Folks, Take a look at the PIC commitments proposed by PIR/Ethos for ORG. At present, they focus on pricing, free speech and privacy. https://www.keypointsabout.org/accountability While a step in the right direction, including some binding powers in the above regards by the stewardship council, our concerns extend to the consumer trust implications of dramatically broadening the registrant profile of .ORG. We want it to remain predominantly a space for non-profit organizations and individuals and limit the potential for DSN abuse through practices such as bulk registrations. In any case, give it a read and we will discuss on Wednesday. Jonathan Jonathan Zuck | Executive Director | Innovators Network jzuck@innovatorsnetwork.org<mailto:jzuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> | O 202.420.7497 | S jvzuck | [cid:image001.png@01D2AEED.C7EA7800]
Regardless of intent, PICs are only cosmetic unless accompanied by specifics about enforcement and penalty for abrogation. Without knowing how breeches of Ethos' PICs can be reported, judged and acted upon, debate on their substance is moot. Experiences from those of us involved in developing the PIC process during the last round -- and then seeing the aftermath -- found that without an "or else" component baked-in, PICs are utterly useless. - Evan On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 at 12:13, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote:
Folks,
Take a look at the PIC commitments proposed by PIR/Ethos for ORG. At present, they focus on pricing, free speech and privacy.
https://www.keypointsabout.org/accountability
While a step in the right direction, including some binding powers in the above regards by the stewardship council, our concerns extend to the consumer trust implications of dramatically broadening the registrant profile of .ORG. We want it to remain predominantly a space for non-profit organizations and individuals and limit the potential for DSN abuse through practices such as bulk registrations.
In any case, give it a read and we will discuss on Wednesday.
Jonathan
Agree Evan. Take a look at the document as it says explicitly the “or else” can include taking .ORG away from PIR and that the stewardship council has veto power over policies in those areas. It’s not bad language in that respect. From: Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> Date: Friday, February 21, 2020 at 9:34 AM To: Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> Cc: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CPWG] PIC commitments on ORG Regardless of intent, PICs are only cosmetic unless accompanied by specifics about enforcement and penalty for abrogation. Without knowing how breeches of Ethos' PICs can be reported, judged and acted upon, debate on their substance is moot. Experiences from those of us involved in developing the PIC process during the last round -- and then seeing the aftermath -- found that without an "or else" component baked-in, PICs are utterly useless. - Evan On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 at 12:13, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org<mailto:JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org>> wrote: Folks, Take a look at the PIC commitments proposed by PIR/Ethos for ORG. At present, they focus on pricing, free speech and privacy. https://www.keypointsabout.org/accountability While a step in the right direction, including some binding powers in the above regards by the stewardship council, our concerns extend to the consumer trust implications of dramatically broadening the registrant profile of .ORG. We want it to remain predominantly a space for non-profit organizations and individuals and limit the potential for DSN abuse through practices such as bulk registrations. In any case, give it a read and we will discuss on Wednesday. Jonathan
Yecch. PICDRPs. I can't think of one instance in which they've sided with interveners in previous cases, and they're not exactly chosen because of sensitivity to the public interest. Depending on that process is essentially a free pass for Ethos. - Evan On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 at 13:27, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote:
Agree Evan. Take a look at the document as it says explicitly the “or else” can include taking .ORG away from PIR and that the stewardship council has veto power over policies in those areas. It’s not bad language in that respect.
Well part of our interventions on SubPro is improvements to that process, no? It seems as though At-Large are still in favor of PICs if they are enforceable. Is there a better mechanism? From: Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> Date: Friday, February 21, 2020 at 10:32 AM To: Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> Cc: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CPWG] PIC commitments on ORG Yecch. PICDRPs. I can't think of one instance in which they've sided with interveners in previous cases, and they're not exactly chosen because of sensitivity to the public interest. Depending on that process is essentially a free pass for Ethos. - Evan On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 at 13:27, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org<mailto:JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org>> wrote: Agree Evan. Take a look at the document as it says explicitly the “or else” can include taking .ORG away from PIR and that the stewardship council has veto power over policies in those areas. It’s not bad language in that respect.
I’d rather work on giving teeth to PICs than give up on PICs. On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 1:43 PM Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote:
Well part of our interventions on SubPro is improvements to that process, no? It seems as though At-Large are still in favor of PICs if they are enforceable. Is there a better mechanism?
