January 2020 - CPWG - lists.icann.org

Fwd: [NCUC-DISCUSS] ICANN Receives Letter from California Attorney General Regarding .ORG Change of Control
by Marita Moll Feb. 4, 2020

Feb. 4, 2020

Attached for your information, letter to ICANN from the California AG. ICANN has is now seeking a deadline extention from PIR in order to reply to the 35 questions posed by the State of California re the proposed sale. Marita -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [NCUC-DISCUSS] ICANN Receives Letter from California Attorney General Regarding .ORG Change of Control Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2020 12:58:57 -0200 From: Bruna Martins dos Santos <bruna.mrtns(a)gmail.com> To: NCUC Discuss <ncuc-discuss(a)lists.ncuc.org> Dear NCUC, FYI During this morning, at the NCSG call with Board Member Matthew Shears, he mentioned that the Office of the Attorney General of the State of California has requested information from ICANN regarding the PIR deal. The correspondence <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/ca-ago-to-icann-board-…> asks a set of 35 questions/requests to ICANN, from organizational matters, ICANNs capacity to regulate the registration fees and so on. Icann also issued a blog post <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2020-01-30-en> explaining that they are also /"providing formal notice to PIR, pursuant to the terms of the PIR Registry Agreements, because the CA-AGO has requested that ICANN provide information that PIR designated as confidential. In addition, the CA-AGO has asked for more time, surpassing the current ICANN deadline to review the proposed change of control of the PIR Registry Agreements that is currently set as 17 February 2020. Accordingly, the letter from ICANN to PIR requests additional time, up to 20 April 2020, to conclude both the CA-AGO and ICANN reviews." / Best regards, -- */Bruna Martins dos Santos /* Skype ID: bruna.martinsantos @boomartins

9 14

ALAC Advice to the ICANN Board on ISOC/PIR Issue
by Roberto Gaetano Jan. 30, 2020

Jan. 30, 2020

As anticipated in the chat during the call, I believe that there is one point that we might want to highlight. Under “Observations” I would add something like: 3. .ORG is the only large gTLD that is committed to operate in the public interest One of the reasons for ICANN to exist was to introduce competition in the DNS marketplace. It did so by splitting the registry and the registrar function, introducing competition at the registrar level, but also by re-delegating .ORG to a non-profit. This has ensured not only to have a champion of good practices, but also to increase competition because .ORG has a different business model, that is not oriented exclusively to maximisation of the profit. Disappearance of this alternative business model will substantially reduce the competition in the marketplace. I know that this is coming quite late, I am sorry for that. However, this point might be relevant because it hints that ICANN is not fulfilling its obligation of fostering competition if it allows the disappearance of an alternative business model for a registry. Cheers, Roberto

5 4

Meeting invitation: At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call on Wednesday, 05 February 2020 at 13:00 UTC
by ICANN At-Large Staff Jan. 30, 2020

Jan. 30, 2020

***If you require a dial out or need to state an apology, please contact At-Large staff at staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> with your preferred number*** Dear All, The next At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call is scheduled for Wednesday, 05 February 2020 at 13:00 UTC for 90 mins. For other times: https://tinyurl.com/vzfxprq The agenda (to be updated) and call details can be found at: https://community.icann.org/x/LQ_JBw Zoom Room: https://icann.zoom.us/j/765717566 / Meeting ID: 765-717-566 – Please note, the zoom room link and Meeting ID will remain the same for each weekly meeting. Real time transcription (RTT) available at (subject to availability): https://www.streamtext.net/player?event=ICANN [streamtext.net] [streamtext.net]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.streamtext.net_pla…> ADIGO Conference Bridge: EN: 1638 ES: 1738 FR: 1838 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(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 [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…>

1 0

At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG)
by ICANN Policy Calendar Jan. 30, 2020

Jan. 30, 2020

***If you require a dial out or need to state an apology, please contact At-Large staff at staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> with your preferred number*** Dear All, The next At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call is scheduled for Wednesday, 05 February 2020 at 13:00 UTC for 90 mins. For other times: https://tinyurl.com/vzfxprq The agenda (to be updated) and call details can be found at: https://community.icann.org/x/LQ_JBw Zoom Room: https://icann.zoom.us/j/765717566 / Meeting ID: 765-717-566 - Please note, the zoom room link and Meeting ID will remain the same for each weekly meeting. Real time transcription (RTT) available at (subject to availability): https://www.streamtext.net/player?event=ICANN [streamtext.net] [streamtext.net]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.streamtext.net_pla…> ADIGO Conference Bridge: EN: 1638 ES: 1738 FR: 1838 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(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 [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…>

1 0

At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG)
by ICANN Policy Calendar Jan. 30, 2020

