Re: [CPWG] Are Blockchain Domains within the Mission of ICANN - WAS RE: Questions to the board about distributed DNS
Dear Friends, Please find the record of the Emerging Identifier Technologies <https://icann.zoom.us/rec/play/4ZhSDuzFnVqw66kYgnTuHdDzi_RH0IFCKqKuAzmmcFy7x...> session , held during the ICANN75 meeting, it provides some use cases of the emerging identifiers technologie. Thank you @MOULOUD KHELIF <kelif@hotmail.com> for the reminder. Friendly regards Chokri Le sam. 27 août 2022 à 19:17, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> a écrit :
On Thu, Aug 25, 2022 at 5:39 AM Chokri Ben Romdhane <chokribr@gmail.com> wrote:
But be aware if you confirm that the collision issues is/will never happened , as you have mentioned in your previous mail, and cross your finger that the regular DNS market will continue to attract more customers, compared to those NFT, Blockchain TLDs considering the ease of DNS management and security they are conferred to end users.
Hi again,
You made one fatal error in your assessment above: Internet end-users are not registrants.
End users don't care about DNS management, and the security THEY seek is access to registrant details in the case of domains used for abuse. The "security" you mention protects registrants and works against the interests of end-users.
It's totally possible that the hubris of DNS alternatives may lead to collisions, but end-users will never see the effect of that, Browsers continue to use the ICANN root and to date have never seen the benefit of pointing to alternames. Plus, two of the biggest browser makers, Google and Microsoft, have a deep vested interest in obstructing any alternative DNS. Any alternate DNS hoping to be successful would need to create its own browser, which is what the TOR project did.
So even if alternative DNSs create TLDs that duplicate ICANN's they will never present any collision or confusion to end-users. The only losers will be registrants in the alternate systems. I have zero pity for them and they are certainly not ALAC's concern or even ICANN's.
Cheers, - Evan
Hello All, I would encourage everyone to listen to the recording. However, I would actually start with the third presentation by CIRA (.CA). In my personal opinion that was the best of the three. Evan I am going to push back. I think At-Large is probably the optimal place to discuss alternative root names. Per the At Large Website – “At-Large Community acts on the interests of Internet users.” I would argue that At Large is not limited to just Root Zone domain names and IP addresses. Moreover, when you look at ICANN’s articles of incorporation, I think it provides a much larger mandate that just the coordination of domain names and IP addresses: pursue the charitable and public purposes of lessening the burdens of government and promoting the global public interest in the operational stability of the Internet by carrying out the mission set forth in the bylaws of the Corporation (“Bylaws”). Such global public interest may be determined from time to time. Any determination of such global public interest shall be made by the multistakeholder community through an inclusive bottom-up multistakeholder community process. Best regards, Michael From: CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Chokri Ben Romdhane via CPWG Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2022 11:10 AM To: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org>; MOULOUD KHELIF <kelif@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: [CPWG] Are Blockchain Domains within the Mission of ICANN - WAS RE: Questions to the board about distributed DNS Dear Friends, Please find the record of the Emerging Identifier Technologies<https://icann.zoom.us/rec/play/4ZhSDuzFnVqw66kYgnTuHdDzi_RH0IFCKqKuAzmmcFy7x...> session , held during the ICANN75 meeting, it provides some use cases of the emerging identifiers technologie. Thank you @MOULOUD KHELIF<mailto:kelif@hotmail.com> for the reminder. Friendly regards Chokri Le sam. 27 août 2022 à 19:17, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org<mailto:evan@telly.org>> a écrit : On Thu, Aug 25, 2022 at 5:39 AM Chokri Ben Romdhane <chokribr@gmail.com<mailto:chokribr@gmail.com>> wrote: But be aware if you confirm that the collision issues is/will never happened , as you have mentioned in your previous mail, and cross your finger that the regular DNS market will continue to attract more customers, compared to those NFT, Blockchain TLDs considering the ease of DNS management and security they are conferred to end users. Hi again, You made one fatal error in your assessment above: Internet end-users are not registrants. End users don't care about DNS management, and the security THEY seek is access to registrant details in the case of domains used for abuse. The "security" you mention protects registrants and works against the interests of end-users. It's totally possible that the hubris of DNS alternatives may lead to collisions, but end-users will never see the effect of that, Browsers continue to use the ICANN root and to date have never seen the benefit of pointing to alternames. Plus, two of the biggest browser makers, Google and Microsoft, have a deep vested interest in obstructing any alternative DNS. Any alternate DNS hoping to be successful would need to create its own browser, which is what the TOR project did. So even if alternative DNSs create TLDs that duplicate ICANN's they will never present any collision or confusion to end-users. The only losers will be registrants in the alternate systems. I have zero pity for them and they are certainly not ALAC's concern or even ICANN's. Cheers, - Evan
Michael: There are a few of us who long ago read the same bit of prose you did and interpreted a much wider ICANN role in the Internet ecosystem, for example, a role in provisioning a wider range of public goods and services. [For those of us who are ICT4D practitioners situated in the global South and concerned with so-called "end user interests", access and cost of access to the DNS are more compelling than not.] I hate to tell you it is the orthodoxy of ICANN, the public benefit corporation, aided and abetted by a variety of interests resident in the ICANN [multistakeholder] community who say otherwise. The crowning argument is that stability and security and resilience are finely graded and represent a very narrow remit. I give you even money the 'smart money' thinks blockchain-based naming systems, such as this ENS, is just another alt that is doomed to failure. The obvious strategic response is to starve it of oxygen by not collaborating with [DNS root] integration initiatives. I actually think the orthodox are more concerned that ICANN-accredited registrars dabbling in the alt naming system trade is by far, the greater threat. Carlton ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Tue, 27 Sept 2022 at 10:43, mike palage.com via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Hello All,
I would encourage everyone to listen to the recording. However, I would actually start with the third presentation by CIRA (.CA). In my personal opinion that was the best of the three.
Evan I am going to push back. I think At-Large is probably the optimal place to discuss alternative root names. Per the At Large Website – “At-Large Community acts on the interests of Internet users.” I would argue that At Large is not limited to just Root Zone domain names and IP addresses. Moreover, when you look at ICANN’s articles of incorporation, I think it provides a much larger mandate that just the coordination of domain names and IP addresses:
pursue the charitable and public purposes of lessening the burdens of government and promoting the global public interest in the operational stability of the Internet by carrying out the mission set forth in the bylaws of the Corporation (“*Bylaws*”). Such global public interest may be determined from time to time. Any determination of such global public interest shall be made by the multistakeholder community through an inclusive bottom-up multistakeholder community process.
Best regards,
Michael
*From:* CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org> *On Behalf Of * Chokri Ben Romdhane via CPWG *Sent:* Tuesday, September 27, 2022 11:10 AM *To:* CPWG <cpwg@icann.org>; MOULOUD KHELIF <kelif@hotmail.com> *Subject:* Re: [CPWG] Are Blockchain Domains within the Mission of ICANN - WAS RE: Questions to the board about distributed DNS
Dear Friends,
Please find the record of the Emerging Identifier Technologies <https://icann.zoom.us/rec/play/4ZhSDuzFnVqw66kYgnTuHdDzi_RH0IFCKqKuAzmmcFy7x...> session , held during the ICANN75 meeting, it provides some use cases of the emerging identifiers technologie.
Thank you @MOULOUD KHELIF <kelif@hotmail.com> for the reminder.
Friendly regards
Chokri
Le sam. 27 août 2022 à 19:17, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> a écrit :
On Thu, Aug 25, 2022 at 5:39 AM Chokri Ben Romdhane <chokribr@gmail.com> wrote:
But be aware if you confirm that the collision issues is/will never happened , as you have mentioned in your previous mail, and cross your finger that the regular DNS market will continue to attract more customers, compared to those NFT, Blockchain TLDs considering the ease of DNS management and security they are conferred to end users.
Hi again,
You made one fatal error in your assessment above: Internet end-users are not registrants.
End users don't care about DNS management, and the security THEY seek is access to registrant details in the case of domains used for abuse.
The "security" you mention protects registrants and works against the interests of end-users.
It's totally possible that the hubris of DNS alternatives may lead to collisions, but end-users will never see the effect of that, Browsers continue to use the ICANN root and to date have never seen the benefit of pointing to alternames. Plus, two of the biggest browser makers, Google and Microsoft, have a deep vested interest in obstructing any alternative DNS. Any alternate DNS hoping to be successful would need to create its own browser, which is what the TOR project did.
So even if alternative DNSs create TLDs that duplicate ICANN's they will never present any collision or confusion to end-users. The only losers will be registrants in the alternate systems. I have zero pity for them and they are certainly not ALAC's concern or even ICANN's.
Cheers,
- Evan
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ 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.
Hi Mike, Evan I am going to push back. I think At-Large is probably the optimal
place to discuss alternative root names. Per the At Large Website – “At-Large Community acts on the interests of Internet users.” I would argue that At Large is not limited to just Root Zone domain names and IP addresses. Moreover, when you look at ICANN’s articles of incorporation, I think it provides a much larger mandate that just the coordination of domain names and IP addresses:
pursue the charitable and public purposes of lessening the burdens of government and promoting the global public interest in the operational stability of the Internet by carrying out the mission set forth in the bylaws of the Corporation (“*Bylaws*”). Such global public interest may be determined from time to time. Any determination of such global public interest shall be made by the multistakeholder community through an inclusive bottom-up multistakeholder community process.
