Vanda,

Wise guidance as always. In fact, that thought crossed my mind shortly after I hit submit on that email. More specifically, I was thinking how certain DC lobbyists and “advisors” would seek to obfuscate my underlying message if there were a number of foreign signatories on my letter.

So here is my current best thinking, and I welcome any advice or feedback that you might be able to provide.

I think it is best to have US individuals or businesses co-sign the letter to NTIA. However, I intend to cc Tripti in her capacity as the ICANN Board Chair and Nico in his capacity as GAC Chair on that correspondence.

When you step back and look at the BIG picture, it becomes clear that this is NOT just a USG issue but a broader Internet community issue. I know I may sound like a broken record to some, but I believe the OECD whitepaper on DNS Security, CIRCIA, NIS 2.0, and the recent NTIA community with Verisign reinforce the need for a comprehensive analysis of the entire DNS supply chain ecosystem.

Please see the additional points that I raised in response to Pat Kane’s CircleID piece here,  https://circleid.com/posts/20240813-setting-the-record-straight-myths-vs-facts-about-.com)

I have not been on any planning group calls for ICANN81, but I would like to propose this as a proposed ALAC Plenary session. Perhaps we might even be able to involve the GAC in this planning so that this session does not overlap with any of their more important deliberations.

Thoughts? Consideration? Feedback?

Best regards,

Michael

From: Vanda Scartezini <vanda@scartezini.org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2024 9:16 AM
To: mike palage.com <mike@palage.com>
Cc: cpwg@icann.org
Subject: Re: Potential Topic of Discussion - NTIA & Verisign Cooperative Agreement

Dear Mike

Though I agree this is quite important move to guarantee transparency and accountability, I believe that person names do not add much value to this letter. Special from ones from outside US when addressing to the NTIA.

My suggestion would be ALAC, GAC, Registrar, BC ..to sign in the name of their members who represent some of the multi-stakeholders in the ICANN model.

Kisses

Vanda Scartezini

Polo Consultores Associados

São Paulo, Brazil

vanda@scartezini.org

Mobile: + 55 11 98181-1464

From: mike palage.com via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org>
Date: Tuesday, 13 August 2024 at 14:22
To: cpwg@icann.org <cpwg@icann.org>
Subject: [CPWG] Potential Topic of Discussion - NTIA & Verisign Cooperative Agreement

Hello All,

While not seeking to rehash previous discussions about what is and what is not within the scope of ALAC, I wanted to bring to everyone’s attention recent communications between NTIA and Verisign involving .COM and the Cooperative Agreement, see https://www.ntia.gov/other-publication/2024/ntia-letter-verisign

As many may recall, as part of the .NET public comment consultation process last year, I advocated for the inclusion of a standard contractual provision that would require Verisign to participate in any ICANN economic studies.  Sadly, ICANN and Verisign opted not to include that provision in the finalized .NET RA.

Attached is a draft letter, which I will submit to NTIA shortly. If there are any parties interested in being co-signatories, please contact me off the list.  

Best regards,

Michael