August 2023 - CPWG - lists.icann.org

Re: [CPWG] Are Blockchain Domains within the Mission of ICANN - WAS RE: Questions to the board about distributed DNS
by Chokri Ben Romdhane Oct. 18, 2024

Oct. 18, 2024

Dear Friends, Please find the record of the Emerging Identifier Technologies <https://icann.zoom.us/rec/play/4ZhSDuzFnVqw66kYgnTuHdDzi_RH0IFCKqKuAzmmcFy7…> session , held during the ICANN75 meeting, it provides some use cases of the emerging identifiers technologie. Thank you @MOULOUD KHELIF <kelif(a)hotmail.com> for the reminder. Friendly regards Chokri Le sam. 27 août 2022 à 19:17, Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> a écrit : > On Thu, Aug 25, 2022 at 5:39 AM Chokri Ben Romdhane <chokribr(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > >> But be aware if you confirm that the collision issues is/will never >> happened , as you have mentioned in your previous mail, and cross your >> finger that the regular DNS market will continue to attract more customers, >> compared to those NFT, Blockchain TLDs considering the ease of DNS >> management and security they are conferred to end users. >> > > Hi again, > > You made one fatal error in your assessment above: Internet end-users are > not registrants. > > End users don't care about DNS management, and the security THEY seek is > access to registrant details in the case of domains used for abuse. > The "security" you mention protects registrants and works against the > interests of end-users. > > It's totally possible that the hubris of DNS alternatives may lead to > collisions, but end-users will never see the effect of that, Browsers > continue to use the ICANN root and to date have never seen the benefit of > pointing to alternames. Plus, two of the biggest browser makers, Google and > Microsoft, have a deep vested interest in obstructing any alternative DNS. > Any alternate DNS hoping to be successful would need to create its own > browser, which is what the TOR project did. > > So even if alternative DNSs create TLDs that duplicate ICANN's they will > never present any collision or confusion to end-users. The only losers will > be registrants in the alternate systems. I have zero pity for them and they > are certainly not ALAC's concern or even ICANN's. > > Cheers, > - Evan > >

11 33

Ready, Fire, Aim
by Evan Leibovitch Oct. 24, 2023

Oct. 24, 2023

A high-level tangent inspired by the current discussion: A casual reader might look at this thread and come to an observation that there are two separate issues being discussed, that may not have much to do with each other. The conversation that Mike, Steinar, Olivier and others are having concern details -- contract language, specifics about volumes and dollar amounts and assignment of responsibilities. Meanwhile, I have barged in -- surely unwelcome by some -- to challenge the very premises upon which ALAC's participation is being conducted. I have done this because, in my observation, ALAC lacks -- and has always lacked -- an overarching set of objectives upon which to base strategy and ultimately tactics. We engage in the minutiae of contract language (etc) without clarity of what ALAC -- and what the constituency it is mandated to speak for -- wants from the end result of such engagement. *Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without > strategy is the noise before defeat -- Sun Tzu * > While I was involved deeply in At-Large I would note that any internal attempt to create a coherent statement of purpose would be invariably torpedoed by people insisting that we engage in a never-ending attempt to define the "public interest". As a result, all attempts inevitably sank in the bureaucratic mud. Two separate third-party ICANN reviews of At-Large seemed to wholly overlook the lack of overarching purpose and mandate service while themselves dwelling on the minutiae. It's probably best that we don't depend on outside consultants to define our purpose, but why can't we do it ourselves? WIthout a clear mission, ALAC has weighed in on many issues in which non-registrant end users have no stake at all. Take vertical integration. End-users don't know and don't care about the domain supply chain. Even domain consumers -- technically outside our remit but closest to end-users in the ICANN food chain -- could hardly care less if they bought their domain from a registrar or directly from a registry. And yet there we were at the virtual table, as if our constituency has a crucial stake in that topic's outcome. Think of how many parts of the current ALAC agenda fit the same description. Meanwhile, on high-profile issues that WOULD affect end-users, such as the delegation of .XXX and the attempted private takeover of .ORG, we were silent. Such choices of action and inaction clearly telegraph -- throughout ICANN and the world around us -- a lack of both purpose and focus. This glaring deficiency continues to retard ALAC's agency within the rest of the ICANN community. Over the years I have received many private emails insisting that ALAC has more respect now than it did in the past and that it is invited to the policy table more often. To me this is tokenism. I'll be more persuaded that At-Large has the respect of ICANN when we get that second Board seat that was recommended and promised so long ago. Until then, or until a policy we want that is opposed by the domain industry is implemented, I will maintain that ALAC is being pandered to. We are tolerated in working groups so long as we make little line-item corrections and don't challenge their very premises or the ability of contracted parties to maximize revenue. We have the authority to talk directly to the Board, yet we chase after Public Comment solicitations just like anyone in the world can. We respond to the actions of others, we never initiate or try to set the agenda. One of the last such initiatives by At-Large, a white paper of which I was a co-author, was received with a smile and summarily binned; not a single response was returned from staff or the community. Maybe the cosmetics have changed in the last 15 years but the underlying politics certainly have not. While the status quo is obviously sustainable -- so long as ALAC members get funded to pretend they're the UNSC at a cavernous U-shaped table three times a year and learn how to play the insider games -- it doesn't do anything to serve At-Large's bylaw mandate. The inmates will continue to run the asylum, because the only entity really capable of making them accountable to the world-at-large is just fine with being tolerated. - Evan

