June 2019 - CPWG - lists.icann.org

[registration-issues-wg] NARALO Insight: DNS Over HTTPS
by Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi June 19, 2019

June 19, 2019

Hi All, Going through the paper published by CENTR, depending on the means of implementation of DoH it could directly affect end users by limiting consumers' choice and competition. Currently users, if they wish could change the resolvers they are using. Again depending on the means of implementation, the browser companies, which are mainly 2-4 companies could have control over the traffic of the users and choose which resolvers they use. The paper raises many different questions and issues, like the possible impact on the multistakeholder model. In my opinion it is worth reading. Kind regards Hadia From: CPWG [mailto:cpwg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Hadia El Miniawi via CPWG Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2019 2:59 PM To: Eduardo Diaz; Humberto Carrasco Cc: CPWG Subject: Re: [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] NARALO Insight: DNS Over HTTPS Thank you Eduardo and Glenn. CENTR published yesterday a paper on DoH, the link is herewith CENTR Issue Paper on DNS over HTTPs<https://centr.org/library/library/policy-document/centr-issue-paper-on-dns-…> CENTR Issue Paper on DNS over HTTPs CENTR is the association of European coutry code top-level domain name registries. CENTR’s main purpose is to pr... Kind regards Hadia On Monday, June 17, 2019, 3:37:05 PM GMT+2, Humberto Carrasco <hcarrascob(a)gmail.com> wrote: Thanks a lot Eduardo!!! Enviado desde mi iPhone El 14-06-2019, a la(s) 13:25, Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera(a)gmail.com<mailto:eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com>> escribió: All: Our region believes that this will become a hot topic within ICANN in the near future. We invited Dan York from ISOC to explain this technology in layman's terms and to answer the following questions: [1] Will this affect the end-user? [2] Will this impact ICANN's remit?. Link to the video: https://youtu.be/c5CXaphNxU0 (Note: there is an approximate 1 minute gap around 9 minutes into the video. The rest of the video is OK after that). NARALO Insights are a dedicated video series on Internet Governance concerns with a special onus on relevant and topical discussion at ICANN. Our goal is to have community experts exchange ideas and regional perspectives on current hot topics to augment policy discussions within ALAC. -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. _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG(a)icann.org<mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG(a)icann.org<mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing list registration-issues-wg(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg _______________________________________________ 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

EPDP consultation
by Alan Greenberg June 18, 2019

June 18, 2019

Hadia had posted a proposal that we comment on EPDP Purpose 2 (the one that the Board did not ratify due to comments from the European Data Protection Board. Her comment was similar to one I made in a proposal to the ALAC EPDP Members and Alternates and later discussed during a CPWG call. I have now posted a new comment to be discussed tomorrow (all viewable at https://community.icann.org/x/J4ejBg) Alan ================= Although I agree with Hadia's general proposal, there was significant disagreement when it was discussed among the EPDP Members and Alternates and on the CPWG call, so I do not feel comfortable introducing it at this point, particularly since it was not a specific request in the call for community input. The proposal made to the Members and Alternates that was strongly supported was the following: The ALAC is not in a position to provide detailed guidance on the specific issues to be addressed during phase 2. The ALAC and its representatives on the EPDP of course reserve the right to comment as the work progresses. There are two areas where the ALAC has specific comments: 1. Redacted Data elements: To keep the work of the EPDP at a reasonable level, the ALAC suggests that instead of dealing with redacted data on an element-by-element basis for each class of request any category of requester, that the data elements be grouped together based on similar characteristics and impact. Specifically, the ALAC suggests that the EPDP group fields together in 4 categories: a) Registrant Name and Organization (if redacted) b) Registrant contact fields c) Tech name and contact fields d) Other redacted fields (Registry Domain ID, Registry Registrant ID 2. For OCTO, subject to requirement to keep data confidential, OCTO should have access to any data it requests for research of threat analysis. If ICANN were a typical data controller, it would automatically have such data without any further consideration.

