- CPWG - lists.icann.org

Re: [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] [GTLD-WG] Next possible move related to GDPR
by Seun Ojedeji Sept. 5, 2018

Sept. 5, 2018

Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Tue, 4 Sep 2018, 22:53 Holly Raiche, <h.raiche(a)internode.on.net> wrote: > Thanks Jonathan > > Yes, true. But if we are to make an argument that those who are NOT ‘law > enforcement’ should have access, then we have to say why. Under the GDPR, > it simply is not good enough to say that I should have access because I > hunt down the bad guys. If we are clear that we must operate within GDPR > bounds, then there has to be reason why an individual who isn’t in uniform > should have access. > SO: Absolute +1 to the above, resonates partly with my antivirus analogy. Regards > Holly > On 5 Sep 2018, at 7:18 am, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck(a)innovatorsnetwork.org> > wrote: > > Thanks Holly. I appreciate you have a nuanced view but the term “law > enforcement” gets used pretty specifically to exclude commercial interests > so I just wanted to be clear. > > *From:* Holly Raiche <h.raiche(a)internode.on.net> > *Sent:* Tuesday, September 4, 2018 5:01 PM > *To:* Jonathan Zuck <JZuck(a)innovatorsnetwork.org> > *Cc:* Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch(a)gmail.com>; cpwg(a)icann.org > *Subject:* Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] Next possible > move related to GDPR > > Hi Jonathan > > I’m using the term generally. Please don’t think the words apply only to > those in uniform. We are talking about abuse of the Internet and how to > stop it. And I”m sure there would be a very good argument to say that > those engaged in stopping abuse of the Internet should be considered for > access. But again - please lets first talk about a broad definition. then > lets talk about how to define those who do it in a way that does not give > carte blanche to anyone who wants to set up shop so they can have access. > > So let’s not create a narrow framework for the debate. But please, let’s > stay within a broad framework > > Holly > On 5 Sep 2018, at 6:54 am, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck(a)innovatorsnetwork.org> > wrote: > > > It’s not just law enforcement that help prevent maleware, spam and > phishing. It’s researchers, commercial enterprises that build reputational > databases and yes, even ip folks because there’s a strong correlation > between copyright and trademark infringement and these other woes. Don’t > reduce it to law enforcement. > > *From:* GTLD-WG <gtld-wg-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Holly > Raiche > *Sent:* Tuesday, September 4, 2018 4:49 PM > *To:* Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch(a)gmail.com> > *Cc:* cpwg(a)icann.org > *Subject:* Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] Next possible > move related to GDPR > > > Sorry Evan > > I’m with Bastiaan and Tijani and Roberto on this one. > > Yes, I asked for balance. And in many of my earlier emails on this issue, > I have always acknowledged the genuine reason for law enforcement agencies > (defined broadly) to address the misuse of the Internet. > > I am just saying we must be very careful in giving blanket access to > personal data from everyone who puts their hands up to say that they need > the data for their own personal pursuit of miscreants. > > Holly > > > On 5 Sep 2018, at 12:58 am, Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Hi Holly, > > > > I'm with Carlton on this. > > > > I would remind all to recall the reason we are here: ICANN Bylaw Section > 12.2(d)(i): > > > > The role of the ALAC shall be to consider and provide advice on the > activities of ICANN, insofar as they relate to the interests individual > Internet users. > > > > We are here (primarily, arguably exclusively) to (a) determine positions > based on the needs of the billions of Internet users and (b) advance those > positions within ICANN as strongly as possible. Our role is not to consider > and balance all sides before-the-fact; that is for the greater > community-based negotiation and ultimately the Board. We are here as > advocates, not conciliators. > > > > Like it or not, ICANN is an adversarial environment in which (Holly and > Tijani, you both know this as well as anyone) historically the needs of > end-users have taken a back seat to all other interests. If At-Large does > not clearly articulate the needs of end users, nobody will -- indeed that > is our singular role in ICANN -- and even when we do we're not always > listened to. Of course reasonable result and compromise are possible, but > let's not handicap our positions before we start. There's been little > "balance" or consideration shown to date by those who have already made > enforcement of existing ICANN abuse regulations a nightmare and would > eagerly roll back even the meagre attempts at protection that already exist. > > > > > When the tolerant and reasonable encounter the intolerant and > unreasonable, even if the tolerant are far greater in numbers, the latter > gets its way. > > > > Cheers, > > Evan > > > > > > On Tue, 4 Sep 2018 at 07:58, Holly Raiche <h.raiche(a)internode.on.net> > wrote: > > Folks > > > > First - Carlton, while I almost always agree with you, I”m afraid that, > this time, I think Bastiaan has made a very good argument and I agree with > his statement - which is even more impressive since English is not his > first language. Well done Bastiaan. > > > > And for Carlton - I still think we are on the same page - or close to. > > > > And to borrow from a presentation I recently attended: the issue isn’t > privacy versus security; it is really an issue of one aspect of security > versus another - both are necessary. > > > > Holly > > On 4 Sep 2018, at 8:43 pm, Bastiaan Goslings < > bastiaan.goslings(a)ams-ix.net> wrote: > > > > > > > >> On 4 Sep 2018, at 12:22, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > >> > > >> Bastiaan: > > >> You seem adept at destroying context to feed your allergy. > > > > > > > > > I ’seem adept at destroying’? > > > > > > Ok, thank you… I am not an English native speaker so I had to look it > up just to confirm what you might mean. You have a talent for (‘seem adept > at’) phrasing your sentences quite archaically ;-) > > > > > > Anyway, perception is of course in the eye of the beholder, which I’ll > have to respect and therefore cannot comment on. Suffice to say I > completely disagree, I have no intention whatsoever to consciously destroy > anything, I could have easily quoted someone else to make my point. One > that still stands btw. > > > > > > > > >> My phrasing was in context of defining what I meant by majority. Your > interpretation blithely ignored the contextual meaning..There is a word > for that I cannot recall at the minute. > > >> > > >> Kindly, > > >> -Carlton > > > > > > > > > Right. Not very ‘kind’ from where I sit, but I am not going to take > offence here. > > > > > > -Bastiaan > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 >