*From: *Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> *Date: *Friday, February 21, 2020 at 10:32 AM *To: *Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> *Cc: *CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [CPWG] PIC commitments on ORG
Yecch. PICDRPs. I can't think of one instance in which they've sided with interveners in previous cases, and they're not exactly chosen because of sensitivity to the public interest.
Depending on that process is essentially a free pass for Ethos.
- Evan
On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 at 13:27, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote:
Agree Evan. Take a look at the document as it says explicitly the “or else” can include taking .ORG away from PIR and that the stewardship council has veto power over policies in those areas. It’s not bad language in that respect.
_______________________________________________ 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.
-- *********************************** Greg Shatan President, ISOC-NY “The Internet is for Everyone”
+1 R. On 21.02.2020, at 21:32, Greg Shatan <greg@isoc-ny.org<mailto:greg@isoc-ny.org>> wrote: I’d rather work on giving teeth to PICs than give up on PICs. On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 1:43 PM Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org<mailto:JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org>> wrote: Well part of our interventions on SubPro is improvements to that process, no? It seems as though At-Large are still in favor of PICs if they are enforceable. Is there a better mechanism? From: Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org<mailto:evan@telly.org>> Date: Friday, February 21, 2020 at 10:32 AM To: Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org<mailto:JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org>> Cc: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CPWG] PIC commitments on ORG Yecch. PICDRPs. I can't think of one instance in which they've sided with interveners in previous cases, and they're not exactly chosen because of sensitivity to the public interest. Depending on that process is essentially a free pass for Ethos. - Evan On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 at 13:27, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org<mailto:JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org>> wrote: Agree Evan. Take a look at the document as it says explicitly the “or else” can include taking .ORG away from PIR and that the stewardship council has veto power over policies in those areas. It’s not bad language in that respect. _______________________________________________ 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. -- *********************************** Greg Shatan President, ISOC-NY “The Internet is for Everyone” _______________________________________________ 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.
PICs offer registries a purely-cosmetic means to demonstrate care for the public interest, knowing that the bar of proof and evidence required to contest is so high as to be impenetrable. On the challengers' side you have a high bar of evidence that may require substantial legal instincts but falls to public-interest volunteers who lack the necessary time or resources. On the other side is fulltime registry legal staff whose paid task is to do whatever is necessary to defend. By design it's horribly imbalanced. IIRC, the last time ALAC launched a PIC challenge it was dismissed before we ever got to argue substance because the PICDRP said that ALAC did not have sufficient standing to intervene(!). Such are the rules. Yeah the theory behind PICs is wonderful but it would need a ground-up rewrite -- with something approaching a level playing field, and funding for challengers -- to be useful. The work necessary to "give teeth" to the PICs would need to be done before the Ethos offer could be even considered. Is there time for that? - Evan On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 at 15:33, Greg Shatan <greg@isoc-ny.org> wrote:
I’d rather work on giving teeth to PICs than give up on PICs.
On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 1:43 PM Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote:
Well part of our interventions on SubPro is improvements to that process, no? It seems as though At-Large are still in favor of PICs if they are enforceable. Is there a better mechanism?
*From: *Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> *Date: *Friday, February 21, 2020 at 10:32 AM *To: *Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> *Cc: *CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [CPWG] PIC commitments on ORG
Yecch. PICDRPs. I can't think of one instance in which they've sided with interveners in previous cases, and they're not exactly chosen because of sensitivity to the public interest.
Depending on that process is essentially a free pass for Ethos.
- Evan
On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 at 13:27, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote:
Agree Evan. Take a look at the document as it says explicitly the “or else” can include taking .ORG away from PIR and that the stewardship council has veto power over policies in those areas. It’s not bad language in that respect.
_______________________________________________ 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.
-- *********************************** Greg Shatan President, ISOC-NY “The Internet is for Everyone” _______________________________________________ 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.
-- Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada @evanleibovitch or @el56
Jonathan, You have a tendency to link DNS abuse and bulk registrations. Could you explain how bulk registrations are a form of DNS abuse? Regards, Nat Cohen On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 12:13 PM Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote:
Folks,
Take a look at the PIC commitments proposed by PIR/Ethos for ORG. At present, they focus on pricing, free speech and privacy.
https://www.keypointsabout.org/accountability
While a step in the right direction, including some binding powers in the above regards by the stewardship council, our concerns extend to the consumer trust implications of dramatically broadening the registrant profile of .ORG. We want it to remain predominantly a space for non-profit organizations and individuals and limit the potential for DSN abuse through practices such as bulk registrations.
