- CPWG - lists.icann.org

I am leaving the At-Large, as it appears to me to be captured
by George Kirikos May 3, 2019

May 3, 2019

Hi folks As I discussed on the CPWG mailing list: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/2019-May/001180.html I was strongly concerned about capture of the At Large, and my concerns have been ignored and dismissed, given the statement that ALAC sent to the .org public comments yesterday, after the CPWG call. I submitted my own additional comment a few minutes ago, arguing why that statement should be given little weight (see below). As such, I am now leaving the At Large. Please remove me from all the relevant mailing lists and notification lists. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 8:48 AM George Kirikos <icann(a)leap.com> wrote: > > Submitted by: George Kirikos > Company: Leap of Faith Financial Services Inc. > Website: http://www.leap.com/ > Date: May 3, 2019 > > In addition to our prior comments (below), we would like to point out > that the submission by ALAC at: > > https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-org-renewal-18mar19/2019q2/003297.h… > > (and in similar comments for .biz, .info, .asia) > > should be given very little weight, as it appears to be > unrepresentative of the billions of users of the internet (which At > Large purports to represent). Rather, it reflects the views of a small > number of individuals, many of whom have current or past associations > with Internet Society or its various chapters. > > This was pointed out by me in the thread at: > > https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/2019-May/001180.html > > of the Consolidated Policy Working Group of the At Large: > > ----- start of snippet -------- > Look at the actual history of this matter. At the last meeting, it > was decided that At-Large would not be making a statement. What "new > information" exists since that decision, to justify change? There is > none, other than the fact that thousands of others have made comments, > and so presumably some of ISOC's friends and/or allies feel the need > to help ISOC. That's not a good justification at all. > > Remember, Jonathan even wrote on Friday: > > https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/2019-April/001099.html > > "Let's table this discussion until we can have a more thorough > exploration of the issues. Email is a terrible way in which to have > such a discussion. " > > But then some people ignored that, wanting to relitigate a decided > issue. And, many of those people were present at last week's meeting > too, so they already had their chance. Again, what new information did > they have? None. Did Jonathan rebuke them for not tabling the > discussion? Nope. > > Indeed, look at Greg Shatan's email at: > > https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/2019-April/001094.html > > "I believe that PIR was hoping for a comment along the lines of our > first draft (which I believe they saw on our site) or our second > draft." > > That is again entirely consistent with capture. > > 5. It's obvious that many folks have some past or present connection > to ISOC or one of its chapters, or perhaps even aspirational future > connections with them. e.g. Greg Shatan's is obvious, via the NYC > chapter of ISOC. > > Maureen Hilyard's SOI: > > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/Maureen+Hilyard+SOI > > mentions the "Pacific Islands Chapter of the Internet Society" > > Marita Moll has a history with the Canadian chapter: > > http://www.maritamoll.ca/content/about-site > > Cheryl Landon-Orr's SOI: > > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/Cheryl+Langdon-Orr+SOI > > mentions "Internet Australia (IA) formally known as the Internet > Society of Australia ( ISOC-AU)" > > John Laprise's LinkedIn profile: > > https://www.linkedin.com/in/jplaprise > > mentions "cofounding Qatar's Internet Society chapter" as well as > "Faculty" of Internet Society in May 2014. > ---- end of snippet ----------- > > There are even more than those, e.g. > > Evan Leibovitch's involvement with the Canadian chapter of the Internet Society: > > https://www.itworldcanada.com/article/canadian-chapter-of-internet-society-… > > and Glenn McKnight: > > https://www.internetsociety.org/author/mcknight/ > > "co-founder of Internet Society Canada Chapter and held positions for > three years as Treasurer, Secretariat and Board member. In 2017, > Glenn was elected to the Internet Society Board of Trustees by the > Chapters for a 3-year term from 2017-2020." > > Indeed, at yesterday's CPWG meeting (where that ALAC position was > finalized for .org), Maureen Hilyard (the penholder for the .asia > statement, and current Chair of ALAC) casually mentioned that she was > on the Board of Dot-Asia,. She even circulated her draft to the > Dot-Asia folks for comments to see if there were any problems with it! > Apparently no one but myself within the CPWG call yesterday saw how > that would be unusual. > > Indeed, Maureen Hilyard is on the Advisory Council of PIR itself: > > https://pir.org/about-us/advisory-council/maureen-hilyard-ngo-ong-cook-isla… > > Given the lack of diversity and low participation in At Large, it's > prone to capture (as others have pointed out, in the email I sent to > the CPWG mailing list). It's clear to me that the ALAC statement is a > product of such capture. > > Sincerely, > > George Kirikos > 416-588-0269 > http://www.leap.com/ > > On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 4:51 PM George Kirikos <icann(a)leap.com> wrote: > > > > Submitted by: George Kirikos > > Company: Leap of Faith Financial Services Inc. > > Website: http://www.leap.com/ > > Date: April 29, 2019 > > > > We write to oppose the proposed contract renewals posted by ICANN for > > the .org, .info, .biz and .asia contracts, as posted for public > > comments at: > > > > https://www.icann.org/public-comments/org-renewal-2019-03-18-en > > https://www.icann.org/public-comments/info-renewal-2019-03-18-en > > https://www.icann.org/public-comments/biz-renewal-2019-04-03-en > > https://www.icann.org/public-comments/asia-renewal-2019-03-27-en > > > > While our arguments are focused on the .org TLD, to the extent that > > the contractual terms are similar for the other TLDs, we repeat the > > same comments for .info, .biz and .org. Indeed, while the majority of > > the thousands of public comments to date have focused on .org, ICANN > > should read those comments as also applying to .info, .biz and .org, > > even if the submitters did not explicitly submit their comments to all > > 4 email addresses. > > > > 1. We support and endorse the great groundswell of opposition as > > expressed in the thousands of thoughtful public comments opposed to > > these proposed agreements. It is shocking that ICANN did not learn its > > lesson from 2006, when similar massive opposition existed for > > comparable contracts which would have allowed for unlimited fee > > increases: > > > > https://forum.icann.org/lists/org-tld-agreement/ > > > > The proposed contracts are simply unconscionable, and ICANN should > > instead simply extend the existing contracts by another 6 or 10 years, > > rather than make any other changes. > > > > 2. Within the At-Large, we had a video discussion/debate, archived at: > > > > https://freespeech.com/2019/04/10/impact-of-the-urs-and-unlimited-fee-incre… > > > > https://youtu.be/KW3I1oFGbv0 > > > > where many of the points below are discussed, and I include them here > > by reference. > > > > 3. We particularly agree with the comments and/or blogs submitted/posted by: > > > > a) Nat Cohen / Telepathy: > > > > https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-org-renewal-18mar19/2019q2/003067.h… > > http://www.circleid.com/posts/20190423_spurious_justifications_for_eliminat… > > > > b) NameCheap: > > > > https://www.namecheap.com/blog/keep-domain-prices-in-check/ > > > > c) Zak Muscovitch / Internet Commerce Association: > > > > https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-org-renewal-18mar19/2019q2/000006.h… > > > > d) Jay Chapman / Digimedia: > > > > https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-org-renewal-18mar19/2019q2/002967.h… > > > > e) Andrew Allemann: > > > > https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-org-renewal-18mar19/2019q2/003091.h… > > > > 4. It should be noted that in the past ICANN trumpeted lower fees as > > one of its main achievements. For example, the testimony of ICANN > > General Counsel and Secretary John Jeffrey at: > > > > https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-109hhrg30233/html/CHRG-109hhrg3023… > > > > "STATEMENT OF JOHN JEFFREY, INTERNET CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED NAMES > > AND NUMBERS (ICANN) > > ... > > Among ICANN's main achievements are the following: > > ... > > Market competition. Market competition for generic top-level > > domain registrations established by ICANN has ****lowered > > domain name cost in some instances as much as 80 percent with savings > > for both consumers and businesses.