- CPWG - lists.icann.org

Meeting invitation: At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call on Wednesday, 13 May 2020 at 19:00 UTC
by ICANN At-Large Staff May 13, 2020

May 13, 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, 13 May 2020 at 19:00 UTC for 90 mins. For other times: https://tinyurl.com/y737jyut The agenda (to be updated) and call details can be found at: https://community.icann.org/x/CYMEC Zoom Room: https://icann.zoom.us/j/765717566?pwd=TnhSZEhEMDlibzNsS2Y0OWFQQk9Ldz09 / Meeting ID: 765-717-566 – Please note, the zoom room link and Meeting ID will remain the same for each weekly meeting. ****Passcode****: 2345 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 FR: 1838 ES: 1738 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<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

Calif. AG mentions ALAC advice in note to ICANN re: PIR
by Marita Moll May 10, 2020

May 10, 2020

Wow, quite a slap down by the AG of California. ALAC advice re: this issue referenced as reasons for concern. Marita

13 38

Re: [CPWG] Calif. AG mentions ALAC advice in note to ICANN re: PIR
by Alan Greenberg May 8, 2020

May 8, 2020

Evan, as I told you privately, in my opinion, there were certainly Board members who understood that the nature of .org was paramount, and I am not aware of any way, with PICs or otherwise, that we could guarantee that it be preserved if the transfer to Ethos went through. So, perhaps the AG's letter had some impact, but I do not believe it was THE issue that caused the outcome, and probably not even a main one. My personal opinion, and I presume it was one that Jonathan and the ALAC considered, was that an absolute condition of the sale going through was that there be iron-clad guarantees that the nature of the TLD be preserved and it not be marketed as a .com equivalent or some other similar dilution. I know of no way that could be done with contractual terms, even if ICANN could get them inserted. So while I could live with the sale going through WITH guarantees, I saw no way of getting those guarantees. I have been an ISOC member for about 25 years, a former ISOC Board member, and the Board member who formally proposed that ISOC bid on .org. So I have some history and perspective. If the reactions from Ethos had been very different, perhaps I would have been convinced that the sale was good. But what I saw was nothing close to them understanding the issue, or providing satisfactory answers to the questions. Indeed, *IF* the spirit of the 2002 delegation to PIR could be maintained and enforced, I could have lived with the transfer. I believed (and still believe) that this not dissimilar to how some and perhaps many Board members felt. The lack of being able to satisfy the *IF* was crucial. Alan At 2020-05-08 01:06 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >On Fri, 8 May 2020 at 05:17, Jonathan Zuck ><<mailto:JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org>JZuck(a)innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote: > >The fact is there was no real consensus among >the At-Large about the acquisition of PIR. There >were essentially 4 proposals on the table: > > >Approve the sale >Approve the sale with conditions (which is what >both the ALAC and NCSG settled upon) >Deny the sale (essentially what happened) >Take .ORG away from PIR and move it to a new entity > >As I said, you got that wrong. Totally wrong. >You fully missed the core issue which was not >"will Ethos screw registrants" but "did ISOC >violate the letter and spirit of the terms under >which ISOC was delegated .org in the first >place". And, as history has now shown, you (and >ICANN) needed the CA AG to save the day. > >There WAS a strong consensus, led primarily by >Roberto Gaetano, NOT to let the sale go through >without concessions so the group was motivated >to identify the appropriate concessions and >perhaps bake them into the .ORG contract so they >would. Survive changes of ownership. > > >The issue was never about concessions. It was >about stewardship of .org as a registry that was >just a little different from the others, and >whether it could be treated like as a chattel the way other domains are. > >The consensus appears to be that if Ethos jumped >through just a few more hoops, made just a few >more garbage PICs and a better advisory board, >the sale would have been OK. That was not the >view of ISOC chapters. It was not the view of >EFF. It was not the view of the American Red >Cross or the Girl Guides. It was not the view of >the thousands of charities and nonprofits that >signed onto petitions. It is not the view of >financial analysts who discovered that the new >registry would be saddled in debt and inevitably >forced to raise prices