September 2018 - CPWG - lists.icann.org

Draft comment for Uiversal Acceptance
by Eduardo Diaz Sept. 12, 2018

Sept. 12, 2018

@All: Satish and I have put together this draft comment HERE <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1n7iN2u3LS7WQn0lA1Lq-gnxMYj2VIFS-VaMjtCY…> for your consideration and comments. We may want to discuss this during our meeting today. -ed -- *NOTICE:* This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.

1 0

Re: [CPWG] [GTLD-WG] Next possible move related to GDPR
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 8, 2018

Sept. 8, 2018

Evan, that is fine for a report, but it is less clear what that means for participation in a process such as the edpd. Let us hypothesize that there are 4 billion users and 2% of them are gTLD registrants (80,000,000). Does that mean that Hadia and I should push strongly for law enforcement and cybersecurity professionals to have good access most of the time, but for 2% of the time we strongly support those who want to minimize their access because they do not believe that there is sufficient justification to infringe on registrant privacy (ie the "privacy fetishists ;-) )? That will not give us much credibility! Remember, it is not a case of nit providing privacy for those who are granted those rights under GDPR or similar legislation. That is a given! Alan At 03/09/2018 01:35 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >In previous policy activity (IIRC it was with the Red Cross / IOC CCWG) the >group I was in had similar challenges. So in the final report issues and >positions were broken down this way: > >1) Consensus (rough rather than unanimity) >2) Strong support but significant opposition >3) Minority position >4) Divergence without clear direction > >It's not unreasonable to do this, recognizing both majority and minority >views. It might help to also readers to identify if opposition or minority >views are held by identifiable subgroups (ie, members of At-Large who are >also registrants or associated with contracted parties, or from a >particular geographical region). > >Consensus is great, but if unavailable ought not to be replaced with >tyranny of the majority. We owe our community the honesty to recognize >diversity, not just in the makeup of our leadership but also in the makeup >of our positions. > >PS: I want to thank Greg for adding the phrase "privacy fetishists" to my >ICANN lexicon. It's a more useful phrase than it should be. > >___________________ >Evan Leibovitch, Toronto >@evanleibovitch/@el56 > >_______________________________________________ >CPWG mailing list >CPWG(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg > >_______________________________________________ >GTLD-WG mailing list >GTLD-WG(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg > >Working Group direct URL: >https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs

17 53

Fwd: [So-ac-sg-cleaders] FOR YOUR INFORMATION: Upcoming GDPR webinar and next community leaders' update call
by Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond Sept. 7, 2018

Sept. 7, 2018

FYI - for people who have missed the recent CPWG call that had a presentation on GDPR, there is a chance for an ICANN-wide GDPR update Webinar. Kindest regards, Olivier -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [So-ac-sg-cleaders] FOR YOUR INFORMATION: Upcoming GDPR webinar and next community leaders' update call Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2018 20:42:54 +0000 From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> To: so-ac-sg-cleaders(a)icann.org <so-ac-sg-cleaders(a)icann.org> CC: Eleeza Agopian <eleeza.agopian(a)icann.org> Dear Community Leaders, Thank you to those who were able to join the last GDPR community leaders’ update call on 13 August 2018. In case you missed it, a link to the recording and materials is available on this page: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/data-protection-meetings-2017-12-08-en. We would like to take this opportunity to let you know that ICANN organization is planning a community-wide GDPR update webinar on *26 September 2018*. An announcement with Adobe Connect and dial-in details will be published shortly. In this regard, you may recall that we had proposed holding the GDPR community leaders’ update calls on a monthly basis, on or around the first Thursday of the month. Given the upcoming webinar and the similarity of the content we will be presenting there with what we will likely also present on a September call, we hope you’ll agree that it is best to postpone the next community leaders’ update call to the first week of October. We hope that you and those of your community members who are interested in the issue will be able to attend the 26 September webinar. We will be following up with further details about the planned October community leaders’ update soon. In the meantime, please let us know if you have any questions or concerns. Thank you. Best regards, Mary (on behalf of ICANN organization and our Executive Team)

