December 2016 - Ccnso-council

ICANN is seeking volunteers to serve on the second review of Registration Directory Service
by Joke Braeken Dec. 20, 2016

Dec. 20, 2016

Dear All. ICANN is seeking volunteers to serve on the second review of Registration Directory Service (formerly known as the WHOIS Review). Candidates are asked to submit their application materials by 13 January 2017, 23:59 UTC. More information on the application procedure, time commitment, responsibilities, skills and experience, methodology, budget & support can be found here: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-12-06-en Best regards, Joke Braeken ccNSO Policy Advisor joke.braeken(a)icann.org<mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org> Follow @ccNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ccNSO Follow the ccNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/ http://ccnso.icann.org

1 0

Updated Supplementary Procedures for Independent Review Process (IRP)
by Joke Braeken Dec. 20, 2016

Dec. 20, 2016

Dear All, Via a public comment proceeding, the Cross-Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability), seeks community input on the Updated Supplementary Procedures (USP) for the ICANN Independent Review Process (IRP) developed per the requirements contained in the final report of the CCWG-Accountability, Work Stream 1, and provided to the ICANN Board on 10 March 2016. Current Status: The Updated Supplementary Procedures for Independent Review Process have been drafted by the IRP Implementation Oversight Team (IOT) in collaboration with the ICANN legal team and the external counsel to the CCWG-Accountability. The CCWG-Accountability reviewed these Supplementary Procedures at its 2 November 2016 meeting during ICANN57 and approved their publication for community input. Next Steps: Following the public comment proceeding, the inputs will be analyzed by the IRP-IOT who will consider amending its USP in light of the comments received. If there are no significant issues, the final version of the Updated Supplementary Procedures for Independent Review Process along with the analysis of the public comments will be presented to the CCWG-Accountability for approval. Once approved, the CCWG-Accountability will forward the Updated Supplementary Procedures to the ICANN Board of Directors for final approval. Close Date: 10 Jan 2017 23:59 UTC Read more: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/irp-supp-procedures-2016-11-28-en Best regards, Joke Braeken ccNSO Policy Advisor joke.braeken(a)icann.org<mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org> Follow @ccNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ccNSO Follow the ccNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/ http://ccnso.icann.org