****" (emphasis added) > > > > It is not consistent with those past statements for ICANN to abrogate > > its responsibilities, and permit unlimited fee increases by registry > > operators. Unlimited fee increases are not in the public interest, and > > do not even attempt to balance the needs of registrants against those > > of registry operators. ICANN was handed a responsibility to balance > > the interest of affected stakeholders when it achieved (against our > > wishes) independence from US government oversight, and it's now clear > > that it is not living up to those commitments given such one-sided > > contracts that have been presented here for public comment. Unlimited > > fee increases are not balanced, and do not promote stability of the > > internet or competition. ICANN is engaging in corporate welfare and/or > > crony capitalism through such anti-competitive proposals as are here > > before us. > > > > 5. As has been pointed out by others, under competition the cost of > > providing registry services (really just the management of a central > > database plus the operation of various nameservers) would be under USD > > $1.00 per domain name per year. This is evidenced by the .IN (India) > > tender, where Neustar beat Afilias with a winning bid of USD $0.70 per > > domain name per year (70 cents/domain/yr): > > > > http://domainincite.com/23364-afilias-sues-india-to-block-12-million-neusta… > > > > A similar competitive tender process happened in France: > > > > https://www.thedomains.com/2012/08/07/afnic-awarded-new-contract-to-run-fr-… > > > > where AFNIC had to lower the wholesale fees for .FR domain names, and > > the contract was for 5 years. > > > > Similar competitions are held for the .US ccTLD: > > > > https://www.ntia.doc.gov/legacy/ntiahome/press/2007/Neustar_101907.html > > > > You'll note that registry operators do not have presumptive renewal in > > those ccTLD contracts, yet are more than willing and able to compete > > effectively and make investments. It was a major policy blunder of > > ICANN to have agreed in the past to presumptive renewal, a decision > > that has had a multi-billion dollar negative impact upon registrants, > > compared to a situation where there are regular competitive tenders. > > Even the US government has argued for those competitive tenders for > > both initial agreements and for renewals of agreements: > > > > https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/icann_081218.pdf > > > > (Ms. Garza's analysis begins on the 3rd page of the PDF, after the > > covering letter by Ms. Baker of the NTIA) > > > > The absence of such competitive tenders can only be rectified through > > the protective fee caps which have been long established, and which > > the registry operators themselves have agreed to since the times they > > entered into their respective agreements. If current registry > > operators are not prepared to renew the existing contracts (which have > > fee caps in place), then there would be no shortage of other > > prospective registry operators who would be prepared to step in and > > replace them (and at a much lower cost, with fee caps in place). > > > > Indeed, ICANN themselves have argued (in court) that such caps are > > *pro-competitive*, see: > > > > https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/icann-reply-on-cfit-26may06-en.… > > > > "....in a single supplier market, price caps are, if anything, > > procompetitive (Mot. at 13-14);" > > > > (line 13, page 6 of 15) > > > > 6. We would like to openly make ICANN the following offer: We will run > > the .org registry for USD $5 per domain name per year, and keep all > > other existing terms the same. [We would then simply subcontract it to > > one of the many registry operators who would bid for the job at USD $1 > > per domain per year or less, and pocket the difference!] This is lower > > than the $9.93 per domain name per year that PIR currently charges. > > ICANN cannot of course accept this improved deal, even if it wanted > > to, because its hands are tied by the foolish decision to agree to > > presumptive renewal in the past. > > > > Looking forward, an agreement to permit unlimited fee increases in the > > future (far beyond the already generous 10% per year permitted > > increases) would similarly hamper ICANN's ability to negotiate future > > "win-win" deals, giving it no negotiating leverage in the future, as > > it would have already given away the farm if it entered into this > > proposed agreement. > > > > Agreeing to permit unlimited fee increases is like letting the genie > > out of the bottle, as there's no way that registry operators will ever > > agree to voluntarily undo such a change in the future. Presumptive > > renewal means that registry operators can safely ignore any future > > attempts by ICANN to renegotiate. This is why these contractual > > changes are so important, because they'll be impossible to fix in the > > future (without giving up even more to registry operators, e.g. via a > > buyout or something). This alone should be reason for caution. Given > > there's no urgency to making a change (i.e. registry operators have > > *falling* costs, not increasing costs), then the status quo should > > prevail. > > > > 6. Some have suggested that the Internet Society and/or PIR would > > never raise fees by a large amount. However, "hope is not a strategy." > > Past performance is no guarantee of the future. Leadership can change, > > as can priorities/missions. It's clear from section 7.5 of the the > > draft contract itself: > > > > https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/org/org-proposed-renewal-18m… > > > > that ISOC/PIR could simply sell or assign the registry contract to > > another entity (e.g. Private Equity, just as registry operator Donuts > > was sold by its founders), and that new owner/entity could take the > > heat for future egregious fee increases. ICANN would not be able to > > stop such a deal. Such a sale would allow ISOC to create a huge > > endowment for itself worth billions of dollars, given that .org is > > arguably the second most desirable gTLD, after only .com. > > > > 7. The ability to renew a domain name for 10 years is not sufficient > > protection for registrants. Eventually the bill will come due, and > > nothing can offset the enormous switching costs. Any > > goodwill/links/etc. built up will be reduced to zero, totally > > destroying one's investment in one's web identity that may have been > > built up over 20+ years (even longer than ICANN has existed, in many > > cases). URLs that have been printed in offline media such as books, > > DVDs, etc. can't be updated, thus it's impossible for many to simply > > stop renewing after 10 years and switch, as some people will still see > > the old URL. E-mails aren't forwarded by the new registrants to those > > of past registrants, meaning that all existing email addresses can't > > easily transition to a new domain name without risk. Business cards > > would need to be reprinted (and can't be "recalled" from past > > recipients). Registrants expect URLs to be permanent, not transitory. > > Registrants of legacy gTLDs like com/net/org own their domain names, > > and are not temporary tenants (like those in the failed new gTLDs). > > > > 8. One of the reasons prospective registrants rationally avoid new > > gTLDs is the lack of certainty over potential future fee increases. As > > one submission pointed out, they are "leery" of such one-sided > > contracts, and for good reason. Those failures of the new gTLDs > > experiment should not be allowed to contaminate the successful and > > proven legacy gTLDs like .com/net/org. Indeed, if there is to be any > > harmonization of contracts, the "base agreement" should be that of the > > successful .com/net/org TLDs which included fee caps, rather than have > > the future be modeled on the the failed new gTLDs program. Registrants > > of new gTLDs knew the problems with the lack of price caps, and > > foolishly agreed to them before registration. Changing the rules for > > existing registrants of legacy gTLDs is unacceptable, as this amounts > > to changing the rules in the middle of the game, rules which would > > never have been acceptable to most prior