Carlton's well-expressed pushback to the pushback is supported by fact. The articles of a corporation are by nature (I've done quite a few myself) as wide-ranging as regulations allow. Based on the Articles alone ICANN's aims are nearly indistinguishable from those of ISOC or the IGF. It's in those Bylaws and the Mission -- referred to by the Articles -- where we find the applicable scope and context limitations. Bylaw 1.1(a) <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en#article1> -- the very first one -- makes quite clear that ICANN's mission and remit is to (emphasis mine): (i) *Coordinates the allocation and assignment of names in the root zone of the Domain Name System* ("DNS") and coordinates the development and implementation of policies concerning the registration of second-level domain names in generic top-level domains ("gTLDs"). [...] (ii) *Facilitates the coordination of the operation and evolution of the DNS *root name server system. (iii) Coordinates the allocation and assignment at the top-most level of Internet Protocol numbers and Autonomous System numbers. [...] (iv) Collaborates with other bodies as appropriate to provide registries needed for the functioning of the Internet *as specified by Internet protocol standards development organizations*. In service of its Mission, ICANN's scope is to provide registration services and open access for registries in the public domain requested by Internet protocol development organizations. And that's immediately followed by 1.1(b): *ICANN shall not act outside its Mission.* So, indeed, ICANN's scope* most certainly is* limited to the DNS and IP numbers. At best 1.1(a)(iv) could be interpreted as mandating collaboration with non-DNS registration systems, but I'm waiting for "Internet protocol standards development organizations" to recognize them before ICANN gets involved. I have already agreed that we need to keep an eye out and be aware of challenges that *might* exist from external sources of collision that are outside ICANN's control. Such challenges have existed before. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_DNS_root> But ICANN is not mandated to address the issue unless directed to do so by the IETF (or some other standards body? W3C? ANSI? IEEE?). And while At-Large has the ability to address ICANN issues beyond the policy-based limits of the GNSO, its pure function is to provide advice to the ICANN Board, staff and constituencies (that's the second "A" in ALAC) "*on the activities of ICANN*" according to Bylaw 12.2(d) <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/bylaws-2022-06-02-en#article12>. ICANN's activities are limited to the DNS and coordination with other bodies as directed by appropriate Internet standards organizations. No such direction has been given regarding blockchain-based DNS wannabes. And ICANN At-Large is limited to addressing ICANN's activities. Anything beyond this is an abrogation of the ICANN Bylaws. I stand behind what I said. Cheers, Evan
Dear All, Over the past few years, I have been reading the ICANN Byelaws on and off. I claim no authority on the way the terms are interpreted internationally. For the purposes of the discussions within my professional responsibilities and interests, I think: #1. ICANN's role is very limited on the mechanism or implementation level. #2: ICANN is NOT responsible for concerns such as financial transactions, Internet content control, spam mails, Internet gambling, or data protection and privacy. Note: Well, is an e-mail semi-formal in ICANN is a frequent question. #3. ICANN oversees the distribution of unique IP addresses and domain names. It also ensures that each domain name maps to the correct IP address. ICANN ensures that every address is unique and that all users of the Internet can find all valid addresses. #4. ICANN ensures minimum standards compliance from the domain name registrars. The accreditation agreement specifies the rules and procedures applicable to the provision of Registrar Services. I keep wondering about the future proofing and technology agnosticism in the process. Again, I admit that I am using this discussion thread to get more clarity on my notes on ICANN remit on the above lines.. I eagerly look forward to your thoughts. Sincerely, Gopal T V 0 9840121302 https://vidwan.inflibnet.ac.in/profile/57545 https://www.facebook.com/gopal.tadepalli ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Dr. T V Gopal Professor Department of Computer Science and Engineering College of Engineering Anna University Chennai - 600 025, INDIA Ph : (Off) 22351723 Extn. 3340 (Res) 24454753 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ________________________________ From: CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Evan Leibovitch via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Sent: 27 September 2022 22:50 To: mike palage.com <mike@palage.com> Cc: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CPWG] Are Blockchain Domains within the Mission of ICANN - WAS RE: Questions to the board about distributed DNS Hi Mike, Evan I am going to push back. I think At-Large is probably the optimal place to discuss alternative root names. Per the At Large Website – “At-Large Community acts on the interests of Internet users.” I would argue that At Large is not limited to just Root Zone domain names and IP addresses. Moreover, when you look at ICANN’s articles of incorporation, I think it provides a much larger mandate that just the coordination of domain names and IP addresses: pursue the charitable and public purposes of lessening the burdens of government and promoting the global public interest in the operational stability of the Internet by carrying out the mission set forth in the bylaws of the Corporation (“Bylaws”). Such global public interest may be determined from time to time. Any determination of such global public interest shall be made by the multistakeholder community through an inclusive bottom-up multistakeholder community process. Carlton's well-expressed pushback to the pushback is supported by fact. The articles of a corporation are by nature (I've done quite a few myself) as wide-ranging as regulations allow. Based on the Articles alone ICANN's aims are nearly indistinguishable from those of ISOC or the IGF. It's in those Bylaws and the Mission -- referred to by the Articles -- where we find the applicable scope and context limitations. Bylaw 1.1(a)<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en#article1> -- the very first one -- makes quite clear that ICANN's mission and remit is to (emphasis mine): (i) Coordinates the allocation and assignment of names in the root zone of the Domain Name System ("DNS") and coordinates the development and implementation of policies concerning the registration of second-level domain names in generic top-level domains ("gTLDs"). [...] (ii) Facilitates the coordination of the operation and evolution of the DNS root name server system. (iii) Coordinates the allocation and assignment at the top-most level of Internet Protocol numbers and Autonomous System numbers. [...] (iv) Collaborates with other bodies as appropriate to provide registries needed for the functioning of the Internet as specified by Internet protocol standards development organizations. In service of its Mission, ICANN's scope is to provide registration services and open access for registries in the public domain requested by Internet protocol development organizations. And that's immediately followed by 1.1(b): ICANN shall not act outside its Mission. So, indeed, ICANN's scope most certainly is limited to the DNS and IP numbers. At best 1.1(a)(iv) could be interpreted as mandating collaboration with non-DNS registration systems, but I'm waiting for "Internet protocol standards development organizations" to recognize them before ICANN gets involved. I have already agreed that we need to keep an eye out and be aware of challenges that might exist from external sources of collision that are outside ICANN's control. Such challenges have existed before.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_DNS_root> But ICANN is not mandated to address the issue unless directed to do so by the IETF (or some other standards body? W3C? ANSI? IEEE?). And while At-Large has the ability to address ICANN issues beyond the policy-based limits of the GNSO, its pure function is to provide advice to the ICANN Board, staff and constituencies (that's the second "A" in ALAC) "on the activities of ICANN" according to Bylaw 12.2(d)<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/bylaws-2022-06-02-en#article12>. ICANN's activities are limited to the DNS and coordination with other bodies as directed by appropriate Internet standards organizations. No such direction has been given regarding blockchain-based DNS wannabes. And ICANN At-Large is limited to addressing ICANN's activities. Anything beyond this is an abrogation of the ICANN Bylaws. I stand behind what I said. Cheers, Evan
Hi Gopal, IMO your analysis of scope is largely correct with one, possibly-important, exception You wrote: #4. ICANN ensures minimum standards compliance from the domain name registrars. The accreditation agreement specifies the rules and procedures applicable to the provision of Registrar Services I would append to the first sentence of that "... the domain registrars *over which it has authority".* ICANN has oversight on most top-level domains and develops regulations (in the form of contract terms) for the registries and registrars that use those top-level domains. However, there are quite a few top-level domains in the DNS over which it has zero authority. A non-exhaustive list of examples includes: - "Country code" domains such as .de, .jp, .in and most other two-letter top-level domains (some of which -- such as .ly .tv and others -- compete directly and openly with ICANN-overseen domains but don't need to have the same governance or policies). It should be noted that some of these country-code registries are excellent and exceed ICANN standards, and many country code registries work with ICANN (voluntarily) through the ccNSO - Historical top-level domains such as that are guided by mechanisms mostly independent of ICANN's (and generally do not work through registrar networks). There is only one country in the world that can use .gov or .mil or .edu 🙂, The only one of these applicable outside the US is .int and its membership is restricted to UN-treaty organizations. - Other special cases such as the .onion pseudo-domains that was defined by IETF - Non-DNS clones that are independently created, such as the various alternate root systems that have come and gone and the alleged blockchain-based threat that started this discussion I have long maintained that it has been a long-shirked responsibility of ICANN to teach the public that not all domains are its responsibility/fault, and that (for instance) buying/using a domain in .co is not the same as one in .com. ALAC should be pushing such public-facing campaigns -- after all, nobody else in ICANN will -- but it has yet to discover a champion within it for this kind of thing. Cheers, Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada @evanleibovitch / @el56
Dear Gopal, Thank you for this kindly reminder of ICANN bylaws, and as @Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> mentioned many of the DNS activities are out of ICANN control, so the ICANN Bylaws can hardly help us to cover new topics such DNS management using Blockchain, or blockchain-based threat (if we use @Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> terms!) ,since it's covering only the current ICANN activities. In my opinion it is to the community (particularly the AC and in our case ALAC) to seek for new activities that could evolve the scope of ICANN and engage the necessary debates (or help to protect ICANN against any trends that could affects the public interests) and if necessary review the ICANN Bylaws in order to make it suitable to the technology evolvements (or any technical menaces) since ICANN is primarily a technical organization and their rules should evolve with this technical evolvements. Please note that SSAC has already created a work party entitled Evolution of DNS resolution <https://icann.zoom.us/rec/play/k-Tp1E7D5lMxqSQQb5vZBmwG7FctfhcKi-5fiF_39ZEcJ...> [at 58 min] to "Explore the current state and evolving nature of DNS resolution with a focus on SSR issues related to alternative naming technologies (e.g., blockchain)". Thank you again for your valuable contributions. Friendly regards Chokri Le dim. 2 oct. 2022 à 09:58, gopal via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> a écrit :
Dear All,
Over the past few years, I have been reading the ICANN Byelaws on and off. I claim no authority on the way the terms are interpreted internationally. For the purposes of the discussions within my professional responsibilities and interests, I think:
#1. ICANN's role is very limited on the mechanism or implementation level.
#2: ICANN is NOT responsible for concerns such as financial transactions, Internet content control, spam mails, Internet gambling, or data protection and privacy.
Note: Well, is an e-mail semi-formal in ICANN is a frequent question.
#3. ICANN oversees the distribution of unique IP addresses and domain names. It also ensures that each domain name maps to the correct IP address. ICANN ensures that every address is unique and that all users of the Internet can find all valid addresses.
#4. ICANN ensures minimum standards compliance from the domain name registrars. The accreditation agreement specifies the rules and procedures applicable to the provision of Registrar Services.
I keep wondering about the future proofing and technology agnosticism in the process.
Again, I admit that I am using this discussion thread to get more clarity on my notes on ICANN remit on the above lines..
I eagerly look forward to your thoughts.
Sincerely,
Gopal T V 0 9840121302 https://vidwan.inflibnet.ac.in/profile/57545 https://www.facebook.com/gopal.tadepalli ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Dr. T V Gopal Professor Department of Computer Science and Engineering College of Engineering Anna University Chennai - 600 025, INDIA Ph : (Off) 22351723 Extn. 3340 (Res) 24454753 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ------------------------------ *From:* CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Evan Leibovitch via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> *Sent:* 27 September 2022 22:50 *To:* mike palage.com <mike@palage.com> *Cc:* CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [CPWG] Are Blockchain Domains within the Mission of ICANN - WAS RE: Questions to the board about distributed DNS
Hi Mike,
Evan I am going to push back. I think At-Large is probably the optimal place to discuss alternative root names. Per the At Large Website – “At-Large Community acts on the interests of Internet users.” I would argue that At Large is not limited to just Root Zone domain names and IP addresses. Moreover, when you look at ICANN’s articles of incorporation, I think it provides a much larger mandate that just the coordination of domain names and IP addresses:
pursue the charitable and public purposes of lessening the burdens of government and promoting the global public interest in the operational stability of the Internet by carrying out the mission set forth in the bylaws of the Corporation (“*Bylaws*”). Such global public interest may be determined from time to time. Any determination of such global public interest shall be made by the multistakeholder community through an inclusive bottom-up multistakeholder community process.
Carlton's well-expressed pushback to the pushback is supported by fact.
The articles of a corporation are by nature (I've done quite a few myself) as wide-ranging as regulations allow. Based on the Articles alone ICANN's aims are nearly indistinguishable from those of ISOC or the IGF. It's in those Bylaws and the Mission -- referred to by the Articles -- where we find the applicable scope and context limitations.
Bylaw 1.1(a) <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en#article1> -- the very first one -- makes quite clear that ICANN's mission and remit is to (emphasis mine):
(i) *Coordinates the allocation and assignment of names in the root zone of the Domain Name System* ("DNS") and coordinates the development and implementation of policies concerning the registration of second-level domain names in generic top-level domains ("gTLDs"). [...]
(ii) *Facilitates the coordination of the operation and evolution of the DNS *root name server system.
(iii) Coordinates the allocation and assignment at the top-most level of Internet Protocol numbers and Autonomous System numbers. [...]
