- CPWG - lists.icann.org

Further to WT5 discussion
by Marita Moll Nov. 21, 2018

Nov. 21, 2018

Colleagues: My presentation at our last meeting suggested that we support revising the AGB wording re: applications for non-capital city names by closing the loop-hole that allows applicants who apply for city names to avoid seeking a letter of support or non-objection from the relevant authority as long as there is no intention to use the string to represent the city. I argued that the reason this wording should be changed is to prevent the owner from then selling the name for a substantial profit to the public authority (city) involved. There was a suggestion at the time that it was an unnecessary measure as there was probably language prohibiting this kind of property "flipping" in the contract. I have posed this question to WT5 and, so far, it seems pretty clear (see thread below) that staking a claim to a geo-name with the intention of reselling it at an inflated price is entirely inside the current rules. Do we think this kind of activity is in the interests of end-users or should we support the change? Marita -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] applicant contractual obligations Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2018 15:54:48 -0500 From: Marita Moll <mmoll(a)ca.inter.net> To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5(a)icann.org Thanks Alexander and anyone else who weights in. Sorry for my misuse of terms -- language is an issue, even for English speakers (sigh). But you realized what I was getting at and answered my question. And so, the suggestion that there might be contract language in place which would prevent the "flipping" (as it is known in the real estate business) of names is incorrect. Indeed, the current situation almost seems to encourage such activity. Marita On 11/16/2018 2:12 PM, Alexander Schubert wrote: > Hi Marita, > > Please clarify your question. "Domain name holder" - what is that supposed > to be? Sounds like a "registrant" of a 2nd level domain? But as we are only > discussing gTLDs on top level you probably mean the "registry operator"? > > After the 2012 round I am very sure that EVERY SINGLE APPLICATION will be > applied for by using a separate, unique legal entity: "Legal entities" can > be minted by the dozen in no time in most jurisdictions. > > So in other words: You can bet that an applicant entity (and subsequently > registry operator) has a unique legal entity as owner of the gTLD (a legal > entity that is not involved in ANY other business operation but that gTLD). > So there is no real need to "sell the name" (I suppose you mean "the gTLD") > - you can simply sell the LEGAL ENTITY; or its shares! If cleverly done that > doesn't even need to be reported to ICANN: Only if shares of larger than 15% > are being sold, ICANN would look into it (not even sure if that is true > AFTER delegation - please if somebody knows: let us know). So you COULD in > theory at ANY point of time after the submission of your application "sell > the gTLD" (application, applicant, registry operator, whatever stage it is > in) to others, if it's being done in 15% share packages to 7 entities e.g. 6 > times 15% and one time 10% each to different "owners"). Please correct me if > I am wrong! > > So if you plan to apply for ".shanghai": Just don't designate it as geo-TLD, > DO NOT MENTION the word "city" or "China" at all. Then you do NOT need to > provide a "letter of non-objection". Once you are sure you are the "winner" > (e.g. you where the only applicant, or you won a private auction) you can > now approach the biggest real estate magnate in Shanghai, or the biggest > media conglomerate: and sell the application by transferring ownership of 7 > share packages! It's really THAT simple. I am warning of this since MONTH. > Again: if I am mixing facts here: point it out to me. > > Thanks, > > Alexander > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On > Behalf Of Marita Moll > Sent: Friday, November 16, 2018 6:35 PM > To:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org > Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] applicant contractual obligations > > Hello. I am wondering whether there is anything in the contract of a domain > name holder that prevents that holder from selling the name to a higher > bidder. I am asking this as it came up in a recent conversation in our > community and, given our lengthy discussions here about domain name > parking/scalping of city or other geo-names, I have assumed that there were > no such restrictions. But, being fairly new here, I was unable to confirm or > deny this idea. > > Thanks for any clarification > > Marita > _______________________________________________ > Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list > Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 > > _______________________________________________ > Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list > Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5

9 18

REMINDER / Meeting Invitation: At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call on Wednesday, 21 November 2018 at 19:00 UTC
by ICANN At-Large Staff Nov. 21, 2018

Nov. 21, 2018

Dear All, The next At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call is scheduled for Wednesday, 21 November 2018 at 19:00 UTC for 90 mins. For other times: https://tinyurl.com/ya6ahkbh The agenda (to be updated) and call details can be found at: https://community.icann.org/x/dgjVBQ AC Room: https://participate.icann.org/cpwg/ ADIGO Conference Bridge: EN: 3535 Toll-free access number (US and Canada): 800 550 6865 Other toll-free numbers: http://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>

3 2

AUDIO CHANNEL CHANGE / REMINDER / Meeting Invitation: At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call on Wednesday, 21 November 2018 at 19:00 UTC
by ICANN At-Large Staff Nov. 21, 2018

