October 2011 - council - lists.icann.org

Joint Applicant Support (JAS) Working Group
by Stéphane Van Gelder 17 Dec '11

17 Dec '11

Steve, Please find attached a letter that I am sending you on behalf of the GNSO Council. Kind regards, Stéphane Van Gelder GNSO Council Chair

1 1

Fwd: Cross TLD Registration Scam and Domain Kiting/Tasting
by Stéphane Van Gelder 31 Oct '11

31 Oct '11

Councillors, Please see the response below from Patrik Fältström, Chair of the SSAC, in response to our request in relation to evaluating and monitoring cross-TLD Registration Scam and Domain Kiting/Tasting by the SSAC. In light of this response, the GNSO Council might want to consider whether there are any alternative approaches to addressing the Registration Abuse Recommendations in this regard, or acknowledge that monitoring of these types of abuses cannot be done at this stage by the GNSO Council or SSAC but that at any point in time, should new data or information arise, these issues can be re-opened for consideration by the GNSO Council. We may want to discuss in further detail at the wrap up meeting. Stéphane Début du message réexpédié : > De : Patrik Fältström <paf(a)cisco.com> > Objet : Rép : Cross TLD Registration Scam and Domain Kiting/Tasting > Date : 21 octobre 2011 11:05:14 HAEC > À : Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> > Cc : SSAC SSAC <ssac(a)icann.org> > > Dear Stephane, > > Thank you for writing to the SSAC regarding the outcomes of the RAP WG on cross-TLD registration scam and Domain Kiting. > > As to the GNSO Council request that SSAC consider evaluating the cross-TLD Registration Scam and Domain Kiting/Tasting issues, upon review of the RAP WG’s outcomes and recommendations, we cannot see how the SSAC might improve upon these findings. > > We note that the SSAC does not have an operational role, and is unable to monitor disparate TLDs for ongoing abuse, other than anecdotally. We do care about abuse, and have completed several related reports that you may find useful to your continued efforts. For example: > > SAC044: A Registrant’s Guide to Protecting Domain Name Registration Accounts (05 November 2010) > SAC040: Measures to Protect Domain Registration Services Against Exploitation or Misuse (19 August 2009) > SAC028: SSAC Advisory on Registrar Impersonation Phishing Attacks (26 May 2008) > SAC025: Fast Flux Hosting and DNS (SAC025) (28 January 2008) > SAC024: Report on Domain Name Front Running (February 2008) > > We are, of course, ready to perform rigorous analysis if more data regarding these or other alleged abuses is available. The protection of registrants from abusive practices is of interest and importance to SSAC. > > Regards, > Patrik Fältström > Chair, SSAC > > > On 17 okt 2011, at 20:23, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote: > >> Hi Patrik, >> >> At its meeting on 6 October, in follow up to the recommendations of the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group, the GNSO Council tasked me as Chair, with regards to the recommendations on cross-TLD Registration Scam and Domain Kiting/Tasting, to communicate to the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) the findings of the RAP WG in this regard and request that the SSAC consider evaluating and/or monitoring these abuses. If the SSAC elects to conduct this work, the GNSO Council requests that the SSAC inform the GNSO Council if it believes that further policy work by the GNSO Council should be undertaken to address these two types of abuse'. >> >> For your information, you will find attached to this message the findings of the RAP Working Group in relation to these issues. >> >> Please let me know if you have any questions. I look forward to discussing this with you in Dakar if required. >> >> Best, >> >> Stéphane >> >> >> <Cross TLD Registration Scam - Domain Kiting - 10 October 2011.doc> >> >