(iv) Collaborates with other bodies as appropriate to provide registries needed for the functioning of the Internet *as specified by Internet protocol standards development organizations*. In service of its Mission, ICANN's scope is to provide registration services and open access for registries in the public domain requested by Internet protocol development organizations. And that's immediately followed by 1.1(b):
*ICANN shall not act outside its Mission.*
So, indeed, ICANN's scope* most certainly is* limited to the DNS and IP numbers. At best 1.1(a)(iv) could be interpreted as mandating collaboration with non-DNS registration systems, but I'm waiting for "Internet protocol standards development organizations" to recognize them before ICANN gets involved. I have already agreed that we need to keep an eye out and be aware of challenges that *might* exist from external sources of collision that are outside ICANN's control. Such challenges have existed before. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_DNS_root> But ICANN is not mandated to address the issue unless directed to do so by the IETF (or some other standards body? W3C? ANSI? IEEE?). And while At-Large has the ability to address ICANN issues beyond the policy-based limits of the GNSO, its pure function is to provide advice to the ICANN Board, staff and constituencies (that's the second "A" in ALAC) "*on the activities of ICANN*" according to Bylaw 12.2(d) <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/bylaws-2022-06-02-en#article12>.
ICANN's activities are limited to the DNS and coordination with other bodies as directed by appropriate Internet standards organizations. No such direction has been given regarding blockchain-based DNS wannabes. And ICANN At-Large is limited to addressing ICANN's activities.
Anything beyond this is an abrogation of the ICANN Bylaws. I stand behind what I said.
Cheers, Evan
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ 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.
Dear Chokri and Evan, Thank you for the nice words. The Internet is open, distributed, interconnected, and transnational. Participating in various meetings of ICANN has been very useful for me to bucket the core concerns into the four major buckets [#1 to #4] I mentioned in my mail on this discussion thread. . IMHO, ICANN is doing very well in not making these buckets fully watertight. The governance through ICANN as I see it is primarily reflected as application of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures and programs that shape the evolution and use of the Internet. It has been very useful to study the Multi-stakeholder model of ICANN from the following scoreable aspects. #1. openness: attaching more importance to transparency and communication in decision-making; #2. participation: ensuring participation of all relevant stakeholders #3. accountability: clarifying the role of each party in the decision-making process; each stakeholder involved should assume responsibility for the role given to them #4. effectiveness: decisions need to be taken at the appropriate level and time, and deliver what is needed #5. coherence: ensuring coherence between diverse actions. In principle, multi-stakeholder model is better 'than governance by governments alone'. A 'stakeholder' has a legitimate interest in a particular Internet governance issue. The model recognizes that not all stakeholders automatically proclaim as stakeholders, and not all multi-stakeholder processes include all stakeholders. Observation: The ICANN Multi - Stakeholder model has a high potential for resilience even though it has very limited or no wherewithal to control / regulate all stakeholders with / without ICANN. For future proofing this model, I find the following two aspects very valuable. 1. Complexity - Please see the attachment [https://res-geo.cdn.office.net/assets/mail/file-icon/png/photo_16x16.png]Modelling+Internet+Governance 2.jpg<https://annauniv0-my.sharepoint.com/:i:/g/personal/gopal_annauniv_edu/EYSH6b...> 1. Universality - UNESCO's 303 Internet Universality Indicators https://www.unesco.org/en/communication-information/internet-governance/internet-universality-indicators/roamx-indicators#:~:text=UNESCO's%20Internet%20Universality%20Indicators%20are,Accessibility%2C%20Multi%2Dstakeholder%20participation. In my humble opinion, the statutes and bye-laws can facilitate this. Again, I am not an authority on the global interpretations of the specific formal terms. The reality of multi-stakeholder participation is at times challenged by issues that relate both to the nature of the Internet that includes jurisdiction, enforcement, scale and the pace at which it changes and grows. A discipline of not blaming technology and localization for jurisprudence with local language support are the strong safeguards that I suggest. Your thoughts are most welcome. Sincerely, Gopal T V 0 9840121302 https://vidwan.inflibnet.ac.in/profile/57545 https://www.facebook.com/gopal.tadepalli ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Dr. T V Gopal Professor Department of Computer Science and Engineering College of Engineering Anna University Chennai - 600 025, INDIA Ph : (Off) 22351723 Extn. 3340 (Res) 24454753 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ________________________________ From: Chokri Ben Romdhane <chokribr@gmail.com> Sent: 03 October 2022 19:23 To: gopal <gopal@annauniv.edu> Cc: mike palage.com <mike@palage.com>; Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org>; CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CPWG] Are Blockchain Domains within the Mission of ICANN - WAS RE: Questions to the board about distributed DNS Dear Gopal, Thank you for this kindly reminder of ICANN bylaws, and as @Evan Leibovitch<mailto:evan@telly.org> mentioned many of the DNS activities are out of ICANN control, so the ICANN Bylaws can hardly help us to cover new topics such DNS management using Blockchain, or blockchain-based threat (if we use @Evan Leibovitch<mailto:evan@telly.org> terms!) ,since it's covering only the current ICANN activities. In my opinion it is to the community (particularly the AC and in our case ALAC) to seek for new activities that could evolve the scope of ICANN and engage the necessary debates (or help to protect ICANN against any trends that could affects the public interests) and if necessary review the ICANN Bylaws in order to make it suitable to the technology evolvements (or any technical menaces) since ICANN is primarily a technical organization and their rules should evolve with this technical evolvements. Please note that SSAC has already created a work party entitled Evolution of DNS resolution<https://icann.zoom.us/rec/play/k-Tp1E7D5lMxqSQQb5vZBmwG7FctfhcKi-5fiF_39ZEcJ...> [at 58 min] to "Explore the current state and evolving nature of DNS resolution with a focus on SSR issues related to alternative naming technologies (e.g., blockchain)". Thank you again for your valuable contributions. Friendly regards Chokri Le dim. 2 oct. 2022 à 09:58, gopal via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> a écrit : Dear All, Over the past few years, I have been reading the ICANN Byelaws on and off. I claim no authority on the way the terms are interpreted internationally. For the purposes of the discussions within my professional responsibilities and interests, I think: #1. ICANN's role is very limited on the mechanism or implementation level. #2: ICANN is NOT responsible for concerns such as financial transactions, Internet content control, spam mails, Internet gambling, or data protection and privacy. Note: Well, is an e-mail semi-formal in ICANN is a frequent question. #3. ICANN oversees the distribution of unique IP addresses and domain names. It also ensures that each domain name maps to the correct IP address. ICANN ensures that every address is unique and that all users of the Internet can find all valid addresses. #4. ICANN ensures minimum standards compliance from the domain name registrars. The accreditation agreement specifies the rules and procedures applicable to the provision of Registrar Services. I keep wondering about the future proofing and technology agnosticism in the process. Again, I admit that I am using this discussion thread to get more clarity on my notes on ICANN remit on the above lines.. I eagerly look forward to your thoughts. Sincerely, Gopal T V 0 9840121302 https://vidwan.inflibnet.ac.in/profile/57545 https://www.facebook.com/gopal.tadepalli ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Dr. T V Gopal Professor Department of Computer Science and Engineering College of Engineering Anna University Chennai - 600 025, INDIA Ph : (Off) 22351723 Extn. 3340 (Res) 24454753 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ________________________________ From: CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cpwg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Evan Leibovitch via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> Sent: 27 September 2022 22:50 To: mike palage.com<http://palage.com> <mike@palage.com<mailto:mike@palage.com>> Cc: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CPWG] Are Blockchain Domains within the Mission of ICANN - WAS RE: Questions to the board about distributed DNS Hi Mike, Evan I am going to push back. I think At-Large is probably the optimal place to discuss alternative root names. Per the At Large Website – “At-Large Community acts on the interests of Internet users.” I would argue that At Large is not limited to just Root Zone domain names and IP addresses. Moreover, when you look at ICANN’s articles of incorporation, I think it provides a much larger mandate that just the coordination of domain names and IP addresses: pursue the charitable and public purposes of lessening the burdens of government and promoting the global public interest in the operational stability of the Internet by carrying out the mission set forth in the bylaws of the Corporation (“Bylaws”). Such global public interest may be determined from time to time. Any determination of such global public interest shall be made by the multistakeholder community through an inclusive bottom-up multistakeholder community process. Carlton's well-expressed pushback to the pushback is supported by fact. The articles of a corporation are by nature (I've done quite a few myself) as wide-ranging as regulations allow. Based on the Articles alone ICANN's aims are nearly indistinguishable from those of ISOC or the IGF. It's in those Bylaws and the Mission -- referred to by the Articles -- where we find the applicable scope and context limitations. Bylaw 1.1(a)<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en#article1> -- the very first one -- makes quite clear that ICANN's mission and remit is to (emphasis mine): (i) Coordinates the allocation and assignment of names in the root zone of the Domain Name System ("DNS") and coordinates the development and implementation of policies concerning the registration of second-level domain names in generic top-level domains ("gTLDs"). [...] (ii) Facilitates the coordination of the operation and evolution of the DNS root name server system. (iii) Coordinates the allocation and assignment at the top-most level of Internet Protocol numbers and Autonomous System numbers. [...] (iv) Collaborates with other bodies as appropriate to provide registries needed for the functioning of the Internet as specified by Internet protocol standards development organizations. In service of its Mission, ICANN's scope is to provide registration services and open access for registries in the public domain requested by Internet protocol development organizations. And that's immediately followed by 1.1(b): ICANN shall not act outside its Mission. So, indeed, ICANN's scope most certainly is limited to the DNS and IP numbers. At best 1.1(a)(iv) could be interpreted as mandating collaboration with non-DNS registration systems, but I'm waiting for "Internet protocol standards development organizations" to recognize them before ICANN gets involved. I have already agreed that we need to keep an eye out and be aware of challenges that might exist from external sources of collision that are outside ICANN's control. Such challenges have existed before.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_DNS_root> But ICANN is not mandated to address the issue unless directed to do so by the IETF (or some other standards body? W3C? ANSI? IEEE?). And while At-Large has the ability to address ICANN issues beyond the policy-based limits of the GNSO, its pure function is to provide advice to the ICANN Board, staff and constituencies (that's the second "A" in ALAC) "on the activities of ICANN" according to Bylaw 12.2(d)<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/bylaws-2022-06-02-en#article12>. ICANN's activities are limited to the DNS and coordination with other bodies as directed by appropriate Internet standards organizations. No such direction has been given regarding blockchain-based DNS wannabes. And ICANN At-Large is limited to addressing ICANN's activities. Anything beyond this is an abrogation of the ICANN Bylaws. I stand behind what I said. Cheers, Evan _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org<mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ 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.
It's great following all the different perspectives in this discussion. My takeway is that it would be important for ALAC to keep an eye on the developments of blockchain domains globally for the sole purpose of advocating for and protecting the interests of the Internet end users. Regards, Annett Bonuke On Mon, 3 Oct 2022, 18:58 gopal via CPWG, <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Chokri and Evan,
Thank you for the nice words.
The Internet is open, distributed, interconnected, and transnational. Participating in various meetings of ICANN has been very useful for me to bucket the core concerns into the four major buckets [#1 to #4] I mentioned in my mail on this discussion thread. . IMHO, ICANN is doing very well in not making these buckets fully watertight.
The governance through ICANN as I see it is primarily reflected as application of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures and programs that shape the evolution and use of the Internet.
It has been very useful to study the Multi-stakeholder model of ICANN from the following scoreable aspects.