Nov. 21, 2018

**** PLEASE NOTE EN AUDIO ON 1638 **** Dear All, The next At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call is scheduled for Wednesday, 21 November 2018 at 19:00 UTC for 90 mins. For other times: https://tinyurl.com/ya6ahkbh The agenda (to be updated) and call details can be found at: https://community.icann.org/x/dgjVBQ AC Room: https://participate.icann.org/cpwg/ ADIGO Conference Bridge: EN: 1638 Toll-free access number (US and Canada): 800 550 6865 Other toll-free numbers: http://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

Meeting Invitation: At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call on Wednesday, 21 November 2018 at 19:00 UTC
by ICANN At-Large Staff Nov. 14, 2018

Nov. 14, 2018

Dear All, The next At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call is scheduled for Wednesday, 21 November 2018 at 19:00 UTC for 90 mins. For other times: https://tinyurl.com/ya6ahkbh The agenda (to be updated) and call details can be found at: https://community.icann.org/x/dgjVBQ AC Room: https://participate.icann.org/cpwg/ ADIGO Conference Bridge: EN: 3535 Toll-free access number (US and Canada): 800 550 6865 Other toll-free numbers: http://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

REMINDER / Meeting Invitation: At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call on Wednesday, 14 November 2018 at 13:00 UTC
by ICANN At-Large Staff Nov. 14, 2018

Nov. 14, 2018

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. Dear All, The next At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call is scheduled for Wednesday, 14 November 2018 at 13:00 UTC for 60 mins. For other times: https://tinyurl.com/y7rgxhz6 The agenda (to be updated) and call details can be found at: https://community.icann.org/x/RgTVBQ AC Room: https://participate.icann.org/cpwg/ ADIGO Conference Bridge: EN: 3535 Toll-free access number (US and Canada): 800 550 6865 Other toll-free numbers: http://adigo.com/icann/ At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Wiki Space: https://community.icann.org/x/jYDpB If you require a dial-out please contact At-Large staff at: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> Thank you. Kind regards, At-Large Staff ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community Website: atlarge.icann.org<https://atlarge.icann.org/> Facebook: facebook.com/icann<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge>atlarge<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> Twitter: @<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>ICANNAtLarge<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>

1 1

Comments Returned from the EC on the NTIA's RFC on their approach to consumer privacy
by Carlton Samuels Nov. 14, 2018

Nov. 14, 2018

...they feel the key aspects of a modern privacy regime and the concepts are all there but offered some ideas on, among other things, data protection principles, individual rights, breach notification, enforcement and other issues. https://politi.co/2qINOaJ -Carlton ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================

1 0

Issue Brief Template
by Jonathan Zuck Nov. 13, 2018

Nov. 13, 2018

Folks, It's become clear that we need to increase the efficiency of our CPWG meetings as basically the early topics are taking too much time and the later ones are given too little (and often too few participants!). If you'll indulge me, I'd like to draw metaphor to sports broadcasting where there are generally two people on the microphone: the play by play announcer (who explains what's going on) and the "color" commentator (who attempts to explain the background and analysis of why). I believe we currently are engaged in far too much color and not enough play by play so I've created a PPT template to be used by whomever is invited to speak on a particular issue. I'm hoping that by following (or attempting to follow) as specific structure we get less rambling and storytelling and get to "the point" more quickly which is to get feedback on how the presenter should proceed in their endeavor whether it's the drafting of a public comment or participation in a working group. This may seem harsh but please let's give it a try so we can get the most out of these calls. Thanks! Jonathan Jonathan Zuck | Executive Director | Innovators Network jzuck(a)innovatorsnetwork.org<mailto:jzuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> | O 202.420.7497 | S jvzuck | [INFLogo2]

7 7

Re: [CPWG] Draft PTI and IANA FY20 Operating Plan and Budgets
by Mohamed El Bashir Nov. 11, 2018

