Hello All, On yesterday's CPWG call, Alan and I presented about this upcoming listening session at ICANN81on Data Accuracy. If there are any additional contributions on your "end user" perspective on data accuracy please provide them so Alan and I can share them with the RrSG. Best regards, Michael

Dear Michael and Alan, Thanks for being the penholders to this. I have some input to your proposed responses the questions asked. Q: Disparity – there are clearly diverging best practices regarding registration data accuracy for entities providing domain name services in gTLDs and ccTLDs. In my view, “mixing” ccTLDs and gTLDs here is not a good idea. The NIS2 will (very soon) color the Registrar business (for most registrars), but RrSG will easily reply that the ccTLD cannot be compared with the gTLDs. In my view- a better question to ask RrSG is “How can you improve the required registrant verification for a gTLD registration? The word “Improve” is of importance since the Registrars are obliged to verify the registration data in the RAA and RRA(s). Sidenote: I will assume European based registrars will use the same verification techniques for a gTLD registration with a European registrant as required in NIS2 (whenever this is set). Best Steinar Grøtterød From: mike palage.com via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Date: Thursday, 17 October 2024 at 17:18 To: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: [CPWG] End User Perspectives on Data Accuracy Hello All, On yesterday’s CPWG call, Alan and I presented about this upcoming listening session at ICANN81on Data Accuracy. If there are any additional contributions on your “end user” perspective on data accuracy please provide them so Alan and I can share them with the RrSG. Best regards, Michael

As a member of the ALAC community, I appreciate the exchange between Michael and Steinar on the data accuracy issue. Steinar makes a good point about the difference between ccTLDs and gTLDs, especially with NIS2 regulations coming into play. *But I tend to agree more with Michael’s focus on what matters to end users.* From an end-user perspective, it makes sense to have a unified approach to data accuracy across all domain types. The provisions in NIS2 seem to support this, ensuring accountability for any domain serving users, no matter the TLD. Ultimately, it’s about protecting users and building trust, and we need to make sure our processes reflect that. Cheers, pari On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 9:23 PM mike palage.com via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:

Hello Steinar,

I respectfully disagree. How many internet end users know and appreciate the difference between the TLDs: .AI, .IO, .COM, and .ORG.

Does an end user who obtained counterfeit pharmaceuticals from a website, or the victim of CSAM material on a website care about that TLD being a gTLD or ccTLD. In my humble opinion no it does not, in most cases they (or law enforcement) just want to hold accountable the party behind that domain. This is where I think the European Union got it right in not distinguishing between gTLD or ccTLD and including an extraterritorial provision in NIS 2.0 for TLD and domain name registration authorities providing services in Europe.

Best regards,

Michael

*From:* Steinar Grøtterød via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> *Sent:* Thursday, October 17, 2024 12:02 PM *To:* CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> *Subject:* [CPWG] Re: End User Perspectives on Data Accuracy

Dear Michael and Alan,

Thanks for being the penholders to this.

I have some input to your proposed responses the questions asked.

Q: Disparity – there are clearly diverging best practices regarding registration data accuracy for entities providing domain name services in gTLDs and ccTLDs.

In my view, “mixing” ccTLDs and gTLDs here is not a good idea. The NIS2 will (very soon) color the Registrar business (for most registrars), but RrSG will easily reply that the ccTLD cannot be compared with the gTLDs. In my view- a better question to ask RrSG is “How can you improve the required registrant verification for a gTLD registration?

The word “Improve” is of importance since the Registrars are obliged to verify the registration data in the RAA and RRA(s).

Sidenote: I will assume European based registrars will use the same verification techniques for a gTLD registration with a European registrant as required in NIS2 (whenever this is set).

Best

Steinar Grøtterød

*From: *mike palage.com via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> *Date: *Thursday, 17 October 2024 at 17:18 *To: *CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> *Subject: *[CPWG] End User Perspectives on Data Accuracy

Hello All,

On yesterday’s CPWG call, Alan and I presented about this upcoming listening session at ICANN81on Data Accuracy.

If there are any additional contributions on your “end user” perspective on data accuracy please provide them so Alan and I can share them with the RrSG.