to registration. > > > > One submission suggested that as each new gTLD matures, or reaches a > > critical mass, it should then transition to the legacy contracts. That > > was a wise suggestion, to bridge the failed new gTLD program with the > > successful legacy gTLDs. > > > > 9. Even ISOC/PIR doesn't enter into such one-sided agreements, given > > that its own supplier/subcontractor (Afilias) had to win a competitive > > tender to retain the contract for managing the back-end of the > > registry (presumably at an even lower fee than it agreed to years ago > > -- fees would be able to be estimated once the relevant IRS Form 990 > > forms become public). > > > > https://domainnamewire.com/2016/02/16/32-million-org-contract-up-for-bids/ > > https://domainnamewire.com/2016/11/14/org-sticks-afilias-backend/ > > > > It's entirely inconsistent that Internet Society doesn't give > > presumptive renewal and/or permits unlimited fee increases for its own > > suppliers, yet wants such things for themselves. > > > > 10. We oppose the ability for the registry operators to unilaterally > > create and impose their own mandatory RPMs upon registrants. See, for > > example: > > > > https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/org/org-proposed-addendum-18… > > > > "Specification 7, § 1 The terms of Section 1 of Specification 7 are > > hereby amended and restated in their entirety as follows: “Rights > > Protection Mechanisms. Registry Operator shall implement and adhere to > > the rights protection mechanisms (“RPMs”) specified in this > > Specification. In addition to such RPMs, Registry Operator ******may > > develop and implement RPMs that discourage or prevent registration of > > domain names that violate or abuse another party’s legal rights.****** > > Registry Operator will include all RPMs required by this Specification > > 7 and any additional RPMs developed and implemented by Registry > > Operator in the Registry-Registrar Agreement entered into by > > ICANN-accredited registrars authorized to register names in the TLD.” > > (page 6, emphasis added) > > > > This should be left to the GNSO, to develop only policies that have > > consensus, and which balance the needs of both rights holders and > > registrants. For example, suppose PIR (or another registry operator) > > was allowed to unilaterally create a RPM on their own which allowed > > for complaints to be filed for a fee of $100, but which required > > registrants post a $1 million bond if they wish to file any response > > to the complaint. Such a one-sided policy could be created by a > > registry operator under the proposed terms, and would ignore the > > requirement that ICANN policies need to balance the concerns of all > > affected stakeholders (including registrants). > > > > 11. We also oppose the searchable WHOIS, which ignores the ongoing > > EPDP on WHOIS: > > > > https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/org/org-proposed-renewal-18m… > > (page 37) > > > > "Notwithstanding anything else in this Agreement, Registry Operator > > must offer a searchable Whois service compliant with the requirements > > described in Section 1.10 of Specification 4 of this Agreement." > > > > as it doesn't properly balance the privacy rights of registrants > > against those who would go on fishing expeditions. A searchable WHOIS > > system should only ever be adopted, if and only if the Trademark > > Clearinghouse (TMCH) equally becomes public and searchable, in return. > > If the TMCH is kept secret and non-searchable, then the WHOIS should > > not be searchable either. > > > > 12. Additional RPMs that were developed for new gTLDs were the result > > of bad predictions that were made of massive cybersquatting prior to > > the adoption of the program. For example, in testimony before the US > > government: > > > > https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-112shrg74251/html/CHRG-112shrg7425… > > > > "First, the immediate costs imposed on business is likely to be in the > > multi billions of dollars." > > > > "This Program in aggregate has multi-billion dollar implications for > > all marketers, both in the commercial and the nonprofit sectors, and > > their brands. It would cause irreparable harm and damage to the entire > > online business community. It would throw the domain name universe > > into substantial confusion for both marketers and consumers." > > > > "So there are billions of dollars that are going to be spent and it's > > not going to be providing a use for the economy." > > > > "And when we're talking about billions of dollars here, when we're > > talking about companies with 3,000 or more brands, even big companies > > will be facing really large expenses. So this is a very, very > > significant economic issue for this country and for the world." > > > > "An unlimited expansion of the TLDs will cost the business community > > billions of dollars." > > > > "The unlimited expansion of TLDs would dramatically increase the cost > > and complexity for trademark holders to protect their rights. The > > immediate cost imposed on businesses is likely to be in the billions > > of dollars." > > > > "We believe ICANN's gTLD program would impose billions of dollars in > > unnecessary costs on the restaurant industry at a time when restaurant > > operators are looking forward to investing in their businesses and > > hiring employees after the worst recession in decades." > > > > These predictions exaggerated and overestimated the actual risk that > > was realized by the launch of new gTLDs. Thus, the justification for > > the adoption of the URS and other RPMs turned out to be false > > predictions, and should now be undone. They were never intended for, > > nor should be imposed upon, registrants of legacy gTLDs. > > > > Prospective registry operators at the time were willing to accept such > > terms, as the trademark lobby threatened to thwart and delay the > > release of new gTLDs unless their demands were met. Registry operators > > were blinded by dollar signs in their eyes, for example, predictions > > by Name.Space: > > > > "Name.Space, whose business has a potential value of over 1 billion > > dollars, has been deprived the opportunity to fully launch and operate > > its portfolio of gTLD properties under what we believe is the most > > responsible, fair, and ethical practices yet to be employed in the > > commercial domain name industry." (same link as above for testimony) > > > > 13. Given that the RPM PDP of the GNSO is actively reviewing the URS, > > including determining whether or not it should be a consensus policy, > > no steps should be taken by ICANN staff and/or the registry operators > > to unilaterally impose it upon registrants. Indeed, there are numerous > > proposals to actively change the URS (including a proposal to > > explicitly eliminate it), see: > > > > https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/URS+Proposals > > > > (click the "Individual URS Proposal" tab to see the 33 individual > > proposals, 14 of them from us) > > > > The current URS is deeply flawed. For example of just one of the > > defects, currently complaints are required to be in English (unlike > > the language rules for the UDRP, where complaints must be in the > > language of the registration agreement, which varies by registrar). > > Thus, many registrants defending a URS dispute have no idea what the > > actual URS complaint is about, if they do not understand English. This > > is particularly egregious, given that new gTLDs are most popular in > > China. > > > > Such flawed RPMs whose creation was rushed before the launch of new > > gTLDs, and which are tilted in favour of large multinational > > companies, need to be reviewed and corrected before they are ever > > adopted for legacy gTLDs like .com/net/org. > > > > 14. In conclusion, ICANN's proposed contracts represent a failure of > > the multi-stakeholder model, and are instead evidence that ICANN has > > been captured by registry operators. ICANN claims these contracts are > > the result of a negotiation, yet what did registrants receive in > > return for these contractual changes? We received absolutely nothing > > in return, except for higher fees and higher regulatory burdens (via > > the imposition of the URS), with all the gains being received by the > > registry operators at the expense of registrants. That's not a > > negotiation -- that's a giveaway. > > > > We expect and demand that ICANN and the registry will simply extend > > the current contracts, rather than enter into these one-sided > > arrangements. > > > > Sincerely, > > > > George Kirikos > > 416-588-0269 > > http://www.leap.com/