Nov. 11, 2018

Dear Olivier, Jonathan, CPWG Please find below my comments on the proposed ALAC comment on the draft of PTI FY20 Operating Plan and Budget. The preliminary remarks should be removed as its not directly related to the PTI plan/budget, the issues raised can be communicated directly to the ICANN Staff handling IRF support. Thanks Regards, Mohamed > SUGGESTED COMMENTS BY THE ALAC > 2 Executive Summary > Page 5, ALAC supports the medium-term approach and planning, in conjunction with the ICANN Strategic Goals, “In FY20, work is expected to principally conclude on a multi-year effort to develop a comprehensive set of systems and tools to support protocol parameter assignment workflows. These systems will enhance the way service is delivered to the Internet standards community. Other areas of activity include continued evolution of the Root Zone Management System, enhancements to the IANA.org <http://iana.org/> website and associated tools to modernize and make information more accessible,and updates to the root zone key management software and facilities.” > Page 5, last sentence makes no sense and needs to be reviewed, “It is anticipated work relating to ICANN initiatives such as variant TLDs and the subs.” > > 4 PTI Services Financial Overview > Page 7, item 4.1 Budget Overview: in the table, the line entitled ''Depreciation'' gives a constant value (0.3 million USD), and yet predicts a -11% variation. This needs to be clarified, especially as current forecasts for the USD seem to indicate its positive valuation in the near future, instead of its depreciation, see this table from The Economy Forecast Agency (look at 2019 and beyond), https://longforecast.com/euro-to-dollar-eur-usd-forecast-2017-2018-2019-2020 <https://longforecast.com/euro-to-dollar-eur-usd-forecast-2017-2018-2019-2020> . > Page 7, under item 2.1 “Travels and Meetings'' should read “I. Fewer PTI Operations Trips resulting in lower EXPENDITURES (my emphasis)'' instead of ''lower costs''. Costs are determined by travel and service providers, whereas expenditures are borne by PTI. > Page 7, under 4, last line should read “... shows a decrease of...” (instead of ''...shows an decrease of...”). > Page 8, under item 7, a clearer definition of “Depreciation” is required, in order to differentiate PTI/ICANN bilateral arrangements from the broader issue of depreciation in the monetary sense (see above remark). > > 5 PTI Services Overview > Page 8, item 5, PTI Services Overview ends with this: “PTI, an ICANN affiliate, performs these functions on behalf of the global Internet community.” This important point could be usefully quoted in the message from the ALAC Chair when she/he sends our comments on the current draft. > Page 8, item 5.2 IANA Numbering Function, fourth bullet point should spell “Unicast'' with the first letter in upper case, as it is a specific and recognized addressing method, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicast <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicast> . > 6 PTI Services and Operation Plan : There should an annex or addendum which lists the detailed breakdown of direct and indirect PTI costs which was carried out by ICANN different departments ( e.g communications, Governance support, ..etc ), its included in the table total figures under “Professional services”, for the sake of transparency the detailed breakdowns should be included in the budget and budget. > END QUOTE > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: Jean-Jacques Subrenat <jjs(a)dyalog.net <mailto:jjs@dyalog.net>> > Date: Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 3:55 AM > Subject: Re: Draft PTI and IANA FY20 Operating Plan and Budgets > To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>, <maureen.hilyard(a)gmail.com <mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>> > Cc: At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org <mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>>, Mohamed El Bashir <mbashir(a)mbash.net <mailto:mbashir@mbash.net>> > > > Hello Alan, > here is my contribution (below). Please let me know if this meets with the approval of the ALAC. > Best regards, > Jean-Jacques. > > BEGIN QUOTE > Draft PTI FY20 Operating Plan and Budget > Comments by Jean-Jacques Subrenat, ALAC Representative to the IFR > 10 October 2018 > > PRELIMINARY REMARKS > On 12 September 2018, ALAC designated me as its Representative on the IFR. Since then, I have not received any information from Staff about the composition, agenda or calendar of the IFR. > > On 2 October 2018, the ALAC asked me, as well as Mohamed El Bashir who likewise served on the ICG on behalf of the ALAC, to ''review the draft the IANA/PTI FY20 Draft plan and budget and: 1. Advise whether you believe it is necessary for the ALAC to comment; and 2. If so, formulate a comment for the review of the ALAC (as well as any justification you think may be needed to help the ALAC understand).'' > > The first question above (''Advise whether you believe it is necessary for the ALAC to comment'') deserves a quick response: yes. It is worth remembering that, right from the inception of the ICG, I took great pains to include a truly multi-stakeholder approach in the ICG process, its final report and recommendations. I nominated Mohamed to be Vice-Chair of the ICG, and helped his election to that important position. There was push-back about At-Large involvement from several ICG colleagues, who viewed the user community as ''less directly affected'' than the contracted parties, and would have liked us to be mere Observers. But after this difficult beginning, the participation and contribution of ALAC was accepted, indeed appreciated. Against this background, it is recommended that the ALAC comment on the proposed Draft PTI FY20 Operating Plan and Budget. This point should be made in the email with which the ALAC Chair will forward the ALAC comment. > > When forwarding the suggested comments by the ALAC (below, if they are approved by the ALAC), the ALAC Chair should remark that, at this point, our Representative has not received any information from Staff about the composition, agenda or calendar of the IFR. > > SUGGESTED COMMENTS BY THE ALAC > 2 Executive Summary > Page 5, ALAC supports the medium-term approach and planning, in conjunction with the ICANN Strategic Goals, “In FY20, work is expected to principally conclude on a multi-year effort to develop a comprehensive set of systems and tools to support protocol parameter assignment workflows. These systems will enhance the way service is delivered to the Internet standards community. Other areas of activity include continued evolution of the Root Zone Management System, enhancements to the IANA.org <http://iana.org/> website and associated tools to modernize and make information more accessible,and updates to the root zone key management software and facilities.” > Page 5, last sentence makes no sense and needs to be reviewed, “It is anticipated work relating to ICANN initiatives such as variant TLDs and the subs.” > > 4 PTI Services Financial Overview > Page 7, item 4.1 Budget Overview: in the table, the line entitled ''Depreciation'' gives a constant value (0.3 million USD), and yet predicts a -11% variation. This needs to be clarified, especially as current forecasts for the USD seem to indicate its positive valuation in the near future, instead of its depreciation, see this table from The Economy Forecast Agency (look at 2019 and beyond), https://longforecast.com/euro-to-dollar-eur-usd-forecast-2017-2018-2019-2020 <https://longforecast.com/euro-to-dollar-eur-usd-forecast-2017-2018-2019-2020> . > Page 7, under item 2.1 “Travels and Meetings'' should read “I. Fewer PTI Operations Trips resulting in lower EXPENDITURES (my emphasis)'' instead of ''lower costs''. Costs are determined by travel and service providers, whereas expenditures are borne by PTI. > Page 7, under 4, last line should read “... shows a decrease of...” (instead of ''...shows an decrease of...”). > Page 8, under item 7, a clearer definition of “Depreciation” is required, in order to differentiate PTI/ICANN bilateral arrangements from the broader issue of depreciation in the monetary sense (see above remark). > > 5 PTI Services Overview > Page 8, item 5, PTI Services Overview ends with this: “PTI, an ICANN affiliate, performs these functions on behalf of the global Internet community.” This important point could be usefully quoted in the message from the ALAC Chair when she/he sends our comments on the current draft. > Page 8, item 5.2 IANA Numbering Function, fourth bullet point should spell “Unicast'' with the first letter in upper case, as it is a specific and recognized addressing method, seehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicast <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicast> . > END QUOTE > > > > > > > > > > Le 10 octobre 2018 à 15:02:52, Alan Greenberg (alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>) a écrit: > >> Gentlemen, it has been a week. >> >> You can find out policy page at >> https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Workspace%3A+Dra… <https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Workspace%3A+Dra…>. >> >> Can you both please review ASAP! >> >> Alan >> >> At 02/10/2018 09:50 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote: >> >Mohamed and Jean-Jacques, >> > >> >As the two people most informed about IANA and PTI, I would >> >appreciate it if the two of you could review the IANA/PTI FY20 Draft >> >plan and budget and: >> > >> >1. Advise whether you believe it is necessary for the ALAC to comment; and >> > >> >2. If so, formulate a comment for the review of the ALAC (as well as >> >any justification you think may be needed to help the ALAC understand. >> > >> >Perhaps related to this, I overheard something last week (when I was >> >in LA for the EPDP meeting) that implied that IANA was not able to >> >take all the measures it should regarding security and stability due >> >to constrained budgets. I may well have mis-heard or misunderstood, >> >but thought that I should mention it. >> > >> >Regards, Alan >>

