April 2021 - CPWG - lists.icann.org

DNS Abuse and Content Abuse Issues
by John McCormac 03 May '21

03 May '21

As mentioned on a working group call covering DNS and Content abuse measurements, these are the December 2020 survey results for 150K sample surveys for .COM/NET/ORG/BIZ/INFO. The categories are the HosterStats.com categories for web usage measurement and some of the methodology is discussed in the Domnomics book. There is a also spreadsheet of the survey (statistical 150K surveys for the larger (>1M) new gTLDs and complete gTLD surveys for the smaller gTLDs) results for the new gTLDs. The main problem with the discussions on DNS Abuse is that there is no solid definition, yet, of what consititutes DNS Abuse. The registries and registrars have a clear understanding of dealing with DNS Abuse and some Content Abuse as it applies to their customers. There also seems to be a push to include some forms of intellectual property (infringement) abuse as DNS Abuse. While the IP community has a valid point about this form of abuse, it has an inherent problem. Is the domain name the problem or the content on the website under the domain name the problem? The domain name problem is often addressed by taking a UDRP action and that takes time. The legal path with content is less clear. The problem, in terms of phishing, is probably worse in the new gTLDs were low registration fees make this kind of activity more economically feasible. There was a survey (SIDN related) cited in the CCT report that mentioned that a lot of problematic content shifted from the legacy gTLDs to the new gTLDs. .COM Zone Coverage 100.00% No Site 16,754 11.17% No Response 13,002 8.67% Active/unclassified 15,587 10.39% Brand protection 261 0.17% Clone site 216 0.14% In-page Redirect 895 0.60% External TLD Redirect 1,299 0.87% Not Found/Forbidden 7,745 5.16% Holding Page 13,801 9.20% Internal Redirect 5,504 3.67% No Content 923 0.62% Affiliate Lander 2,480 1.65% Matched External TLD Redirect 768 0.51% Duplicate Content (2) 142 0.09% Duplicate Content (>2) 285 0.19% PPC Parked 25,860 17.24% Questionable Content 4 0.00% Redirect 6,238 4.16% Sales 11,786 7.86% HTTPS Redirect 19,933 13.29% Unavailable 883 0.59% Video Affiliate Lander 375 0.25% Adult Affiliate Lander 307 0.20% Compromised 36 0.02% Social Media 103 0.07% In-zone Redirect 4,813 3.21% 150,000 .NET Zone Coverage 100.00% No Site 25,010 16.67% No Response 14,189 9.46% Active/unclassified 14,085 9.39% Brand protection 1,877 1.25% Clone site 217 0.14% In-page Redirect 997 0.66% External TLD Redirect 5,904 3.94% Not Found/Forbidden 6,570 4.38% Holding Page 16,789 11.19% Internal Redirect 4,286 2.86% No Content 1,447 0.96% Affiliate Lander 1,105 0.74% Matched External TLD Redirect 3,655 2.44% Duplicate Content (2) 146 0.10% Duplicate Content (>2) 208 0.14% PPC Parked 29,441 19.63% Questionable Content 3 0.00% Redirect 3,807 2.54% Sales 5,107 3.40% HTTPS Redirect 12,849 8.57% Unavailable 895 0.60% Video Affiliate Lander 62 0.04% Adult Affiliate Lander 223 0.15% Compromised 175 0.12% Social Media 1 0.00% In-zone Redirect 952 0.63% 150,000 .ORG Zone Coverage 100.00% No Site 18,403 12.27% No Response 14,376 9.58% Active/unclassified 13,439 8.96% Brand protection 1,384 0.92% Clone site 196 0.13% In-page Redirect 969 0.65% External TLD Redirect 5,011 3.34% Not Found/Forbidden 6,371 4.25% Holding Page 16,039 10.69% Internal Redirect 5,718 3.81% No Content 587 0.39% Affiliate Lander 381 0.25% Matched External TLD Redirect 2,741 1.83% Duplicate Content (2) 92 0.06% Duplicate Content (>2) 64 0.04% PPC Parked 30,936 20.62% Questionable Content 3 0.00% Redirect 6,436 4.29% Sales 4,817 3.21% HTTPS Redirect 18,109 12.07% Unavailable 687 0.46% Video Affiliate Lander 16 0.01% Adult Affiliate Lander 15 0.01% Compromised 323 0.22% Social Media 0 0.00% In-zone Redirect 2,887 1.92% 150,000 .BIZ Zone Coverage 100.00% No Site 26,505 17.67% No Response 15,239 10.16% Active/unclassified 10,395 