2 1

Re: [council] Informal conversation
by Mary.Wong＠law.unh.edu 31 Oct '11

31 Oct '11

Hmm ... isn't this one very good reason why we ought to have GNSO-GAC liaisons? Also, while I understand the difficulty the GAC may have with nit having one or two people represent the GAC formally, should we consider inviting them to appoint an observer or liaison to the task force or WG that Jeff is leading? Thanks for the prompt action and reporting back, Stéphane. Cheers Mary "Stéphane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com>" <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> wrote: All, As we discussed during today's wrap-up, I had an informal conversation with the GAC. I passed along the message that there was disappointment at the GAC's apparent lack of desire for a common effort on the IOC and RC names. The answer was that the GAC remains extremely challenged when it comes to participating in joint efforts of this kind. There are workload issues first and foremost for government reps, but also because of the unique nature of the GAC it is difficult for any GAC member to participate effectively. The point was also made to me that we tend to assume that when we put something out, either on our mailing list or our website, that is enough for the GAC to be aware of it. I was told that it is not so, and that there is no substitute for direct communication. So in that regard, it sounds like our discussions in today's wrap-up about being seen to be more constructive and more proactive are spot on. With that in mind, I would suggest that we perhaps want to send the draft letter on the IOC and RC names anyway. The idea being to show that we have done some thinking about this issue as well (someone made that point during the wrap-up, I forget who so apologies). Also, I was told that unless we write to the GAC to tell them about the announcement made by ICANN and the registrars and published on the GNSO mailing list, they don't know about it. As this is a registrar specific issue, it is perhaps not for the GNSO as a whole to mention. But it is perhaps worth thinking about. The main takeaway I got from the conversation is that we should look to improve the way we communicate with the outside world (this is not something I was told, it is my own conclusion). Hope this is helpful. Get home safe everyone. Enjoyed working with you this week. Stéphane

11 16

GNSO related Board resolutions out of the Dakar meeting
by Stéphane Van Gelder 31 Oct '11

31 Oct '11

Councillors, Please see the Board resolutions from the Dakar meeting: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-28oct11-en.htm Resolution 1.5 addresses the PEDNR recommendations which the Board adopted. Resolution 1.12 thanks the departing Councillors. Resolution 2 addresses the JAS work and requests that Staff look at implementation of that work. Resolution 7 addresses the RAA. The is a request for an issue report, as a prelude to a possible PDP. Resolution 8 initiates a comment period on the recommendations of the PDP WT. Stéphane

2 2

ccnso and FOWIG
by Stéphane Van Gelder 31 Oct '11

31 Oct '11

Councillors, Up until now, Olga has been serving as the GNSO's liaison to the ccNSO's Framework of Interpretation WG. The objective of the FOIWG is to develop and propose a "Framework of Interpretation" for the delegation and re-delegation of ccTLDs. This framework should provide a clear guide to IANA and the ICANN Board on interpretation of the current policies and guidelines pertaining to the delegation and redelegation of ccTLD’s. Would anyone like to volunteer to take Olga's place as liaison? Stéphane

1 0

Fwd: Meeting with the ICANN ASO Address Council
by Stéphane Van Gelder 31 Oct '11

31 Oct '11

Councillors, Please see the message below re our meeting with the ASO in Dakar and a link to a survey you might like to fill in. Stéphane Début du message réexpédié : > De : Tom <tom.mackenzie1(a)gmail.com> > Objet : Meeting with the ICANN ASO Address Council > Date : 31 octobre 2011 11:34:22 HNEC > À : Stephane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> > Cc : gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org > > Hi Stephane, > > Here's the link: http://items.fr/asomeeting.php > > It would be greatly appreciated if you could circulate it among the gNSO Council and any other members of the gNSO who attended the meeting. > > If you want to add an introductory line to your email I could suggest something along the lines of: "During the recent ICANN 42 meeting in Dakar a meeting was held between the gNSO Council and the ASO Address Council. What were your impressions of this meeting? ITEMS International is a consultancy firm conducting an independent review of the ICANN-ASO and they would value your feedback. They have prepared a simple two-question survey which we urge you to respond to. Thanks for your cooperation.." > > Kind regards,

1 0

Applicant Guidebook Module 3.1: GAC Advice on New gTLDs
by Bruce Tonkin 28 Oct '11

