- CPWG - lists.icann.org

Open for Comment: ALAC Statement on Draft FY21-25 Operating & Financial Plan and Draft FY21 Operating Plan & Budget
by Evin Erdogdu Feb. 5, 2020

Feb. 5, 2020

Dear FBSC and CPWG Members, Please find the draft ALAC Statement on Draft FY21-25 Operating & Financial Plan and Draft FY21 Operating Plan & Budget, provided by Ricardo Holmquist, FBSC Chair, on the following Google Doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cf95Lk8trIqIC_QFFNV1zMwDkJ4rRP21mUmXhBf… Please note a separate comment on the Multistakeholder Model, in relation this Public Comment, is being drafted by Marita Moll. The Google Doc with this comment may be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BVJLVRlQYP6tpJ0-TXLpSeTu11vzbNZCYuWFc05… Both Google Docs and related resources may be found on the At-Large workspace for the Public Comment:? https://community.icann.org/x/EQhxBw Kind Regards, Evin

1 0

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

request for input on MSM model implementation
by Marita Moll Feb. 4, 2020

Feb. 4, 2020

Colleagues: In preparation for possible discussion on the CPWG call re: feedback on the evolving multistakeholder model (which forms part of the FY21-25 operating and financial plan), a draft google doc has been started here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BVJLVRlQYP6tpJ0-TXLpSeTu11vzbNZCYuWFc05… Should there be any time to discuss this subject on the call, I will concentrate on the following task: *Rank the six workstreams according to which issue which represents the most “ripe fruit” opportunity – i.e. an approach or solution can be developed with minimal (lesser) resources.* The 6 workstreams and the proposed leads are: Consensus + Representation/inclusivity – GNSO working with SOs/ACs Prioritization of work + efficient use of resources – SO/AC chairs working with ICANN org. CEO and ICANN Board chair Culture, trust and silos – ALAC working with ACs/SOs Complexity – ICANN.org re: accessibility to info/data + SO/AC chairs re: process, procedures, bylaws, communication and documentation Precision in scoping – TBD (SSAC has been suggested) Roles and responsibilities – ICANN Board with community and ICANN.org CEO In the draft document, I have proposed that work on culture, trust and silos would naturally precede representation/inclusivity (which includes recruitment/demographics) -- especially because of the competition between groups for committed and engaged volunteers. But that is a practical suggestion, not made with the "minimal resources" idea in mind. But please send me your thoughts on how you might rank some of these other workstreams from the "low hanging fruit"perspective. Thanks Marita ** **

1 0

Re: [CPWG] ISOC/PIR Advice: Thank you!
by Roberto Gaetano Feb. 3, 2020

Feb. 3, 2020

Sorry, resending from the good email address R On 01.02.2020, at 07:36, Roberto Gaetano <roberto(a)gaetano.org<mailto:roberto@gaetano.org>> wrote: Thanks Jonathan. But let me acknowledge that you did most of the work, and add my apologies for having provided my last contribution a bit late. I would also assume that there will be more work to do in the future, as the matter is nowhere near closure. Cheers, Roberto On 31.01.2020, at 17:58, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck(a)innovatorsnetwork.org<mailto:JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org>> wrote: Thanks all for your help in getting this advice over the finish line. I think we struck a delicate balance between assertive and rational and the board will be hard pressed to ignore it. Thanks, in particular, to Roberto for providing the thought leadership on our position and taking on the difficult task, during such an emotional and tumultuous time, to identify what was most important so that we could strike that balance. Please accept my apology for taking so long to draft this. It simply felt like matters were gaining both clarity and complexity with each passing day and I wanted to make sure that as many viewpoints as possible were explored. This process also highlighted some real disfunction inside the NPOC and forced us to peak around the corner of our remit. Perhaps we should attempt to engage with them as this process is far from over. Thanks again for your principled participation! Jonathan Jonathan Zuck | Executive Director | Innovators Network jzuck(a)innovatorsnetwork.org<mailto:jzuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> | O 202.420.7497 | S jvzuck | <image001.png>

2 1

Fwd: [IP] Sale of .org domain registry delayed by California attorney general
by Bastiaan Goslings Feb. 1, 2020

Feb. 1, 2020

Fyi, see below: (‘a stunning development that certainly vindicates the concerns of non-profits, internet activists and domain name holders’) Regards, Bastiaan — Envoyé du mon iPhone Begin forwarded message: > From: Dave Farber <farber(a)gmail.com> > Date: 1 February 2020 at 04:33:41 CET > To: Ip Ip <ip(a)v2.listbox.com> > Subject: [IP] Sale of .org domain registry delayed by California attorney general > Reply-To: ip <ip(a)ip.topicbox.com> > > Begin forwarded message: > >> https://mashable.com/article/california-attorney-general-dot-org-sale/ >> >> The .org domain takeover has been delayed, at least for now. >> >> California Attorney General Xavier Becerra sent a letter to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) demanding more information about the private equity takeover of the .org domain registry. The attorney general is seeking answers to 35 questions concerning the sale as well as documents sent between ICANN, private equity firm Ethos Capital, and Public Interest Registry (PIR), which manages the .org domain. >> >> Ethos Capital disclosed last year that it was acquiring PIR from its non-profit parent organization, the Internet Society, for $1.135 billion. >> >> ICANN, the non-profit organization that oversees domain names, disclosed the letter on its website along with its own correspondence with PIR, informing it of the development. Previously, ICANN had until Feb. 17 to approve or deny the sale. According to ICANN, as a result of the California AG’s letter, it’s seeking to delay this deadline until April 20. >> >> ICANN says it's "fully cooperating" with the request. In its letter to PIR, ICANN gives a heads up that it will be providing the attorney general "confidential material" to comply with the AG's demands. As ICANN's letter states, it has terms in its contract with PIR which forbid the organization from disclosing information that the registry deems confidential unless required by law. ICANN clearly views the AG's letter as applicable. >> >> It’s a stunning development that certainly vindicates the concerns of non-profits, internet activists, and domain name holders. >> >> Many of the attorney general’s questions revolve around the removal of the long-standing price caps in ICANN’s most recent contract renewal with PIR. The price caps on .org domains allowed the registry raise registration prices no more than 10 percent each year. Without those price caps, the registry could raise pricing for registration and renewals as much as it would like. In addition, it could also add new pricing structures, such as deeming certain domains as "premium" and charging whatever it would like for those domains. >> >> Not long after ICANN’s price cap removal gave the registry complete control of .org domain pricing, Ethos Capital announced its acquisition of the registry. Many critics of the sale were concerned with the timing of these developments. Non-profit organizations, which previously galvanized to try and stop the price cap removal in the first place, worried that the private equity firm would raise .org prices in order to quickly recoup its investment. >> >> ICANN previously said that the organization was “powerless” to do anything about the sale of the .org registry. However, ICANN’s tune quickly changed as news spread of the private equity takeover. An ICANN board member told internet activists, who recently protested outside of ICANN’s LA offices, that the organization was taking the sale “very seriously.” >> >> There are currently more than 11.5 million registered .org domain names. Registrants pay a yearly fee to renew their domain registrations. PIR currently generates around $100 million a year selling .org domain names to registrars, such as Namecheap and Godaddy, for just under $10 per year. >> >> The AG’s office oversees nonprofits and charitable organizations in the state of California. Becerra has cracked down on nonprofits that break the law. >> >> Whether the acquisition is stopped remains to be seen. It all depends on what the California attorney general finds in his investigation. _______________________________________________ >> > ip / ip / see discussions + participants + delivery options Permalink

1 0

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