1 0

Nomination ccNSO candidates on SSR 2
by Bart Boswinkel Dec. 16, 2016

Dec. 16, 2016

Dear all, Per Council decision, the secretariat is initiating the nomination process for SR 2 team membership. Please find included - the description of the nomination procedure (see below) - Item 6 list of candidates (was already included in material for the 15 December Council meeting) - Item 6 ccNSO related Applications. This includes the links to the Application letter, CV and Statement of interest of the candidates (was already included in preparatory material as well). You are requested to order the candidates in order of your preference. Once completed please mail your list to Bart ( bart.boswinkel(a)icann.org , or the ccNSO secretariat (ccNSOsecretariat(a)icann.org)<mailto:ccNSOsecretariat@icann.org)> with subject line: SSR 2 Nomination. PLEASE SEND YOUR EMAIL BY THURSDAY 23 DECEMEBER 23.59 UTC Thank you and kind regards, Bart Nomination Process Introduction As decided on the most recent Council meeting (15 December) you are requested, to select and rank candidates for SSR 2 who seek their nomination from the ccNSO. As agreed the nomination will be according to the ccNSO Guideline ccNSO Nominations specific review teams. As decided, Council the nomination is not limited to 3 candidates. The applicants As discussed the candidates applied under the “old” regime of the Affirmation of Commitments, but are nominated under the 1 October 2016 ICANN Bylaws. The list of applicant (the excel sheet) and the links to their application letters, CV and Statement of Interest is included again. Please note, that the application documentation was submitted to ICANN. Further only the 6 applicants included confirmed they seek their nomination from the ccNSO. The candidates (as listed) are: Krsic Boban Galila Abdalmonem Kecić Žarko Raad Alexa Wouters Paul Aina Alain As none of the applicants is a member of Council, all Councillors are eligible to participate in the nomination process and requested to provide their rankings. Nomination Procedure As agreed the following procedure will be used: Selection and ranking procedure Based on the material provided, you are requested to assess whether candidates meet the criteria (see below) and include these candidates on your list. In addition, you are requested to order these candidates in order of your preference. Once completed please mail your list to Bart (bart.boswinkel(a)icann.org , or the ccNSO secretariat (ccNSOsecretariat(a)icann.org)<mailto:ccNSOsecretariat@icann.org)> with subject line: SSR 2 Nomination. To select your preferred candidates, you are supposed to take into account and be guided by the selection criteria as included in section 5 of the Guideline (http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/guidelines-ccnso-csc-16jun16-en.pdf ) Please compile your list in order of preference, and assign 6 points to your most preferred candidate, 5 points to the second candidate, etc. and do not include a candidate you think who does not meet the criteria, or assign a “0”. PLEASE SEND YOUR EMAIL BY THURSDAY 23 DECEMEBER 23.59 UTC Administrative Procedure After you send the email with your list of candidates in order of preference, I will acknowledge receipt of your email and include a ballot number and date of receipt. On 23 DECEMEBR 2016 I will then circulate a list in the following format: - Ballot number, - Date ballot was received, - candidates voted for and level of preference (6, 5, 4 etc.). This email will also include the total level of preference per candidate. As agreed by Council resolution and in accordance with the relevant ccNSO Guideline the 3 candidates receiving most supportive votes, will be selected. In the event two candidates are equally preferred and would rank 3/4, a run-off selection will be needed. This will be done in the first week of January 2017. This final list of candidates in order of preference will be included in a report of the selection process which will be posted in January 2017. Criteria SSR2 The ICANN call for volunteers enumerates the following responsibilities, skills and experience and desired attributes Responsibilities * Participate in creation of review team governance documents, such as the terms of reference, scope of the review and the timeline; * Review implementation of the first SSR Review Team's recommendations as approved by the ICANN Board; * Select appropriate performance indicators and benchmarks, including considering those recommended<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/final-report-20jun12-en.pdf> [PDF, 1.16 MB] by the first SSR Review Team, and those on which data has already been collected; * Apply best practices designed to simplify and increase the effectiveness of Reviews as expressed in Reviews Policies, Procedures and Guidelines1 <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/call-volunteers-cct-rt-2015-10-01-en#…> ; * Consider public, community and Board input and incorporate it as appropriate in Review Team recommendations; * Determine whether additional data or analysis is needed and participate in an ensuing provider selection, if necessary; * Provide timely updates to the community on the status of the Review Team's work; * Analyze findings; * Draw conclusions based on findings, develop useful and feasible recommendations; * Provide guidance on prioritization of recommendations and definition of desired outcomes; * Provide draft conclusions for input from community, staff and Board; * Deliver a final Review Team report; * Designate Review Team members to participate in the implementation planning work that follows the delivery of the final Review Team report. Skills and Experience To compose a well-balanced Review Team, ICANN seeks members who, in the aggregate, possess the following skills and experience: * Internet Unique Identifiers, including; DNS (Domain Name System), IP Numbering, AS Numbers, and Protocol Parameters * Mitigating Unique Identifier abuse * Registry and Registration security and abuse * Operation of the DNS root name system * Understanding of malware and abuse vectors and mitigations * Risk Assessment and Management * Corporate Data Security and/or Business Systems * Incident Response Composition of the Review Team, depending on skills required, will aim to achieve: * Diversity in general, with particular attention on: * Geographic diversity; and * Gender diversity. Desired Attributes Applicants should possess the following professional and personal attributes: * Multistakeholder community understanding * Team spirit, adaptability, consensus-seeking attitude * Willingness to learn * Readiness to contribute * Capacity to reason objectively, putting aside personal opinions or preconceptions * Analytical skills

1 0

notes taken during the council meeting from 15 December 2016, 19 UTC
by Joke Braeken Dec. 16, 2016