28 Oct '11

Annex 1 of the GAC Communiqué: Applicant Guidebook Module 3.1: GAC Advice on New gTLDs ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee was formed to consider and provide advice on the activities of ICANN as they relate to concerns of governments, particularly matters where there may be an interaction between ICANN's policies and various laws and international agreements or where they may affect public policy issues. The process for GAC Advice on new gTLDs is intended to address applications that are identified by governments to be problematic, e.g., that potentially violate national law or raise sensitivities. GAC members can raise concerns about any application to the GAC. The GAC as a whole will consider concerns raised by GAC members, and agree on GAC advice to forward to the ICANN Board of Directors. The GAC can provide advice on any application. For the Board to be able to consider the GAC advice during the evaluation process, the GAC advice would have to be submitted by the close of the Objection Filing Period (see Module 1). GAC Advice may take one of the following forms: l. The GAC advises ICANN that it is the consensus of the GAC that a particular application should not proceed. This will create a strong presumption for the ICANN Board that the application should not be approved. ll. The GAC advises ICANN that there are concerns about a particular application "dot-example". The ICANN Board is expected to enter into dialogue with the GAC to understand the scope of concerns. The ICANN Board is also expected to provide a rationale for its decision. lll. The GAC advises ICANN that a particular application should not proceed unless remediated. This will raise a strong presumption for the Board that the application should not proceed unless there is a remediation method available in the Guidebook (such as securing one or more government's approval) that is implemented by the applicant. Annex II Operating Principles Article XII Principle 47 The GAC works on the basis of seeking consensus among its membership. Consistent with United Nations practice1, consensus is understood to mean the practice of adopting decisions by general agreement in the absence of any formal objection. Where consensus is not possible, the Chair shall convey the full range of views expressed by members to the ICANN Board.