beyond the norm. It was >not the view of people who were around during >the original delegation of the domain to ISOC. >It was not the view of a single .org registrants >who expressed an opinion. It was not the view of human rights organizations. > >But the CPWG and ALAC knew better than all of them!! > >You should be embarrassed to have led that >dereliction of duty. ICANN does not seek >independent wisdom from ALAC, it is seeking a >reflection of the public mood. The voice on the >street, if you would, distilled maybe but >without judgment or second-guessing. And if ALAC >could get something so important so massively >wrong that ICANN's government oversight had to >step in to fix, it's impossible to have any >confidence that it will get any of the minor opinions right. > > Now we can argue that many in the At-Large had > a relationship to ISOC which may have convoluted this discussion > > >Considering that the overwhelming consensus of >ISOC Chapters and the official stance of the >ISOC Chapter Advisory Council was to oppose the >sale, clearly there were no signs of undue >influence this way. Nobody is arguing this so I wonder why you raise it. > > >but there were also serious issues with the >public comments that arrived in volume and form >the primary indication of âpublicâ dissatisfaction with the deal. > > >Such as? Did you do any due diligence and >contact any of the commenters before summarily >deeming their opinions inferior to yours? > >That you use quotes on the word public in the >above context is -- I don't have a better word >for it -- disgusting. The height of dismissive elitism. > >We also need to set aside the fact that while >many in the At-Large work for non-profits, we >are not the voice of non-profits at ICANN. > > >Let's be really clear here. In this role you are >not the voice of anything. ALAC's role is to >CHANNEL what end-users want from ICANN and >advise based on that, not pull opinions from >scratch out of your collective behinds. In this >extraordinary case, evidence of sentiment >outside the bubble was plentiful. Any outside >research at all would have inevitably led to the >correct conclusion on this issue, instead you >chose to ignore and "denigrate" it. This >corporate oblivion to the real public sentiment >is clearly what drove the CA AG to intervene. So >you could have foregone that dreaded government >intervention simply by ensuring that ICANN knew >the public mood rather than making one up. > >While I was in ALAC the "who the hell are you to >claim to speak for the billions?" retort from >the domain industry always bothered me. On >reflection I realize that it was a perfectly >valid criticism and holds true today as much -- >maybe more -- than ever. ALAC lacks any >credibility that it listens to the outside >world. It guesses, based on its own biases and >framed by ICANN staff, and as such represents >the view of no more than the 15 ALAC reps and a >handful of other self-appointed "experts" -- >present company included. There is zero effort >made to take the pulse of the public mood on >issues, a flaw that was exposed to the world this time. > >Indeed ... who the hell is ALAC to claim to >speak for the billions? That question now needs >to be asked from within At-Large too. > >The original theory in At-Large's design was >that ALSs were supposed to offer a kind of >broad-based audience that could be used to >discuss issues of import within a broader >population and bring their opinions back, >through RALOs, to ALAC. Not billions, but much >better than a few dozen and guaranteed to be >geographically diverse. For a ton of reasons >well beyond the scope of this thread, the ALS >theory has proven a complete failure. It can't >work, ALAC never allocates the time and process >to enable ALS consultation to take place. And >ALAC gets so involved with trivial and >irrelevant ICANN issues that could easily >overwhelm broad grassroots consultations. > > >There were, of course, dissenters in the NCSG as >well, such as Kathy Kleinman, who believed that >PICs were inherently evil and a product of a top >down decision making process under Fadi > > >For the record, and consistent since the day >PICs were invented, I agree with Kathy. So should ALAC. > >Now Evan, you might think that means they are >not âfit for âpurposeâ because of your >belief in what represented the public interest >but I find it difficult to believe that the >At-Large is somehow corrupt and purposefully subverted that public interest. > > >Oh hell no. I'm not accusing anyone of >corruption. Complacency, egotism and maybe even cowardice, but not corruption. > >- Evan >_______________________________________________ >CPWG mailing list >CPWG(a)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.