6.93% Brand protection 2,056 1.37% Clone site 195 0.13% In-page Redirect 702 0.47% External TLD Redirect 8,904 5.94% Not Found/Forbidden 6,455 4.30% Holding Page 20,088 13.39% Internal Redirect 3,536 2.36% No Content 782 0.52% Affiliate Lander 242 0.16% Matched External TLD Redirect 5,666 3.78% Duplicate Content (2) 208 0.14% Duplicate Content (>2) 96 0.06% PPC Parked 30,473 20.32% Questionable Content 8 0.01% Redirect 3,500 2.33% Sales 3,345 2.23% HTTPS Redirect 10,013 6.68% Unavailable 697 0.46% Video Affiliate Lander 1 0.00% Adult Affiliate Lander 11 0.01% Compromised 29 0.02% Social Media 6 0.00% In-zone Redirect 848 0.57% 150,000 .INFO Zone Coverage 100.00% No Site 21,543 14.36% No Response 16,552 11.03% Active/unclassified 8,734 5.82% Brand protection 1,529 1.02% Clone site 192 0.13% In-page Redirect 510 0.34% External TLD Redirect 9,342 6.23% Not Found/Forbidden 6,513 4.34% Holding Page 15,195 10.13% Internal Redirect 3,772 2.51% No Content 949 0.63% Affiliate Lander 392 0.26% Matched External TLD Redirect 5,007 3.34% Duplicate Content (2) 130 0.09% Duplicate Content (>2) 60 0.04% PPC Parked 41,059 27.37% Questionable Content 2 0.00% Redirect 3,742 2.49% Sales 3,245 2.16% HTTPS Redirect 9,552 6.37% Unavailable 610 0.41% Video Affiliate Lander 9 0.01% Adult Affiliate Lander 80 0.05% Compromised 635 0.42% Social Media 4 0.00% In-zone Redirect 642 0.43% 150,000 There has been a shift towards HTTPS in the last ten years. A website may have an IP address in the DNS but that does not necessarily mean that a webserver is running on the IP. The registries and registars definition of DNS Abuse is quite conservative. Taken in terms of what can be solved by registries and registrars, it is logical. The problem is that due to the declining market share of the gTLDs, the "kill chain" for dealing with a problem domain name or website is not as well defined as it was once. There is a new element: the reseller. Approximately 25% of the gTLD market (based on the monthly HosterStats gTLD transactions reports) consists of resellers with the ICANN accredited registrars accounting for the rest of the market. These resellers register their domain names in the usual way through the ICANN registrars but it is not financially viable for them to become accredited ICANN registrars. They are often accredited ccTLD registrars in their own country level markets. Blurring the line between DNS Abuse and Content Abuse would make dealing with the problem domain name/website a bit more complicated because DNS Abuse seems relatively clearly defined but there are multiple definitions of Content Abuse. There is also the issue of Reporting versus Detection. Most phishing sites are reported rather than detected. That means that what is reported is often the tip of the iceberg. With Content Abuse, ICANN does not have the expertise or resources to deal with the issue and that's even before there is any clear definition of "Content Abuse". (Is it Intellectual Property infringment, phishing, pharming or compromise?) In terms of Content Abuse, the numbers of defaced websites has dropped over the last ten years or so and many compromised sites are more likely to have link injection compromises. This is due mainly to old and unmaintained plugins for CMSes like Wordpress and Joomla. Web Usage is no longer a simple active website versus no website. It is quite a complex thing to measure and it changes. In defining DNS Abuse, there should be an awareness that the format of DNS Abuse will also change. Regards...jmcc -- ********************************************************** John McCormac * e-mail: jmcc(a)hosterstats.com MC2 * web: http://www.hosterstats.com/ 22 Viewmount * Domain Registrations Statistics Waterford * Domnomics - the business of domain names Ireland * https://amzn.to/2OPtEIO IE * Skype: hosterstats.com ********************************************************** -- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com