2 5

Final chance for choices for the HIT sessions in Marrakech
by Maureen Hilyard May 2, 2019

May 2, 2019

https://icann.wufoo.com/reports/icann65-proposed-topics It would be good to get some priorities from At-Large, from this final list of proposals for the High Interest and Cross Community Discussions. Gisella must have our list of priorities by Friday week - perhaps 4-5 sessions acceptable to At-Large and for which we could create talking points for the key discussions at Marrakech Maureen

5 5

**Call starts in 15 minutes** At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) call on Thursday, 02 May 2019 at 20:00 UTC
by ICANN At-Large Staff May 2, 2019

May 2, 2019

***** Zoom will be used for this call ***** If you require a dial-out please contact At-Large staff at staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<file:///composeviewinternalloadurl/staff@atlarge.icann.org> with your preferred number. Please remember that it is now possible to connect your audio via the AC room, without using your telephone. You need a stable internet connection. If you would like a reminder of how to connect please let staff know. Si necesita una llamada a su telefono, por favor póngase en contacto con el personal de At-Large en staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<file:///composeviewinternalloadurl/staff@atlarge.icann.org> con su número preferido. Por favor, recuerde que es posible conectar el audio a través de la Adobe Connect, sin necesidad de utilizar su teléfono. Se necesita una conexión a Internet estable. Si desea un recordatorio de cómo conectar por favor que el personal sepa. Por favor note que esta llamada tendra interpretación en ES. Please note this call will have ES interpretation. Dear All, The next At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call is scheduled for Thursday 02 May 2019 at 20:00 UTC for 90 mins. For other times: https://tinyurl.com/y5arqd5r The agenda and call details can be found at: https://community.icann.org/x/WIOGBg Zoom Room: https://icann.zoom.us/j/407784499 Zoom Dial-in Numbers: https://zoom.us/u/ayXQGOHVG / Meeting ID: 407 784 499 ADIGO Conference Bridge: EN: 1638 ES: 1738 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

FW: **Updated with audio cast / Proposed agenda and preparatory materials for EPDP Phase 2 Meeting #1 - Thursday 2 May at 14.00 UTC
by Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi May 2, 2019