Dec. 16, 2016

Dear All, Please find below the notes taken during the council meeting from 15 December, 19 UTC. Best regards, Joke Apologies: Peter Vergote, Demi Getschko NOTES 1) welcome and apologies welcome by Katrina. list of apologies published. Welcome to the new Council members We are quorate. 2) Minutes and Actions minutes published, actions completed. See wiki space. No comments received, therefor minutes are adopted. 3) Overview inter-meeting Council decisions - election report adopted N-Am region - SO/AC accountability survey responded 4) Appointment volunteers 4.1.a Appointment volunteers CCWG Auction Proceeds min 2, max 5 members to be appointed to ccNSO. Other ways for participating in the CCWG available too. Members to be appointed. appoint a co-chair? Proposal to take this appointment decision online, via e-mail, since council members need time to review the applications. Nigel: proposes to accept the draft decision as worded now. Take the matter of appointing the chair online, after discussing with the 3 members. Katrina: co-chair does not need to be one of the 3 members. summary Nigel's proposal. Objections? Abstentions? Ching all others in favour. to do: Ask the 3 members to consider whether they take on the role of co-chair 4.1.b. Appointment co-chair 4.2. ccNSO Liaison to ALAC Nigel proposes to adopt draft decision, and encourage council members to suggest people who might volunteer. Katrina: extend call until 10 Jan 2017. everyone agrees 4.3 Appointment volunteers drafting team charter ccNSO PDP working groups great that people stepped forward for this difficult task. Bart: final sentence in draft resolution should read "to inform the volunteers". 5) Volunteers Ethos Award committee another call for volunteers to be issued. 6) Appointment members SSR 2 ICANN issued call for volunteers according to the old rules for reviews, as stated in AoC. new bylaws came into force in the meanwhile. Guideline to be in place, and to be applied. Important is that each SO/AC may appoint up to 7 people. Total composition cannot be more than 21. 3 seats per SO/AC are guaranteed. Chairs decide which people to take on board of this team. Wish to keep the review teams as small as possible. Wish to appoint max 2 people. Smaller teams are more efficient. For decision: 1. will we participate? 2. selection method described in guideline, nominate candidates in order of preference. Secretariat to start this process on Friday. Bart: either nominate 3 candidates, or up to 7. decision 1: all in favour decision 2: how many people? 6 names that claimed to have a relation with the ccNSO. some have the support of a ccTLD manager. Byron: Is it to our benefit/detriment to have a larger pool of candidates? if the chairs need them, we could present a larger pool. Despite the fact that Byron agrees that a smaller team can do the work. We should select the 3 that we want to be there + some extra people, should the chairs need them. Katrina: depends on what other SO/ACs do. If all our 6 candidates make it, how do we ensure we feel strongly about all these candidates? We can list them in order of preference. What does the guideline say? Do we need 50% of the councilors voting? Alejandra: we could evaluate the volunteers. if we feel one of them does not qualify, you do not give any points. 3 with most points will be the 3 candidates, and the rest following based on the number of points. decision 2: up to 7 candidates to be selected, in order of preference. 7) Review Practices Council meetings 7.1 Review Council meeting Hyderabad meeting was over in 45 minutes. People sitting in the room did not know we had a productive prep meeting beforehand. Not much "to see" for the audience. Byron suggested to group decisions. Those we agreed upon during the prep meeting, and the more substantial discussions that might have evolved in the meanwhile and needed updating. Byron: Proposal is to have a consent agenda for those items that we agreed upon during the prep. meeting. At the same time, open it up to the floor, by asking to contribute. agreement that this is one of the possible ways forward. Other ideas welcome. 7.2 Adoption ccNSO Guideline Council Practices not yet submitted to council for adoption. We promised in HYD to send the final draft to the community for public comment. Prior to this, it is presented to the council. What is covered in the guideline is not just about meetings, but much more. We will now submit it to the community. 8) Adoption Final report and closure WG EPSRP, submission of Final report to the ICANN Board of Directors Katrina received reply to our comments from SSAC. they tried to address some of the issues we highlighted. Proposal is to ask the WG to have a look at the response received from SSAC, and see if there is a need to do some changes in the document to address issues highlighted by SSAC, and re-submit the report to the council so that we can adopt it. all in favour 9) Organizational review of the ccNSO and its timeline. Last week call with ICANN staff that is responsible for the organisational review of the ccNSO. Timeline being displayed in Adobe-room. We need a Working Party. They will provide us with draft request for proposals. WP needs to work on the feedback. The entire process starts early next year. The plan is that in May they will select Independent Examiner. The review process will start in June. Interview and analysis until September. Draft report to be presented to the WP. Opportunity to comment. In May 2018 we will have the final report. 1 council member per region and 1 NomCom council member in the WP. This WP will have a call with ICANN staff (in January) where they explain the process more in detail. No need to volunteer now, but in a very near future. We will ask Chris for his observations when we had the 1st review: maybe he has some good advice for us. To be discussed during the next council call in January. Would be good to know who volunteers by that time. ccNSO Programme WG included a session to discuss this during the ccNSO Member Meeting Days in Copenhagen. 10) Updates CSC, RZERC and EC AC 10.1 Update CSC (Byron Holland) first report by CSC on first reporting by PTI since the US government stepped away was published. Communicated to SO/ACs, RO's and a number of other lists. Most metrics were met, but those that were not met were satisfactorily explained. Second report by PTI received yesterday, the CSC report will go out tomorrow. PTI is fulfilling obligations as per the SLE's. Elise, Trang, Kim D have been very responsive. So far so good, but still work in progress. Stephen: - are you tracking bugs? - what is a reasonable time to wait for a response from ICANN staff? policy requests? Byron: metrics-driven request flow is our mandate. Discussions on what we will do next is happening. policy requests is not what we are tracking. 10.2 Update EC AC (Stephen Deerhake) no formal actions taken by ECA. GRC working on ccNSO Guideline for ECA Road map being developed. Concern: tight timelines. 10.3 Update RZERC (written update Peter Koch) 11) WG updates 11.1 Update CCWGs - CCWG Use of country and territory names (written update Annebeth lange) - CCWG Internet Governance (Young Eum Lee) written update to be circulated later 11.2 Update GRC (Katrina Sataki) 11.3 Update Programme WG (Alejandra Reynoso) block schedule with high level overview of ICANN58. Constituency day, 1 full day. 3 HITs. parallel sessions if needed, if the HITS on Wednesday afternoon are not relevant for the ccTLD community. Draft agenda ccNSO: Block schedule in the Adobe room. Katrina: are we comfortable in moving the council meeting to the Thu morning? Risk to schedule our council meeting against potentially interesting HIT session. Pablo: PR March 2018 has been accepted as venue for ICANN meeting. Stephen: Dotty is recovering from surgery and she sends her regards 12) Council Updates 12.1 Chair Update 12.2 Vice-Chair Update 12.3 Councilors Update 12.4 Regional Organizations Update 13) Liaison Updates 13.1 GNSO Update (Patrick Myles). 13.2 ALAC Update (Interim: Maureen Hillyard). 14) Next meetings 12 January 2017, 19 UTC. 15) AOB Thank you. Joke Braeken ccNSO Policy Advisor joke.braeken(a)icann.org<mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org> Follow @ccNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ccNSO Follow the ccNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/ http://ccnso.icann.org