2 1

De-emphasis on Domain Names....or a Kill?
by Carlton Samuels Sept. 5, 2018

Sept. 5, 2018

Google is requesting comments on the plan. https://www.wired.com/story/google-wants-to-kill-the-url/ https://domainnamewire.com/2018/09/05/putting-the-google-chrome-url-news-in… -Carlton ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================

2 1

REMINDER / Meeting Invitation: Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call on Wednesday, 05 September 2018 at 13:00 UTC for 90mins
by ICANN At-Large Staff Sept. 5, 2018

Sept. 5, 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. *** This call is scheduled at 13:00 UTC, instead of 19:00 UTC, due to trying to avoid conflict with AFRALO Monthly Call. *** Please note: Working Group will be meeting at rotating times of 19:00 UTC and 13:00 UTC, alternating weekly. Dear All, The next At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call is scheduled for Wednesday, 05 September 2018 at 13:00 UTC for 90 mins. For other times: https://tinyurl.com/ya6223xk The agenda (to be updated) and call details can be found at: https://community.icann.org/x/UAONBQ 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<applewebdata://D0C9D8AD-F5F9-47D1-8000-12B5977AB503/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

CPWG 5 Sep 2018 Call -- Update on inputs to Initial Report on the New gTLD SubPro PDP
by Justine Chew Sept. 4, 2018