1 0

GAC Communiqué
by Bruce Tonkin 28 Oct '11

28 Oct '11

From: http://gac.icann.org GAC Communiqué - Dakar I. Introduction The Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) met in Dakar, Senegal during the week of October 22-27, 2011. Forty-nine Governments participated in the meeting: 46 present and 3 by remote participation and six Observers. The GAC expresses warm thanks to the local hosts, The Ministry of Communication, Telecommunications and Information Technology (MICOMTELTIC) and the Regulatory Authority for Telecommunications and Post (ARTP) for their hospitality in organizing the meeting and ICANN for supporting the GAC during the meeting. II. New gTLDs The GAC further discussed and decided on the formulation of GAC advice for inclusion in Module 3 of the Applicant Guidebook [Annex I]. During the discussion ICANN Staff underlined their understanding that advice regarding the definition of Geographic Names should be adopted by the GAC. The GAC congratulates the JAS working group on the final report and recommendations, which are consistent with GAC advice. The GAC looks forward to the Board providing clear timelines for implementation of the recommendations to enable needy applicants to join in full and meaningfully in the first round. The GAC raised concern about the unpredictability of the actual number of applications that governments would have to digest to proceed after the end of the application period. The GAC made clear, that if the number of applications published by ICANN significantly exceeds 500, GAC members might not be able to process a very large number of applications in the very short early warning procedure and in the limited time for issuing GAC advice on all these strings. Further, the GAC asked ICANN for clarification about its intention to process these applications in batches of 500, in the case that there are more than 500 applications. The GAC urges ICANN to clarify the procedures and implications for applicants being processed in different batches, as this might have implications for competition and applicants' business models. Following presentations by the ICANN staff and the Security and Stability Advisory Committee, the GAC took note of the SSAC consideration of the combined impact of new gTLDs and other changes such as the introduction of IPv6, DNSSEC and IDNs to the root. The GAC welcomes the confirmation of the commitment by the ICANN Board to provide a full report with a complete analysis, including all underlying data, of the root system scalability well before the opening of the new gTLDs application round. The GAC further welcomes the confirmation of the commitment by the Board to evaluate the impact on the system after the 1st round, with the understanding that the launch of a second round is contingent on the outcome of this evaluation, in particular the absence of negative effects on the root system. The GAC believes that in order for this evaluation to be effective, an appropriate and trustable monitoring system needs to be in place. In its discussions with the Board regarding the Communication Plan for new gTLDs, the GAC emphasised the importance of promoting the gTLDs application round in all countries, including developing countries. The GAC suggested that levels of awareness be continually assessed and reviewed, and priorities and target areas under the Plan be adjusted accordingly in the run up to the launch of the round. The GAC welcomed the assurances received from the Board and staff that the evaluation of applications will ensure a level playing field for applicants and that any conflicts of interest will be identified and avoided accordingly. III. Law Enforcement (LEA) Recommendations In recent years, the Internet has grown to have over two billion users and be a significant contributor to the global economy. Cyber-crime is a growing threat to the security and stability of the Internet, with broad and direct public policy impacts. Recent estimates suggest that the direct financial impact of cyber crime is extremely significant. Law enforcement agencies have identified a series of specific problems which are limiting their ability to address this growing problem. As part of this, law enforcement agencies have identified specific areas of concern in the ICANN context, relating to contractual weaknesses and a lack of necessary due diligence. To address these urgent problems, in 2009 law enforcement agencies made 12 concrete recommendations to reduce the risk of criminal abuse of the domain name system. These recommendations were informally socialized with the registrar community, the GAC, and with ICANN compliance staff over the course of several months, before the GAC advised the Board in its Brussels communiqué that it formally endorsed the recommendations. Direct exchanges between law enforcement agencies and registrars continued in September 2010 in Washington D.C., in February 2011 in Brussels, and during the March and June 2011 ICANN meetings. As a complement to the June exchanges in Singapore, the GAC urged the Board to support actions necessary to implement those recommendations as a matter of urgency. To date, none of the recommendations have been implemented, and the risks remain. The GAC therefore advises the ICANN Board to take the necessary steps to ensure that ICANN's multistakeholder process effectively addresses these GAC-endorsed proposals as a matter of extreme urgency. IV. Accountability and Transparency Review Team Recommendations (ATRT) The GAC welcomes the update provided by ICANN staff on the ATRT Recommendations progress and the suggestions presented with regards to the implementation of recommendations 9 through 14 on the GAC role, effectiveness and interaction with the Board. The GAC looks forward to an expedited implementation of the Joint Working Group and ATRT recommendations and is keen to continue working with the Board on the Recommendations related to the GAC. V. Conflict