- Bc-gnso - lists.icann.org

DNS Abuse session beginning soon
by Steve DelBianco Oct. 25, 2021

Oct. 25, 2021

GNSO: CPH DNS Abuse Work Group Community Update 13:30 - 15:00 EDT on Monday, October 25 https://72.schedule.icann.org/meetings/qfwJq6yvgrTHduqRJ

2 1

Re: [bc-gnso] PTI & IANA FY23
by Tim Smith Oct. 24, 2021

Oct. 24, 2021

Hello everyone: I issued my observations on the PTI and IANA budgets back on October 13 but have not seen any comments or inputs from others – though I have also been having some email issues. I would welcome an update from other committee members. As you recall, our deadline is October 25. Thanks, Tim Smith General Manager Canadian International Pharmacy Association (CIPA) www.cipa.com From: Bc-gnso <bc-gnso-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Tim Smith via Bc-gnso <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Reply-To: Tim Smith <tim.smith(a)cipa.com> Date: Wednesday, October 13, 2021 at 6:08 PM To: "Lawrence O. Olawale-Roberts" <lawrence(a)microboss.org>, "jolufuye kontemporary.net" <jolufuye(a)kontemporary.net>, bc-finance <bc-finance-bounces(a)icann.org> Cc: Steve DelBianco via Bc-gnso <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Subject: [bc-gnso] PTI & IANA FY23 Lawrence and Jimson….and hopefully all others on the Finance Committee: (If I’ve missed anybody, please forward this) Attached are some thoughts that I am presenting related to the BC comment on the budgets. I have been having some email problems and may not have seen any correspondence that others have submitted. Either way, please give me your thoughts on these points along with your own observations so we can pull our comments together. By the way, I haven’t gone back to look at our FY22 comment so my observations are made in isolation at this point. Thanks, Tim Smith General Manager Canadian International Pharmacy Association (CIPA) www.cipa.com _______________________________________________ Bc-gnso mailing list Bc-gnso(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/bc-gnso _______________________________________________ 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

PTI & IANA FY23
by Tim Smith Oct. 13, 2021

Oct. 13, 2021

Lawrence and Jimson….and hopefully all others on the Finance Committee: (If I’ve missed anybody, please forward this) Attached are some thoughts that I am presenting related to the BC comment on the budgets. I have been having some email problems and may not have seen any correspondence that others have submitted. Either way, please give me your thoughts on these points along with your own observations so we can pull our comments together. By the way, I haven’t gone back to look at our FY22 comment so my observations are made in isolation at this point. Thanks, Tim Smith General Manager Canadian International Pharmacy Association (CIPA) www.cipa.com

1 0

BC minority Statement on EPDP Phase 2A Final Report
by Steve DelBianco Sept. 10, 2021

Sept. 10, 2021

BC members – attached is our Minority Statement on the EPDP Phase 2A Final Report Thanks again to our reps on the EPDP, Mark Svancarek and Margie Milam. And thanks to Alex Deacon, Mason Cole, and Drew Bennett for helping draft our minority statement.

1 0

Time Sensitive: Support for Draft GAC Minority Statement?
by Steve DelBianco Sept. 9, 2021