2 2

REMINDER / EXTENDED CALL FOR MEMBERS and ALTERNATES: For the GNSO PDP to Review the Transfer Policy
by ICANN At-Large Staff 28 Apr '21

28 Apr '21

Dear All, On behalf of the members of the ALAC Appointee Selection Subcommittee (AASC), this is to inform you that the call for ALAC Member and Alternates for the GNSO PDP to Review the Transfer Policy has been extended through Thursday, 29 April at 23:59 UTC. The AASC met with Melissa Allgood who has been doing some training for the At-Large community on the GNSO Consensus Playbook. She provided us with an explanation of what the GNSO is expecting of members of other communities who intend to participate in their new PDPs. The GNSO PDP to Review the Transfer Policy is being run under the Representative Model of the GNSO Consensus Playbook. The three tier structure includes 2 Members, 2 Alternates and several Observers as representatives from each of theconstituencies within ICANN. * MEMBERS are the only ones who can actually participate in the meeting, but more importantly they MUST convey the views and opinions of the constituency they represent. Therefore, not only will it require a commitment to attend the GNSO meetings, but also the regular CPWG calls to provide information about what is happening in the PDP, but also to ensure that our representatives all get the same message from the CPWG/At-Large views about whatever the current issue is under discussion by the PDP. * ALTERNATES replace MEMBERS on the PDP for whatever reason, illness, etc.. so that they also have to be up with the play about both sides of each issue which will be dealt with and then they move onto the next.. And there is no going back on old discussions. They could possibly contribute as leads in the discussions that are held within the CPWG, supported by the OBSERVERS, * OBSERVERS is the status for those who are interested in the PDP topic, but perhaps don't yet have the knowledge or confidence to participate actively in a PDP. A group of Observers listening into a meeting would be helpful in the CPWG discussions in support of the members and alternates. However, most importantly are the skills and knowledge that people bring to the table. These are mandatory skills for all Members. As noted in the earlier call for applications, they skills and knowledge necessary for the GNSO PDP to Review the Transfer Policy are outlined below. According to the GNSO Transfer Policy PDP Charter<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/draft-cha…>, WG members shall review the full text of the Guidance document below to understand the responsibilities and skills that they are expected to have in order to fully participate in the WG activities. Guidance: Working Group Member Skills Guide<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/pdp-3-3-w…> For the GNSO PDP to Review the Transfer Policy, Working Group Members and Alternates must possess: ● Knowledge of Transfer Policy issue, background and current work status (technical knowledge of inter-registrar transfers is strongly preferred); ● Commitment to participating in Working Group meetings on a regular and ongoing basis; ● Ability to create factual, relevant and easily understandable messages, and able to succinctly deliver them to the Working Group; ● Ability to deliver a point constructively and concisely; ● Familiarity with the following sections of the Working Group Guidelines: ○ Section 4.1 Session Planning – General Meeting Logistics ○ Section 4.2 Communication/Collaboration Tools ● Effective oral, written, and interpersonal communication skills (in simple, comprehensible English); ● Research skills with the ability to discern factual, factually relevant, and persuasive details and sources; ● Commitment to manage a diverse workload, while collaborating with a Working Group of individuals with different backgrounds and interests in driving objectives; ● In depth knowledge of Working Group discussions, actions taken at meetings, and deliverables; ● Understanding of the perspectives and interests of the members’ own stakeholder group or constituency; ● Project management skills in driving the completion of SG/C statements in a timely manner. If you are interested in applying either as an ALAC Member or as an Alternate, please send your Statement of Interest to Maureen Hilyard and At-Large no later than Thursday, 29 April at 23:59 UTC clearly stating the following: · To which you are applying position; · Explaining why you are interested in the position; and · Outlining how you meet the required skills noted above. 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

Meeting invitation: At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call on Wednesday, 05 May 2021 at 20:30 UTC
by ICANN At-Large Staff 28 Apr '21