1 0

ACTION/CPWG - 21 June ALAC Feedback on EPDP II
by Evin Erdogdu June 18, 2019

June 18, 2019

Dear CPWG Members, As per the AI from the 11 June CPWG meeting<https://community.icann.org/x/aZCjBg>, please provide your comments regarding ALAC Feedback on EPDP Phase II, which is requested by this Friday, 21 June. The At-Large workspace for the topic may be found here: https://community.icann.org/x/J4ejBg? Thank you, Evin

1 0

Fwd: NomCom Review: Feedback on planned implementation steps
by Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond June 12, 2019

June 12, 2019

Dear Maureen and Justine, I am writing to you to let you know of EURALO's response to the questions asked. We were contacted directly by NomCom Review staff. Having reviewed the ALAC's proposed response, I note that our answers are broadly aligned. Kindest regards, Olivier -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: NomCom Review: Feedback on planned implementation steps Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2019 15:48:10 +0200 From: Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com> To: Jean-Baptiste Deroulez <jean-baptiste.deroulez(a)icann.org> CC: Tom Barrett <tbarrett(a)encirca.com>, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr(a)gmail.com>, Zahid Jamil-IG (internet(a)jamilandjamil.com) <internet(a)jamilandjamil.com>, Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann(a)icann.org>, ICANN At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> Dear Jean-Baptiste, thank you for reaching out to EURALO. Please be so kind to find the EURALO input to this consultation with responses interspersed in your text below, written in BLUE. This input is not meant to contradict the ALAC input on the matter, as EURALO will support the ALAC's input. Although this input was prepared independently of the ALAC's input, it should be taken as complementary to the ALAC's advice. If you have any question about any part of EURALO's response, please do not hesitate to contact me. Kindest regards, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond EURALO Chair On 14/05/2019 16:51, Jean-Baptiste Deroulez wrote: > > Dear Olivier, > > Â > > We are contacting you in the capacity of Chair and Vice-Chairs of the > NomCom Review Implementation Working Group (NomComRIWG). Following the > ICANN Boardâ€™s acceptance > <https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2019-03-14-en#2.f>of > the Final Report > <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/nomcom-review-final-05jun18-en.…>and > the Feasibility Assessment and Initial Implementation Plan > <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/nomcom2-ipt-review-faiip-14dec1…>, > we have been tasked to oversee the implementation of the twenty-seven > (27) recommendations issued by the independent examiner. > > Â > > Before implementation can begin, the Board has asked us to draft a > Detailed Implementation Plan, due to be submitted to the Boardâ€™s > Organizational Effectiveness Committee no later than 14 September 2019. > > Â > > While the NomComRIWG has the Board-mandated responsibility to plan the > implementation of the twenty-seven recommendations, we would welcome > any and all feedback either as a single document from the EURALO or > from individual members of the EURALO. All feedback will inform our > drafting of the Detailed Implementation Plan.Â We understand that you > or the EURALO may not have the time to respond to all 27 > recommendations, so we have identified seven where your input would be > most helpful. > > Â > > Please, limit your response to the process you suggest we follow for > each implementation rather than advocating for any specific outcome of > the recommendation. > > Â > > *We kindly ask you to provide us with your feedback no later than 10 > June 2019*. If you cannot respond by that time, but would like to > provide input, please, let us know at your earliest convenience by > when we can expect your feedback. > > Â > > If you have any questions or concerns, either about the list of > questions, or about any other aspect of the NomCom Review > implementation, please, do not hesitate to reach out to us or any of > ICANNâ€™s support staff at any time. > > Â > > Many thanks and best wishes, > > Â > > Tom Barrett, Chair NomComRIWG > > Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Vice-Chair NomComRIWG > > Zahid Jamal, Vice-Chair NomComRIWG > > Â > > Â > > Cc: ALAC, ASO AC, ccNSO Council, GAC, GNSO Council, RSSAC, SSAC, NCSG, > RrSG, RySG, BC, IPC, ISPCP, NCUC, NPOC, AFRALO, APRALO, EURALO, > LACRALO, NARALO. > > > Â > > 1. *Recommendation 10*: Representation on the NomCom should be > re-balanced immediately and then be reviewed every five years. > > Â > > * What process, based on which principles, would you suggest forÂ > the implementation of this recommendation to rebalance the NomCom? > And, what criteriaÂ should the overall allocation of all NomCom > seats among the SO/ACs be based on? > This really depends on the actual "balancing". The recommendation suggests the creation of a working group that would be tasked with undertaking an assessment and ultimately making recommendations for the actual re-balancing. The IPT suggests (2) rebalancing could be rotational. The difference in balancing year on year will make this very complicated as the group might not include the same balance of stakeholders and this is likely to affect continuity. IPT suggestion (3) mentions the growth and expansion of SO/ACs - we believe that one has to be careful that gaming the system will not be used to multiply constituencies thus bringing more weight to the NomCom from a particular group of constituencies. At this moment in time, short of supporting a working group to take a deeper