May 2, 2019

For all those interested in following phase II of the EPDP, please find the details in the email below. Kindest Regards Hadia Eng. Hadia Elminiawi (M.Sc.) Director, DNS-Entrepreneurship Center [logo] Tel: +202 3534 4392 Fax: +202 3537 4000 Email: hadia(a)tra.gov.eg<https://mail.dnsec.eg/owa/redir.aspx?C=8f4aa197b9f840be8139d76b29a0df99&URL…> From: Gnso-epdp-team [mailto:gnso-epdp-team-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Terri Agnew Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2019 4:16 PM To: gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org Cc: gnso-secs(a)icann.org Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] **Updated with audio cast / Proposed agenda and preparatory materials for EPDP Phase 2 Meeting #1 - Thursday 2 May at 14.00 UTC As a result of various requests to facilitate observers to follow the EPDP Phase 2 deliberations in real time, audio cast will be made available for the EPDP plenary meetings. Staff will be monitoring audio cast attendance numbers so that the EPDP leadership can assess its usage. As a reminder, the zoom recording, mp3 recording, chat transcript and transcript of the EPDP plenary meetings will be publicly posted as soon as available on the EPDP wiki page and GNSO master calendar. Meeting Audio Cast (for observers) To join the event, click on the link: Listen in browser: http://stream.icann.org:8000/stream01 Listen in application such as iTunes: http://stream.icann.org:8000/stream01.m3u Thank you. Kind regards, Terri From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday, April 30, 2019 at 9:56 AM To: "gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org" <gnso-epdp-team(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-epdp-team] Proposed agenda and preparatory materials for EPDP Phase 2 Meeting #1 - Thursday 2 May at 14.00 UTC Dear EPDP Team, Please find below the proposed agenda for the next EPDP Team meeting which is scheduled for Thursday 2 May at 14.00 UTC (call details have been circulated separately). In preparation for this meeting, we would like to encourage you to review the following materials: * EPDP Team Charter (https://community.icann.org/x/0opHBQ) * EPDP Team Statement of Participation (https://community.icann.org/x/yYWGBg) * Mind map: EPDP Team Phase 2 - upd 10 March 2019.pdf<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/105388008/EPDP%20Team%20Ph…> * Worksheet templates (https://community.icann.org/x/5oaGBg) Also, please make sure that you have reviewed the revised process for alternate participation (see email attached). Best regards, Caitlin, Berry and Marika ======== EPDP Phase 2 - Meeting #1 Proposed Agenda Thursday, 2 May 2019 at 14.00 UTC 1. Roll Call & SOI Updates (5 minutes) 2. Brief introduction to Zoom (5 minutes) 3. Welcome from EPDP Team Chair (10 minutes) a. Chair introduction b. EPDP Statement of Participation – reminder 4. Phase 2 Potential modalities of work – Marika Konings (15 minutes): a. Scope (see mind map - EPDP Team Phase 2 - upd 10 March 2019.pdf<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/105388008/EPDP%20Team%20Ph…>) b. Use of work sheets to ensure common understanding and agreement in relation to scope / issues to be discussed; information to be gathered; briefings to be planned; legal questions to be answered; dependencies identified, and; approach to be taken. 5. Discussion of phase 2 process, focus, timeline and expected outcomes (45 minutes) a. Each team and team member to provide their input on expectations and vision for phase 2: i. RySG ii. RrSG iii. IPC iv. BC v. ISPCP vi. NCSG vii. GAC viii. ALAC ix. SSAC x. Board liaisons xi. ICANN Org liaisons 6. Review of legal guidance obtained during phase 1 (5 minutes) a. Proposed approach – Caitlin Tubergen b. Discussion 7. ICANN65 planning – Marika Konings (5 minutes) a. EPDP Team Phase 2 meetings planned: o Tuesday 25 June from 8.30 – 15.00 o Thursday 27 June from 8.30 – 15.00 b. IRT meetings planned: o Wednesday 26 June from 10.30 – 12.00 c. Travel support – Staff support team is following up with those who identified a potential need. As a reminder, requirement is that the requesting member is (1) otherwise not able to attend AND (2) no alternate is already funded to ICANN65. 8. Wrap and confirm next meeting to be scheduled for Thursday, 16 May at 14.00 UTC (5 minutes) a. Proposed call schedule going forward b. Confirm action items c. Confirm questions for ICANN Org, if any Marika Konings Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings(a)icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org> Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__learn.icann.org_courses…> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gn…>.

1 0

At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) call on Thursday, 02 May 2019 at 20:00 UTC
by ICANN At-Large Staff May 2, 2019

May 2, 2019

***** Zoom will be used for this call ***** If you require a dial-out please contact At-Large staff at staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<file:///composeviewinternalloadurl/staff@atlarge.icann.org> with your preferred number. Please remember that it is now possible to connect your audio via the AC room, without using your telephone. You need a stable internet connection. If you would like a reminder of how to connect please let staff know. Si necesita una llamada a su telefono, por favor póngase en contacto con el personal de At-Large en staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<file:///composeviewinternalloadurl/staff@atlarge.icann.org> con su número preferido. Por favor, recuerde que es posible conectar el audio a través de la Adobe Connect, sin necesidad de utilizar su teléfono. Se necesita una conexión a Internet estable. Si desea un recordatorio de cómo conectar por favor que el personal sepa. Por favor note que esta llamada tendra interpretación en ES. Please note this call will have ES interpretation. Dear All, The next At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call is scheduled for Thursday 02 May 2019 at 20:00 UTC for 90 mins. For other times: https://tinyurl.com/y5arqd5r The agenda and call details can be found at: https://community.icann.org/x/WIOGBg Zoom Room: https://icann.zoom.us/j/407784499 Zoom Dial-in Numbers: https://zoom.us/u/ayXQGOHVG / Meeting ID: 407 784 499 ADIGO Conference Bridge: EN: 1638 ES: 1738 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

Re: [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] [GTLD-WG] Further Revised Draft Statement on .ORG Renewal
by Alan Greenberg May 2, 2019