28 Apr '21

***If you require a dial out or need to state an apology, please contact At-Large staff at staff(a)atlarge.icann.org with your preferred number*** Dear All, The next At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call is scheduled for Wednesday, 05 May 2021 at 20:30 UTC for 90 mins. For other times: https://tinyurl.com/dk3wwbes The agenda (to be updated) and call details can be found at: https://community.icann.org/x/5ALECQ Zoom Room: https://icann.zoom.us/j/765717566?pwd=UTJCdWRSZVdJNEhOYW02OVBqQVQ1Zz09/ Passcode: #CPWG2345* Real time transcription (RTT) available at (subject to availability): https://www.streamtext.net/player?event=ICANN [streamtext.net] [streamtext.net] ADIGO Conference Bridge: EN: 1638 ES: 1738 FR: 1838 Toll-free access number (US and Canada): 800 550 686 Other toll-free numbers: https://www.adigo.com/icann [adigo.com] 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 Thank you. Kind Regards, At-Large Staff ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community Website: atlarge.icann.org [atlarge.icann.org] Facebook: facebook.com/icann [facebook.com]atlarge [facebook.com] Twitter: @ [twitter.com]ICANNAtLarge [twitter.com]

1 0

At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call
by ICANN Policy Calendar 28 Apr '21

28 Apr '21

***If you require a dial out or need to state an apology, please contact At-Large staff at staff(a)atlarge.icann.org with your preferred number*** Dear All, The next At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call is scheduled for Wednesday, 05 May 2021 at 20:30 UTC for 90 mins. For other times: https://tinyurl.com/dk3wwbes The agenda (to be updated) and call details can be found at: https://community.icann.org/x/5ALECQ Zoom Room: https://icann.zoom.us/j/765717566?pwd=UTJCdWRSZVdJNEhOYW02OVBqQVQ1Zz09/ Passcode: #CPWG2345* Real time transcription (RTT) available at (subject to availability): https://www.streamtext.net/player?event=ICANN [streamtext.net] [streamtext.net] ADIGO Conference Bridge: EN: 1638 ES: 1738 FR: 1838 Toll-free access number (US and Canada): 800 550 686 Other toll-free numbers: https://www.adigo.com/icann [adigo.com] 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 Thank you. Kind Regards, At-Large Staff ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community Website: atlarge.icann.org [atlarge.icann.org] Facebook: facebook.com/icann [facebook.com]atlarge [facebook.com] Twitter: @ [twitter.com]ICANNAtLarge [twitter.com]

1 0

14:00 UTC today / Meeting invitation: At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call on Wednesday, 28 April 2021 at 14:00 UTC
by ICANN At-Large Staff 28 Apr '21

28 Apr '21

***If you require a dial out or need to state an apology, please contact At-Large staff at staff(a)atlarge.icann.org with your preferred number*** Dear All, The next At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call is scheduled for Wednesday, 28 April 2021 at 14:00 UTC for 90 mins. For other times: https://tinyurl.com/3m3vw5da The agenda and call details can be found at: https://community.icann.org/x/wYK1CQ Zoom Room: https://icann.zoom.us/j/765717566?pwd=UTJCdWRSZVdJNEhOYW02OVBqQVQ1Zz09/ Passcode: #CPWG2345* Real time transcription (RTT) available at (subject to availability): https://www.streamtext.net/player?event=ICANN [streamtext.net] [streamtext.net] ADIGO Conference Bridge: EN: 1638 ES: 1738 FR: 1838 Toll-free access number (US and Canada): 800 550 686 Other toll-free numbers: https://www.adigo.com/icann [adigo.com] 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 Thank you. Kind Regards, ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<applewebdata://932FA082-AAF3-456B-A040-A1DAA84DB45D/staff@atlarge.icann.org> Website: atlarge.icann.org<applewebdata://932FA082-AAF3-456B-A040-A1DAA84DB45D/atlarge.icann.org> Facebook: facebook.com/icannatlarge<applewebdata://932FA082-AAF3-456B-A040-A1DAA84DB45D/facebook.com/icannatlar…> Twitter: @ICANNAtLarge<applewebdata://932FA082-AAF3-456B-A040-A1DAA84DB45D/@ICANNAtLarge>

1 0

REMINDER / Meeting invitation: At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call on Wednesday, 28 April 2021 at 14:00 UTC
by ICANN At-Large Staff 27 Apr '21