Sept. 4, 2018

Olivier, Jonathan, colleagues, My apologies as I am unable to join the CPWG 5 Sep call because of a clash with another PDP WG call. I am thus proffering a written update on the sections which I am involved in along with a couple of suggestions for consideration/discussion:- *1) Section 2.2.3 Applications Assessed in Rounds <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rlGb86PXT50tYN33WHtwi94trFpoAoB6r63O_v6…>* We have had some inputs from various people to this topic (aka Batching Applications) -- while a majority seem to favour continuation of rounds (applications vs assessment) mainly for the purpose of allowing correction of deficient program policies and/or implementation hiccups, as well as effective contention identification/resolution and CPE, a minority does not believe rounds are necessary to achieve the intended outcomes. *Option 1 'Lowest common denominator' for full consensus* Last week I mentioned the possibility of approaching drafting a response on the basis of a 'lowest common denominator'. How this might work, is to ask whether the minority view foresees that the harm in NOT having rounds (if any) outweighs that of continuing the program in rounds, as ultimately, I heard that even the minority view agrees that there needs to be some way to seamlessly introduce corrections to deficient program policies and/or implementation hiccups. *Option 2 Majority with Minority Views* Or alternatively, we could attempt a statement which presents a majority view (still consensus, though not full consensus) and a minority view. I am wondering which option would CPWG members prefer to move forward with? *2) Section 2.5.4 Applicant Support <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rlGb86PXT50tYN33WHtwi94trFpoAoB6r63O_v6…>* We have had some input from a number of CPWG members (and non-members too I think) and I believe they all generally point to the conclusion that the ASP is still very much needed but that it was too inaccessible in the 2012 rounds. I am grateful that *Tijani Ben Jemaa* has kindly agreed to take the lead in raising to the CPWG's attention any issues pertaining to Applicant Support for discussion at this 5 Sep call. Separately, I am happy to inform that as of today, two of the three 2012 round Applicant Support applicants' representatives have responded to my request for feedback on their experience with the ASP in the 2012 round <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rlGb86PXT50tYN33WHtwi94trFpoAoB6r63O_v6…>. I believe the co-penholders for this section are still reviewing these 2 responses at this point. *3) Section 2.8.1 Objections <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rlGb86PXT50tYN33WHtwi94trFpoAoB6r63O_v6…>* I have completed my input to the preliminary recommendations and questions under the topic of Objections and currently await comments to the same. The inputs touch mainly on the GAC Advice mechanism (Alan Greenberg also commented), the role of the Independent Objector, and objections by ALAC / Community Objections. I have not provided input to String Objection or Legal Rights Objection as I believe these are beyond the scope of At-Large. 4) *Section 2.9.1 Community Applications (CPE)* <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rlGb86PXT50tYN33WHtwi94trFpoAoB6r63O_v6…> This topic has also received input from a number of CPWG members and I understand the discussion is now centered around the need for a more workable definition of 'community'. *Another Suggestion, relating to CC2* Another suggestion that I would like to propose for consideration is to look back at ALAC's New gTLD SubPro CC2 comments, and extract comments for topics which fall outside the sections being addressed by the CPWG currently AND where those comments remain relevant, that they be included in ALAC's statement to the (present) SubPro's August Initial Report. The reason I am proposing this is two-fold: (1) for a more complete statement and (2) I believe there are comments in CC2 which are worth repeating for our present purposes. I would be happy to undertake said extraction in the event there is majority support for this suggestion. I bid you all a good meeting. Regards, Justine Chew ----

1 0

Re: [CPWG] [GTLD-WG] [registration-issues-wg] Next possible move related to GDPR
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 4, 2018

Sept. 4, 2018

A couple of points, most not in relation to a particular previous comment but to the overall conversation here over the last few days. The fact that the ultimate result will be a compromise is a given That is what GDPR is. It calls for protection of personal information, BUT allows access for legitimate reasons. It is where that line is that is the question, and what are the legally admissible arguments for setting the line at a particular place for a given rationale. And that last part is the difficulty. Different parties have different aims. Some are looking purely at privacy and believe it should be maximized. Others, for convenience or real need want to make access more liberal. Others really don't care, but want to minimize their exposure and risk to be cited for violations 9(and indeed, public companies have a legal responsibility to their shareholders to minimize such risk). If we had enough time, effort, full understanding of the various needs and positions, and the wisdom of the proverbial bibilical Solomon, perhaps we could establish just what that compromise is with regard to WHOIS/RDS. But that is not out job. How iCANN works, is that we each need to represent what is important to use and if you believe in in the multistakeholder model, or in magic, what will come out the other end is a balanced result that will make us all happy. Or all equally unhappy. The premise of the EPDP is that we WILL end up with something that we believe will pass the GDPR test of balance. There is no shortage of people there who will be pressing for ultimate registrant privacy. So the question is, what should out stance be there? Some level of balance is a given - we do not need to defend that. One other point on ccTLDs (and for that matter a select number of gTLDs). Many such TLDs have very low levels of abuse, because they have registration policies regarding who can register a domain and in some cases how it can be used. And these policies are enforced. So patterns of use and abuse are quite different. If gTLDs were controlled as many ccTLDs are, we would not be having many of the conversations we have. Or the problems we have... Alan