16 32

Meeting invitation: At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call On Wednesday, 06 September 2023 at 20:00 UTC
by ICANN At-Large Staff Sept. 6, 2023

Sept. 6, 2023

**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, 06 September 2023 at 20:00 UTC for 90 mins, For other times: https://tinyurl.com/y4s2km9y The agenda (to be updated) and call details can be found at: https://community.icann.org/x/DQGWDw<https://community.icann.org/x/Y4FUDw> 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 ADIGO Conference Bridge: EN, ES & FR: 3535 (subject to availability) 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 1

Quick check of African ccTLD and gTLD website market
by John McCormac Aug. 31, 2023

Aug. 31, 2023

As per my comment inthe CPGW discussion today, I took a look at some of the African ccTLDs and the gTLD website counts. The African ccTLD figures are from AFTLD.org and the gTLD websites are from a full gTLD survey (August 2023) that I run every month. The IP to country resolution still needs to be tweaked a bit. Some of the Freedom ccTLDs have exceptionally high numbers of ccTLD domain names and the vast majority are not associated with the countries. Gabon has terminated its ccTLD agreement with Freenom. The Seychelles gTLD website figure is abnormally high due to Seychelles IP addresses having been acquired by non-Seychelles companies. The big operator in the ICANN AF region is South Africa and many non-South African websites are hosted on South African IP addresses. Many domain names and hosters in the AF region use hosting outside of their country and there are certain patterns to where they are hosted. Regards...jmcc Country - ccTLD - ccTLD Doms - gTLD websites. Angola ao 726 107 Burkina Faso bf 1,503 34 Burundi bi 2,944 11 Benin bj 1,358 24 Botswana bw 9,384 100 Congo (Dem Republic) cd 5,797 174 Central African Republic cf 2,382,938 1 Republic of Congo cg 38 Côte d'Ivoire ci 19,300 708 Cameroon cm 43,146 125 Cape Verde cv 2,184 19 Djibouti dj 7,604 9 Algeria dz 11,918 857 Egypt eg 10,205 4,519 Western Sahara eh 0 1 Eritrea er 0 Ethiopia et 2,684 178 Gabon ga 2,973,094 22 Ghana gh 2,682 381 Gambia gm 1,461 7 Guinea gn 381 17 Equatorial Guinea gq 2,148,087 18 Guinea-Bissau gw 212 3 Kenya ke 100,253 3,852 Comoros km 300 1 Liberia lr 360 8 Lesotho ls 1,720 7 Libya ly 17,773 46 Morocco ma 80,940 9,188 Madagascar mg 4,180 93 Mali ml 1,276,782 95 Mauritania mr 747 7 Mauritius mu 9,095 974 Malawi mw 1,969 181 Mozambique mz 6,097 83 Namibia na 4,366 456 Niger ne 692 9 Nigeria ng 153,665 812 Rwanda rw 4,537 138 Seychelles sc 5,148 3,612,645 Sudan sd 3,671 99 Sierra Leone sl 1,605 3 Senegal sn 5,115 139 Somalia so 10,176 264 South Sudan ss 9 Sao Tome and Principe st 2 Swaziland sz 1,670 49 Chad td 655 4 Togo tg 1,566 34 Tunisia tn 42,914 3,341 Tanzania tz 18,756 287 Uganda ug 7,430 200 South Africa za 1,232,416 903,422 Zambia zm 6,162 81 Zimbabwe zw 38,753 175 -- ********************************************************** 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 Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com

2 2

Meeting invitation: At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call on Wednesday, 30 August 2023 at 13:00 UTC
by ICANN At-Large Staff Aug. 30, 2023