Sept. 9, 2021

Laureen, Thanks for sharing GAC’s minority statement on the EPDP Phase 2A. The GAC’s statement is consistent with BC’s minority statement (current draft<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1phM08XQiVCHmqtBS1EV0XNkv_dkasZ9PfKtKNMp…>) and these previously stated BC positions on EPDP: * BC and IPC submitted a joint minority statement for EPDP Phase 2<https://www.icannbc.org/assets/docs/positions-statements/2020/2020_07July_2…>. * BC Phase 2A Initial Report comments<https://cbu.memberclicks.net/assets/docs/positions-statements/2021/2021_07J…> So, please feel free to indicate that BC Supports the GAC statement. Best, Steve -- Steve DelBianco President & CEO, NetChoice Vice chair, ICANN BC Policy Coordination 703-615-6206 From: "Kapin, Laureen" <LKAPIN(a)ftc.gov> Date: Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 5:56 AM To: "'alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca'" <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>, "brian.kingATmarkmonitor.com" <brian.king(a)markmonitor.com>, Margie Milam <margiemilam(a)fb.com>, "MarksvATmicrosoft.com" <Marksv(a)microsoft.com> Subject: Time Sensitive: Support for Draft GAC Minority Statement? Hi folks, I’m attaching the GAC’s draft minority statement to see if your stakeholder groups would consider supporting it? If so, we would add an indication on the first page indicating such support. Many apologies for the short time frame to consider, however, as you will see, the positions taken are consistent with our views throughout the EPDP Team Phase 2a deliberations. If you might let me know as soon as possible that would be much appreciated because the deadline for submission is Friday. Kind regards, Laureen Kapin Acting Assistant Director Division of Consumer Response and Operations Bureau of Consumer Protection Federal Trade Commission

1 0

Due by 5-Aug: ICANN survey on use of Whois to protect businesses and customers
by Steve DelBianco July 29, 2021

July 29, 2021

BC members, As discussed on our BC call today, we have an important opportunity to inform ICANN board about how often business needs to learn the identify and contact info of a website domain. “ICANN org is looking for participation from community members who request nonpublic domain name registration data. A separate questionnaire will be sent to generic top-level domain (gTLD) registries and ICANN-accredited registrars to gauge how many requests for nonpublic gTLD registration data they currently receive. The questionnaire will help inform the following questions from the ICANN Board's SSAD ODP Scoping Document<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ssad-non-public-registration-da…>”. If you have ever used Whois in any regard, please complete this brief online survey<https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/ssadodpcommunity> by 5-Aug The survey landing page.<https://www.icann.org/en/announcements/details/community-input-needed-ssad-…> The survey questions<https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/ssadodpcommunity> are: 1. In what jurisdiction (country/territory) do you or your organization primarily function? 2. During 2019, what was the monthly average number of requests to disclose nonpublic generic top-level domain (gTLD) domain name registration data that your organization submitted? 3. During 2020, what was the monthly average number of requests to disclose nonpublic generic top-level domain (gTLD) domain name registration data that your organization submitted? 4. If implemented, how likely are you or your organization to use the System for Standardized Access/Disclosure (SSAD) to request nonpublic registration data? 5. If the System for Standardized Access/Disclosure (SSAD) is implemented, what do you estimate would be the monthly average number of requests to disclose nonpublic generic top-level domain (gTLD) domain name registration data that you or your organization would submit? 6. What additional categories of users, besides the ones listed below, do you or your organization believe would be interested in using the System for Standardized Access/Disclosure (SSAD) to access nonpublic domain name registration data? 7. What factor(s) would be most important to you in determining whether to use the System for Standardized Access/Disclosure (SSAD)?

1 0

FILED: BC responses to EPDP Phase 2A Initial Report
by Steve DelBianco July 19, 2021

July 19, 2021

Attached is the BC response to the EPDP Phase 2A Public Comment Form, filed today on this public comment opportunity<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/epdp-phase-2a-initial-report-2021-06-…>. Many thanks to drafters Alex Deacon, Barbara Wanner, Margie Milam, Mark Svancarek, Mason Cole, Andrew Bennett, and Niklas Lagergren.