look at the issue and to make recommendations, we can only support the process that is currently suggested. > * > > > Â > > 2. *Recommendation 14*: Formalize communication between the NomCom > and the Board, SOs/ACs, and the PTI Board in order to understand > needed competencies and experience. > > Â > > * What process would you suggest to formalize the communicationof > the needed competencies and experiences of NomCom appointees to > your SO/AC? > This issue is not solely caused by lack of formalised communication. The Nominating Committee meets with SOs and ACs asking what skills are currently needed in their communities. But the way the question is asked at present appears like asking a resident what size of pipe they would like installed inside their house: they would have no idea. A questionnaire asking the right questions, addressing specific topics, could provide much more insights as to skill gaps in SOs, ACs and the ICANN Board, than an open question "what type of profile do you need?" It would also be helpful if the NomCom itself would publish its own perception of perceived gaps in skill-sets and competencies on the Board, as this can serve as a good starting point for discussions with the community. > * > > > Â > > 3. *Recommendation 16*: Implement and codify a system for providing > feedback to the NomCom regarding the contributions and > participation of members up for re-appointment by the NomCom (i.e. > for the Board, PTI, GNSO, ALAC and ccNSO) > > Â > > * What process would you suggest to improve feedback to the NomCom > regarding the contribution and participation of NomCom-appointees > members that wish to apply forre-appointment by the NomCom? > The NomCom should be provided with full feedback from the body into which it appointed a candidate, about that candidate's performance. This feedback should be confidential to the NomCom so as to allow for a candid assessment of that person's performance. Optionally, a NomCom appointing a candidate to a position could store a rationale of specific points/characteristics that resonated to appoint this candidate and this rationale could be made available to a later NomCom that would have to evaluate whether the expectations of that prior NomCom were fulfilled regarding that candidate. This additional information could help with the NomCom's decision to re-appoint a candidate. > * > > > Â > > 4. *Recommendation 24*: An empowered body of current and former > NomCom members should be formed to ensure greater continuity > across NomComs, and in particular, to recommend and assist in > implementing improvements to NomCom operations. > > Â > > * What process do you suggest should be put in place to help ensure > cross-community consensus on developing the Charter and formation > of this body? The Charter would address issues such as membership, > term-limits, number and allocation of seats. > This "empowered body" should be a cross community group composed of members of the community appointed by their respective component organisation, in the same manner as NomCom participants. Its membership should be made up of the current NomCom chair plus a past NomCom Chair, as well as past NomCom members across the community. The function of this group should be to focus purely on procedural matters and should not influence NomCom selections. Its primary function should be to make recommendations for ICANN component organisations to act on. It should also receive instructions from component organisations to implement recommendations. In no way should it both recommend and implement without the express agreement from NomCom component organisations. > * > > > > > Â > > 5. *Recommendation 25*: Improve NomCom selection decisions by > assessing the performance and needs of all bodies receiving NomCom > appointees. > > Â > > * What process would you suggest for your organization to inform and > improve future NomCom appointments? > Prior to searching for candidates, a questionnaire asking the right questions, addressing specific topics, could provide much more insights as to skill gaps in SOs, ACs and the ICANN Board than an open question "what type of profile do you need?" The SO/AC should also provide candid feedback to the NomCom about a candidate's past performance. This, again, could also be done via a questionnaire to the Chair of the body that the returning candidate has been appointed to. Both questionnaires could be linked and compared so as to find out of the original skills gap was competently fulfilled. Ultimately a form of uniform feedback process, either through a specific feedback form asking pertinent questions, or through a uniform 360 peer review process used across all of ICANN, would help with comparing performance of appointed candidates. > * > > > Â > > 6. *Recommendation 27*: Provide clarity on desire for and definition > of â€œindependent directorsâ€. Upon clarification of desire and > definition, determine the number of specific seats for > â€œindependent directorsâ€. > > Â > > Â·Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â What are your suggestions regarding the process of > implementing of this recommendation? > > Â > The notion of "independent directors" is misguided. Whilst the NomCom selected directors can be part of the ICANN community, all NomCom selected directors should be, as much as possible, unrelated to the Domain Name industry. They should be completely un-conflicted for all decisions of the ICANN Board and should not derive a direct income from the domain name business. This is needed mainly to balance out ICANN Board members appointed by SOs and ACs that are more likely to be conflicted. Declaring a conflict of interest is not enough in this case. ---- end of contribution ---