1 0

GNSO update: Dec 2016
by Patrick Myles Dec. 16, 2016

Dec. 16, 2016

Hi all – Apologies for delay - a few short updates from the yesterday’s GNSO council meeting: Appointment of GNSO Members and Co-Chair to New gTLD Auction Proceeds CCWG - The GNSO Council has appointed Jonathan Robinson as GNSO Appointed Co-Chair and Member to the CCWG. They have also confirmed Tony Harris, Jon Nevett, Eliot Noss and Stephanie Perrin as GNSO appointed members. The council are also encouraging others interested to join as participants or observers. GNSO Council Response to questions from CCWG-Accountability (Work Stream 2) - The CCWG Accountability wrote seeking input on the resources and documents used by each SO/AC to maintain accountability to its respective designated community. GNSO leadership are working on a response and will send it through shortly. Review of GAC Communiqué (Hyderabad) - The GNSO Council has adopted its Review<https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-gac-communique-15dec16-en.pd> of the Hyderabad GAC Communiqué and will communicate it to the ICANN Board. GNSO Review Working Group An implementation plan<https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/review-implementation-recommendations-plan…> for the GNSO review has been adopted. GNSO Administration - Glen de Saint Géry will be transitioning out of her role as administrative management of the SO/ACs however will be around still working on Copenhagen meeting. She will be replaced by of Nathalie Peregrine and Terri Agnew. Regards Patrick Myles

1 0

Written update CCWG Internet Governance
by Bart Boswinkel Dec. 15, 2016

Dec. 15, 2016

Dear all, Please find included Young Eum’s update on CCWG IG Kind regards, Bart

1 0

Agenda and draft resolutions Council call 15 December 19.00 UTC
by Bart Boswinkel Dec. 15, 2016