Best regards,

Michael _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org

_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

-- Pari Esfandiari President *Global TechnoPolitics Forum <http://www.technopolitics.org> * *Pario <http://www.parioconsultants.com>- Architects of Ideas* info@TechnoPolitics.org <info@technopolitics.org> *Linkedin Profile <https://www.linkedin.com/in/pariesfandiari/>* Tel: +1-202*-735-1415* (Office) : +1-310-435-0888 (Cell) : +44-731-210-4049 (Cell)

Hi all, It's good the see the email lists works 😊 My understanding was we/At-Large supposed to respond to questions addressed with a "focus on registration data accuracy", hence my input to "how can the ICANN Accredited Registrars improve their process for validation of registration data"? In my view, it is of importance to have this discussion within the gTLD environment. This view doesn't prevent Registrars to use the same techniques as European ccTLD registrars use when validating received registration data for a domain name. I have years of experience as Registrar, both gTLD/ICANN and ccTLD, where I used national databases to check registration data. Checking using national databases in an automatic way, can be costly both in access to the databases and by development of the provision line. Adding this kind of "database checking" mandatory for the gTLDs will - in my view, create both policy development and time/cost. What does it mean for registration data to be accurate? The GNSO-TPR WG discussed this in detail in the Change of Registrant Data (CORD) charter questions. The present policy for a "material change" is not very user friendly. The GNSO-WG agreed that any "material change" should be validated by the registrar but verification from the domain name holder should not be mandatory. I agree that the majority of "end-users" may not know the difference between the gTLDs and the ccTLDs. But we - as representative for the "end-users" should not mix the TLDs in our responses. Maybe we should add another «tag” to "end-user perspective": "(how to) educate end-users". Regards, Steinar Grøtterød From: Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Date: Friday, 18 October 2024 at 10:53 To: Pari Esfandiari <pariesfandiari@gmail.com>, mike palage.com <mike@palage.com> Cc: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: [CPWG] Re: End User Perspectives on Data Accuracy If I could add to this, the question on whether an end user knows whether a domain name is under a ccTLD or GTLD was discussed at length in the past and we indeed came to the conclusion that end users had no idea. In fact, some ccTLDs have been sold as GTLDs, for example .CO -- and registrants often learned the hard way that ICANN had no jurisdiction or power over the ccTLD operators. So the question we should be asking ourselves is: what to end users want? Kindest regards, Olivier On 17/10/2024 21:38, Pari Esfandiari via CPWG wrote: As a member of the ALAC community, I appreciate the exchange between Michael and Steinar on the data accuracy issue. Steinar makes a good point about the difference between ccTLDs and gTLDs, especially with NIS2 regulations coming into play. But I tend to agree more with Michael’s focus on what matters to end users. From an end-user perspective, it makes sense to have a unified approach to data accuracy across all domain types. The provisions in NIS2 seem to support this, ensuring accountability for any domain serving users, no matter the TLD. Ultimately, it’s about protecting users and building trust, and we need to make sure our processes reflect that. Cheers, pari On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 9:23 PM mike palage.com<http://palage.com> via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> wrote: Hello Steinar, I respectfully disagree. How many internet end users know and appreciate the difference between the TLDs: .AI, .IO, .COM, and .ORG. Does an end user who obtained counterfeit pharmaceuticals from a website, or the victim of CSAM material on a website care about that TLD being a gTLD or ccTLD. In my humble opinion no it does not, in most cases they (or law enforcement) just want to hold accountable the party behind that domain. This is where I think the European Union got it right in not distinguishing between gTLD or ccTLD and including an extraterritorial provision in NIS 2.0 for TLD and domain name registration authorities providing services in Europe. Best regards, Michael From: Steinar Grøtterød via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2024 12:02 PM To: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> Subject: [CPWG] Re: End User Perspectives on Data Accuracy Dear Michael and Alan, Thanks for being the penholders to this. I have some input to your proposed responses the questions asked. Q: Disparity – there are clearly diverging best practices regarding registration data accuracy for entities providing domain name services in gTLDs and ccTLDs. In my view, “mixing” ccTLDs and gTLDs here is not a good idea. The NIS2 will (very soon) color the Registrar business (for most registrars), but RrSG will easily reply that the ccTLD cannot be compared with the gTLDs. In my view- a better question to ask RrSG is “How can you improve the required registrant verification for a gTLD registration? The word “Improve” is of importance since the Registrars are obliged to verify the registration data in the RAA and RRA(s). Sidenote: I will assume European based registrars will use the same verification techniques for a gTLD registration with a European registrant as required in NIS2 (whenever this is set). Best Steinar Grøtterød From: mike palage.com<http://palage.com> via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> Date: Thursday, 17 October 2024 at 17:18 To: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> Subject: [CPWG] End User Perspectives on Data Accuracy Hello All, On yesterday’s CPWG call, Alan and I presented about this upcoming listening session at ICANN81on Data Accuracy. If there are any additional contributions on your “end user” perspective on data accuracy please provide them so Alan and I can share them with the RrSG. Best regards, Michael _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org<mailto:cpwg-leave@icann.org> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. -- Pari Esfandiari President Global TechnoPolitics Forum<http://www.technopolitics.org> Pario <http://www.parioconsultants.com> - Architects of Ideas info@TechnoPolitics.org<mailto:info@technopolitics.org> Linkedin Profile<https://www.linkedin.com/in/pariesfandiari/> Tel: +1-202-735-1415 (Office) : +1-310-435-0888 (Cell) : +44-731-210-4049 (Cell) _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org<mailto:cpwg-leave@icann.org> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