May 2, 2019

The problem with a post-removal study is what do you do if you find things have gone south. What is the recourse? Alan At 30/04/2019 12:50 PM, Greg Shatan wrote: All, A few responses to the various earlier emails. @Ricardo, Good point. I think it makes sense to call for several studies over time, rather than a single study. @Olivier, My omission of your contribution was an oversight, not a conclusion that the view lacked support or was off-topic. My apologies. I, for one, would be happy to add something on Registry fees to the draft. Please provide text or point me to the best iteration of your suggested text (which I missed, sadly). Or I can take what is in Justine’s draft. Personally, I am not in favor of doing an economic study before removing the price cap. As Jonathan notes, this work has already been done. My thought was to have a study done in “real time,” based on observing the domain name market(s) after the caps were lifted, so that the effects could be accurately observed and analyzed, and used to inform future action. Predictive studies are by their nature speculative, and can more easily be bent in one direction or the other.. They tend to be more successful and reliable when the study structure and method is well-understood and time-tested (e.g., a pre-merger analysis). A predictive study here may prove far less reliable and useful, given the number of variables and inputs and the novelty of the study. I also think it’s an unrealistic request. But as penholder, I will draft whatever the consensus becomes. Greg On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 12:11 PM Maureen Hilyard < maureen.hilyard(a)gmail.com<mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>> wrote: Thank you, John. I think a consensus call on the document will be required from this session because the extension we requested closes soon after and Evin has to prepare the doc for submission. We can do ratification by the ALAC after the fact but a recorded consensus would be helpful. M On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 5:50 AM John Laprise <jlaprise(a)gmail.com<mailto:jlaprise@gmail.com>> wrote: Maureen, In the event that you're not at tomorrow's meeting, do you want me to take any action on your behalf as vice chair? Sent from my Pixel 3XL John Laprise, Ph.D. On Tue, Apr 30, 2019, 9:59 AM Maureen Hilyard < maureen.hilyard(a)gmail.com<mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>> wrote: I like this version Greg . In case I can't make tomorrow's CPWG meeting. I believe the new version provides a good compromise of the different views that have been presented by the CPWG discussants. I like the idea of an economic study as well as Marita's suggestion to delay any change until the results of such a study were revealed. I also prefer putting the RAs under one umbrella statement. The separate .asia statement reinforces support for the inclusion of UA. Anything else that is relevant would be in the general ALAC RA statement. On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 8:14 PM Greg Shatan <greg(a)isoc-ny.org<mailto:greg@isoc-ny.org>> wrote: All, I am attaching another, further revised draft public comment on the .ORG renewal, after sifting through the various recent conversations on the list. I will try to circulate a redline in the morning, New York time, but can't right now. I thought about including something on UA, but for .ORG and in the absence of proposed language, I did not see the obvious hook in this statement to bring that concept in. Best regards, Greg Greg Shatan greg(a)isoc-ny.org<mailto:greg@isoc-ny.org> President, ISOC-NY "The Internet is for everyone" _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG(a)icann.org<mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG(a)icann.org<mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG(a)icann.org<mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ GTLD-WG mailing list GTLD-WG(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:GTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg Working Group direct URL: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs -- Greg Shatan greg(a)isoc-ny.org<mailto:greg@isoc-ny.org> President, ISOC-NY "The Internet is for everyone" _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing list registration-issues-wg(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg

4 5

Yet Further Revised Draft Statement on .ORG Renewal to also cover .BIZ and .INFO Renewals
by Justine Chew May 1, 2019