1 0

Jonathan Zuck has invited you to join At-Large - Consolidated Policy Working Group on Loomio
by Jonathan Zuck (Loomio) May 8, 2020

May 8, 2020

Logo Jonathan Zuck Jonathan Zuck has invited you to join their group At-Large - Consolidated Policy Working Group Accept invitation ( https://www.loomio.org/invitations/ZfvTtuBkwYpt7HhDsJft6wZH?utm_campaign=gr… ) Loomio is a place for groups to make decisions together Stop receiving emails from Loomio ( https://www.loomio.org/email_preferences?unsubscribe_token=cs7RxXU-FWPHFwXU… )

1 0

Testing a Discussion Platform
by Jonathan Zuck May 8, 2020

May 8, 2020

Folks, All this talk of better consensus management had me doing some research and I stumbled upon a tool called Loomio. It’s kind of like Slack but much more oriented towards discussions with a purpose. It’s a bit like Slack with a bunch of add-ons I guess. Their normal test period is 14 days with 10 people. I said we needed 2 months with 200 people and they agreed! So I want to invite you all to try the tool. Start some threads, throw out some proposals, create some polls, etc. and let’s see how we like it! This is a link to join straight into the CPWG subgroup. You’ll see I started some threads but there are many more to get going. I just wanted to prime the pump a bit! https://www.loomio.org/join/group/7nQ3uHUsi7s5cCc67mi3DHAS/ Jonathan Jonathan Zuck | Executive Director | Innovators Network jzuck(a)innovatorsnetwork.org<mailto:jzuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> | O 202.420.7497 | S jvzuck | [cid:image001.png@01D2AEED.C7EA7800]

1 0

GAC Statement on the EPDP Addendum
by Alan Greenberg May 7, 2020

May 7, 2020

During last week's CPWG meeting, I reported that we might be approached to see if the ALAC would support the GAC submission to the Public Comment on the EPDP Addendum to its Phase 2 Draft Report. I noted that based on a draft I had seen, the GAC comments were fully in line with those in the ALAC draft comment, and were in line with positions that the ALAC had taken in the past. That did happen and I was given permission to distribute the draft GAC statement to the ALAC. With Maureen's support, the ALAC Members were asked if they would be willing to endorse the GAC statement. I have happy to report that the ALAC unanimously gave its support, and the GAC was so informed. I am attaching here a copy of the statement submitted by the GAC. Alan

4 6

To convey, not to judge (was: Calif. AG mentions ALAC advice in note to ICANN re: PIR)
by Evan Leibovitch May 7, 2020