As an end user individual and constantly learning about this issue I feel that At Large can only be attentive to any aspect that might impact directly the end user. As mentioned previously, we do not have the resources to develop a campaign to inform the end user of a process that he/she does not really have anything to do but feel "confident" that the website / service is reliable. I have the impression that end users would not bother to understand the concepts. However, Olivier brings to the table the "Why can't we strive to make *all* domains safe?" That should be our goal. The question is, how? Regards, [image: photo] [image: photo] Alfredo Calderon eLearning Consultant aprendizajedistancia.blogspot.com calderon.alfredo@gmail.com | wiseintro.co/alfredocalderon | Alfredo_1212 | Virtual School on Internet Governance | https://virtualsig.org [image: facebook] <https://facebook.com/calderon.alfredo> [image: linkedin] <https://pr.linkedin.com/in/acalderon52> [image: twitter] <https://twitter.com/acalderon52> [image: pinterest] <http://www.pinterest.com/acalderon/> [image: slideshare] <http://www.slideshare.net/acalderon> [image: twitter] <https://twitter.com/virtualschoolIG> [image: wiseintro] <https://wiseintro.co/alfredocalderon> IMPORTANT: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential. They are intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to anyone or make copies thereof. Create your own email signature <https://www.wisestamp.com/lp/promo/professional-email-signature?utm_source=p...> [image: __tpx__] On Fri, Oct 18, 2024 at 10:30 AM Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond via CPWG < cpwg@icann.org> wrote:

On 18/10/2024 14:57, Steinar Grøtterød wrote:

I agree that the majority of "end-users" may not know the difference between the gTLDs and the ccTLDs. But we - as representative for the "end-users" should not mix the TLDs in our responses. Maybe we should add another «tag” to "end-user perspective": "(how to) educate end-users".

We had that discussion too. :-) Unfortunately the ALAC/At-Large does not have the mass global media impact to educate all Internet users. Some felt that putting the ball in the user's side of the fence was akin to blaming the "victim" for not being knowledgeable enough. Why can't we strive to make *all* domains safe?

Kindest regards,

Olivier _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org

_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

Yes, our ALSs reach "many end users" in the sense of large absolute numbers.  But as a percentage of the total end user population?  No.  "Microscopic" might better describe that number. And that is really the point here.  Reaching a signifigant portion of the end users is simply not possible.  Convincing them to become knowledgeable about arcane details (and, to those outside ICANN, they are extremely arcane) regarding TLDs, even if we could reach them, is simply not going to happen.  Therefore, acting based on the differences between gTLDs and ccTLDs is, in Olivier's words, blaming the victim.  I would even go so far as to say that, by insisting on treating the two groups differently, ICANN is setting itself up for potentially quite expensive legal action down the road.  How we get around the legal restrictions on us is, of course, outside the realm of this discussion.  But I think our response would do well to at least mention that treating gTLDs and ccTLDs differently here could have unintended consequences.  Bill Jouris  Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android On Fri, Oct 18, 2024 at 10:15 AM, Alberto Soto via CPWG<cpwg@icann.org> wrote: _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