1 0

Meeting Invitation: Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call on Wednesday, 12 September 2018 at 19:00 UTC for 90mins
by ICANN At-Large Staff Sept. 6, 2018

Sept. 6, 2018

Please note: Working Group will be meeting at rotating times of 19:00 UTC and 13:00 UTC, alternating weekly. Dear All, The next At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call is scheduled for Wednesday, 12 September 2018 at 19:00 UTC for 90 mins. For other times: https://tinyurl.com/y92p4fz2 The agenda (to be updated) and call details can be found at: https://community.icann.org/x/RQiNBQ AC Room: https://participate.icann.org/cpwg/ ADIGO Conference Bridge: EN: 3535 Toll-free access number (US and Canada): 800 550 6865 Other toll-free numbers: http://adigo.com/icann/ At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Wiki Space: https://community.icann.org/x/jYDpB If you require a dial-out please contact At-Large staff at: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<applewebdata://D0C9D8AD-F5F9-47D1-8000-12B5977AB503/staff@atlarge.icann.org> Thank you. Kind regards, At-Large Staff ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community Website: atlarge.icann.org<https://atlarge.icann.org/> Facebook: facebook.com/icann<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge>atlarge<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> Twitter: @<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>ICANNAtLarge<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>

1 0

Re: [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] [GTLD-WG] Next possible move related to GDPR
by Seun Ojedeji Sept. 5, 2018