#1. openness: attaching more importance to transparency and communication in decision-making; #2. participation: ensuring participation of all relevant stakeholders #3. accountability: clarifying the role of each party in the decision-making process; each stakeholder involved should assume responsibility for the role given to them #4. effectiveness: decisions need to be taken at the appropriate level and time, and deliver what is needed #5. coherence: ensuring coherence between diverse actions.
In principle, multi-stakeholder model is better 'than governance by governments alone'. A 'stakeholder' has a legitimate interest in a particular Internet governance issue. The model recognizes that not all stakeholders automatically proclaim as stakeholders, and not all multi-stakeholder processes include all stakeholders.
Observation: The ICANN Multi - Stakeholder model has a high potential for resilience even though it has very limited or no wherewithal to control / regulate all stakeholders with / without ICANN.
For future proofing this model, I find the following two aspects very valuable.
1. Complexity - Please see the attachment
Modelling+Internet+Governance 2.jpg <https://annauniv0-my.sharepoint.com/:i:/g/personal/gopal_annauniv_edu/EYSH6b...>
1. Universality - UNESCO's 303 Internet Universality Indicators
In my humble opinion, the statutes and bye-laws can facilitate this. Again, I am not an authority on the global interpretations of the specific formal terms.
The reality of multi-stakeholder participation is at times challenged by issues that relate both to the nature of the Internet that includes jurisdiction, enforcement, scale and the pace at which it changes and grows.
A discipline of not blaming technology and localization for jurisprudence with local language support are the strong safeguards that I suggest.
Your thoughts are most welcome.
Sincerely,
Gopal T V 0 9840121302 https://vidwan.inflibnet.ac.in/profile/57545 https://www.facebook.com/gopal.tadepalli ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Dr. T V Gopal Professor Department of Computer Science and Engineering College of Engineering Anna University Chennai - 600 025, INDIA Ph : (Off) 22351723 Extn. 3340 (Res) 24454753 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ------------------------------ *From:* Chokri Ben Romdhane <chokribr@gmail.com> *Sent:* 03 October 2022 19:23 *To:* gopal <gopal@annauniv.edu> *Cc:* mike palage.com <mike@palage.com>; Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org>; CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [CPWG] Are Blockchain Domains within the Mission of ICANN - WAS RE: Questions to the board about distributed DNS
Dear Gopal, Thank you for this kindly reminder of ICANN bylaws, and as @Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> mentioned many of the DNS activities are out of ICANN control, so the ICANN Bylaws can hardly help us to cover new topics such DNS management using Blockchain, or blockchain-based threat (if we use @Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> terms!) ,since it's covering only the current ICANN activities. In my opinion it is to the community (particularly the AC and in our case ALAC) to seek for new activities that could evolve the scope of ICANN and engage the necessary debates (or help to protect ICANN against any trends that could affects the public interests) and if necessary review the ICANN Bylaws in order to make it suitable to the technology evolvements (or any technical menaces) since ICANN is primarily a technical organization and their rules should evolve with this technical evolvements. Please note that SSAC has already created a work party entitled Evolution of DNS resolution <https://icann.zoom.us/rec/play/k-Tp1E7D5lMxqSQQb5vZBmwG7FctfhcKi-5fiF_39ZEcJ...> [at 58 min] to "Explore the current state and evolving nature of DNS resolution with a focus on SSR issues related to alternative naming technologies (e.g., blockchain)".
Thank you again for your valuable contributions.
Friendly regards Chokri
Le dim. 2 oct. 2022 à 09:58, gopal via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> a écrit :
Dear All,
Over the past few years, I have been reading the ICANN Byelaws on and off. I claim no authority on the way the terms are interpreted internationally. For the purposes of the discussions within my professional responsibilities and interests, I think:
#1. ICANN's role is very limited on the mechanism or implementation level.
#2: ICANN is NOT responsible for concerns such as financial transactions, Internet content control, spam mails, Internet gambling, or data protection and privacy.
Note: Well, is an e-mail semi-formal in ICANN is a frequent question.
#3. ICANN oversees the distribution of unique IP addresses and domain names. It also ensures that each domain name maps to the correct IP address. ICANN ensures that every address is unique and that all users of the Internet can find all valid addresses.
#4. ICANN ensures minimum standards compliance from the domain name registrars. The accreditation agreement specifies the rules and procedures applicable to the provision of Registrar Services.
I keep wondering about the future proofing and technology agnosticism in the process.
Again, I admit that I am using this discussion thread to get more clarity on my notes on ICANN remit on the above lines..
I eagerly look forward to your thoughts.
Sincerely,
Gopal T V 0 9840121302 https://vidwan.inflibnet.ac.in/profile/57545 https://www.facebook.com/gopal.tadepalli ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Dr. T V Gopal Professor Department of Computer Science and Engineering College of Engineering Anna University Chennai - 600 025, INDIA Ph : (Off) 22351723 Extn. 3340 (Res) 24454753 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ------------------------------ *From:* CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Evan Leibovitch via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> *Sent:* 27 September 2022 22:50 *To:* mike palage.com <mike@palage.com> *Cc:* CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [CPWG] Are Blockchain Domains within the Mission of ICANN - WAS RE: Questions to the board about distributed DNS
Hi Mike,
Evan I am going to push back. I think At-Large is probably the optimal place to discuss alternative root names. Per the At Large Website – “At-Large Community acts on the interests of Internet users.” I would argue that At Large is not limited to just Root Zone domain names and IP addresses. Moreover, when you look at ICANN’s articles of incorporation, I think it provides a much larger mandate that just the coordination of domain names and IP addresses:
pursue the charitable and public purposes of lessening the burdens of government and promoting the global public interest in the operational stability of the Internet by carrying out the mission set forth in the bylaws of the Corporation (“*Bylaws*”). Such global public interest may be determined from time to time. Any determination of such global public interest shall be made by the multistakeholder community through an inclusive bottom-up multistakeholder community process.
Carlton's well-expressed pushback to the pushback is supported by fact.
The articles of a corporation are by nature (I've done quite a few myself) as wide-ranging as regulations allow. Based on the Articles alone ICANN's aims are nearly indistinguishable from those of ISOC or the IGF. It's in those Bylaws and the Mission -- referred to by the Articles -- where we find the applicable scope and context limitations.
Bylaw 1.1(a) <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en#article1> -- the very first one -- makes quite clear that ICANN's mission and remit is to (emphasis mine):
(i) *Coordinates the allocation and assignment of names in the root zone of the Domain Name System* ("DNS") and coordinates the development and implementation of policies concerning the registration of second-level domain names in generic top-level domains ("gTLDs"). [...]
(ii) *Facilitates the coordination of the operation and evolution of the DNS *root name server system.
(iii) Coordinates the allocation and assignment at the top-most level of Internet Protocol numbers and Autonomous System numbers. [...]
(iv) Collaborates with other bodies as appropriate to provide registries needed for the functioning of the Internet *as specified by Internet protocol standards development organizations*. In service of its Mission, ICANN's scope is to provide registration services and open access for registries in the public domain requested by Internet protocol development organizations. And that's immediately followed by 1.1(b):
*ICANN shall not act outside its Mission.*
So, indeed, ICANN's scope* most certainly is* limited to the DNS and IP numbers. At best 1.1(a)(iv) could be interpreted as mandating collaboration with non-DNS registration systems, but I'm waiting for "Internet protocol standards development organizations" to recognize them before ICANN gets involved. I have already agreed that we need to keep an eye out and be aware of challenges that *might* exist from external sources of collision that are outside ICANN's control. Such challenges have existed before. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_DNS_root> But ICANN is not mandated to address the issue unless directed to do so by the IETF (or some other standards body? W3C? ANSI? IEEE?). And while At-Large has the ability to address ICANN issues beyond the policy-based limits of the GNSO, its pure function is to provide advice to the ICANN Board, staff and constituencies (that's the second "A" in ALAC) "*on the activities of ICANN*" according to Bylaw 12.2(d) <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/bylaws-2022-06-02-en#article12>.
ICANN's activities are limited to the DNS and coordination with other bodies as directed by appropriate Internet standards organizations. No such direction has been given regarding blockchain-based DNS wannabes. And ICANN At-Large is limited to addressing ICANN's activities.
Anything beyond this is an abrogation of the ICANN Bylaws. I stand behind what I said.
Cheers, Evan
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ 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.
Hi Annett, My takeway is that it would be important for ALAC to keep an eye on the
developments of blockchain domains globally for the sole purpose of advocating for and protecting the interests of the Internet end users.
Agree. "Keep an eye on it" is the best ALAC can do ... and if there are real, user-affecting changes that call for advice to the Board or other constituencies then that is wholly appropriate. But not until then. BTW, I'm not suggesting that there is no place for discussing DNS alternatives, just maintaining that ICANN (and by inference ICANN At-Large) is not the place for it. This is exactly the kind of issue that the IGF needs to be discussing, and perhaps it's also worthy of ISOC and/or its chapters. I note in my review of the applicable Bylaws that ICANN should coordinate with other bodies as recommended by the IETF, so that is also a place where this topic can be raised at the appropriate time. When the blockchain-registry-wannabes get on the radar of IETF as something worthy of consideration, we can revisit this again in a different light. Until then it's all just vapor and threats. - Evan
1+ Evan let's wait for SSAC Work party report probably by the end of next year ! Chokri Le mar. 4 oct. 2022 à 08:52, Evan Leibovitch via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> a écrit :
Hi Annett,
My takeway is that it would be important for ALAC to keep an eye on the
developments of blockchain domains globally for the sole purpose of advocating for and protecting the interests of the Internet end users.
Agree. "Keep an eye on it" is the best ALAC can do ... and if there are real, user-affecting changes that call for advice to the Board or other constituencies then that is wholly appropriate. But not until then.
BTW, I'm not suggesting that there is no place for discussing DNS alternatives, just maintaining that ICANN (and by inference ICANN At-Large) is not the place for it. This is exactly the kind of issue that the IGF needs to be discussing, and perhaps it's also worthy of ISOC and/or its chapters. I note in my review of the applicable Bylaws that ICANN should coordinate with other bodies as recommended by the IETF, so that is also a place where this topic can be raised at the appropriate time.
When the blockchain-registry-wannabes get on the radar of IETF as something worthy of consideration, we can revisit this again in a different light. Until then it's all just vapor and threats.
- Evan
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ 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.
Hi all, Any comments about yesterday's webinar about Internet Fragmentation, Reconsidered <https://livestream.com/internetsociety/citi-fragmentation/videos/233809733?o...> ? Friendly regards, Chokri Le mar. 4 oct. 2022 à 12:35, Chokri Ben Romdhane <chokribr@gmail.com> a écrit :
1+ Evan let's wait for SSAC Work party report probably by the end of next year ! Chokri
Le mar. 4 oct. 2022 à 08:52, Evan Leibovitch via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> a écrit :
Hi Annett,
My takeway is that it would be important for ALAC to keep an eye on the
developments of blockchain domains globally for the sole purpose of advocating for and protecting the interests of the Internet end users.
Agree. "Keep an eye on it" is the best ALAC can do ... and if there are real, user-affecting changes that call for advice to the Board or other constituencies then that is wholly appropriate. But not until then.
BTW, I'm not suggesting that there is no place for discussing DNS alternatives, just maintaining that ICANN (and by inference ICANN At-Large) is not the place for it. This is exactly the kind of issue that the IGF needs to be discussing, and perhaps it's also worthy of ISOC and/or its chapters. I note in my review of the applicable Bylaws that ICANN should coordinate with other bodies as recommended by the IETF, so that is also a place where this topic can be raised at the appropriate time.