of interest The GAC expresses extreme concern about the inadequacy of the existing rules of ethics and conflict of interest in the light of recent events and therefore welcomes the approval of the motion by the Board Governance Committee on 15 September 2011 concerning "ethics and conflicts of interest". The GAC looks forward to the publication of a timeline with clear and effective actions as a conclusion of the Dakar meeting or shortly thereafter. In order to ensure the legitimacy and sustainability of the multi-stakeholder model as enshrined in ICANN, the GAC underlines the extreme urgency of putting in place effective and enforceable rules on conflicts of interest. The GAC will keep this important issue under review and may come forward with further advice before the Costa Rica GAC meetings. VI. Meeting with the Generic Names Supporting Organisation (GNSO) The GAC and the GNSO exchanged views on a number of issues, beginning with an overview by ICANN staff of the GNSO policy development process. Consistent with the recommendations of the Accountability and Transparency Review Team and the related GAC-Board Joint Working Group, the GAC stressed its interest in ensuring that GAC views are provided and taken into account at early stages in the policy development process. The meeting also discussed the implementation of the Law Enforcement Agency (LEA) recommendations to mitigate Domain Name System abuse, which were endorsed by the GAC in June 2010. The GAC expressed its disappointment that registrars were only able to report on their consideration of three of the twelve LEA Recommendations. Further, the reported progress fell substantially short of what GAC members believed had been achieved during its meetings with registrars in Singapore in June 2011. The GAC also expressed concern that there was no clarity on how the other nine recommendations were being progressed, despite the registrars' agreement at the Singapore meeting to provide regular status reports. The GAC informed the GNSO Council of its intention to request the ICANN Board to take prompt and concrete action to implement the GAC/LEA recommendations. The meeting also addressed the GAC's proposal to the GNSO on the protection mechanism for the International Olympic Committee and Red Cross/Red Crescent names at the top and second levels. The GAC requested feedback from the GNSO on the proposal as a first step in collaborating on advice for the ICANN Board in this regard, consistent with the ICANN Board Resolution in Singapore. The GAC looks forward to further engagement with the GNSO to work more effectively within the ICANN processes and reinforce the sustainability of the multi-stakeholder model. VII. Meeting with the At-Large Advisory Group (ALAC) The GAC met with the ALAC to discuss Conflict of Interest issues within the ICANN Board and staff. The GAC agrees that this is a critical matter that needs to be addressed as a high priority within the community. The GAC and ALAC also discussed the Joint Applicant Support (JAS) Working Group as well as the ALAC and GAC Joint Statement. The GAC expects a decision to be taken for implementation in time for the opening of the first new gTLD round. In light of the common interest of advancing improvements in the ICANN model, the GAC and ALAC also discussed the ongoing work of the Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT). The GAC shared the areas identified as a priority in the framework of the ATRT and the Joint Working Group recommendations, looking forward to an expedited implementation. VIII. GAC Operating Principles The GAC amended Principle 47 of its Operating Principles clarifying its understanding of consensus. The definition now introduced derives from United Nations practice and understands consensus as adopting decisions by general agreement in the absence of formal objections. The GAC noted that according to UN practice individual members may make reservations, declarations, statements of interpretation and/or statements of position regarding a consensus decision, provided such texts do not represent an objection to the consensus [Annex II]. IX. Joint session with the Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO) The GAC met with the ccNSO to discuss the progress and ongoing work of the Framework of Interpretation cross-community Working Group (FoI) on delegation and redelegation, and the mechanisms for the GAC to provide feedback and contribute to this work within a timeline that the ccNSO has provided. In addition, the ccNSO shared an update of its current work areas and its organisational structure. The GAC is eager to further engage with the ccNSO to provide timely inputs on the different stages of the FoI work. X. Meeting with the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) The GAC thanks the SSAC for providing an update on its work including blocking and reputation systems, WHOIS matters and single label domain names. Further, the GAC thanks the SSAC Chair for discussions on Root Zone Scaling and Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI). The GAC looks forward to receiving further updates on DNS blocking matters and other relevant security and stability related matters. XI. Meeting with the Nominating Committee (NomCom) The GAC met with the Nominating Committee and discussed the skill-sets needed of an ICANN Director, as outlined in the Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT) recommendations to improve the selection process. The NomCom invited individual GAC members to provide further inputs. XII. Election of Vice-chairs The GAC has reelected the current vice-chairs, Choon-Sai Lim (Singapore), Maria Häll (Sweden) and Alice Munyua (Kenya) to continue their mandate for another year. *** The GAC warmly thanks all those among the ICANN community who have contributed to the dialogue with the GAC in Dakar. The GAC will meet during the period of the 43rd ICANN meeting in San José, Costa Rica.