Sept. 5, 2018

Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Tue, 4 Sep 2018, 22:53 Holly Raiche, <h.raiche(a)internode.on.net> wrote: > Thanks Jonathan > > Yes, true. But if we are to make an argument that those who are NOT ‘law > enforcement’ should have access, then we have to say why. Under the GDPR, > it simply is not good enough to say that I should have access because I > hunt down the bad guys. If we are clear that we must operate within GDPR > bounds, then there has to be reason why an individual who isn’t in uniform > should have access. > SO: Absolute +1 to the above, resonates partly with my antivirus analogy. Regards > Holly > On 5 Sep 2018, at 7:18 am, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck(a)innovatorsnetwork.org> > wrote: > > Thanks Holly. I appreciate you have a nuanced view but the term “law > enforcement” gets used pretty specifically to exclude commercial interests > so I just wanted to be clear. > > *From:* Holly Raiche <h.raiche(a)internode.on.net> > *Sent:* Tuesday, September 4, 2018 5:01 PM > *To:* Jonathan Zuck <JZuck(a)innovatorsnetwork.org> > *Cc:* Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch(a)gmail.com>; cpwg(a)icann.org > *Subject:* Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] Next possible > move related to GDPR > > Hi Jonathan > > I’m using the term generally. Please don’t think the words apply only to > those in uniform. We are talking about abuse of the Internet and how to > stop it. And I”m sure there would be a very good argument to say that > those engaged in stopping abuse of the Internet should be considered for > access. But again - please lets first talk about a broad definition. then > lets talk about how to define those who do it in a way that does not give > carte blanche to anyone who wants to set up shop so they can have access. > > So let’s not create a narrow framework for the debate. But please, let’s > stay within a broad framework > > Holly > On 5 Sep 2018, at 6:54 am, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck(a)innovatorsnetwork.org> > wrote: > > > It’s not just law enforcement that help prevent maleware, spam and > phishing. It’s researchers, commercial enterprises that build reputational > databases and yes, even ip folks because there’s a strong correlation > between copyright and trademark infringement and these other woes. Don’t > reduce it to law enforcement. > > *From:* GTLD-WG <gtld-wg-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Holly > Raiche > *Sent:* Tuesday, September 4, 2018 4:49 PM > *To:* Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch(a)gmail.com> > *Cc:* cpwg(a)icann.org > *Subject:* Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] Next possible > move related to GDPR > > > Sorry Evan > > I’m with Bastiaan and Tijani and Roberto on this one. > > Yes, I asked for balance. And in many of my earlier emails on this issue, > I have always acknowledged the genuine reason for law enforcement agencies > (defined broadly) to address the misuse of the Internet. > > I am just saying we must be very careful in giving blanket access to > personal data from everyone who puts their hands up to say that they need > the data for their own personal pursuit of miscreants. > > Holly > > > On 5 Sep 2018, at 12:58 am, Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Hi Holly, > > > > I'm with Carlton on this. > > > > I would remind all to recall the reason we are here: ICANN Bylaw Section > 12.2(d)(i): > > > > The role of the ALAC shall be to consider and provide advice on the > activities of ICANN, insofar as they relate to the interests individual > Internet users. > > > > We are here (primarily, arguably exclusively) to (a) determine positions > based on the needs of the billions of Internet users and (b) advance those > positions within ICANN as strongly as possible. Our role is not to consider > and balance all sides before-the-fact; that is for the greater > community-based negotiation and ultimately the Board. We are here as > advocates, not conciliators. > > > > Like it or not, ICANN is an adversarial environment in which (Holly and > Tijani, you both know this as well as anyone) historically the needs of > end-users have taken a back seat to all other interests. If At-Large does > not clearly articulate the needs of end users, nobody will -- indeed that > is our singular role in ICANN -- and even when we do we're not always > listened to. Of course reasonable result and compromise are possible, but > let's not handicap our positions before we start. There's been little > "balance" or consideration shown to date by those who have already made > enforcement of existing ICANN abuse regulations a nightmare and would > eagerly roll back even the meagre attempts at protection that already exist. > > > > > When the tolerant and reasonable encounter the intolerant and > unreasonable, even if the tolerant are far greater in numbers, the latter > gets its way. > > > > Cheers, > > Evan > > > > > > On Tue, 4 Sep 2018 at 07:58, Holly Raiche <h.raiche(a)internode.on.net> > wrote: > > Folks > > > > First - Carlton, while I almost always agree with you, I”m afraid that, > this time, I think Bastiaan has made a very good argument and I agree with > his statement - which is even more impressive since English is not his > first language. Well done Bastiaan. > > > > And for Carlton - I still think we are on the same page - or close to. > > > > And to borrow from a presentation I recently attended: the issue isn’t > privacy versus security; it is really an issue of one aspect of security > versus another - both are necessary. > > > > Holly > > On 4 Sep 2018, at 8:43 pm, Bastiaan Goslings < > bastiaan.goslings(a)ams-ix.net> wrote: > > > > > > > >> On 4 Sep 2018, at 12:22, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > >> > > >> Bastiaan: > > >> You seem adept at destroying context to feed your allergy. > > > > > > > > > I ’seem adept at destroying’? > > > > > > Ok, thank you… I am not an English native speaker so I had to look it > up just to confirm what you might mean. You have a talent for (‘seem adept > at’) phrasing your sentences quite archaically ;-) > > > > > > Anyway, perception is of course in the eye of the beholder, which I’ll > have to respect and therefore cannot comment on. Suffice to say I > completely disagree, I have no intention whatsoever to consciously destroy > anything, I could have easily quoted someone else to make my point. One > that still stands btw. > > > > > > > > >> My phrasing was in context of defining what I meant by majority. Your > interpretation blithely ignored the contextual meaning..There is a word > for that I cannot recall at the minute. > > >> > > >> Kindly, > > >> -Carlton > > > > > > > > > Right. Not very ‘kind’ from where I sit, but I am not going to take > offence here. > > > > > > -Bastiaan > > > _______________________________________________ > CPWG mailing list > CPWG(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg > _______________________________________________ > GTLD-WG mailing list > GTLD-WG(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg > > Working Group direct URL: > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs > > > _______________________________________________ > CPWG mailing list > CPWG(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg > _______________________________________________ > registration-issues-wg mailing list > registration-issues-wg(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg >

2 1

De-emphasis on Domain Names....or a Kill?
by Carlton Samuels Sept. 5, 2018

Sept. 5, 2018

Google is requesting comments on the plan. https://www.wired.com/story/google-wants-to-kill-the-url/ https://domainnamewire.com/2018/09/05/putting-the-google-chrome-url-news-in… -Carlton ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================

2 1

REMINDER / Meeting Invitation: Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call on Wednesday, 05 September 2018 at 13:00 UTC for 90mins
by ICANN At-Large Staff Sept. 5, 2018

Sept. 5, 2018

If you require a dial-out please contact At-Large staff at staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<file:///composeviewinternalloadurl/staff@atlarge.icann.org> with your preferred number. Please remember that it is now possible to connect your audio via the AC room, without using your telephone. You need a stable internet connection. If you would like a reminder of how to connect please let staff know. *** This call is scheduled at 13:00 UTC, instead of 19:00 UTC, due to trying to avoid conflict with AFRALO Monthly Call. *** Please note: Working Group will be meeting at rotating times of 19:00 UTC and 13:00 UTC, alternating weekly. Dear All, The next At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call is scheduled for Wednesday, 05 September 2018 at 13:00 UTC for 90 mins. For other times: https://tinyurl.com/ya6223xk The agenda (to be updated) and call details can be found at: https://community.icann.org/x/UAONBQ AC Room: https://participate.icann.org/cpwg/ ADIGO Conference Bridge: EN: 3535 Toll-free access number (US and Canada): 800 550 6865 Other toll-free numbers: http://adigo.com/icann/ At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Wiki Space: https://community.icann.org/x/jYDpB If you require a dial-out please contact At-Large staff at: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<applewebdata://D0C9D8AD-F5F9-47D1-8000-12B5977AB503/staff@atlarge.icann.org> Thank you. Kind regards, At-Large Staff ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community Website: atlarge.icann.org<https://atlarge.icann.org/> Facebook: facebook.com/icann<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge>atlarge<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> Twitter: @<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>ICANNAtLarge<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>

1 1

CPWG 5 Sep 2018 Call -- Update on inputs to Initial Report on the New gTLD SubPro PDP
by Justine Chew Sept. 4, 2018

Sept. 4, 2018

Olivier, Jonathan, colleagues, My apologies as I am unable to join the CPWG 5 Sep call because of a clash with another PDP WG call. I am thus proffering a written update on the sections which I am involved in along with a couple of suggestions for consideration/discussion:- *1) Section 2.2.3 Applications Assessed in Rounds <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rlGb86PXT50tYN33WHtwi94trFpoAoB6r63O_v6…>* We have had some inputs from various people to this topic (aka Batching Applications) -- while a majority seem to favour continuation of rounds (applications vs assessment) mainly for the purpose of allowing correction of deficient program policies and/or implementation hiccups, as well as effective contention identification/resolution and CPE, a minority does not believe rounds are necessary to achieve the intended outcomes. *Option 1 'Lowest common denominator' for full consensus* Last week I mentioned the possibility of approaching drafting a response on the basis of a 'lowest common denominator'. How this might work, is to ask whether the minority view foresees that the harm in NOT having rounds (if any) outweighs that of continuing the program in rounds, as ultimately, I heard that even the minority view agrees that there needs to be some way to seamlessly introduce corrections to deficient program policies and/or implementation hiccups. *Option 2 Majority with Minority Views* Or alternatively, we could attempt a statement which presents a majority view (still consensus, though not full consensus) and a minority view. I am wondering which option would CPWG members prefer to move forward with? *2) Section 2.5.4 Applicant Support <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rlGb86PXT50tYN33WHtwi94trFpoAoB6r63O_v6…>* We have had some input from a number of CPWG members (and non-members too I think) and I believe they all generally point to the conclusion that the ASP is still very much needed but that it was too inaccessible in the 2012 rounds. I am grateful that *Tijani Ben Jemaa* has kindly agreed to take the lead in raising to the CPWG's attention any issues pertaining to Applicant Support for discussion at this 5 Sep call. Separately, I am happy to inform that as of today, two of the three 2012 round Applicant Support applicants' representatives have responded to my request for feedback on their experience with the ASP in the 2012 round <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rlGb86PXT50tYN33WHtwi94trFpoAoB6r63O_v6…>. I believe the co-penholders for this section are still reviewing these 2 responses at this point. *3) Section 2.8.1 Objections <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rlGb86PXT50tYN33WHtwi94trFpoAoB6r63O_v6…>* I have completed my input to the preliminary recommendations and questions under the topic of Objections and currently await comments to the same. The inputs touch mainly on the GAC Advice mechanism (Alan Greenberg also commented), the role of the Independent Objector, and objections by ALAC / Community Objections. I have not provided input to String Objection or Legal Rights Objection as I believe these are beyond the scope of At-Large. 4) *Section 2.9.1 Community Applications (CPE)* <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rlGb86PXT50tYN33WHtwi94trFpoAoB6r63O_v6…> This topic has also received input from a number of CPWG members and I understand the discussion is now centered around the need for a more workable definition of 'community'. *Another Suggestion, relating to CC2* Another suggestion that I would like to propose for consideration is to look back at ALAC's New gTLD SubPro CC2 comments, and extract comments for topics which fall outside the sections being addressed by the CPWG currently AND where those comments remain relevant, that they be included in ALAC's statement to the (present) SubPro's August Initial Report. The reason I am proposing this is two-fold: (1) for a more complete statement and (2) I believe there are comments in CC2 which are worth repeating for our present purposes. I would be happy to undertake said extraction in the event there is majority support for this suggestion. I bid you all a good meeting. Regards, Justine Chew ----