May 1, 2019

All, Firstly, I note that there may well be more than 1 email thread within the CPWG mail list discussing the .ORG RA renewal (and/or other RA renewals). So, there is a certainly the chance I have not been able to follow every one of them. Secondly, I am responding (partly) to *Bastiaan's and Holly's* request for a re-draft of Greg's 30 April draft, and *Olivier's* request regarding registry fees payable to ICANN Org, which I have (almost) completed, and attach herewith is my two-cents' worth copy of the re-draft (marked as v4, and both redlined and clean copies). The reasons I say "partly" and "almost" are as follows:- 1. I have removed all references to .asia as there is an existing draft statement specifically for the .asia RA renewal, prepared by *Maureen*. 2. Thanking Greg for incorporating my suggestion to include a reference in support of the regularization of PICs into the proposed RA renewals, I have since suggested that we also support the regularization of a few other aspects in the RA renewals. These, including that of PICs, are set out under section (I) of the copy. 3. In respect of price cap debate, I have now set out the different opinions and bases in section (II) including a third which suggests a deferment of the price cap removal with conditions. However, section (II) is incomplete because:- (a) As this point, I still do not know the conclusion for the group supporting removing price caps. (b) I will qualify by saying that I do not know if the suggestion to defer removal is intrinsically linked to one (or more) request for economic study or not. Instead I have based the deferment suggestion on the notion of fairness. As such, the key portions touching on these two points are marked in yellow highlights for ease of locating. 4. I have included under section (III) the request for registry fees payable to ICANN Org to be adjusted for inflation on an *annual basis and for this adjustment to also be adopted in the base RA*. Olivier/others should indicate whether section (III) is acceptable. 5. I have also included under section (IV) a comment about UA which I think is general enough to be relevant. *I am handing this v4 over to Greg for settling since he is the designated penholder in this case. Thanks, Greg!* Thank you all in advance for your consideration. I am hoping that the attachments will get through the mailing list. If not, please refer to the relevant wiki workspace: https://community.icann.org/x/-oSGBg Justine Chew ----- On Wed, 1 May 2019 at 16:49, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck(a)innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote: > Well, despite presumptive renewal, ICANN is under no obligation to renew > > Jonathan Zuck > Executive Director > Innovators Network Foundation > www.Innovatorsnetwork.org > > ------------------------------ > *From:* GTLD-WG <gtld-wg-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of > Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> > *Sent:* Wednesday, May 1, 2019 12:43:12 AM > *To:* Greg Shatan; Maureen Hilyard > *Cc:* CPWG > *Subject:* Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] Further Revised > Draft Statement on .ORG Renewal > > The problem with a post-removal study is what do you do if you find things > have gone south. What is the recourse? > > Alan > > At 30/04/2019 12:50 PM, Greg Shatan wrote: > > All, > > A few responses to the various earlier emails. > > @Ricardo, Good point. I think it makes sense to call for several studies > over time, rather than a single study. > > @Olivier, My omission of your contribution was an oversight, not a > conclusion that the view lacked support or was off-topic. My apologies. I, > for one, would be happy to add something on Registry fees to the draft. > Please provide text or point me to the best iteration of your suggested > text (which I missed, sadly). Or I can take what is in Justineâ€™s draft. > > Personally, I am not in favor of doing an economic study before removing > the price cap. As Jonathan notes, this work has already been done. My > thought was to have a study done in â€œreal time,â€ based on observing the > domain name market(s) after the caps were lifted, so that the effects could > be accurately observed and analyzed, and used to inform future action. > Predictive studies are by their nature speculative, and can more easily be > bent in one direction or the other.. They tend to be more successful and > reliable when the study structure and method is well-understood and > time-tested (e.g., a pre-merger analysis). A predictive study here may > prove far less reliable and useful, given the number of variables and > inputs and the novelty of the study. I also think itâ€™s an unrealistic > request. But as penholder, I will draft whatever the consensus becomes. > > Greg > > On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 12:11 PM Maureen Hilyard < > maureen.hilyard(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Thank you, John. I think a consensus call on the document will be > required from this session because the extension we requested closes soon > after and Evin has to prepare the doc for submission. We can do > ratification by the ALAC after the fact but a recorded consensus would be > helpful. > > > M > > On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 5:50 AM John Laprise <jlaprise(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Maureen, > > In the event that you're not at tomorrow's meeting, do you want me to take > any action on your behalf as vice chair? > > Sent from my Pixel 3XL > > John Laprise, Ph.D. > > On Tue, Apr 30, 2019, 9:59 AM Maureen Hilyard < maureen.hilyard(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > I like this version Greg . > > In case I can't make tomorrow's CPWG meeting. I believe the new version > provides a good compromise of the different views that have been presented > by the CPWG discussants. I like the idea of an economic study as well as > Marita's suggestion to delay any change until the results of such a study > were revealed. > I also prefer putting the RAs under one umbrella statement. The separate > .asia statement reinforces support for the inclusion of UA. Anything else > that is relevant would be in the general ALAC RA statement. > > On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 8:14 PM Greg Shatan <greg(a)isoc-ny.org> wrote: > All, > > I am attaching another, further revised draft public comment on the .ORG > renewal, after sifting through the various recent conversations on the > list. I will try to circulate a redline in the morning, New York time, > but can't right now. > > I thought about including something on UA, but for .ORG and in the absence > of proposed language, I did not see the obvious hook in this statement to > bring that concept in. > > Best regards, > > Greg > > Greg Shatan > greg(a)isoc-ny.org > President, ISOC-NY > "The Internet is for everyone" > _______________________________________________ > CPWG mailing list > CPWG(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg > > _______________________________________________ > CPWG mailing list > CPWG(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg > > _______________________________________________ > CPWG mailing list > CPWG(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg > _______________________________________________ > GTLD-WG mailing list > GTLD-WG(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg > > Working Group direct URL: > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs > > -- > Greg Shatan > greg(a)isoc-ny.org > President, ISOC-NY > "The Internet is for everyone" > _______________________________________________ > CPWG mailing list > CPWG(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg > > _______________________________________________ > registration-issues-wg mailing list > registration-issues-wg(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg > > _______________________________________________ > CPWG mailing list > CPWG(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg >

11 13

Fwd: [SOAC-Leaders-ICANNMeeting-Planning] ICANN55 Topic Review Form
by Maureen Hilyard April 30, 2019

