ext] Re: ICANN64 Cross Community Session: Next Steps in ICANN's Response to the GDPR Here’s a proposed Session Description for *“Next Steps in ICANN’s Response to the GDPR”* The EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) took effect May-2018, prompting ICANN Org to change how it enforces Whois policies. The GNSO launched an expedited policy development process (EPDP) to replace a Temporary Specification that expires May-2019. Last month, the EPDP produced policy recommendations to replace the Temporary Specification, as approved by the GNSO Council on 4-Mar. The ICANN Board is now accepting public comments before it votes to approve the EPDP policy. That’s what happened so far with GDPR and Whois. This session will focus on What Happens Next: ICANN Org will work with a GNSO Implementation Review Team on details for the new policy. The EPDP will resume its work to resolve open questions from and to develop policy for a system for standardized access to non-public registration data (also known as a Unified Access Model) ICANN Org and its Technical Study Group will continue work on technical means to support a Unified Access Model. ICANN Org will continue exploring legal framework to support a Unified Access Model. GNSO must decide whether and how to re-start policy development work that had been set aside during the EPDP, including Privacy & proxy services and the procedure for Whois conflicts with Privacy Law. GNSO might even resume work on a new policy framework for registration directory services (RDS). Attend this session to understand and comment on policy work to reconcile ICANN’s Whois policies with privacy laws and legitimate needs for registrant data. On 2/27/19, 2:48 PM, "Mary Wong" <mary.wong(a)icann.org> wrote: Dear all, This note is just a follow up to the initial message from last week (below). As mentioned, we need to upload ASAP at least a tentative placeholder Session Description to the public meeting schedule (https://64.schedule.icann.org/meetings/961913 [64.schedule.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__64.schedule.icann.org_…>) to inform community members as they begin to plan their ICANN64 meeting schedules. We also hope that, by putting together via this email thread all the community leaders who have expressed interest in either planning or having their community groups participate in that session, we can help facilitate a discussion as to the objectives, desired outcomes, preferred format and speaker line-up. In that regard, I’ve been reminded that I should have included Donna Austin (RySG) in the original email, so I have taken the liberty of adding her name to this follow up note. As always, please let Cyrus and me know how Org can assist with the planning, management and logistics of this important session. Thank you! Cheers Mary *From: *Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> *Date: *Friday, February 22, 2019 at 17:24 *To: *Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org> *Cc: *Chantelle Doerksen <chantelle.doerksen(a)icann.org>, Carlos Reyes < carlos.reyes(a)icann.org>, Cyrus Namazi <cyrus.namazi(a)icann.org>, Bruna Santos <bruna.mrtns(a)gmail.com>, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard(a)gmail.com>, Manal Ismail <manal(a)tra.gov.eg>, Rod Rasmussen <rod(a)rodrasmussen.com> *Subject: *ICANN64 Cross Community Session: Next Steps in ICANN's Response to the GDPR Dear Steve (and cc’ing Manal, Maureen, Bruna and Rod), I am writing to you as the chairs of the SO/AC/SG/C groups that had expressed interest in planning the *ICANN64 Cross Community session on “Next Steps in ICANN’s Response to the GDPR”, scheduled for Monday 11 March at 15.15*. I believe that this was a session that had first been proposed by the BC and that, after the last planning call, there is general agreement amongst the community leaders that the session ought to combine a number of other proposals and suggestions (e.g. a unified access model and other specific topics that may be of interest based on the work of the Expedited PDP Team). As we approach the final run-up to ICANN64, I hope that this email will serve to kick off further discussions as to the scope and format of the session. In this regard, please note the following points: - In accordance with what has become the regular practice, Cyrus (cc’d) will be ICANN org’s designated senior executive for the session. - Members of the Policy Team (including me and Carlos Reyes) will be available to assist you with coordination, logistics, programming and overall management of the session. As such, we will need the following information at your earliest convenience: - A *session description* (for posting on the public schedule and meeting website) – this is the most urgently needed item at this point so even a placeholder description that can provide basic information to attendees looking at the meeting schedule will be fine; and - Your *preferred format and room setup* (e.g. will it be run as a panel with a moderator; how many speakers/panelists and who they are; how you wish to handle audience interaction and Q&A etc.). Steve, as the BC initially proposed the session, perhaps you have some ideas that you can share with Cyrus and the group. Thank you all! Best regards, Mary

1 0

Fwd: [ccwg-internet-governance] ITU-D SECTOR MEMBER APPLICATION
by León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Feb. 28, 2019

Feb. 28, 2019

Dear all, This announcement might be of interest to many and in some way follows the publication of the government engagement charter. Kind regards León Enviado desde mi iPhone Inicio del mensaje reenviado: > De: Nigel Hickson <nigel.hickson(a)icann.org> > Fecha: 28 de febrero de 2019, 4:46:16 p. m. CST > Para: ccwg <ccwg-internet-governance(a)icann.org> > Asunto: [ccwg-internet-governance] ITU-D SECTOR MEMBER APPLICATION > > Colleagues > > In respect of previous dialogue on this issue; please see below > > > https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2019-02-28-en > > > Best > > Nigel

1 0

ICANN org publishes Charter on Government Engagement Approach
by León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Feb. 26, 2019

Feb. 26, 2019

Dear all, I know this is a topic that is on top of mind for many of us. Kindly find a blog post from Göran Marby on the ICANN Organization engagement with governments and standards bodies: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/icann-org-publishes-charter-on-government-e… <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/icann-org-publishes-charter-on-government-e…> As you can read in the blog post, ICANN Org’s approach "will be limited to providing technical information on issues, regulations, and legislative efforts that impact ICANN's Mission <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#article1> or Articles of Incorporation <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/articles-en>." This topic is of special interest to those involved in the Internet Governance discussion within our community. I encourage you to read the post and the charter. Your thoughts and feedback are welcome. Best regards, León

4 4

SSAC report
by Andrei Kolesnikov Feb. 25, 2019

Feb. 25, 2019

Dear colleagues, sorry for being late with liaison report. Here we go: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/December+2018+-+February+2019+S… Among many things under discussion, two are in primary focus: DNS hijacking and EPDP activities. See you in Kobe, --andrei -- Andrey Kolesnikov

1 0

Chairs Blog post on Los Angeles Workshop
by León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Feb. 20, 2019

Feb. 20, 2019

Dear all, I would like to share with you a blog post from Cherine Chalaby, Chair of the ICANN Board, that summarizes the Board’s activities in its Los Angeles Workshop. I hope you find this information useful. https://www.icann.org/news/blog/chair-s-blog-wrapping-up-the-los-angeles-wo… <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/chair-s-blog-wrapping-up-the-los-angeles-wo…> Best regards, León

1 0

Fwd: [Gnso-epdp-team] BC Consensus Call Responses
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 18, 2019

Feb. 18, 2019

I think it is safe to say that we fully and strongly support these suggested changes. Any disagreement? Alan From: Margie Milam <margiemilam(a)fb.com> To: "gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org" <gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org> Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2019 17:28:44 +0000 Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] BC Consensus Call Responses Dear Colleagues- The BC and IPC members have been working hard over the weekend to develop our response to the consensus call and GNSO Council voting on the Final Report for EPDP Phase 1<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_di…>. The attached response is just 3 pages long, and reflects close collaboration with the IPC, listing five minor amendments to the Final Report in order to obtain BC and IPC support. We hope to discuss these items with you this week. All the best, Margie Milam and Mark Svancarek BC Representatives on the EPDP _______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team

3 3