1 0

ICANN Business Constituency (BC) input on Request for Information on SSAD
by Steve DelBianco July 19, 2021

July 19, 2021

Below and attached is input from the ICANN Business Constituency (BC), in response to ICANN’s Request for Information on Identity Verification Methods for SSAD. Dear ICANN: On behalf of ICANN’s Business Constituency (BC), the following is submitted in reply to ICANN’s Request for Information: Systems and Processes for Standardized System for Access and Disclosure (SSAD). While the BC does not intend to place a formal bid, our constituency is grateful to ICANN for the opportunity to lodge its constructive thoughts and recommendations. Our input is provided in specific reply to Question 31 in RFI Sec. 6.5: If you have any additional information, ideas, knowledge, assumptions, or comments related to this initiative that you think would be beneficial to share, please provide a file attachment of the same here (in the ICANN Sourcing tool). The BC welcomes the opportunity to contribute and invites ICANN to follow up with the BC for further discussion as warranted. _____________________________________________________________________________________________ The BC thanks the ICANN community volunteers and staff who have devoted hundreds of hours of work to Phases 1, 2, and 2a of the expedited policy development process (EPDP), which of course is meant, in part, to describe to the community a utilitarian SSAD. This has been a significant investment of time and resources, and the BC is grateful to volunteers and staff for their ongoing work. Unfortunately, however, the SSAD, as currently proposed, falls short of the ongoing needs of the business, security, law enforcement, rights holders and other communities with legitimate interests in access to and disclosure of domain name registration data (know historically as Whois). The BC -- as well as the Governmental Advisory Committee, the Security and Stability Advisory Committee, the Intellectual Property Constituency, and the At Large Advisory Committee -- all have registered their concerns with the system as currently proposed, and have encouraged EPDP participants to reconsider their output with an eye toward making the system more robust and functional. The BC’s contributions herein are designed to contribute to a more holistic solution to the problem. Further, interceding factors have impacted, or should impact, community considerations. The most significant of these, of course, arises from the European Union (EU) via the European Commission’s (EC) proposed directive on the security of network and information systems (the NIS2 proposal<https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/1…>). This proposed directive clarifies European regulators’ intentions about the availability and accessibility of Whois data which, naturally, should be strongly factored into EPDP deliberations regarding the SSAD. Regrettably, such regulatory developments mostly have been dismissed by the EPDP working group, which leads to the danger of creating a disclosure system that, from the outset, would be non-compliant with European regulation. The need for a highly functioning SSAD is well documented inside and outside the ICANN community. The most recent data set is a survey<https://www.m3aawg.org/sites/default/files/m3aawg_apwg_whois_user_survey_re…> conducted in 2021 by the Messaging Malware Mobile Anti-Abuse Working Group (M3AAWG) and the Anti-Phishing Working Group (APWG) on the impact of Europe’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) on Whois. The survey’s findings come as no surprise to those with a stake in domain name data registration policy: Lack of registrar responsiveness is up, as are delays in providing non-public data for legitimate purposes, both of which have led to, as documented in the survey report, “cyber-investigators…significantly impaired in their ability to investigate relationships between malicious domains and actors.” Data from the study clearly indicates the need for an SSAD that is: * Much more responsive to the time-sensitive nature of online crime and abuse investigations; * Capable of handling registration data requests in bulk, without the need to enter data item-by-item; and * Not a cost burden to investigators, law enforcement, rights holders, and others entitled to non-public registration data for legitimate purposes. It is the hope of the BC that these needs will be reflected in the eventual construct of the SSAD. Here is specific input the BC requests ICANN to consider in its selection of vendors, and in the design of the SSAD: The primary objective of any operational SSAD should be to provide qualified requesters with timely and consistent access to beneficial registrant data in a responsive manner. Unfortunately, ICANN’s bifurcation of its privacy/proxy implementation work and the EPDP policy work has resulted in a proposed SSAD which is not fit for purpose. Specifically, it has resulted in an accreditation and ticketing system that will most likely result in the referral of qualified requesters to privacy/proxy or similar data instead of timely access to the beneficial