April 30, 2019

Proposals from the GNSO for consideration by the team during the discussion on what At-Large would like to support for the HIT sessions. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Drazek, Keith via SOAC-Leaders-ICANNMeeting-Planning < soac-leaders-icannmeeting-planning(a)icann.org> Date: Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 6:15 AM Subject: Re: [SOAC-Leaders-ICANNMeeting-Planning] ICANN55 Topic Review Form To: tanzanica.king(a)icann.org <tanzanica.king(a)icann.org>, soac-leaders-icannmeeting-planning(a)icann.org < soac-leaders-icannmeeting-planning(a)icann.org> Hi all, Following our good discussion last Thursday, here are my summarized views and a proposed approach to the HIT/CC sessions for Marrakech: 1. The GNSO Council recommends consolidating several of the currently proposed sessions under a new session titled “Impact of GDPR and EPDP Phase 1 Recommendations on Existing Policies and Procedures.” This is consistent with Recommendation #27 from the EPDP Phase 1 report, and it will provide an opportunity for groups to air concerns about impacts while helping to identify and prioritize the universe of policies and procedures that will need review and possible updating. I believe the current items: Combatting Abuse with GDPR, Privacy-Proxy Implementation, and Across Field Validation would fit under this consolidated approach. I have attached the consolidated proposal for your reference. (This brings three proposed sessions down to one.) 1. Regarding the two proposals for a session on EPDP Phase 2 / Uniform Access Model, the EPDP Phase 2 work will have only been under way for 6 weeks when we arrive in Marrakech. The first substantive meeting of the EPDP Phase 2 Team will be May 16. As such, I think it’s premature to schedule a HIT/CC session and recommend we defer it to ICANN 66 in Montreal. The EPDP Phase 2 work will be mid-stream and progressing in Marrakech, so I do not see the value of a HIT/CC session at the end of June. It will absolutely be critical in Montreal, as the group should be closer to producing a concrete work product for the community to consider and to provide feedback. (This removes two proposed sessions.) 1. We discussed the possibility of moving sessions that are described as “updates” to a pre-meeting webinar, but we need to ensure community engagement is not stifled. It appears that ATRT3, SSR-2 and NomCom Review Implementation are all on track to produce reports prior to ICANN 66, and have stated this is an opportunity for in-person community education and input. That said, I believe these groups have also extended invitations to our respective community groups, so I’m wondering if these are duplicative. We have identified duplication as a real issue with ICANN scheduling, so I’d be interested in exploring whether these can be moved to interactive webinars in June, prior to Marrakech. (This could remove 1-3 sessions.) 1. The “Future of Multistakeholder Model Governance” session is necessary to complete the project kicked off in Kobe by years’ end. This is clearly a topic of interest to the entire community. (This session should be included.) 1. The “Enhance Effectiveness of Specific Review Recommendations and their Implementation” session is timely, particularly with the developments around the Board’s actions on the CCT-RT recommendations. (This session should be included.) 1. There was a good bit of discussion in Kobe around Universal Acceptance and it’s an issue that appears to be generating increased interests. With the meeting being held in Marrakech, it seems this is a good opportunity to continue discussions on the UA and IDN-related issues. (I’m ok with this session.) 1. Speaking personally, I don’t see the DNS over HTTPS (DoH) session as having broad community interest at this time. Perhaps this could be a regular session, but I don’t think it needs to be a HIT/CC session in Marrakech. (This would remove one session.) So, I think that would get us to a more manageable number of sessions while ensuring we are prioritizing subject matter, meeting space and time appropriately. To summarize, this would result in four HIT/CC sessions with the possibility of ATRT3, SSR-2 and/or NomCom getting added back in if they really need the F2F engagement outside of a webinar. Any other sessions could still be held in Marrakech, but not necessarily as a HIT/CC. Thoughts? I will complete the online forms as well. Regards, Keith *From:* SOAC-Leaders-ICANNMeeting-Planning < soac-leaders-icannmeeting-planning-bounces(a)icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Tanzanica S. King *Sent:* Monday, April 29, 2019 9:17 PM *To:* SOAC-Leaders-ICANNMeeting-Planning < soac-leaders-icannmeeting-planning(a)icann.org> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] [SOAC-Leaders-ICANNMeeting-Planning] ICANN55 Topic Review Form Dear Community Leaders: Thank you for a productive call last week and apologies for the delay in getting this review form out to the group. Several topic proposals have been updated in the report at https://icann.wufoo.com/reports/icann65-proposed-topics. Updates are also included below for your quick reference. Please use the* online topic review form <https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/ICANN65topics>* to indicate which topics you’d like to see at the meeting as soon as possible, and no later than *Wednesday, 1 May.* *Links:* *Topic Review Form* https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/ICANN65topics *Topic Proposals* https://icann.wufoo.com/reports/icann65-proposed-topics *Current Block Schedule* https://meetings.icann.org/sites/default/files/65-blockschedule._v1.2.pdf *Updated Topic Proposals:* *#1.* *Across Field Address Validation - WHOIS Accuracy (RAA) * *Background:* The IPC needs to understand the criteria associated with the AFAV RAA obligation that ICANN has set forth. This is a 6-year old RAA contractual obligation that is being ignored by ICANN. *Session Goals:* ICANN needs to provide an update on this project, including recent activities and well as the strategy to ensure the obligation will be enforced on the Registrars and associated timelines. *Format:* Open Session *#6. EPDP Phase 2 * *Background:* ICANN Board mandate. Extremely important given the UAM component and need to ensure proper timelines are enforced. *Session Goals:* Need to ensure proper ICANN resources, budget and timelines are assigned to Phase 2. *Format:* Open Session *#8. ICANN - combating domain abuse with GDPR* *Background:* RA and RAA obligations to ensure ICANN compliance is enforcement the contractual obligations as well as what is ICANN Compliance strategy given GDPR *Session Goals:* Need to understand ICANN's plan *Format:* Open session *#11. Privacy and Proxy Implementation * *Background:* PDP, Board Mandated *Session Goals:* The IPC needs to understand why this program remains on hold due to GDPR and what specifically is the overlap or conflict between GDPR and PPP? *Format:* Open Session Best regards, Tanzanica _______________________________________________ Tanzanica S. King Sr. Manager, Meeting Strategy and Design ICANN Office +1 310 301 5800 Mobile +1 310 995 3038 www.icann.org _______________________________________________ SOAC-Leaders-ICANNMeeting-Planning mailing list SOAC-Leaders-ICANNMeeting-Planning(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/soac-leaders-icannmeeting-planning

1 0

Fwd: FW: Draft Comment on RA Renewals
by Greg Shatan April 30, 2019

April 30, 2019

*Please see attached.* -- Greg Shatan greg(a)isoc-ny.org President, ISOC-NY *"The Internet is for everyone"*

14 24

Google public DNS breaks DNS resolution
by Lutz Donnerhacke April 30, 2019

April 30, 2019

I recently came across this really mad idea by Google engineers: https://developers.google.com/speed/public-dns/docs/security#nonce_prefixes They try to protect against DNS spoofing by adding entropy in queries to root/TLD name servers. That's a braindead idea, because they can query all those servers using DNSSEC, which invalidates the reasoning itself. But the more important point is, that this solution is based on a misguided understanding of DNS itself. Let's take for instance "www.uit.int" as an example. ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 37704 ;; flags: qr aa; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 2, AUTHORITY: 5, ADDITIONAL: 1;; QUESTION SECTION: ;www.uit.int. IN A ;; ANSWER SECTION: www.uit.int. CNAME www.itu.int. www.uit.int. RRSIG CNAME 7 3 86400 2019... ;; AUTHORITY SECTION: itu.int. NS ns.itu.ch. itu.int. NS ns2.itu.ch. itu.int. NS ns3.itu.ch. [DNSSEC stuff] So we do get a resolution and a delegation. ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NXDOMAIN, id: 48110 ;; flags: qr aa; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 8, ADDITIONAL: 1 ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;nonce-for-dummies.www.uit.int. IN A ;; AUTHORITY SECTION: int. SOA sns.dns.icann.org. ... [lot of DNSSEC NSEC3 non-existence proofs] But the modified request does not reveal even a hint, that the original query might be successful. If necessary, I'm happy to discuss the basics of DNS directly to the engineer, if somebody makes a contact. This discussion will include "non empty non-terminals" and the difference between DS and DNSKEY, both issues where Google public DNS fails.

1 0