May 7, 2020

On Tue, 5 May 2020 at 18:09, David Mackey <mackey361(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Evan, > > Thank you for the summary. > > Do you have any suggestions on how our process could be improved to > produce outcomes which better "filter, judge, vet or micromanage the > global end user response to DNS-related issues" and help us "discover, > understand, articulate and advance it" better too? > I think you misread the intent of what I said. I *don't* want ALAC to better "filter, judge, vet or micromanage". I don't want ALAC doing those things *at all*. Who the hell are we in At-Large to judge that a mass commenting campaign is stupid or ill-informed, simply because their participants use the same form letter? We should be celebrating that there is so much external engagement rather that claiming monopoly on which public engagement is "well informed" and which are not. Americans in particular should by now be sensitized to the repercussions of calling whole swaths of public opinion "deplorable"; such elitism tends to end badly. Have we not learned the lessons? When ALAC expresses an opinion that's unpopular with the domain industry we are invariably greeted by "who the hell are you and what gives you the right to speak on behalf of the billions of the world's Internet users?" On reflection, they're right. We have about 25 At-Large leaders (give or take a few liaisons) attending each ICANN meeting, elected or appointed by RALOs and other self-selected volunteers, who really have absolutely no authority or rationale to act as a filter for the public sentiment. We keep busy by chasing ICANN public comments and the agendas of others, carefully crafting commentary on things that mean a great deal to the domain industry but not a shred to the outside world. And by and large we avoid issues that would collide with ICANN's highly-corrupted goals, so as not to incur the "who the hell are you?" retort. Meanwhile, when an issue of substantial public interest comes up -- one that gets the attention of the mainstream press, NGOs and lawmakers around the world -- ALAC sits back in judgment, sneering at the masses and chock-full of its own self-righteousness, unreasonably loyal to the status quo. Leadership of this committee has denigrated both the volume and the quality of the opposition to the Ethos sale for reasons I cannot fathom. Sure it's an angry mob, but it's OUR mob and we ought to be understanding it and channelling its passion within ICANN rather than dumping on it (every other constituency in ICANN is quite able to do that already). So .... when the world depended upon us, ALAC absolutely failed the ICANN by the conscious design of its leadership. But we're right on top of the EPDPs and RPMs. How to fix? Needs to start from the ground up, bandaids won't fix this mess. ICANN At-Large needs to be designed to highlight researchers and writers, not petty politicians and lobbyists. I would personally trade almost every dollar spent on ALAC attending ICANN meetings for a decent R&D budget and the ability to do global surveys. How many people here know that Heidi Ullrich, the ICANN VP in charge of At-Large, has a PhD in Policy Development from the London School of Economics? Indeed, many of ALAC's support staff over the years have brought immense policy talents within reach, yet are wasted on petty bureaucracy and internal politics. They feed ALAC's incessant need for insufferable meetings at ICANN events with their large U-shaped tables and moving cameras and interpreter booths like we're the freaking united nations. At such events people let their egos run amok and waste three seconds of every comment with "This is [name] for the transcript record".... as if anyone is ever going to read transcripts of ALAC meetings. So three times a year 25 ALACers get to feel utterly self-important, speaking into lit microphones and getting interpreted into a half-dozen languages and always running out of time debating trivia, while the public interest outside our doors gets completely ignored. The term "bikeshedding" is extremely appropriate. The UN-like meetings and fake self-importance need to stop. Our main job is to listen to and understand, not act as a gatekeeper for, what the world is saying on DNS issues. Our prime task is to make sure that ICANN is aware of the public PoV, as accurately possible, regarding: - The (to many needless and abuse-generating) expansion of TLDs - The ability of registrants to assert rights protections in domain space that are disallowed globally for trademarks - The utility of "memorable" domain names versus search engines and social media - The practise of domain hoarding and speculation (also illegal under international trademark regime) - Whether domain names need regulation or just the basic sanity checks now on offer - The balance between privacy and law-enforcement access to reduce abuse But look elsewhere in this list and you'll find none of those things being the focus our work. Instead good people are caught up in endless development processes about development processes, success metrics etc. Nobody told ALAC that we had to apply all that bureaucracy to our own workings and yet we do, to the detriment of what really matters to our community. If you don't agree with what I think the public wants from us above, fantastic! Let's find out! What we *ARE* highly likely to find is that the public doesn't give a damn about any of the topics currently on the plate of this WG. I'm not sure I've answered your question, David. But at least I hope I've offered a window into how I see ALAC's horribly misplaced resources, both financial and human, and what is needed to get back on track. - Evan

5 9

At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call
by ICANN Policy Calendar May 7, 2020

May 7, 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, 13 May 2020 at 19:00 UTC for 90 mins. For other times: https://tinyurl.com/y737jyut The agenda (to be updated) and call details can be found at: https://community.icann.org/x/CYMEC Zoom Room: https://icann.zoom.us/j/765717566?pwd=TnhSZEhEMDlibzNsS2Y0OWFQQk9Ldz09 / Meeting ID: 765-717-566 �C Please note, the zoom room link and Meeting ID will remain the same for each weekly meeting. ****Passcode****: 2345 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 FR: 1838 ES: 1738 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<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

REMINDER / Meeting invitation: At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call on Wednesday, 06 May 2020 at 13:00 UTC
by ICANN At-Large Staff May 6, 2020