4 3

Pre-ICANN65 Policy Report Now Available
by Evin Erdogdu June 12, 2019

June 12, 2019

Dear All, The Pre-ICANN65 Policy Report is now available. Please download here<https://go.icann.org/pre65>, and retweet<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge/status/1138770806748655616> and repost?<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge/> the At-Large social media announcements. Kind Regards, Evin

1 0

Meeting Invitation: At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call on Tuesday, 11 June 2019 at 20:00 UTC for 90 mins
by ICANN At-Large Staff June 12, 2019

June 12, 2019

***PLEASE NOTED- WE WILL NOT HAVE ES INTERPRETATION FOR THIS CALL*** Dear All, The next At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call is scheduled for Wednesday, 19 June 2019 at 19:00 UTC for 90 mins. For other times: https://tinyurl.com/yyo325gm The agenda (To be Updated) and call details can be found at: https://community.icann.org/x/pJqjBg Zoom Room: https://icann.zoom.us/j/103683211 / Meeting ID: 103-683-211 ADIGO Conference Bridge: EN: 1638 Toll-free access number (US and Canada): 800 550 6865 Other toll-free numbers: https://www.adigo.com/icann [adigo.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.adigo.com_icann&d=…> 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@atlarge.icann.org<mailto: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 [atlarge.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__atlarge.icann.org_&d=D…> Facebook: facebook.com/icann [facebook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_icann…>atlarge [facebook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_icann…> Twitter: @ [twitter.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANNAtLar…>ICANNAtLarge [twitter.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_ICANNAtLar…>

2 1

At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call
by ICANN Policy Calendar June 12, 2019

June 12, 2019

***PLEASE NOTED- WE WILL NOT HAVE ES INTERPRETATION FOR THIS CALL*** Dear All, The next At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call is scheduled for Wednesday, 19 June 2019 at 19:00 UTC for 90 mins. For other times: https://tinyurl.com/yyo325gm The agenda (to be updated) and call details can be found at: https://community.icann.org/x/pJqjBg Zoom Room: https://icann.zoom.us/j/103683211 Meeting ID: 103-683-211 ADIGO Conference Bridge: EN: 1638 Toll-free access number (US and Canada): 800 550 6865 Other toll-free numbers: https://www.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<mailto: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

ACTION/CPWG Members - ALAC/At-Large ICANN65 Talking Points
by Evin Erdogdu June 11, 2019

June 11, 2019

Dear CPWG Members, Please review (comment) on the ALAC/At-Large ICANN65 Talking Points Google Doc: https://drive.google.com/a/icann.org/file/d/14Sm-IqmZpGQDACAVHBS1XvjtkAz4LJ… Also attached in Word Doc for your reference. ?Thank you, Evin

4 4

ACTION/CPWG Members: Statement on Evolving ICANN’s Multistakeholder Model
by Evin Erdogdu June 11, 2019

June 11, 2019

Dear CPWG Members, Please see in advance of the CPWG call today (Tuesday), 11 June at 20:00 UTC?<https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/2019-06-11+Consolidated+Policy+…>, the finalized version of the ALAC Statement on Evolving ICANN's Multistakeholder Model for your review. Kind Regards, Evin

1 0

REMINDER / Meeting invitation: At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call is scheduled for Tuesday, 11 June 2019 at 20:00 UTC
by ICANN At-Large Staff June 11, 2019

June 11, 2019

2 1