When the blockchain-registry-wannabes get on the radar of IETF as something worthy of consideration, we can revisit this again in a different light. Until then it's all just vapor and threats.
- Evan
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ 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.
It's good you brought this about. Been thinking this for a while. In addition to that, i have been wondering what ICANN's stand regarding Web 3.0 in general is.? *Kind Regards, * *..............................* *Mutegeki Cliff Agaba * *Website: www.mutegekicliff.com <http://www.mutegekicliff.com>* *Phone : + 256 776 800 679 * On Fri, 18 Nov 2022 at 13:56, Chokri Ben Romdhane via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Hi all, Any comments about yesterday's webinar about Internet Fragmentation, Reconsidered <https://livestream.com/internetsociety/citi-fragmentation/videos/233809733?o...> ? Friendly regards, Chokri
Le mar. 4 oct. 2022 à 12:35, Chokri Ben Romdhane <chokribr@gmail.com> a écrit :
1+ Evan let's wait for SSAC Work party report probably by the end of next year ! Chokri
Le mar. 4 oct. 2022 à 08:52, Evan Leibovitch via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> a écrit :
Hi Annett,
My takeway is that it would be important for ALAC to keep an eye on the
developments of blockchain domains globally for the sole purpose of advocating for and protecting the interests of the Internet end users.
Agree. "Keep an eye on it" is the best ALAC can do ... and if there are real, user-affecting changes that call for advice to the Board or other constituencies then that is wholly appropriate. But not until then.
BTW, I'm not suggesting that there is no place for discussing DNS alternatives, just maintaining that ICANN (and by inference ICANN At-Large) is not the place for it. This is exactly the kind of issue that the IGF needs to be discussing, and perhaps it's also worthy of ISOC and/or its chapters. I note in my review of the applicable Bylaws that ICANN should coordinate with other bodies as recommended by the IETF, so that is also a place where this topic can be raised at the appropriate time.
When the blockchain-registry-wannabes get on the radar of IETF as something worthy of consideration, we can revisit this again in a different light. Until then it's all just vapor and threats.
- Evan
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ 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.
Hi Chokri, (First of all, of the five speakers I have zero trust or respect (anymore) for the PoV of either Vint Cerf or Andrew Sullivan. Both were actively promoting a commercial form of fragmentation -- trying to destroy the .ORG domain by selling it to venture capital -- using the most UNaccountable, UNtransparent methods possible. They have superb experience, but IMO they have demonstrated that their analyses and perspectives are for sale. So as much as I appreciate their historical contributions, I discount their input here as they have previously advocated complete disregard for the public interest.) Of the speakers, I'm with Eli and Bill. Who are we kidding? There already is Internet fragmentation, in the form of various site-blocking and censoring mechanisms, to varying degree, around the world. If the will exists, protocols can provide bridges between alternate federated Internets; that could enable future innovations that might provide an alternative to the corporate-driven content cesspool that this Internet has now become. Andrew's assertion that "the alternative to the (current) Internet is no Internet at all" is utter BS that demonstrates both self-service and lack of imagination. (One real-world example of how what was once a single point of Internet failure can be fixed through a federation is the current transition by many from Twitter to Mastodon.) In the envisioned world of multiple federated Internets, ICANN oversees just a tiny part -- one function of one Internet implementation -- and that's fine with me. I maintain that what ICANN calls "multistakeholdferism" is just a smokescreen over industry capture, and I welcome Internet alternatives offering governance models that have end users and the public interest as core to policy-making rather than just advisory committees on the periphery. - Evan On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 5:56 AM Chokri Ben Romdhane via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Hi all, Any comments about yesterday's webinar about Internet Fragmentation, Reconsidered <https://livestream.com/internetsociety/citi-fragmentation/videos/233809733?o...> ? Friendly regards, Chokri
Le mar. 4 oct. 2022 à 12:35, Chokri Ben Romdhane <chokribr@gmail.com> a écrit :
1+ Evan let's wait for SSAC Work party report probably by the end of next year ! Chokri
Le mar. 4 oct. 2022 à 08:52, Evan Leibovitch via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> a écrit :
Hi Annett,
My takeway is that it would be important for ALAC to keep an eye on the
developments of blockchain domains globally for the sole purpose of advocating for and protecting the interests of the Internet end users.
Agree. "Keep an eye on it" is the best ALAC can do ... and if there are real, user-affecting changes that call for advice to the Board or other constituencies then that is wholly appropriate. But not until then.
BTW, I'm not suggesting that there is no place for discussing DNS alternatives, just maintaining that ICANN (and by inference ICANN At-Large) is not the place for it. This is exactly the kind of issue that the IGF needs to be discussing, and perhaps it's also worthy of ISOC and/or its chapters. I note in my review of the applicable Bylaws that ICANN should coordinate with other bodies as recommended by the IETF, so that is also a place where this topic can be raised at the appropriate time.
When the blockchain-registry-wannabes get on the radar of IETF as something worthy of consideration, we can revisit this again in a different light. Until then it's all just vapor and threats.
- Evan
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ 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.
just one short comment: Vint Cerf had nothing to do with the attempted sale of PIR, and I have never heard any comment from his part in favour of the operation r. On 18.11.2022, at 13:09, Evan Leibovitch via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> wrote: Hi Chokri, (First of all, of the five speakers I have zero trust or respect (anymore) for the PoV of either Vint Cerf or Andrew Sullivan. Both were actively promoting a commercial form of fragmentation -- trying to destroy the .ORG domain by selling it to venture capital -- using the most UNaccountable, UNtransparent methods possible. They have superb experience, but IMO they have demonstrated that their analyses and perspectives are for sale. So as much as I appreciate their historical contributions, I discount their input here as they have previously advocated complete disregard for the public interest.) Of the speakers, I'm with Eli and Bill. Who are we kidding? There already is Internet fragmentation, in the form of various site-blocking and censoring mechanisms, to varying degree, around the world. If the will exists, protocols can provide bridges between alternate federated Internets; that could enable future innovations that might provide an alternative to the corporate-driven content cesspool that this Internet has now become. Andrew's assertion that "the alternative to the (current) Internet is no Internet at all" is utter BS that demonstrates both self-service and lack of imagination. (One real-world example of how what was once a single point of Internet failure can be fixed through a federation is the current transition by many from Twitter to Mastodon.) In the envisioned world of multiple federated Internets, ICANN oversees just a tiny part -- one function of one Internet implementation -- and that's fine with me. I maintain that what ICANN calls "multistakeholdferism" is just a smokescreen over industry capture, and I welcome Internet alternatives offering governance models that have end users and the public interest as core to policy-making rather than just advisory committees on the periphery. - Evan On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 5:56 AM Chokri Ben Romdhane via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> wrote: Hi all, Any comments about yesterday's webinar about Internet Fragmentation, Reconsidered<https://livestream.com/internetsociety/citi-fragmentation/videos/233809733?o...> ? Friendly regards, Chokri Le mar. 4 oct. 2022 à 12:35, Chokri Ben Romdhane <chokribr@gmail.com<mailto:chokribr@gmail.com>> a écrit : 1+ Evan let's wait for SSAC Work party report probably by the end of next year ! Chokri Le mar. 4 oct. 2022 à 08:52, Evan Leibovitch via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> a écrit : Hi Annett, My takeway is that it would be important for ALAC to keep an eye on the developments of blockchain domains globally for the sole purpose of advocating for and protecting the interests of the Internet end users. Agree. "Keep an eye on it" is the best ALAC can do ... and if there are real, user-affecting changes that call for advice to the Board or other constituencies then that is wholly appropriate. But not until then. BTW, I'm not suggesting that there is no place for discussing DNS alternatives, just maintaining that ICANN (and by inference ICANN At-Large) is not the place for it. This is exactly the kind of issue that the IGF needs to be discussing, and perhaps it's also worthy of ISOC and/or its chapters. I note in my review of the applicable Bylaws that ICANN should coordinate with other bodies as recommended by the IETF, so that is also a place where this topic can be raised at the appropriate time. When the blockchain-registry-wannabes get on the radar of IETF as something worthy of consideration, we can revisit this again in a different light. Until then it's all just vapor and threats. - Evan _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org<mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ 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<mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ 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<mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ 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.
https://medium.com/@vint_4444/a-stronger-future-for-org-and-the-internet-520... On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 9:32 AM Roberto Gaetano via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
just one short comment: Vint Cerf had nothing to do with the attempted sale of PIR, and I have never heard any comment from his part in favour of the operation
r.
Thanks Evan, I stand corrected. r On 18.11.2022, at 17:04, Evan Leibovitch via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> wrote: https://medium.com/@vint_4444/a-stronger-future-for-org-and-the-internet-520... On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 9:32 AM Roberto Gaetano via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> wrote: just one short comment: Vint Cerf had nothing to do with the attempted sale of PIR, and I have never heard any comment from his part in favour of the operation r. _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org<mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ 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.
I almost forgot. <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/cerf-to-botterman-29apr...> Vint personally intervened with the ICANN Board to support the sale to Ethos <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/cerf-to-botterman-29apr...> That's not just a "comment from his part in favour of the operation". That's direct advocacy, attempting to influence ICANN. - Evan On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 9:32 AM Roberto Gaetano via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
just one short comment: Vint Cerf had nothing to do with the attempted sale of PIR, and I have never heard any comment from his part in favour of the operation
r.
Evan, I don't want to add to the specifics of the .ORG/ICANN event, but I believe At-Large should remain vigilant against unaccountable and untransparent policy processes. I was on a zoom call this week where Roger McNamee used the phrase "the hood ornaments of public participation". He was referring to organizations like IETF, W3C, etc, not ICANN specifically, but if not careful, ICANN At-Large can turn into a "hood ornament of public participation". It's a valid concern. Cheers, David On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 11:17 AM Evan Leibovitch via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
I almost forgot.
<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/cerf-to-botterman-29apr...> Vint personally intervened with the ICANN Board to support the sale to Ethos <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/cerf-to-botterman-29apr...>
That's not just a "comment from his part in favour of the operation". That's direct advocacy, attempting to influence ICANN.
- Evan
On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 9:32 AM Roberto Gaetano via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
just one short comment: Vint Cerf had nothing to do with the attempted sale of PIR, and I have never heard any comment from his part in favour of the operation
r.
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ 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.
Hi David On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 3:15 PM David Mackey via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
I don't want to add to the specifics of the .ORG/ICANN event, but I believe At-Large should remain vigilant against unaccountable and untransparent policy processes.
Personally I think ALAC's (utter lack of) voice during that incident was disgraceful, but that's long past and I am loath to relitigate.
I was on a zoom call this week where Roger McNamee used the phrase "the hood ornaments of public participation". He was referring to organizations like IETF, W3C, etc, not ICANN specifically, but if not careful, ICANN At-Large can turn into a "hood ornament of public participation". It's a valid concern.