1 0

Re: [CPWG] [GTLD-WG] [registration-issues-wg] Next possible move related to GDPR
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 4, 2018

Sept. 4, 2018

A couple of points, most not in relation to a particular previous comment but to the overall conversation here over the last few days. The fact that the ultimate result will be a compromise is a given That is what GDPR is. It calls for protection of personal information, BUT allows access for legitimate reasons. It is where that line is that is the question, and what are the legally admissible arguments for setting the line at a particular place for a given rationale. And that last part is the difficulty. Different parties have different aims. Some are looking purely at privacy and believe it should be maximized. Others, for convenience or real need want to make access more liberal. Others really don't care, but want to minimize their exposure and risk to be cited for violations 9(and indeed, public companies have a legal responsibility to their shareholders to minimize such risk). If we had enough time, effort, full understanding of the various needs and positions, and the wisdom of the proverbial bibilical Solomon, perhaps we could establish just what that compromise is with regard to WHOIS/RDS. But that is not out job. How iCANN works, is that we each need to represent what is important to use and if you believe in in the multistakeholder model, or in magic, what will come out the other end is a balanced result that will make us all happy. Or all equally unhappy. The premise of the EPDP is that we WILL end up with something that we believe will pass the GDPR test of balance. There is no shortage of people there who will be pressing for ultimate registrant privacy. So the question is, what should out stance be there? Some level of balance is a given - we do not need to defend that. One other point on ccTLDs (and for that matter a select number of gTLDs). Many such TLDs have very low levels of abuse, because they have registration policies regarding who can register a domain and in some cases how it can be used. And these policies are enforced. So patterns of use and abuse are quite different. If gTLDs were controlled as many ccTLDs are, we would not be having many of the conversations we have. Or the problems we have... Alan

1 0

Unified Access Model published for community input
by Greg Shatan Sept. 4, 2018

Sept. 4, 2018

All, As mentioned on today's CPWG call, ICANN org published a blog earlier this week releasing the proposed Unified Access Model for community input. https://www.icann.org/news/blog/possible-unified-access-model -published-for-community-input The proposal itself can be found here: Draft Framework for a Possible Unified Access Model for Continued Access to Full WHOIS Data – For Discussion <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/framework-elements-unified-acce…> I am the penholder on this comment. Please reply to this email if your are interested in commenting. Thanks! Greg -- Greg Shatan greg(a)isoc-ny.org "The Internet is for everyone"

5 7