Dec. 15, 2016

Dear all, Pleas find included the draft resolution for today’s call, at 19.00 UTC Kind regards, Bart

1 0

proposed Triage recommendations 50-2016, 51-2016 and 52-2016.
by Joke Braeken Dec. 15, 2016

Dec. 15, 2016

Dear council members, Please find below the proposed Triage recommendations 50-2016, 51-2016 and 52-2016. Kindly provide me with your input by the end of Monday 19 December 2016, 23:59 UTC, in case you do not agree with the proposed recommendations. Thank you. Topic: 50-2016 - Updated Supplementary Procedures for Independent Review Process (IRP) Originator: Cross-Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) Summary of request: This public comment proceeding seeks community input on the Updated Supplementary Procedures (USP) for the ICANN Independent Review Process (IRP) developed per the requirements contained in the final report of the Cross-Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability, Work Stream 1) and provided to the ICANN Board on 10 March 2016. https://www.icann.org/public-comments/irp-supp-procedures-2016-11-28-en Date received: 29 November 2016 Last day for Comments/input/response, if any: 10 Jan 2017 23:59 UTC Recommended action, if any: send to ccnso-members@, cctld-community@, ccnso-members and share via social media Expertise needed, if any: legal, procedural, reviews Date of submission to Triage Committee: 12 December 2016 Recommendation received by Triage Committee: 15 December 2016 Date of submission to Council: 15 December 2016 Deadline Council decision: 19 December 2016, 23:59 UTC Impact on ccNSO/ccTLDs: middle = = = = = Topic: 51-2016 - Identifier Technology Health Indicators: Definition Originator: ICANN, office of the CTO Summary of request: ICANN would like to solicit feedback from the community on the description of five diseases that could affect the health of the name part of the system of unique Internet identifiers https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ithi-definition-2016-11-29-en Date received: 30 November 2016 Last day for Comments/input/response, if any: 9 Feb 2017 23:59 UTC Recommended action, if any: none Expertise needed, if any: technical Date of submission to Triage Committee: 12 December 2016 Recommendation received by Triage Committee: 15 December 2016 Date of submission to Council: 15 December 2016 Deadline Council decision: 19 December 2016, 23:59 UTC Impact on ccNSO/ccTLDs: low = = = = = Topic: 52-2016 - Call for Volunteers for the Registration Directory Service (formerly WHOIS) Review Team Originator: ICANN Summary of request: ICANN is seeking volunteers to serve on the second review of Registration Directory Service (formerly known as the WHOIS Review). The specific objectives for the Registration Directory Service (RDS) Review are to review the effectiveness of WHOIS, and whether its implementation meets the legitimate needs of law enforcement, promoting consumer trust and safeguarding registrant data. https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-12-06-en Date received: 7 Dec. 2016 Last day for Comments/input/response, if any: 13 Jan 2017 23:59 UTC Recommended action, if any: send to ccnso-members@, cctld-community@, ccnso-members and share via social media Expertise needed, if any: ICANN seeks members who, in the aggregate, possess the following skills and experience: * Prior member of the 1st WHOIS Review Team or was an active contributor to its work * Prior member of the Expert Working Group on Registration Directory Service * Familiarity with operation of the Domain Name System (DNS) * Familiarity with WHOIS registrant data collection, compliance, directory service (RDDS) management * Familiarity with Translation and Transliteration of WHOIS Contact Information * Familiarity with ICANN Procedure for Handling WHOIS Conflicts with Privacy Law * Familiarity with malware and abuse vectors and mitigations, including cybercrime * Familiarity with WHOIS Data Retention Waiver Process Date of submission to Triage Committee: 12 December 2016 Recommendation received by Triage Committee: 15 December 2016 Date of submission to Council: 15 December 2016 Deadline Council decision: 19 December 2016, 23:59 UTC Impact on ccNSO/ccTLDs: low Best regards, Joke Braeken ccNSO Policy Advisor joke.braeken(a)icann.org<mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org> Follow @ccNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ccNSO Follow the ccNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/ http://ccnso.icann.org

1 0

applications: ccNSO appointed members to the CCWG new gTLD Auction Proceeds
by Joke Braeken Dec. 15, 2016