Thank you everyone for this very interesting discussion which is particularly relevant to our community and the value of our ALSes to carry out the outreach role that ICANN has given us (on top of our important contribution to their policy development processes). As David points out, while it is the traditional role for our ALS volunteers to educate and advocate for important end-user perspectives on the wide range of issues that ICANN throws our way, we have only been able to do so within whatever local resources we might have, which realistically limits our range of influence to the "microscopic" extent that Bill so rightly describes The "strategic alliances" of ICANN's strategic plan are the purview of the global stakeholder group.who rarely share their role or resources with any of our local groups, despite still relying on them in many instances to initiate influential contacts. Unless a RALO was able to get an ABR to support the development of education and advocacy resources for local distribution, requests for official resource material for ALSes to take out to their communities to ensure that the messaging was accurately conveyed, usually took so long to become available, that it was almost irrelevant by the time Org's communication team was ready to help.. Org takes it upon themselves to be the conveyors of important information at a global level and resource themselves accordingly. The value of the unsupported outreach of our multi stakeholder volunteer base continues to spiral downwards. What chance is there for the At-Large community to become more effective if we are not supported to make a more meaningful contribution to ICANN's communication role at a global level, especially when we have the personnel to do so, and probably more effectively? On Sat, Oct 19, 2024 at 3:09 AM David Mackey via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:

Just adding a few thoughts to the excellent conversation …

I agree with Bill that reaching a significant portion of the end users *with current ICANN and ICANN At-Large structures and processes* is simply not possible.

This does not mean that end user “reach” is not important … nor does it mean that better end user reach is not possible. We just have to be smart on how to maximize end user reach with limited resources. I believe the concept of “building strategic channel partners” is the solution to the important problem of how to have better end user reach using limited resources.

For instance, investing in the creation of strategic channel partnerships with educational and library institutions to extend our reach to end users. It doesn’t help in the short run, but the problem of effective end user reach has been with ICANN since day one. It might be time to stop ignoring it.

If we’re serious about solving this big problem then looking at the ICANN draft FY26-30 Strategic Plan <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/published-draft-strategic-operat...> might be a good place to start. The draft includes the general wording below which could be connected to our At-Large discussion on end user reach …

*1.3 Expand strategic alliances to advocate for the multistakeholder model of Internet governance.*

I believe the ICANN strategic plan would be strengthened if we added the phrase “... to educate and advocate ...”, since advocating doesn’t work well when other stakeholders don’t understand what ICANN does nor do they understand why it’s important. The idea of building strategic alliances with end user channel partners connects to the current conversation in our At-Large group.

I hope my thoughts add to our common understanding of the challenges we face reaching end users and possible paths for improvement in the future.

Cheers

David

On Sat, Oct 19, 2024 at 2:26 AM Bill Jouris via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:

...

Yes, our ALSs reach "many end users" in the sense of large absolute numbers. But as a percentage of the total end user population? No. "Microscopic" might better describe that number.

And that is really the point here. Reaching a signifigant portion of the end users is simply not possible. Convincing them to become knowledgeable about arcane details (and, to those outside ICANN, they are extremely arcane) regarding TLDs, even if we could reach them, is simply not going to happen. Therefore, acting based on the differences between gTLDs and ccTLDs is, in Olivier's words, blaming the victim.

I would even go so far as to say that, by insisting on treating the two groups differently, ICANN is setting itself up for potentially quite expensive legal action down the road. How we get around the legal restrictions on us is, of course, outside the realm of this discussion. But I think our response would do well to at least mention that treating gTLDs and ccTLDs differently here could have unintended consequences.

Bill Jouris

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android <https://go.onelink.me/107872968?pid=InProduct&c=Global_Internal_YGrowth_Andr...>

On Fri, Oct 18, 2024 at 10:15 AM, Alberto Soto via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote: _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org

_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org

_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list -- cpwg@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to cpwg-leave@icann.org

_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.