You may not know me very well 🙂. I have long had the stance that such "hood ornament" status already exists for ALAC; we passed the "valid concern" phase long ago. ALAC makes lots of noise about trivial and irrelevant things while ignoring what end users really need from ICANN. OTOH, I've been at IETF meetings. ICANN is incapable of the levels of inclusion found at the IETF. which cleverly enables technical and public interests to hold their own against corporate and political interests. I have no problem trusting the process of IETF to act in the public interest. I haven't had such a level of trust in ICANN for a long time. - Evan
Dear All, ICT seems to induce a ‘head-in-sand’ syndrome i.e. pronounced tendency to turn a Nelson's eye on technical concerns. "Blaming Technology" is ruled out. The executive prefers making Technology an elephant. A "collective" position on technology within the executive is often times [virtually] non-existent to arrive at swift decisions effecting the people at-large. Do so many people at-large need "swift" decisions? is another question. The description "the hood ornaments of public participation" is understandable. An useful exercise for me to share: AS 8015-2005: Australian Standard for Corporate Governance of Information and Communication Technology is a technical standard developed by Standards Australia Committee IT-030 and published in January 2005. The standard was the first "to describe governance of IT without resorting to descriptions of management systems and processes.". This 12-page standard features the following six principles. 1. Clearly delineate responsibilities for ICT. 2. Carefully plan ICT to best support the organization. 3. Ensure the acquisition of ICT is valid. 4. Ensure implemented ICT performs as expected, if not better, when needed. 5. Verify that ICT conforms to a set of formal rules. 6. Ensure ICT respects human factors. In my humble opinion, this is more of managerial guidelines rather than a "technical" standard specification. Suggestion: Evolving principles of technology governance in a multi-stakeholder context without resorting to descriptions of management systems and processes may improve transparency. Your thoughts... Sincerely, Gopal T V 0 9840121302 https://vidwan.inflibnet.ac.in/profile/57545 https://www.facebook.com/gopal.tadepalli PS: I have taken the liberty of changing the subject line for this mail thread. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Dr. T V Gopal Professor Department of Computer Science and Engineering College of Engineering Anna University Chennai - 600 025, INDIA Ph : (Off) 22351723 Extn. 3340 (Res) 24454753 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ________________________________ From: CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of David Mackey via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Sent: 19 November 2022 01:45 To: Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> Cc: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CPWG] Are Blockchain Domains within the Mission of ICANN - WAS RE: Questions to the board about distributed DNS Evan, I don't want to add to the specifics of the .ORG/ICANN event, but I believe At-Large should remain vigilant against unaccountable and untransparent policy processes. I was on a zoom call this week where Roger McNamee used the phrase "the hood ornaments of public participation". He was referring to organizations like IETF, W3C, etc, not ICANN specifically, but if not careful, ICANN At-Large can turn into a "hood ornament of public participation". It's a valid concern. Cheers, David <EDIT>
I would not wish to speak for Evan but having sat with him on the ALAC, I can tell you he has argued fiercely - and consistently - in opposition to the ALAC being a "hood ornament" to the ICANN multistakeholder model. That is from our assessment - and jointly held belief - we should resist the role seemingly designed for the At-Large; a fig leaf for the dominant and pole position of domainer/industry interests in ICANN's affairs. Carlton ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Fri, 18 Nov 2022 at 15:15, David Mackey via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Evan,
I don't want to add to the specifics of the .ORG/ICANN event, but I believe At-Large should remain vigilant against unaccountable and untransparent policy processes.
I was on a zoom call this week where Roger McNamee used the phrase "the hood ornaments of public participation". He was referring to organizations like IETF, W3C, etc, not ICANN specifically, but if not careful, ICANN At-Large can turn into a "hood ornament of public participation". It's a valid concern.
Cheers, David
On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 11:17 AM Evan Leibovitch via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
I almost forgot.
<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/cerf-to-botterman-29apr...> Vint personally intervened with the ICANN Board to support the sale to Ethos <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/cerf-to-botterman-29apr...>
That's not just a "comment from his part in favour of the operation". That's direct advocacy, attempting to influence ICANN.
- Evan
On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 9:32 AM Roberto Gaetano via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
just one short comment: Vint Cerf had nothing to do with the attempted sale of PIR, and I have never heard any comment from his part in favour of the operation
r.
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ 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.
Gentlemen, this was 10+ years ago. We live in a very different ICANN today and the ALAC's standing is way better than it used to be in the wider scheme of things. Just look at the composition of the ICANN Board and notice that it is much less industry friendly than it used to be. Some members of our community are lead figures that actively balance interests. Kindest regards, Olivier On 19/11/2022 20:51, Carlton Samuels via CPWG wrote:
I would not wish to speak for Evan but having sat with him on the ALAC, I can tell you he has argued fiercely - and consistently - in opposition to the ALAC being a "hood ornament" to the ICANN multistakeholder model.
That is from our assessment - and jointly held belief - we should resist the role seemingly designed for the At-Large; a fig leaf for the dominant and pole position of domainer/industry interests in ICANN's affairs.
Carlton
============================== /Carlton A Samuels/ /Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround/ =============================
On Fri, 18 Nov 2022 at 15:15, David Mackey via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Evan,
I don't want to add to the specifics of the .ORG/ICANN event, but I believe At-Large should remain vigilant against unaccountable and untransparent policy processes.
I was on a zoom call this week where Roger McNamee used the phrase "the hood ornaments of public participation". He was referring to organizations like IETF, W3C, etc, not ICANN specifically, but if not careful, ICANN At-Large can turn into a "hood ornament of public participation". It's a valid concern.
Cheers, David
On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 11:17 AM Evan Leibovitch via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
I almost forgot.
<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/cerf-to-botterman-29apr...> Vint personally intervened with the ICANN Board to support the sale to Ethos <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/cerf-to-botterman-29apr...>
That's not just a "comment from his part in favour of the operation". That's direct advocacy, attempting to influence ICANN.
- Evan
On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 9:32 AM Roberto Gaetano via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
just one short comment: Vint Cerf had nothing to do with the attempted sale of PIR, and I have never heard any comment from his part in favour of the operation
r.
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ 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.
On Sun, Nov 20, 2022 at 5:10 AM Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond via CPWG < cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
this was 10+ years ago. We live in a very different ICANN today and the ALAC's standing is way better than it used to be in the wider scheme of things. Just look at the composition of the ICANN Board and notice that it is much less industry friendly than it used to be. Some members of our community are lead figures that actively balance interests.
Hi Olivier, Sorry, but I will call shenanigans on that assertion. Deeds speak. That the ICANN Board not only needed to deliberate at length, but had to be "nudged" by the California Attorney-General to make the right decision on the ,ORG debacle tells even a casual outsider all they need to know about the *ongoing* attitude of ICANN towards the public interest. ICANN refused its own consultants' recommendations to have a second Board member recommended by the At-Large Community because we didn't grovel sufficiently. And don't even get me started on that pathetic joke on the world known as ICANN's "empowered community". That At-Large validated that laughable monster rather than fight it at every step is reason alone to bestow "hood ornament" status. As a result, as those outside the ICANN cult-bubble have plainly seen, without the California AG ICANN has no real public accountability at all. Apparently one must be periodically reminded that, no matter where they came from, ICANN Board members are commanded upon arrival that their fiduciary duty is to ICANN-the-institution and *not* stakeholders or the public interest. Or to also be reminded that the GNSO compact of domain buyers and sellers has the power to compel the Board to act on high-level policy, whereas At-Large remains encouraged to engage in bikeshedding of the highest order. Unless those two rather horrible unique corporate artifacts have changed, please don't lecture on how ICANN may be gentler to the public interest simply because we recognize some of the people on the Board. - Evan
Dear Evan, Thank you very much for your diverse and valuable inputs, including your thoughts about some actors that somehow participated in the fragmentation of the internet by supporting some Business models that are sometimes in contrast with public Interest . What is important to note is that the view of internet fragmentation has evolved and now a certain level of fragmentation is tolerable ( at different layers : Technical , Governance , Trade ), and as you have mentioned now we are looking for bridges. Hope that is not only a business trend! Friendly regards Chokri Le dim. 20 nov. 2022 à 14:37, Evan Leibovitch via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> a écrit :
On Sun, Nov 20, 2022 at 5:10 AM Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond via CPWG < cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
this was 10+ years ago. We live in a very different ICANN today and the ALAC's standing is way better than it used to be in the wider scheme of things. Just look at the composition of the ICANN Board and notice that it is much less industry friendly than it used to be. Some members of our community are lead figures that actively balance interests.
Hi Olivier,
Sorry, but I will call shenanigans on that assertion.
Deeds speak.
That the ICANN Board not only needed to deliberate at length, but had to be "nudged" by the California Attorney-General to make the right decision on the ,ORG debacle tells even a casual outsider all they need to know about the *ongoing* attitude of ICANN towards the public interest.
ICANN refused its own consultants' recommendations to have a second Board member recommended by the At-Large Community because we didn't grovel sufficiently. And don't even get me started on that pathetic joke on the world known as ICANN's "empowered community". That At-Large validated that laughable monster rather than fight it at every step is reason alone to bestow "hood ornament" status. As a result, as those outside the ICANN cult-bubble have plainly seen, without the California AG ICANN has no real public accountability at all.
Apparently one must be periodically reminded that, no matter where they came from, ICANN Board members are commanded upon arrival that their fiduciary duty is to ICANN-the-institution and *not* stakeholders or the public interest. Or to also be reminded that the GNSO compact of domain buyers and sellers has the power to compel the Board to act on high-level policy, whereas At-Large remains encouraged to engage in bikeshedding of the highest order. Unless those two rather horrible unique corporate artifacts have changed, please don't lecture on how ICANN may be gentler to the public interest simply because we recognize some of the people on the Board.
- Evan
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ 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.
Hi Chokri, What is important to note is that the view of internet fragmentation has
evolved and now a certain level of fragmentation is tolerable ( at different layers : Technical , Governance , Trade ), and as you have mentioned now we are looking for bridges. Hope that is not only a business trend!
I don't think we have a choice over whether or not to tolerate it. Fragmentation already exists, in the form of arbitrary website blockages in various countries. The most obvious is the Great Firewall of China, but that country is far from alone in blocking sites. The reasons can be political, economic, cultural or ethical, and even western countries engage in it (for instance, piracy or Nazi sites). The alternative to tolerance is reciprocity or other punitive measures, which will only make the fragmentation worse. The fragmentation can even be technical and benign rather than active. The whole reason for ICANN's "universal acceptance" marketing campaign is to convince the world to implement ICANN's initiatives in new domains and non-Latin character-set support. Surely these campaigns wouldn't be needed if implementation was widespread. - Evan
Hi Evan, "The alternative to tolerance is reciprocity or other punitive measures, which will only make the fragmentation worse." Indeed and the cryptocurrency is a good example, if the OFAC <https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/office-of-foreign-assets-control-san...> had the ability to censure some Ethereum currency <https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy0916>, <https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy0916> they did not have this capability with Bitcoin based currency since it would be difficult to pinpoint responsibility at any level . Friendly regards Chokri Le jeu. 24 nov. 2022 à 19:24, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> a écrit :
Hi Chokri,
What is important to note is that the view of internet fragmentation has
evolved and now a certain level of fragmentation is tolerable ( at different layers : Technical , Governance , Trade ), and as you have mentioned now we are looking for bridges. Hope that is not only a business trend!
I don't think we have a choice over whether or not to tolerate it. Fragmentation already exists, in the form of arbitrary website blockages in various countries. The most obvious is the Great Firewall of China, but that country is far from alone in blocking sites. The reasons can be political, economic, cultural or ethical, and even western countries engage in it (for instance, piracy or Nazi sites). The alternative to tolerance is reciprocity or other punitive measures, which will only make the fragmentation worse.