27 Apr '21

***If you require a dial out or need to state an apology, please contact At-Large staff at staff(a)atlarge.icann.org with your preferred number*** Dear All, The next At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call is scheduled for Wednesday, 28 April 2021 at 14:00 UTC for 90 mins. For other times: https://tinyurl.com/3m3vw5da The agenda and call details can be found at: https://community.icann.org/x/wYK1CQ Zoom Room: https://icann.zoom.us/j/765717566?pwd=UTJCdWRSZVdJNEhOYW02OVBqQVQ1Zz09/ Passcode: #CPWG2345* Real time transcription (RTT) available at (subject to availability): https://www.streamtext.net/player?event=ICANN [streamtext.net] [streamtext.net] ADIGO Conference Bridge: EN: 1638 ES: 1738 FR: 1838 Toll-free access number (US and Canada): 800 550 686 Other toll-free numbers: https://www.adigo.com/icann [adigo.com] 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 Thank you. Kind Regards, ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<applewebdata://932FA082-AAF3-456B-A040-A1DAA84DB45D/staff@atlarge.icann.org> Website: atlarge.icann.org<applewebdata://932FA082-AAF3-456B-A040-A1DAA84DB45D/atlarge.icann.org> Facebook: facebook.com/icannatlarge<applewebdata://932FA082-AAF3-456B-A040-A1DAA84DB45D/facebook.com/icannatlar…> Twitter: @ICANNAtLarge<applewebdata://932FA082-AAF3-456B-A040-A1DAA84DB45D/@ICANNAtLarge>

1 0

EXTENDED CALL FOR MEMBERS and ALTERNATES: For the GNSO PDP to Review the Transfer Policy
by ICANN At-Large Staff 23 Apr '21

23 Apr '21

Dear All, On behalf of the members of the ALAC Appointee Selection Subcommittee (AASC), this is to inform you that the call for ALAC Member and Alternates for the GNSO PDP to Review the Transfer Policy has been extended through Thursday, 29 April at 23:59 UTC. The AASC met with Melissa Allgood who has been doing some training for the At-Large community on the GNSO Consensus Playbook. She provided us with an explanation of what the GNSO is expecting of members of other communities who intend to participate in their new PDPs. The GNSO PDP to Review the Transfer Policy is being run under the Representative Model of the GNSO Consensus Playbook. The three tier structure includes 2 Members, 2 Alternates and several Observers as representatives from each of theconstituencies within ICANN. * MEMBERS are the only ones who can actually participate in the meeting, but more importantly they MUST convey the views and opinions of the constituency they represent. Therefore, not only will it require a commitment to attend the GNSO meetings, but also the regular CPWG calls to provide information about what is happening in the PDP, but also to ensure that our representatives all get the same message from the CPWG/At-Large views about whatever the current issue is under discussion by the PDP. * ALTERNATES replace MEMBERS on the PDP for whatever reason, illness, etc.. so that they also have to be up with the play about both sides of each issue which will be dealt with and then they move onto the next.. And there is no going back on old discussions. They could possibly contribute as leads in the discussions that are held within the CPWG, supported by the OBSERVERS, * OBSERVERS is the status for those who are interested in the PDP topic, but perhaps don't yet have the knowledge or confidence to participate actively in a PDP. A group of Observers listening into a meeting would be helpful in the CPWG discussions in support of the members and alternates. However, most importantly are the skills and knowledge that people bring to the table. These are mandatory skills for all Members. As noted in the earlier call for applications, they skills and knowledge necessary for the GNSO PDP to Review the Transfer Policy are outlined below. According to the GNSO Transfer Policy PDP Charter<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/draft-cha…>, WG members shall review the full text of the Guidance document below to understand the responsibilities and skills that they are expected to have in order to fully participate in the WG activities. Guidance: Working Group Member Skills Guide<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/pdp-3-3-w…> For the GNSO PDP to Review the Transfer Policy, Working Group Members and Alternates must possess: ● Knowledge of Transfer Policy issue, background and current work status (technical knowledge of inter-registrar transfers is strongly preferred); ● Commitment to participating in Working Group meetings on a regular and ongoing basis; ● Ability to create factual, relevant and easily understandable messages, and able to succinctly deliver them to the Working Group; ● Ability to deliver a point constructively and concisely; ● Familiarity with the following sections of the Working Group Guidelines: ○ Section 4.1 Session Planning – General Meeting Logistics ○ Section 4.2 Communication/Collaboration Tools ● Effective oral, written, and interpersonal communication skills (in simple, comprehensible English); ● Research skills with the ability to discern factual, factually relevant, and persuasive details and sources; ● Commitment to manage a diverse workload, while collaborating with a Working Group of individuals with different backgrounds and interests in driving objectives; ● In depth knowledge of Working Group discussions, actions taken at meetings, and deliverables; ● Understanding of the perspectives and interests of the members’ own stakeholder group or constituency; ● Project management skills in driving the completion of SG/C statements in a timely manner. If you are interested in applying either as an ALAC Member or as an Alternate, please send your Statement of Interest to Maureen Hilyard and At-Large no later than Thursday, 29 April at 23:59 UTC clearly stating the following: · To which you are applying position; · Explaining why you are interested in the position; and · Outlining how you meet the required skills noted above. 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