Jan. 30, 2020

***If you require a dial out or need to state an apology, please contact At-Large staff at staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> with your preferred number*** Dear All, The next At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call is scheduled for Wednesday, 05 February 2020 at 13:00 UTC for 90 mins. For other times: https://tinyurl.com/vzfxprq The agenda (to be updated) and call details can be found at: https://community.icann.org/x/LQ_JBw Zoom Room: https://icann.zoom.us/j/765717566 / Meeting ID: 765-717-566 - Please note, the zoom room link and Meeting ID will remain the same for each weekly meeting. Real time transcription (RTT) available at (subject to availability): https://www.streamtext.net/player?event=ICANN [streamtext.net] [streamtext.net]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.streamtext.net_pla…> ADIGO Conference Bridge: EN: 1638 ES: 1738 FR: 1838 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(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 [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…>

1 0

Atrt3 public comment
by Laurin B Weissinger Jan. 29, 2020

Jan. 29, 2020

Dear all, Unfortunately, I will not be able to join the CPWG call today. My apologies First, as one of the penholders for ALAC, I will go with what is consensus. I will, however, post my concerns individually depending on what the consensus call will be. Second, I am talking about SSR because this is what I do, have studied and worked in for years — but some points apply more broadly. Third, I have to give a talk in a few minutes, please excuse brevity and bad style. Regarding the ATRT3 comment: Stability, Resiliency, and Security, which includes integrity, availability, and confidentiality, are what matters to registrants and the people who rely on identifiers. The only key concern I see that is not SSR is pricing / competition and even that interacts and intersects a lot (abuse). I am very worried about the push to reduce the SSR review to short workshops, or similar. They are not at all superfluous. I could post many many references to how security management needs external review but I won’t bore you. SSAC and RSSAC give advice, they do not audit / review. Many approaches to doing this are fine, the key to all of them is to have actual **oversight, transparency, and consequences / actions to address SSR concerns** (i.e. not the status quo). Continuous assessment sounds good and would be useful but how that would happen needs to be fleshed out because the current system is not working and internet users are at risk every day. For example, ICANN contracts do not address systemic abuse (think alpnames and their 50%+ of new registrations blacklisted by spamhaus), or because minimum standards are not enforced like in other industries: e.g. payment industry, health, etc. DAAR, i.e. just data no actual action, is severely lacking; no data on who is enabling abuse so that administrators can address that attack vector. Further info in the early draft report released by SSR2 for public comment for perspective on how things are looking. Again, it is not working right now and we need to have oversight of these key issues, and the solution is not to reduce transparency of security matters but to increase it. The issue is not just burnout but that people are not heard on security, as security costs ICANN and contracted parties money. I consider security costs to be okay; ICANN is the steward of the DNS and their job includes providing functional, global resolution as well as protecting users from being abused through the infrastructure. If you cannot provide base line levels of controls, maybe you shouldn’t offer these services. Options or approaches I consider appropriate: - Have short but **more frequent** reviews on SSR, e.g. twice per year. With people having overlapping terms (at least 1 year overlap, better 1.5/2) to ensure knowledge transfer. - Retain SSR reviews but get ICANN to support it properly (unlike SSR2), that will speed things up considerably. I can tell you many stories, e.g. our support being cancelled without discussion with the team. - Get a proper certification and **audit** regime in place (org so far doesn’t want that): iso27k, staff certification, iso9k, etc etc. Do external, third party audits like any org like ICANN should — and **publish** (summary) reports. (In short, many options). Different but key point: - ICANN has **not** taken anti-abuse and security seriously, and it remains a key issue for users, again more academic studies and references on this than I can count. Just look at Dave P’s bog. Whatever the regime will be chosen, it must ensure that ICANN is taking security seriously, that there is actual oversight (not like we have it now where security-relevant data and information are not made available), and that there are actual *consequences* when ICANN fails to take this seriously. SSR might be a key element of the strategic plan but whatever atrt goes with should ensure that ICANN is actually held to this. ICANN org saying that SSR concerns have been addressed is **not enough**, we know that we cannot rely on that call because of what SSR and other reviews find. We need that external check. All the best Laurin

1 0

**REMINDER** Meeting invitation: next At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call on Wednesday, 29 January 2020 at 19:00 UTC
by ICANN At-Large Staff Jan. 29, 2020

Jan. 29, 2020

***If you require a dial out or need to state an apology, please contact At-Large staff at staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> with your preferred number*** Dear All, The next At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call is scheduled for Wednesday, 29 January 2020 at 19:00 UTC for 90 mins. For other times: https://tinyurl.com/ukrju97 The agenda (to be updated) and call details can be found at: https://community.icann.org/x/2QqJBw Zoom Room: https://icann.zoom.us/j/765717566 / Meeting ID: 765-717-566 – Please note, the zoom room link and Meeting ID will remain the same for each weekly meeting. Real time transcription (RTT) available at (subject to availability): https://www.streamtext.net/player?event=ICANN [streamtext.net] [streamtext.net]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.streamtext.net_pla…> ADIGO Conference Bridge: EN: 1638 ES: 1738 FR: 1838 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(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 [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…>