registrant information they seek. The accuracy of and lack of access to relevant non-public registrant data has been a systemic problem, even pre-dating the creation of ICANN. However, instead of engaging in a holistic approach to finally solve the root problem, the ICANN community has engaged in a nearly two decades-long patchwork approach to address the resulting various harms. Instead of a comprehensive solution, the community, in reality, has had no solution at all. The arrival of the General Data Protection Regulation offers the ICANN community a generational opportunity to finally get it right. Regrettably, however, it is on the precipice of wasting that chance. During ICANN’s SSAD webinar on 13 July 2021, ICANN org stated that the purpose of the now underway Operational Design Phase (ODP) was to “provide the ICANN Board with relevant information to help decide if a recommendation is in the best interest of the ICANN community or ICANN.” The BC submits that proceeding -- at an estimated cost of US$9 million -- with the design and implementation of an SSAD model that is static, does not enjoy a mechanism for evolution, and ultimately does not provide qualified requesters with timely access to the beneficial registrant information is not in the best interest of ICANN community or ICANN. The RFI uniquely positions ICANN not only to complete its Operational Design Assessment but to address registrant verification and know-your-business-customer (KYBC) requirements. While there was consensus within the EPDP on the requirement to properly identify potential requesters, emerging requirements (via the European Union’s Digital Services act and NIS2 directive) impose similar requirements on domain name registration providers. Like the GDPR, these initiatives will require verification of registrant data to ensure accuracy, and have an extraterritorial scope that would have a direct and material impact on the broader domain name industry. The confluence of these facts gives ICANN org an opportunity to proactively address necessary changes rather than play catch-up as it did with the implementation of the GDPR. This should include addressing requirements for privacy/proxy services and providers. Any operational SSAD solution must be built using standardized and open technologies to promote innovation and competition across a geographically diverse marketplace of providers. It is the hope of the BC that ICANN does not repeat the mistakes of the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) by designing and implementing a technologically cumbersome SSAD solution with limited value and vendor exclusivity. There already is a vibrant marketplace of companies providing identity verification and credential issuance services. This marketplace includes established companies such as Certificate Authorities (CAs) that have been doing identity proofing for decades, as well as newer providers using newer technologies. ICANN should employ a solution that permits the interoperability of these different technologies, and in the interest of economic efficiency, permit some requesters to use existing forms of verified identity, provided that the identity provider issuing SSAD credentials meets the requirements established by ICANN. Conclusion While the BC has significant concerns regarding not only the outcomes of SSAD-related policy work but also regarding processes that no longer facilitate compromise, we remain committed to seeking improved outcomes within ICANN’s multistakeholder model that take into account the legitimate needs of those within and outside the ICANN community. ICANN Org now has the opportunity to build on newfound clarity about how GDPR applies to registration data -- clarity it has long sought from European authorities. Now, with better and more reliable information available to it, ICANN should take the responsible path and save time, frustration and resources by making a course correction today: Return to the GNSO Council the task of revising SSAD policy recommendations with an eye toward holistically addressing the matter (incorporating privacy/proxy services). ICANN org should actively promote innovative options that can be evaluated for viability before presenting another incomplete solution. The BC stands ready to participate in such responsible policy development and looks forward to engaging further with ICANN community colleagues to achieve an equitable and usable SSAD. -- This input is based on these previously-approved BC positions: Comments and proposed amendments of the ICANN Business Constituency on provisions of the draft NIS2 Directive related to domain name registration data. May-2021, at https://cbu.memberclicks.net/assets/docs/positions-statements/2021/2021_05M… Comment for Board consideration of EPDP Phase 2 Policy Recommendations. Mar-2021, at https://cbu.memberclicks.net/assets/docs/positions-statements/2021/2021_03M… Minority Statement of the Business Constituency (BC) and Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC) on the EPDP Phase 2 Final Report. Jul-2020, at https://www.icannbc.org/assets/docs/positions-statements/2020/2020_07July_2…