Suggestions on: [Gnso-epdp-team] Partial draft re SSAC position on natural/legal discussion
by sivasubramanian muthusamy 23 Apr '21

23 Apr '21

Please see inline: ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Steve Crocker via Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org> Date: Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 11:48 AM Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] Partial draft re SSAC position on natural/legal discussion To: <gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org> Folks, My work schedule has suffered one of life's inescapable interruptions. In this case, it's good: our granddaughter entered the world this past Saturday. My wife and I have been in San Francisco providing support. Everyone is well, but I'm behind on my participation in this working group. Attached is my partial draft of a composite treatment of the natural vs legal collection of issues. I started writing from front to back but haven't had time to finish. I added a section at the end with the conclusions and recommendations. I will fill in the missing pieces as quickly as I can. Despite the incompleteness, we did have an opportunity in the SSAC work party to review and agree on the recommendations. For ease of access, the recommendations are copied below. Thanks, Steve 1. *Inescapable Requirement: Definition of Roles * Each role must be defined in terms of the authority and responsibilities associated with the role. This definition must be explicitly available to both the people fulfilling the role and the people interacting with the people in those roles. Each person named in a role must be aware of being named and must agree to the obligations associated with the role. The definition must also include an explicit statement of how the information about the person in the role will be disseminated. Information about the registrant is provided by the Account Holder. The Account Holder is effectively an agent of the Registrant and is the only authoritative source of information about the status of the registrant. 2. *Recommendation: Unknown Persons * In addition to definite status of Natural Person or Legal Person, the status of Unknown should be included in the design of the system. # If what is implied by the proposed status as "Unknown person" is implied as an option for the Registrant to choose to be 'unknown', as in the case of a Journalist who considers it dangerous even to list his or her Registrant details, even as a 'natural' person, then this is certainly a remarkable proposal. This could also work as a sub-category in the Registration database as data that has some difficulty in being identified as of or belonging to a legal or natural person, in which case the 'unknown' person is a temporarily unknown person. 3. *Recommendation: Additional Protection * In addition to whether the registrant is a Natural, Legal or Unknown Person, the status should also include an additional attribute regarding whether the registrant requires special privacy protection. It is an open question as to whether additional privacy protection should be available to any registrant who wishes it or should require justification. At the very least, to facilitate visibility into potentially harmful behaviors, Registrars should avoid unnecessary protection of registration data. # This is very considerate and thoughtful. Would it be useful to interpret this proposal as a proposal for a sub-category of some sort which might make it possible even for 'legal' persons, otherwise required to disclose a little more information than 'natural' persons, to seek extraordinary exemptions due to some special needs, temporarily or long-term? If that be the case such special protection requests may have to be exceptional, as for instance, as in the case of 'witness protection' (not exactly of this order, but mentioned to suggest a high degree of special need) in some countries. The request may have to be exceptional, and the process of granting such a request, while being swift, may have to be a high level process # comments on the go, on the above two points. 4. *Recommendation: Downgrading * Registrants should have the option of “downgrading” the level of protection for some or all of their data elements. Registrars should have the option of implementing downgrading on a field by field basis or in groups of fields. ICANN should establish a date certain for registrars to implement registrant option to downgrade the sensitivity of their registrations. 5. *Comment: Recourse * If a person named in any role in a registration feels the data is incorrect or is being disseminated improperly, they have recourse via the Registrant. Failing that, they have recourse through ICANN’s compliance process. No additional processes are required. 6. *Recommendation: Org Field * The Org field should *not* be used to determine the registrant’s status. The Registrar should require Legal Persons to provide the Org data element. The Registrar should permit Natural or Unknown registrants to provide or not provide the Org data element. 7. *Recommendation: Transition * ICANN should establish a plan for transitioning Unknown registrations into known status. _______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team _______________________________________________ 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.