The fragmentation can even be technical and benign rather than active. The whole reason for ICANN's "universal acceptance" marketing campaign is to convince the world to implement ICANN's initiatives in new domains and non-Latin character-set support. Surely these campaigns wouldn't be needed if implementation was widespread.
- Evan
Dear CPWG Friends, I just remembered this discussion while watching the record of This SSAC Workshop <https://icann.zoom.us/rec/share/UE3BM4rKJXkwtUxzXD0J3syldOxErQo01o6bTPnO52UQ...> , Another useful materials is the SSAC Report on the Evolution of Internet NameResolution <https://itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/security-and-stability-advisory-committee...> Friendly regards Chokri On Fri, Nov 25, 2022 at 12:33 PM Chokri Ben Romdhane <chokribr@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Evan,
"The alternative to tolerance is reciprocity or other punitive measures, which will only make the fragmentation worse."
Indeed and the cryptocurrency is a good example, if the OFAC <https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/office-of-foreign-assets-control-san...> had the ability to censure some Ethereum currency <https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy0916>, <https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy0916> they did not have this capability with Bitcoin based currency since it would be difficult to pinpoint responsibility at any level .
Friendly regards Chokri
Le jeu. 24 nov. 2022 à 19:24, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> a écrit :
Hi Chokri,
What is important to note is that the view of internet fragmentation has
evolved and now a certain level of fragmentation is tolerable ( at different layers : Technical , Governance , Trade ), and as you have mentioned now we are looking for bridges. Hope that is not only a business trend!
I don't think we have a choice over whether or not to tolerate it. Fragmentation already exists, in the form of arbitrary website blockages in various countries. The most obvious is the Great Firewall of China, but that country is far from alone in blocking sites. The reasons can be political, economic, cultural or ethical, and even western countries engage in it (for instance, piracy or Nazi sites). The alternative to tolerance is reciprocity or other punitive measures, which will only make the fragmentation worse.
The fragmentation can even be technical and benign rather than active. The whole reason for ICANN's "universal acceptance" marketing campaign is to convince the world to implement ICANN's initiatives in new domains and non-Latin character-set support. Surely these campaigns wouldn't be needed if implementation was widespread.
- Evan
All, Please join this OCTO session(s) during ICANN81 Prep Week: https://icann81.sched.com/event/1nJju/blockchain-name-technologies 28 October 2024 16:30 UTC Prep 1 ID# 15862 *Session Details* During ICANN81, ICANN's Office of the CTO (OCTO) will be leading two sessions on blockchain name technologies. In advance of these sessions, ICANN Distinguished Engineer Paul Hoffman will be publishing two documents in the OCTO Document Series that discuss these technologies in-depth. This prep week webinar will help you understand what OCTO will be talking about in the papers and at ICANN81, why it's relevant to you, and will highlight some of the online resources available to help prepare for the sessions. There will be a Q&A period towards the end of this Prep Week session. Kind regards, Justine --------- On Thu, 10 Oct 2024, 20:48 Chokri Ben Romdhane via CPWG, <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Dear CPWG Friends,
I just remembered this discussion while watching the record of This SSAC Workshop <https://icann.zoom.us/rec/share/UE3BM4rKJXkwtUxzXD0J3syldOxErQo01o6bTPnO52UQ...> , Another useful materials is the SSAC Report on the Evolution of Internet NameResolution <https://itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/security-and-stability-advisory-committee...>
Friendly regards Chokri
On Fri, Nov 25, 2022 at 12:33 PM Chokri Ben Romdhane <chokribr@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Evan,
"The alternative to tolerance is reciprocity or other punitive measures, which will only make the fragmentation worse."
Indeed and the cryptocurrency is a good example, if the OFAC <https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/office-of-foreign-assets-control-san...> had the ability to censure some Ethereum currency <https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy0916>, <https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy0916> they did not have this capability with Bitcoin based currency since it would be difficult to pinpoint responsibility at any level .
Friendly regards Chokri
Le jeu. 24 nov. 2022 à 19:24, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> a écrit :
Hi Chokri,
What is important to note is that the view of internet fragmentation
has evolved and now a certain level of fragmentation is tolerable ( at different layers : Technical , Governance , Trade ), and as you have mentioned now we are looking for bridges. Hope that is not only a business trend!
I don't think we have a choice over whether or not to tolerate it. Fragmentation already exists, in the form of arbitrary website blockages in various countries. The most obvious is the Great Firewall of China, but that country is far from alone in blocking sites. The reasons can be political, economic, cultural or ethical, and even western countries engage in it (for instance, piracy or Nazi sites). The alternative to tolerance is reciprocity or other punitive measures, which will only make the fragmentation worse.
The fragmentation can even be technical and benign rather than active. The whole reason for ICANN's "universal acceptance" marketing campaign is to convince the world to implement ICANN's initiatives in new domains and non-Latin character-set support. Surely these campaigns wouldn't be needed if implementation was widespread.
- Evan
_______________________________________________ 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.
I think this is one of the questions that we once asked ourselves in this group, so it is great that OCTO has picked up the ball and will enlighten us. Olivier On 11/10/2024 06:49, Justine Chew via CPWG wrote:
All,
Please join this OCTO session(s) during ICANN81 Prep Week:
https://icann81.sched.com/event/1nJju/blockchain-name-technologies
28 October 2024 16:30 UTC Prep 1 ID# 15862
*Session Details* During ICANN81, ICANN's Office of the CTO (OCTO) will be leading two sessions on blockchain name technologies. In advance of these sessions, ICANN Distinguished Engineer Paul Hoffman will be publishing two documents in the OCTO Document Series that discuss these technologies in-depth. This prep week webinar will help you understand what OCTO will be talking about in the papers and at ICANN81, why it's relevant to you, and will highlight some of the online resources available to help prepare for the sessions. There will be a Q&A period towards the end of this Prep Week session.
Kind regards, Justine ---------
On Thu, 10 Oct 2024, 20:48 Chokri Ben Romdhane via CPWG, <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Dear CPWG Friends,
I just remembered this discussion while watching the record of This SSAC Workshop <https://icann.zoom.us/rec/share/UE3BM4rKJXkwtUxzXD0J3syldOxErQo01o6bTPnO52UQ...>, Another useful materials is the SSAC Report on the Evolution of Internet NameResolution <https://itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/security-and-stability-advisory-committee...>
Friendly regards Chokri
On Fri, Nov 25, 2022 at 12:33 PM Chokri Ben Romdhane <chokribr@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Evan,
"The alternative to tolerance is reciprocity or other punitive measures, which will only make the fragmentation worse."
Indeed and the cryptocurrency is a good example, if the OFAC <https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/office-of-foreign-assets-control-san...> had the ability to censure some Ethereum currency <https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy0916>, <https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy0916> they did not have this capability with Bitcoin based currency since it would be difficult to pinpoint responsibility at any level .
Friendly regards Chokri
Le jeu. 24 nov. 2022 à 19:24, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> a écrit :
Hi Chokri,
What is important to note is that the view of internet fragmentation has evolved and now a certain level of fragmentation is tolerable ( at different layers : Technical , Governance , Trade ), and as you have mentioned now we are looking for bridges. Hope that is not only a business trend!
I don't think we have a choice over whether or not to tolerate it. Fragmentation already exists, in the form of arbitrary website blockages in various countries. The most obvious is the Great Firewall of China, but that country is far from alone in blocking sites. The reasons can be political, economic, cultural or ethical, and even western countries engage in it (for instance, piracy or Nazi sites). The alternative to tolerance is reciprocity or other punitive measures, which will only make the fragmentation worse.
The fragmentation can even be technical and benign rather than active. The whole reason for ICANN's "universal acceptance" marketing campaign is to convince the world to implement ICANN's initiatives in new domains and non-Latin character-set support. Surely these campaigns wouldn't be needed if implementation was widespread.
- Evan
_______________________________________________ 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 tocpwg-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
Dear Justine and Olivier, OCTO already published a paper Entitled Challenges with Alternative Name Systems <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/octo-034-27apr22-en.pdf> in April 2022. But Seems that the situation has evolved since, particularly with new <https://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-parameters/WALLET/wallet-completed-temp...> RFC <https://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-parameters/WALLET/wallet-completed-temp...> proposed by Paul and the trends of some registries to adopt alternate DNS. Friendly regards. Chokri On Fri, Oct 11, 2024 at 8:51 AM Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond via CPWG < cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
I think this is one of the questions that we once asked ourselves in this group, so it is great that OCTO has picked up the ball and will enlighten us.
Olivier
On 11/10/2024 06:49, Justine Chew via CPWG wrote:
All,
Please join this OCTO session(s) during ICANN81 Prep Week:
https://icann81.sched.com/event/1nJju/blockchain-name-technologies
28 October 2024 16:30 UTC Prep 1 ID# 15862
*Session Details* During ICANN81, ICANN's Office of the CTO (OCTO) will be leading two sessions on blockchain name technologies. In advance of these sessions, ICANN Distinguished Engineer Paul Hoffman will be publishing two documents in the OCTO Document Series that discuss these technologies in-depth. This prep week webinar will help you understand what OCTO will be talking about in the papers and at ICANN81, why it's relevant to you, and will highlight some of the online resources available to help prepare for the sessions. There will be a Q&A period towards the end of this Prep Week session.
Kind regards, Justine ---------
On Thu, 10 Oct 2024, 20:48 Chokri Ben Romdhane via CPWG, <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Dear CPWG Friends,
I just remembered this discussion while watching the record of This SSAC Workshop <https://icann.zoom.us/rec/share/UE3BM4rKJXkwtUxzXD0J3syldOxErQo01o6bTPnO52UQ...> , Another useful materials is the SSAC Report on the Evolution of Internet NameResolution <https://itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/security-and-stability-advisory-committee...>
Friendly regards Chokri
On Fri, Nov 25, 2022 at 12:33 PM Chokri Ben Romdhane <chokribr@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Evan,
"The alternative to tolerance is reciprocity or other punitive measures, which will only make the fragmentation worse."
Indeed and the cryptocurrency is a good example, if the OFAC <https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/office-of-foreign-assets-control-san...> had the ability to censure some Ethereum currency <https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy0916>, <https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy0916> they did not have this capability with Bitcoin based currency since it would be difficult to pinpoint responsibility at any level .
Friendly regards Chokri
Le jeu. 24 nov. 2022 à 19:24, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> a écrit :
Hi Chokri,
What is important to note is that the view of internet fragmentation
has evolved and now a certain level of fragmentation is tolerable ( at different layers : Technical , Governance , Trade ), and as you have mentioned now we are looking for bridges. Hope that is not only a business trend!
I don't think we have a choice over whether or not to tolerate it. Fragmentation already exists, in the form of arbitrary website blockages in various countries. The most obvious is the Great Firewall of China, but that country is far from alone in blocking sites. The reasons can be political, economic, cultural or ethical, and even western countries engage in it (for instance, piracy or Nazi sites). The alternative to tolerance is reciprocity or other punitive measures, which will only make the fragmentation worse.
The fragmentation can even be technical and benign rather than active. The whole reason for ICANN's "universal acceptance" marketing campaign is to convince the world to implement ICANN's initiatives in new domains and non-Latin character-set support. Surely these campaigns wouldn't be needed if implementation was widespread.