Dec. 15, 2016

Dear council members, Per ccNSO council decision (Resolution 123-09), the ccNSO secretariat launched a call for volunteers to fill the slate of two (2) to five (5) ccNSO appointed members to the CCWG new gTLD Auction Proceeds. (https://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/ccnso-ccwg-newgtld-aution-29nov16-en.…) The call for volunteers ended yesterday, 14 December. We have received 3 applications to become ccNSO appointed member to the CCWG New gTLD Auction Proceeds: - Mathieu Weill (.fr) - Peter Vergote (.be) - Ching Chiao (NomCom) Please find the applications in attachment. This topic is item 4.1 on the agenda of the ccNSO Council meeting today, 15 December at 19 UTC. Thank you. Best regards, Joke Braeken ccNSO Policy Advisor joke.braeken(a)icann.org<mailto:joke.braeken@icann.org> Follow @ccNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ccNSO Follow the ccNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ccnso/ http://ccnso.icann.org

3 2

Fwd: [centr-legal] onlinedomain.com: US government plans to stop domain name hopping
by Nigel Roberts Dec. 15, 2016

Dec. 15, 2016

May I add the below to todays Council's agenda as an information only, please? I was made aware by Alberto Perez of .ES who sent it along to the CENTR legal list earlier today. It DIRECTLY relates to ccTLDS, despite the title, and we should look closely at this at our next meeting. Classifying ccTLDs as 'notorious markets' is potentially unhelpful to is all. Kind regards Nigel --- http://onlinedomain.com/2016/12/14/news/us-government-plans-stop-domain-nam… US government plans to stop domain name hopping Konstantinos Zournas <http://onlinedomain.com/author/konstantinos/>December 14, 2016News <http://onlinedomain.com/news/>1 Comment <http://onlinedomain.com/2016/12/14/news/us-government-plans-stop-domain-nam…> gtlds-600x300 The Office of the U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator (IPEC) released the 2017-2019 U.S. Joint Strategic Plan on Intellectual Property Enforcement titled “Supporting Innovation, Creativity & Enterprise: Charting a Path Ahead.” The US government plans to stop domain name hopping, that is changing to a different domain name after one is suspended for various reasons. This document charts the course for work to be carried over the next three years by the federal government—with opportunities for state and local governments, foreign governments, and the private sector—in support of a strong policy environment for intellectual property enforcement. “The U.S. State Department collaborated with the IPEC and counterparts in other government departments in crafting this plan, which highlights the cultural and economic importance of creative and innovative communities. These sectors support over 45 million U.S. jobs, generate more than 50 percent of our exports, and enrich our cultural landscape. The State Department’s Office of International Intellectual Property Enforcement promotes American and global innovation by advocating for the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights (IPR) around the world. The office works with economic officers at the State Department’s embassies, consulates, and missions to ensure that the interests of U.S. rights holders are represented overseas, and to highlight the vital role of IPR protection in the global economy.” *Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) partnership with Donuts and Radix* The plan mentions thepartnership <http://onlinedomain.com/2016/02/10/news/donuts-partners-with-the-mpaa-to-re…>between the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and theDonuts <http://www.donuts.domains/>andRadix <http://radix.website/>registries. “This Strategic Plan has identified numerous circumstances where enhanced non-governmental leadership and public-private sector collaborations may yield beneficial results. Over the past few years, for example, several private-sector-led collaborative partnerships have emerged—comprised of leading Internet service providers, content producers, and brand owners, payment processors, advertisers, and ad networks, domain name registries, and others—with the laudable goal of minimizing the criminal exploitation of a business’s services or platforms by syndicates perpetrating consumer frauds and other illicit activities.” “Domain Name Registry Best Practices, launched in partnership with the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and the Donuts and Redix domain name registry platforms, works to promote a safe and secure domain name system. Under the program, a “trusted notifier” system has been established as part of collaborative efforts to mitigate blatant and pervasive illegal online activity in violation of platform terms of service.”” *The plan mentions how unlawful entities can register domain names using false registration information.