1 0

Meeting invitation: At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call on Wednesday, 28 April 2021 at 14:00 UTC
by ICANN At-Large Staff 22 Apr '21

22 Apr '21

***If you require a dial out or need to state an apology, please contact At-Large staff at staff(a)atlarge.icann.org with your preferred number*** Dear All, The next At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call is scheduled for Wednesday, 28 April 2021 at 14:00 UTC for 90 mins. For other times: https://tinyurl.com/3m3vw5da The agenda (to be updated) and call details can be found at: https://community.icann.org/x/wYK1CQ Zoom Room: https://icann.zoom.us/j/765717566?pwd=UTJCdWRSZVdJNEhOYW02OVBqQVQ1Zz09/ Passcode: #CPWG2345* Real time transcription (RTT) available at (subject to availability): https://www.streamtext.net/player?event=ICANN [streamtext.net] [streamtext.net] ADIGO Conference Bridge: EN: 1638 ES: 1738 FR: 1838 Toll-free access number (US and Canada): 800 550 686 Other toll-free numbers: https://www.adigo.com/icann [adigo.com] 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 Thank you. Kind Regards, At-Large Staff ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community Website: atlarge.icann.org [atlarge.icann.org] Facebook: facebook.com/icann [facebook.com]atlarge [facebook.com] Twitter: @ [twitter.com]ICANNAtLarge [twitter.com]

2 1

REMINDER DUE 22 APRIL / CALL FOR ALAC MEMBERS/ALTERNATES: GNSO PDP to review the Transfer Policy - DEADLINE: 22 APRIL
by ICANN At-Large Staff 21 Apr '21

21 Apr '21

Dear All, On behalf of Maureen Hilyard, ALAC Chair, this is a call for applications for members and alternates to represent the ALAC in the upcoming GNSO PDP to review the Transfer Policy. The GNSO Council recently initiated a two-phased policy development process (PDP) to review the Transfer Policy, which will determine if changes to the policy are needed to improve the ease, security, and efficacy of inter-registrar and inter-registrant transfers. According to the GNSO Transfer Policy PDP Charter<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/draft-cha…>, WG members shall review the full text of the Guidance document below to understand the responsibilities and skills that they are expected to have in order to fully participate in the WG activities. Guidance: Working Group Member Skills Guide<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/pdp-3-3-w…> For the GNSO PDP to Review the Transfer Policy, Working Group Members and Alternates must possess: ● Knowledge of Transfer Policy issue, background and current work status (technical knowledge of inter-registrar transfers is strongly preferred); ● Commitment to participating in Working Group meetings on a regular and ongoing basis; ● Ability to create factual, relevant and easily understandable messages, and able to succinctly deliver them to the Working Group; ● Ability to deliver a point constructively and concisely; ● Familiarity with the following sections of the Working Group Guidelines: ○ Section 4.1 Session Planning – General Meeting Logistics ○ Section 4.2 Communication/Collaboration Tools ● Effective oral, written, and interpersonal communication skills (in simple, comprehensible English); ● Research skills with the ability to discern factual, factually relevant, and persuasive details and sources; ● Commitment to manage a diverse workload, while collaborating with a Working Group of individuals with different backgrounds and interests in driving objectives; ● In depth knowledge of Working Group discussions, actions taken at meetings, and deliverables; ● Understanding of the perspectives and interests of the members’ own stakeholder group or constituency; ● Project management skills in driving the completion of SG/C statements in a timely manner. Please send your SOI to Maureen Hilyard and At-Large staff by Thursday, 22 April 2021 at 23:59 UTC. Please indicate how you meet the above knowledge and skills and whether you are applying for the position of Member or Alternate. The ALAC Appointee Selection Subcommittee (AASC) will be reviewing the applicants on Friday, 23 April 2021. 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