1 0

Re: [council] Fwd: draft letter on JAS WG to the Board
by Mary.Wong＠law.unh.edu 28 Oct '11

28 Oct '11

Anybody else have comments or care? If not I would urge Stéphane to send ASAP. Cheers Mary "Stéphane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com>" <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> wrote: Thanks Mary and Wolf for doing this. I have put this in a word document, and edited mostly with a mind to make the letter truly palatable by all groups. My take is that we are doing this to send the Board the message that we have not brushed this aside, but not to give them political messages about JAS (each group can do that by itself). Thoughts? Stéphane P.S.: Glen, is there GNSO letterhead for this kind of letter? Le 27 oct. 2011 à 16:23, Thomas Rickert a écrit : > Well done, Mary and Wolf-Ulrich! > > Thomas > > > > Am 27.10.2011 um 15:17 schrieb Mason Cole: > >> Looks good Mary. Nicely done. >> >> From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org on behalf of Mary.Wong(a)law.unh.edu >> Sent: Thu 10/27/2011 8:04 AM >> To: council(a)gnso.icann.org >> Subject: [council] Fwd: draft letter on JAS WG to the Board >> >> >> Dear all, >> >> Wolf-Ulrich's and my proposed draft is below. Apologies that, due to the limited functionality of the email program on my tablet, I've not been able to send just the text cut and pasted into a single email. >> >> Please let us know if you are fine with the letter. If I may, can I ask that comments be directed as far as possible to the substance rather than style (though I'm more than ready to take lessons on that in less time sensitive communications :-) >> >> Thanks and cheers >> Mary >> >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: AW: P.S. Re: Draft letter to GAC >> From: "<KnobenW(a)telekom.de>" <KnobenW(a)telekom.de> >> To: Mary Wong <Mary.Wong(a)law.unh.edu> >> CC: >> >> Mary, as I said I'm ok with the text. >> >> I would like to ask councillors whether we could give the following hint to the board regarding the fee reduction: >> << >> In particular we are confident that a common view can be achieved on the fee reduction which we see essential for needy applicants who qualify, thereby >> ensuring benefits from the new gTLD program are open to all parts of the community. >> >> >> >> Which may be inserted into the 3rd para (see attached) >> >> See you later >> Wolf-Ulrich >> >> >> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >> Von: Mary.Wong(a)law.unh.edu [mailto:Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu] >> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 27. Oktober 2011 15:53 >> An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich >> Betreff: P.S. Re: Draft letter to GAC >> >> Oops, I meant draft letter to the Board! >> >> "Mary Wong<mary.wong(a)law.unh.edu>" <Mary.Wong(a)law.unh.edu> wrote: >> >> >> Hi Wolf, thanks for volunteering to help out! What do you think of this - >> >> (From Stéphane as Council chair to Steve Crocker) >> >> Dear Dr. Crocker, >> >> I am pleased to send the following note on behalf of the GNSO Council, in relation to the recommendations contained in the Joint Applicant Support (JAS) Working Group (WG) Final Report. We understand that the Board has been working on the issue of how ICANN can demonstrate its commitment to ensuring fair and non-discriminatory access by and adequate support for needy applicants in the new gTLD program, and hope that the GNSO community can be of assistance in this regard. >> >> The GNSO Council and community which it represents shares the Board's commitment and fully supports the goals around which the JAS WG was formed. The Council is extremely grateful to the WG and its volunteers, for the incredible amount of work and the many substantive recommendations that it made, including in the Milestone Reports that were published prior to the Final Report. We accepted all the WG reports and have actively encouraged each of the GNSO's constituences and stakeholder groups to submit substantive comments and, where appropriate, level of support for each of the WG's recommendations. >> >> We understand that the Registry and Non-Commercial Stakeholder Groups have each submitted formal comments. We believe that other groups will follow suit. As the overall issue and specific recommendations are fairly complex, spanning financial, technical and policy implementation matters, we hope the Board understands that this is not a topic on which there is a unified community consensus. We believe that, as each constituency and stakeholder group's comments are received, it will be possible to see where there is consensus and/or support, and where there is disagreement. >> << >> In particular we are confident that a common view can be achieved on the fee reduction which we see essential for needy applicants who qualify, thereby >> ensuring benefits from the new gTLD program are open to all parts of the community. >> >> >> In addition, we hope that more specific implementation issues and suggestions may emerge from these comments. >> >> We are pleased that the Board has demonstrated a continuing and serious interest in the work of the JAS WG, and wish to inform you that the Council and GNSO community stands ready to assist the Board in coming to implementable decisions regarding this very important issue. >> >> Yours sincerely, >> Stéphane Van Gelder >> GNSO Council Chair >> >> >> > > ___________________________________________________________ > Thomas Rickert, Rechtsanwalt > Schollmeyer & Rickert Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft m.b.H. (i.e. law firm) > Geschäftsführer / CEO: Torsten Schollmeyer, Thomas Rickert > HRB 9262, AG Bonn > > Büro / Office Bonn: > Kaiserplatz 7-9, 53113 Bonn, Germany > Phone: +49 (0)228 74 898 - 0 > > Büro / Office Frankfurt a.M.: > Savignystraße 43, 60325 Frankfurt, Germany > Phone: +49 (0)69 714 021 - 56 > > Zentralfax: +49 (0)228 74 898 - 66 > > mailto: rickert(a)anwaelte.de > skype-id: trickert > web: www.anwaelte.de > > > > > >

2 1

WHOIS Service Requirements WG seeks volunteers
by Wendy Seltzer 27 Oct '11

27 Oct '11

As I mentioned at the council wrap-up, the WHOIS Services working group, which is preparing a survey on WHOIS service requirements, seeks additional volunteers. This is not policy development, but data-gathering on technical requirements (that might later inform technical improvements and/or policy development). If your constituencies have volunteers for this work, or want more information, please let me know, as Council liaison. Thanks, --Wendy -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html https://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/

1 0