1 0

Business Constituency (BC) comment on ICANN’s Draft North America Engagement Plan for FY21-25
by Steve DelBianco July 2, 2021

July 2, 2021

BC Comment on ICANN’s Draft North America Engagement Plan for FY21-25 (see below and attached) The ICANN Business Constituency (BC) is pleased to provide input to the draft North American Engagement Plan FY21-25. We note that the areas of focus are aligned with the goals and objectives in the ICANN FY21-25 Strategic Plan. The BC has always had strong engagement in North America and our committed core of participants will continue to represent the interests of business users even though we remain a relatively small group. The opportunity to draw others that can share in our mandate and can greatly benefit from expanded participation makes it easy for us to support the targeted engagement proposed. Because of the importance of extending ICANN’s reach, Strategic Objective 2 (Improve the effectiveness of ICANN’s multistakeholder model of governance) needs to be carefully addressed so that: * ICANN Org recognizes that participation has limited value when the outputs of working groups are deferred for future implementation or blocked by contract parties’ control of GNSO. This creates fatigue of existing participants when long horizons stand in the way of exhaustive efforts to achieve consensus. * New participants are enticed to bring their expertise about business and the internet so that policy development work can be more broadly distributed. The BC believes there needs to be a far more targeted approach to North American Engagement than outlined in the draft Plan. The document references community very narrowly, describing existing stakeholders, that relatively small group of participants that has already found use and need for ICANN for their own purposes. This group will likely continue to be involved, unless engagement efforts do not result in new participation. To this point, we note that only once does the Plan mention ‘new stakeholders’ and only twice do they talk about ‘potential stakeholders’. As a result, more details of the emphasis that will be placed on engagement is necessary. Specifically: * What proportion of engagement will be spent on existing community vs. new or potential stakeholders? * How will ICANN org identify and reach potential and new stakeholders? While technical or professional associations, chambers of commerce, universities, or other regional entities are mentioned, as is USG and GoC, limited resources require careful attention to where ICANN org’s resources will bear the greatest fruit. * What partnerships (2.2 Proposed Engagement Area) will be on the outreach list? * they are talking about when they mention relevant vendors or talking about strengthening partnerships (with who?). We believe that giving careful consideration to these matters will also result in better defined Key Performance Indicators, as we note with 2.1 that it is stated as solely ‘Number of documents or pieces of content produced’. With a well-structured plan, the BC believes that broader engagement in North America can occur. At present, a relatively small number amount of participation exists across all SOs and ACs. On the business side alone most companies either are not aware of ICANN or do not see the need to have a voice in policy for the internet. Like most people, many companies see themselves as users of the internet rather than influencers. There are significant matters taking place within ICANN that could grab the attention of such parties - if they understood that geopolitical issues could have an effect on their data and their customer, in the globally interoperable internet, opportunities that may come to multi-cultural focused groups through Universal Acceptance, and challenges to technology that that could result from their development. The BC looks forward to seeing more details about the North American Engagement Plan FY21-25 and we hope our comments are useful in helping you shape effective actions with strong outcomes from this process. We close with this quote from one of our longstanding members from North America: >From my experience, there needs to be a targeted approach to engagement. When I first started with CIPA, I also worked with the regional telco and ISP in my province. In 6 years, I never heard anyone on that side of the business mention ICANN. Nobody ever mentioned attending an ICANN meeting. Similarly, since I started attending ICANN in 2012, I’ve never heard of a person from Bell Canada, Rogers Communications or Telus (the big 3 in Canada) participating in ICANN. – Tim Smith -- This comment was drafted by John Berard and Tim Smith. It was approved in accord with our charter.

1 0

Business Constituency (BC) comment for the Board’s consideration of Subsequent Procedures (SubPro) final outputs
by Steve DelBianco June 1, 2021

June 1, 2021

Attached is the Business Constituency (BC) comment on GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Final Outputs for ICANN Board Consideration. This comment was drafted by Andy Abrams and Tim Smith. It was approved in accord with our charter. -- Steve DelBianco Vice Chair for Policy Coordination ICANN Business Constituency (BC)

1 0