* “Entities engaged in the unlawful exploitation of copyrighted content are reported to conceal or otherwise mask identifying information by providing false or inaccurate registration information when registering a domain name. An operator of a website engaged in illicit activity may also employ one or more evasive registration tactics (FIG. 2,3) such as the registration of hundreds of names across various jurisdictions, in order to increase resilience against any enforcement actions directed at the illicit enterprise. Once domain names have been secured, reporting suggests that the entity seeking to exploit unlicensed third-party content for commercial profit often employs various additional hosting and operational schemes in an attempt to shield the illicit enterprise from effective enforcement. ” *In Furtherance of a Healthy Domain Name System (Assessing the Enforcement Challenge of Domain Name Hopping)* Finally there is a whole section (page 68) dedicated to domain name hopping: For purposes of this section, the Administration has directed its focus to detailing some of the reported tactics used by criminal actors in the online environment and the corresponding enforcement challenges. In observance of the established global multistakeholder approaches used to address domain name issues and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration’s (NTIA) role as the convener of the U.S. government’s DNS interagency working group which establishes U.S. policy positions on domain name issues broadly and with respect to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), including the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) and its working groups, the U.S. Interagency Strategic Planning Committees on IP Enforcement reaffirms the principle that the “U.S. Government remains dedicated to working within the multistakeholder construct at ICANN and all relevant venues to vigorously defend and advance U.S. interests.” It has been reported that entities engaged in online counterfeit sales, the unlawful exploitation of copyrighted materials, and other large-scale infringing activity may engage in a combination of “domain name hopping” and “venue shopping” for perceived domain name safe havens. These tactics have been reported within both the gTLD and ccTLD domain name environments. Top Level Domains (TLDs) are those strings of characters that follow the last ‘dot’ in a domain name, for example “.gov” in www.whitehouse.gov. TLDs are typically divided into two categories: generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs) and country code Top-Level Domains (ccTLDs). gTLDs are those TLDs of three or more characters, the operators of which typically have contractual agreements with ICANN. ccTLDs are those TLDs representing two-letter abbreviations for countries and territories, such as .us for the United States or .io for the British Indian Ocean Territory, delegated under policies developed by the Internet Engineering Task Force’s Request For Comment (RFC) 1591.36 The relationship between any given ccTLD administrator and its government will differ from case to case and may depend on complex and sensitive arrangements particular to the local political climate. Different ccTLD policies will reflect different approaches with respect to process for the suspension, transfer, or cancellation of a domain name registration. Some ccTLDs use the same dispute resolution mechanism as gTLDs do – the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy – while others tailor their own variations of this policy. While the TLD environment provides Internet users with a diversity of choice, operators of websites engaged in illicit IP-based activities exploit this openness. To evade law enforcement, bad actors will register the same or different domain name with different registrars. They then attempt to evade law enforcement by moving from one registrar to another, thus prolonging the so-called “whack-a-mole” pursuit. The result of this behavior is to drive up costs of time and resources spent on protecting intellectual property rights. By way of illustration (FIG. 37), an operator of a large file-sharing site found guilty of facilitating criminal peer-to-peer file sharing of movies, music and games continued to circumnavigate the globe and exploit the domain name environment by moving from ccTLD to ccTLD to evade law enforcement. domain-name-hopping <http://onlinedomain.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/domain-name-hopping.jpg> In the “Notorious Markets” Out-of-Cycle Review, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative lists illustrative markets facilitating counterfeiting and piracy. In the lists from 2013-2015, a total of 26 of 54 named sites, or almost half of named online sites, operate within the ccTLD environment. Based on the most recent Notorious Markets lists available prior to issuance of this plan, ccTLDs comprise roughly half of all named “notorious” top-level domains.39 Considering that ccTLDs are outnumbered by gTLDs in the domain name base by more than a 2-to-1 ratio, the frequency of bad faith ccTLD sites appear to be disproportionate in nature and worthy of further research and analysis. *ACTION NO. 2.9: Continue to assess the nature of abusive domain name registration tactics and identify opportunities to minimize criminal activity. As part of a multistakeholder process aimed at crime prevention and the protection of public health, safety, and consumer welfare, the U.S DNS Interagency working group will work with the Interagency Strategic Planning Committees on IP Enforcement, to assess the scope of abusive domain name registration tactics and trends, and consider appropriate opportunities to work with stakeholders to curb criminal activity.* To read the complete plan, please visit:https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/IPEC/2016jointstra….

1 0