1 0

Reminder: Call for Comments: ICANN Seeking Community Feedback on Proposed Unified Access Model
by ICANN At-Large Staff Nov. 9, 2018

Nov. 9, 2018

Dear All, Please note an updated draft ALAC Statement on ICANN Seeking Community Feedback on Proposed Unified Access Model<https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Workspace%3A+ICA…> is ready for your review. The draft, as well as pertinent resources that provide background to this Statement, can be found in its wiki workspace here: https://community.icann.org/x/wwA5BQ. The At-Large website page for the Statement is here: https://atlarge.icann.org/advice_statements/12105. All At-Large members are welcome to comment on this draft. Please take a moment to review this draft and if you have input, please submit it in the wiki workspace using the comment function. You will need to log in to the wiki to use the comment function. If you don’t have a login or have other issue using the wiki, kindly contact staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>. Kind Regards, 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

We Was Wronged!
by Carlton Samuels Nov. 8, 2018

Nov. 8, 2018

Oh snap. Seems GoDaddy drew first blood! And, Verisign had a festering wound! It remains a 'pissin' contest' and, about money; who gets what when and how much. But can I do a Rodney King here?; "can't we all just get along?" https://domainnamewire.com/wp-content/Ltr.-to-Sens.-Wicker-Schatz-7-30-2018… -Carlton ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================

3 2