May 6, 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, 06 May 2020 at 13:00 UTC for 90 mins. For other times: https://tinyurl.com/y9u3lyt3 The agenda (to be updated) and call details can be found at: https://community.icann.org/x/vYrsBw Zoom Room: https://icann.zoom.us/j/765717566?pwd=TnhSZEhEMDlibzNsS2Y0OWFQQk9Ldz09 / Meeting ID: 765-717-566 – Please note, the zoom room link and Meeting ID will remain the same for each weekly meeting. Passcode: 2345 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 FR: 1838 ES: 1738 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<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

urgent: RPM issues -- deadline May 4
by Marita Moll May 5, 2020

May 5, 2020

Hello CPWG members. Last week, Greg Shatan presented a slide deck with proposed At Large responses to the review of Rights Protection Mechanisms in all GTLDs working group phase 1 initial report. There was no time for discussion -- but some of the items that could be interesting are presented here for your consideration. Please send any comments to the list today (May 4) as today is the deadline for submitting comments on this topic. Apologies for the last minute mail out. Slides # 23, 24, 25 -- Overarching Charter questions 182. General Overarching Charter #Q1. Do the RPMs collectively fulfil the objectives for their creation, namely “to provide trademark holders with either preventative or curative protections against cybersquatting and other abusive uses of their legally- recognized trademarks?” In other words, have all the RPMs, in the aggregate, been sufficient to meet their objectives or do new or additional mechanisms, or changes to existing RPMs, need to be developed? *Proposed response: Overall, the RPMs have been sufficient to meet their objectives. We * ** *see no need for new or additional mechanisms, or changes beyond those proposed by * ** *the Working Group. Our primary concern is with preventing various forms of DNS * ** *Abuse, and with improving consumer trust and safety on the Internet.* ** 183. General Overarching Charter #Q2a. Should any of the New gTLD Program RPMs (such as the URS), like the UDRP, be Consensus Policies applicable to all gTLDs? *Discussion: This primarily concerns URS. The ALAC view here should be consistent with * ** *prior views on the use of the 2013 Registry Agreement with legacy TLDs. Sunrise has no * ** *application to legacy gTLDs. The question of whether there should be Trademark Claims * ** *Notices in legacy gTLDs is a Pandora’s Box not worth opening* ** 184. General Overarching Charter #Q2b. If so, what are the transitional issues that would have to be dealt with as a consequence? *Proposed Response. Addition of URS (which is largely complete) to all legacy gTLDs * ** *would not raise any significant transitional issues.* ** ** 185. General Overarching Charter #Q3a. Will changes to one RPM need to be offset by concomitant changes to the others? *No proposed response. This is really too abstract to be worth exploring at this juncture.* ** ** 187. Additional Overarching Charter #Q1. Do the RPMs adequately address issues of registrant protection (such as freedom of expression and fair use)? *Question: Fascinating question, but is there a narrative we could develop or a consistent position for ALAC to take here?* ** ** 188. Additional Overarching Charter #Q2. Is the recent and strong ICANN work seeking to understand and incorporate Human Rights into the policy considerations of ICANN relevant to the UDRP or any of the RPMs? *Proposed response: As a general matter, incorporating Human Rights consideration into ICANN policy development is * ** *relevant to all ICANN policies, including RPMs. The question of how that should be taken into account, * ** *both generally and with regard to any or all RPMs, is beyond the scope of these responses and deserving * ** *of a process unto itself.* ** ** 189. Additional Overarching Charter #Q3. How can costs be lowered so end users can easily access RPMs? *Proposed response: While this is phrased as a general “end user” question, it is primarily relevant to end users * ** *with trademarks – individuals, businesses, non-profits, bands, etc. Many individuals and * ** *smaller businesses, as well as brand-owners in developing economies, have the same * ** *concerns as larger or better-financed trademark holders but may not have the experience * ** *and wherewithal to make use of the RPMs. The facile answer is that there could be financial * ** *supports or subsidies to open the RPMs to these end-users. Beyond that, there are also non-* ** *financial supports that have the effect of lowering costs for these end-users, some of which * ** *are discussed in the Recommendations. These include increasing offerings of translations, * ** *translation services, educational materials, model submissions, helplines or chats, and even * ** *pro bono legal representation.* ** **

4 3