1 0

Unified Access Model published for community input
by Greg Shatan Sept. 4, 2018

Sept. 4, 2018

All, As mentioned on today's CPWG call, ICANN org published a blog earlier this week releasing the proposed Unified Access Model for community input. https://www.icann.org/news/blog/possible-unified-access-model -published-for-community-input The proposal itself can be found here: Draft Framework for a Possible Unified Access Model for Continued Access to Full WHOIS Data – For Discussion <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/framework-elements-unified-acce…> I am the penholder on this comment. Please reply to this email if your are interested in commenting. Thanks! Greg -- Greg Shatan greg(a)isoc-ny.org "The Internet is for everyone"

5 7

WIPO FAQ page on GDPR and its impact on the UDRP.
by Dev Anand Teelucksingh Sept. 3, 2018

Sept. 3, 2018

the WIPO Center has produced the present Q&A on the GDPR’s relation to the UDRP. http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/gdpr/

3 4

Next possible move related to GDPR
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 3, 2018

Sept. 3, 2018

Not of direct relevance to our work, but perhaps interesting. Alan

9 11

Fwd: [council] EPDP team weekly update
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr Sept. 3, 2018

Sept. 3, 2018

As previously sent here is the second of the EPDP Reports for GNSO Council ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com> Date: Mon, Sep 3, 2018, 09:55 Subject: [council] EPDP team weekly update To: Council GNSO <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Hi all, please find attached the EPDP team weekly report for last week. we are continuing to tweak the report to highlight the progress. Best, Rafik _______________________________________________ council mailing list council(a)gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council

1 0

New gTLD SubPro IR section 2.8.1 Objections
by Justine Chew Aug. 30, 2018

Aug. 30, 2018

Dear colleagues, I am providing an update, ahead of the CPWG call later today, on inputs to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Initial Report (IR) call for comments. For those attending the call later, this is agenda item 3g Objections <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/2018-08-29+Consolidated+Policy+…> . For starters, I do not know if consensus has been established for At-Large/ALAC to comment on section 2.8.1 Objections of the IR. However I flagged this section about 2 CPWG calls ago because, being somewhat familiar with the IR, I knew *there were questions relating to ALAC in this section which I suggest ALAC should respond to*. So, while working towards completing my inputs to section 2.8.1 Objections of the IR, I wanted to draw your attention to the inputs submitted by Alan Greenberg and myself thus far. And this is quite a long section I might add. These can be found at (my) googledoc (*link here <https://drive.google.com/open?id=1rlGb86PXT50tYN33WHtwi94trFpoAoB6r63O_v6AT…>*). Please scroll down the left table of contents menu and click on 2.8.1 Objections. Questions in this section 2.8.1 include: - Q 2.8.1.e.10 Whether ICANN should continue to fund objections filed by ALAC? And if yes, should any limits be placed on such funding and if so, what limits? - Q 2.8.1.e.1 et al Role of GAC Advice - Q 2.8.1.e.4 et al Role of Independent Objector - Q 2.8.1.e.13 et al Community Objections (input pending) - Q 2.8.1.e.15 Can a Community Objection be resolved by applying a mandatory PIC? (input pending) I invite you to add to or rebut posted inputs. In particular, I wanted to ask if any of you were involved in the ALAC Objection procedures (and attempted objection filing) for the 2012 round, and if you were to please provide comments on what weaknesses we would like to address in respect of the Objection procedure for ALAC. (I will find some time to post the inputs on the designated wiki asap) Regards, Justine ----

1 1