1 0

Presentation on Auction Proceeds
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 29, 2020

Jan. 29, 2020

As you may recall from the last CPWG meeting, Judith has drafted a comment on the draft report of the CCWG Auction Proceeds. I (and Sebastien), as two of the five ALAC-appointed Members of the CCWG, strongly disagree with it. The comment is due to be discussed at today's CPWG meeting, but I am tied up in a critical EPDP F2F meeting and cannot join the CPWG. I am attaching a short presentation which I ask Jonathan or Olivier to present on my behalf. If anyone has any question sfor me, please send them via e-mail, or put them in the wiki space (https://community.icann.org/x/MgCJBw) or the GoogleDoc https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FECI6SpTgSp6iFvgJXZwh-DOKFhhj9n8bau_FJ2…. Alan

1 0

MSM evolution google doc open for comments
by Marita Moll Jan. 28, 2020

Jan. 28, 2020

Colleagues, I have asked for some time on Wednesday's meeting to talk about the google.doc currently underway on the topic of the evolving multistakeholder model. I have reviewed the discussions we have had so far and trust that your views have been incorporated. In brief: we accept the challenge to lead the culture, trust and silos issue. We offer some ideas on how we might implement this and resources that would be needed. The other topic, consensus, representation and inclusivity is a bit more delicate as there is competition for volunteers among several groups. I have suggested that we might need to start addressing the cultural issues as a prelude to representation and inclusivity n order to reduce this barrier. Please see the google doc below and offer your commets. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BVJLVRlQYP6tpJ0-TXLpSeTu11vzbNZCYuWFc05… Marita

1 0

Re: [CPWG] PIR/Ethos
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 28, 2020

Jan. 28, 2020

Perhaps of interest, I sent the following message to the ICANN Board of Directors today. Alan At 20/01/2020 09:44 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote: >To: ICANN Board > >This message is being sent purely on my own behalf. I do not expect >a personal reply commenting on this issue but I did want to share a >few thoughts. > >With the various assurances that Ethos Capital has made, I was >starting to feel comfortable that the sale might not come back and >bite us. However, with the recent revelations of the complexity of >the corporate structure and the multiple partners (and loans) >involved, the odor has started to rise again. > >When I look at the transaction (and I am ignoring here any public >relations aspect in relation to ISOC, PIR or even ICANN), I see a >number of possible very unfortunate consequences. > >1. Price increases: Perhaps inevitable after the decision to remove >pricing limitations, I have found that the statements made by Ethos >are less than direct. I have heard multiple times that 10% increases >could (in the extreme) result in the wholesale price doubling in 10 >years. That is not accurate. The 10% would in fact be compounded and >this could result in a 2x in 8 years, 3 x in 13 years and 4x in 16 >years and 6x in 20 years. Perhaps such an increase would harm sales >sufficiently to cause caution on Ethos' part but I am disturbed that >the actual numbers are not being mentioned. But as I said, it is too >late to change this, regardless of owner. > >2. The largest potential harm I see is to the perceived nature of >the TLD. There is no restriction on who can register a domain under >.org, but when you look at the .org domains that show up in real >life (my own contact list, web searches, etc.), almost all of them >are not-for-profit type-organizations or individuals. Rarely do you >see an out-and-out business using a .org domain. It is the reason I >registered alangreenberg.org and used .org for the domain name of my >local genealogical society. And it is why you find .org used for >ISOC (and that predates PIR), ICANN, Wikipedia and the Internet Archive. > >That is, in my mind, a core strong strength of .org, and one that >has been well supported by PIR under ISOC control. However, the lure >of profit may make it extremely attractive to try to transform .org >into another .com. With just 7% of domains under .org compared to >.com, the name space is wide open with far fewer name conflicts. If >it is marketed as a more generic TLD (as opposed to the very >targeted marketing for .org to date), it could grow - a lot! And >along the way very quickly loose its current perceived nature. The >lure of capturing just a small fraction of the .com market, with its >annual gross revenue of over $1.1B will be very difficult to ignore. > >Ethos has stated that it will preserve the "nature of .org". Those >assurances are perhaps comforting but non-binding. However, far more >important is the new information that Ethos may not be calling the >shots and those other entities who may have control have made no >such assurances at all. > >I will not comment on whether ICANN should approve the sale or not. >The Board has far better insight and advice than I can provide. But >if the sale does go through I believe it is essential that it >include binding, non-cancellable requirements that the "nature" of >the TLD be maintained and efforts not be made to transform it into a >true generic, commercially-oriented domain. It will sure be >difficult to word that in a way as to "guarantee" that it be >honored, but I feel confident that it can be done such that, if the >intent is violated, the TLD operator could face the potential for >having their contract revoked. > >Alan Greenberg

14 38