Aug. 30, 2023

**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, 30 August 2023 at 13:00 UTC for 90 mins, For other times: https://tinyurl.com/muta7jh7 The agenda (to be updated) and call details can be found at: https://community.icann.org/x/lgB7Dw<https://community.icann.org/x/Y4FUDw> 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 ADIGO Conference Bridge: EN, ES & FR: 3535 (subject to availability) 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 3

**REMINDER** Meeting invitation: At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call on Wednesday, 30 August 2023 at 13:00 UTC
by ICANN At-Large Staff Aug. 30, 2023

Aug. 30, 2023

**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, 30 August 2023 at 13:00 UTC for 90 mins, For other times: https://tinyurl.com/muta7jh7 The agenda and call details can be found at: https://community.icann.org/x/lgB7Dw 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 ADIGO Conference Bridge: EN, ES & FR: 3535 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

Recording of the Pilot Holistic Review Revised Draft Terms of Reference Webinar of 21 August 2023c
by Heidi Ullrich Aug. 29, 2023

Aug. 29, 2023

Dear All, As requested on the CPWG call of Wednesday 23 August 2023, please find the link to the recording of the Pilot Holistic Review Revised Draft Terms of Reference Webinar that took place on Monday, 21 August 2023 at 18:00 UTC at: https://icann.zoom.us/rec/play/7IboTIUcRJR1Wu1OrynNI-neAfVV9s1IDBweeY3BdnDC…<https://icann.zoom.us/rec/play/7IboTIUcRJR1Wu1OrynNI-neAfVV9s1IDBweeY3BdnDC…>. Please let staff know should you have any questions. Kind regards, Heidi Heidi Ullrich VP, Policy Development & At-Large Relations Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Mobile: +1 310 437 3956 Fax: +1 310 823 8649 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

Communication to ICANN GC
by mike palage.com Aug. 28, 2023

Aug. 28, 2023

Hello All, In connection with a discussion that took place on yesterday's CPWG call, I decided to send the following communication to ICANN's General Counsel in an individual capacity. Best regards, Michael From: Michael Palage Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 4:13 PM To: John Jeffrey Subject: Anti-Trust/Competition Concern wrt Transfer Policy Review PDP WG (22-Aug-2023 Call) Hello John, I would like to bring to your attention some concerns about the substance of yesterday's Transfer Policy Review PDP WG. Although I raised this concern during today's At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG), this comment is being submitted in an individual capacity. During yesterday's call registrars and registries were engaged in discussions regarding registry pricing (both floors and ceilings) in connection with ICANN Approved Transfers. A copy of the recording is available here - https://community.icann.org/display/TPRPDP/2023-08-22+Transfer+Policy+Revie… Based on the portions of the call that I listened to live, I think ICANN staff did an appropriate job walking a very fine line when they referenced fees, including I recall a suggestion to remove the fee reference from the existing policy. However, I believe there were multiple references to fee minimums and caps imposed by Registries that were concerning, especially when enforced via an ICANN policy document. Recently, I have been active in other standards bodies and trade associations. I have noticed a growing best practice of these organizations to include a standard reference to the organization's anti-trust policy at the beginning of most calls/events. Therefore, I would like to propose the following action items: * I do not believe that ICANN has a public Anti-Trust/Competition policy. My apologies if I have somehow missed this. If one does exist I would greatly appreciate a pointer to this document. If one does not exist, then ICANN should strongly consider developing a public Anti-Trust / Competition policy. * I believe the standard ICANN preamble text that is read before each session/call (e.g. "Those who take part in the ICANN multistakeholder process are to comply with the expected standards of behavior" be amended to include a specific reference to the Anti-Trust / Competition policy when one is adopted. * It would seem advisable for someone from ICANN legal to monitor these calls when the agenda specifically envisions a discussion of fees as it did today. [cid:image001.png@01D9D5DD.0EA5B5D0] Best regards, Michael

9 12

Results of the GGP ASP Survey
by Maureen Hilyard Aug. 27, 2023

Aug. 27, 2023

Attached FYI -- *Maureen Hilyard* COOK ISLANDS

3 2

ICANN Blog: The Global Digital Compact: A Top-down Attempt to Minimize the Role of The Technical Community
by Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond Aug. 23, 2023

Aug. 23, 2023

An interesting new ICANN blog post: https://www.icann.org/en/blogs/details/the-global-digital-compact-a-top-dow… This one's likely to be causing some ripples in the Internet Governance landscape. But some are already asking why are the other RIRs and ISOC not co-signatories? And how about the IETF & World Wide Web foundation? Altogether, it seems like an incomplete set of I* organisations. Or was the piece perhaps meant just as an opinion piece to start a discussion? Kindest regards, Olivier

7 6