- Evan
_______________________________________________ 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.
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhDhttp://www.gih.com/ocl.html
_______________________________________________ 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.
Just out recently: https://www.icann.org/en/blogs/details/new-icann-publications-explain-blockc... <https://www.icann.org/en/blogs/details/new-icann-publications-explain-blockc...> Justine On Fri, 11 Oct 2024 at 18:47, Chokri Ben Romdhane via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Justine and Olivier, OCTO already published a paper Entitled Challenges with Alternative Name Systems <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/octo-034-27apr22-en.pdf> in April 2022. But Seems that the situation has evolved since, particularly with new <https://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-parameters/WALLET/wallet-completed-temp...> RFC <https://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-parameters/WALLET/wallet-completed-temp...> proposed by Paul and the trends of some registries to adopt alternate DNS. Friendly regards. Chokri
On Fri, Oct 11, 2024 at 8:51 AM Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond via CPWG < cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
I think this is one of the questions that we once asked ourselves in this group, so it is great that OCTO has picked up the ball and will enlighten us.
Olivier
On 11/10/2024 06:49, Justine Chew via CPWG wrote:
All,
Please join this OCTO session(s) during ICANN81 Prep Week:
https://icann81.sched.com/event/1nJju/blockchain-name-technologies
28 October 2024 16:30 UTC Prep 1 ID# 15862
*Session Details* During ICANN81, ICANN's Office of the CTO (OCTO) will be leading two sessions on blockchain name technologies. In advance of these sessions, ICANN Distinguished Engineer Paul Hoffman will be publishing two documents in the OCTO Document Series that discuss these technologies in-depth. This prep week webinar will help you understand what OCTO will be talking about in the papers and at ICANN81, why it's relevant to you, and will highlight some of the online resources available to help prepare for the sessions. There will be a Q&A period towards the end of this Prep Week session.
Kind regards, Justine ---------
On Thu, 10 Oct 2024, 20:48 Chokri Ben Romdhane via CPWG, <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Dear CPWG Friends,
I just remembered this discussion while watching the record of This SSAC Workshop <https://icann.zoom.us/rec/share/UE3BM4rKJXkwtUxzXD0J3syldOxErQo01o6bTPnO52UQ...> , Another useful materials is the SSAC Report on the Evolution of Internet NameResolution <https://itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/security-and-stability-advisory-committee...>
Friendly regards Chokri
On Fri, Nov 25, 2022 at 12:33 PM Chokri Ben Romdhane <chokribr@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Evan,
"The alternative to tolerance is reciprocity or other punitive measures, which will only make the fragmentation worse."
Indeed and the cryptocurrency is a good example, if the OFAC <https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/office-of-foreign-assets-control-san...> had the ability to censure some Ethereum currency <https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy0916>, <https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy0916> they did not have this capability with Bitcoin based currency since it would be difficult to pinpoint responsibility at any level .
Friendly regards Chokri
Le jeu. 24 nov. 2022 à 19:24, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> a écrit :
Hi Chokri,
What is important to note is that the view of internet fragmentation
has evolved and now a certain level of fragmentation is tolerable ( at different layers : Technical , Governance , Trade ), and as you have mentioned now we are looking for bridges. Hope that is not only a business trend!
I don't think we have a choice over whether or not to tolerate it. Fragmentation already exists, in the form of arbitrary website blockages in various countries. The most obvious is the Great Firewall of China, but that country is far from alone in blocking sites. The reasons can be political, economic, cultural or ethical, and even western countries engage in it (for instance, piracy or Nazi sites). The alternative to tolerance is reciprocity or other punitive measures, which will only make the fragmentation worse.
The fragmentation can even be technical and benign rather than active. The whole reason for ICANN's "universal acceptance" marketing campaign is to convince the world to implement ICANN's initiatives in new domains and non-Latin character-set support. Surely these campaigns wouldn't be needed if implementation was widespread.
- Evan
_______________________________________________ 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.
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhDhttp://www.gih.com/ocl.html
_______________________________________________ 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.
Dear Justine, Thank you very much for this new great update , seems that there is an issue with the octo-040 <https://www.icann.org/octo-040-en.pdf> Doc. Friendly regards Chokri On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 5:01 PM Justine Chew via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Just out recently: https://www.icann.org/en/blogs/details/new-icann-publications-explain-blockc... <https://www.icann.org/en/blogs/details/new-icann-publications-explain-blockc...>
Justine
On Fri, 11 Oct 2024 at 18:47, Chokri Ben Romdhane via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Justine and Olivier, OCTO already published a paper Entitled Challenges with Alternative Name Systems <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/octo-034-27apr22-en.pdf> in April 2022. But Seems that the situation has evolved since, particularly with new <https://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-parameters/WALLET/wallet-completed-temp...> RFC <https://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-parameters/WALLET/wallet-completed-temp...> proposed by Paul and the trends of some registries to adopt alternate DNS. Friendly regards. Chokri
On Fri, Oct 11, 2024 at 8:51 AM Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond via CPWG < cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
I think this is one of the questions that we once asked ourselves in this group, so it is great that OCTO has picked up the ball and will enlighten us.
Olivier
On 11/10/2024 06:49, Justine Chew via CPWG wrote:
All,
Please join this OCTO session(s) during ICANN81 Prep Week:
https://icann81.sched.com/event/1nJju/blockchain-name-technologies
28 October 2024 16:30 UTC Prep 1 ID# 15862
*Session Details* During ICANN81, ICANN's Office of the CTO (OCTO) will be leading two sessions on blockchain name technologies. In advance of these sessions, ICANN Distinguished Engineer Paul Hoffman will be publishing two documents in the OCTO Document Series that discuss these technologies in-depth. This prep week webinar will help you understand what OCTO will be talking about in the papers and at ICANN81, why it's relevant to you, and will highlight some of the online resources available to help prepare for the sessions. There will be a Q&A period towards the end of this Prep Week session.
Kind regards, Justine ---------
On Thu, 10 Oct 2024, 20:48 Chokri Ben Romdhane via CPWG, <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Dear CPWG Friends,
I just remembered this discussion while watching the record of This SSAC Workshop <https://icann.zoom.us/rec/share/UE3BM4rKJXkwtUxzXD0J3syldOxErQo01o6bTPnO52UQ...> , Another useful materials is the SSAC Report on the Evolution of Internet NameResolution <https://itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/security-and-stability-advisory-committee...>
Friendly regards Chokri
On Fri, Nov 25, 2022 at 12:33 PM Chokri Ben Romdhane < chokribr@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Evan,
"The alternative to tolerance is reciprocity or other punitive measures, which will only make the fragmentation worse."
Indeed and the cryptocurrency is a good example, if the OFAC <https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/office-of-foreign-assets-control-san...> had the ability to censure some Ethereum currency <https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy0916>, <https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy0916> they did not have this capability with Bitcoin based currency since it would be difficult to pinpoint responsibility at any level .
Friendly regards Chokri
Le jeu. 24 nov. 2022 à 19:24, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> a écrit :
Hi Chokri,
What is important to note is that the view of internet fragmentation > has evolved and now a certain level of fragmentation is tolerable ( at > different layers : Technical , Governance , Trade ), and as you have > mentioned now we are looking for bridges. Hope that is not only a business > trend! >
I don't think we have a choice over whether or not to tolerate it. Fragmentation already exists, in the form of arbitrary website blockages in various countries. The most obvious is the Great Firewall of China, but that country is far from alone in blocking sites. The reasons can be political, economic, cultural or ethical, and even western countries engage in it (for instance, piracy or Nazi sites). The alternative to tolerance is reciprocity or other punitive measures, which will only make the fragmentation worse.
The fragmentation can even be technical and benign rather than active. The whole reason for ICANN's "universal acceptance" marketing campaign is to convince the world to implement ICANN's initiatives in new domains and non-Latin character-set support. Surely these campaigns wouldn't be needed if implementation was widespread.
- Evan
_______________________________________________ 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.
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhDhttp://www.gih.com/ocl.html
_______________________________________________ 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.
Dear Mike, Jaques Latour gave more technical details about the digital identity and Canadian experience during this DNSSEC and Security Workshop <https://75.schedule.icann.org/meetings/hvW7BbDtvbw4hoSTx>. Friendly Regards. Chokri Le mar. 27 sept. 2022 à 16:43, mike palage.com via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> a écrit :
Hello All,
I would encourage everyone to listen to the recording. However, I would actually start with the third presentation by CIRA (.CA). In my personal opinion that was the best of the three.
Evan I am going to push back. I think At-Large is probably the optimal place to discuss alternative root names. Per the At Large Website – “At-Large Community acts on the interests of Internet users.” I would argue that At Large is not limited to just Root Zone domain names and IP addresses. Moreover, when you look at ICANN’s articles of incorporation, I think it provides a much larger mandate that just the coordination of domain names and IP addresses:
pursue the charitable and public purposes of lessening the burdens of government and promoting the global public interest in the operational stability of the Internet by carrying out the mission set forth in the bylaws of the Corporation (“*Bylaws*”). Such global public interest may be determined from time to time. Any determination of such global public interest shall be made by the multistakeholder community through an inclusive bottom-up multistakeholder community process.
Best regards,
Michael
*From:* CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org> *On Behalf Of * Chokri Ben Romdhane via CPWG *Sent:* Tuesday, September 27, 2022 11:10 AM *To:* CPWG <cpwg@icann.org>; MOULOUD KHELIF <kelif@hotmail.com> *Subject:* Re: [CPWG] Are Blockchain Domains within the Mission of ICANN - WAS RE: Questions to the board about distributed DNS
Dear Friends,
Please find the record of the Emerging Identifier Technologies <https://icann.zoom.us/rec/play/4ZhSDuzFnVqw66kYgnTuHdDzi_RH0IFCKqKuAzmmcFy7x...> session , held during the ICANN75 meeting, it provides some use cases of the emerging identifiers technologie.
Thank you @MOULOUD KHELIF <kelif@hotmail.com> for the reminder.
Friendly regards
Chokri
Le sam. 27 août 2022 à 19:17, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> a écrit :
On Thu, Aug 25, 2022 at 5:39 AM Chokri Ben Romdhane <chokribr@gmail.com> wrote:
But be aware if you confirm that the collision issues is/will never happened , as you have mentioned in your previous mail, and cross your finger that the regular DNS market will continue to attract more customers, compared to those NFT, Blockchain TLDs considering the ease of DNS management and security they are conferred to end users.
Hi again,
You made one fatal error in your assessment above: Internet end-users are not registrants.
End users don't care about DNS management, and the security THEY seek is access to registrant details in the case of domains used for abuse.
The "security" you mention protects registrants and works against the interests of end-users.
It's totally possible that the hubris of DNS alternatives may lead to collisions, but end-users will never see the effect of that, Browsers continue to use the ICANN root and to date have never seen the benefit of pointing to alternames. Plus, two of the biggest browser makers, Google and Microsoft, have a deep vested interest in obstructing any alternative DNS. Any alternate DNS hoping to be successful would need to create its own browser, which is what the TOR project did.
So even if alternative DNSs create TLDs that duplicate ICANN's they will never present any collision or confusion to end-users. The only losers will be registrants in the alternate systems. I have zero pity for them and they are certainly not ALAC's concern or even ICANN's.
Cheers,
- Evan
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ 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.
participants (11)
-
Annett Bonuke -
Carlton Samuels -
Chokri Ben Romdhane -
David Mackey -
Evan Leibovitch -
gopal -
Justine Chew -
mike palage.com -
Mutegeki Cliff -
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond -
Roberto Gaetano