In any case, give it a read and we will discuss on Wednesday.
Jonathan
Jonathan Zuck *|* Executive Director *|* Innovators Network
jzuck@innovatorsnetwork.org | O 202.420.7497 | S jvzuck |
[image: cid:image001.png@01D2AEED.C7EA7800]
_______________________________________________ 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.
Thanks Nat. That link came from a report and presentation we received from Interisle Consulting, which the CPWG found compelling. There seems to be a high correlation between bulk registration and DNS Abuse. Graeme Bunton reminded us, at our DNS Abuse panel, there are legitimate purposes for bulk registrations. Accordingly, the Interisle report doesn’t suggest prohibiting bulk registrations but just keeping a closer eye on them with certified bulk registrants, some additional classifications, etc. We had heard that PIR had done away with bulk registrations but now as I look at GoDaddy’s site, they seem to be there so we may need to soften our recommendation to more closely hew to the Interisle recommendations. http://www.interisle.net/criminaldomainabuse.html Welcome your thoughts on this, if you think we’re approaching it incorrectly. We can discuss as part of this PIC discussion on Wednesday. Jonathan From: Nat Cohen <ncohen@telepathy.com> Date: Friday, February 21, 2020 at 9:40 AM To: Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> Cc: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CPWG] PIC commitments on ORG Jonathan, You have a tendency to link DNS abuse and bulk registrations. Could you explain how bulk registrations are a form of DNS abuse? Regards, Nat Cohen On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 12:13 PM Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org<mailto:JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org>> wrote: Folks, Take a look at the PIC commitments proposed by PIR/Ethos for ORG. At present, they focus on pricing, free speech and privacy. https://www.keypointsabout.org/accountability While a step in the right direction, including some binding powers in the above regards by the stewardship council, our concerns extend to the consumer trust implications of dramatically broadening the registrant profile of .ORG. We want it to remain predominantly a space for non-profit organizations and individuals and limit the potential for DSN abuse through practices such as bulk registrations. In any case, give it a read and we will discuss on Wednesday. Jonathan Jonathan Zuck | Executive Director | Innovators Network jzuck@innovatorsnetwork.org<mailto:jzuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> | O 202.420.7497 | S jvzuck | [cid:image001.png@01D2AEED.C7EA7800] _______________________________________________ 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.
Dear all, Not Jonathan but my wheel house. Various studies find this relationship consistently in case you do not want to base the conclusion on the source Jonathan posted. Just some examples of academic studies that are available. Essentially, bulk registration options reduce friction. H. Gao, J. Hu, C. Wilson, Z. Li, Y. Chen, and B. Y. Zhao. Detecting and Characterizing Social Spam Campaigns. In Proceedings of the 10th ACM SIGCOMM conference on Internet measurement, 2010. Hao, S., Thomas, M., Paxson, V., Feamster, N., Kreibich, C., Grier, C. and Hollenbeck, S., 2013, October. Understanding the domain registration behavior of spammers. In Proceedings of the 2013 conference on Internet measurement conference (pp. 63-76). Hao, S., Kantchelian, A., Miller, B., Paxson, V. and Feamster, N., 2016, October. PREDATOR: proactive recognition and elimination of domain abuse at time-of-registration. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security (pp. 1568-1579). I further suggest looking into work available on CAIDA’s page (caida.org) and by the group around Anderson and Clayton at Cambridge. All the best Laurin
On Feb 21, 2020, at 13:41, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote:
Thanks Nat. That link came from a report and presentation we received from Interisle Consulting, which the CPWG found compelling. There seems to be a high correlation between bulk registration and DNS Abuse. Graeme Bunton reminded us, at our DNS Abuse panel, there are legitimate purposes for bulk registrations. Accordingly, the Interisle report doesn’t suggest prohibiting bulk registrations but just keeping a closer eye on them with certified bulk registrants, some additional classifications, etc. We had heard that PIR had done away with bulk registrations but now as I look at GoDaddy’s site, they seem to be there so we may need to soften our recommendation to more closely hew to the Interisle recommendations.
http://www.interisle.net/criminaldomainabuse.html
Welcome your thoughts on this, if you think we’re approaching it incorrectly. We can discuss as part of this PIC discussion on Wednesday. Jonathan
From: Nat Cohen <ncohen@telepathy.com> Date: Friday, February 21, 2020 at 9:40 AM To: Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> Cc: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CPWG] PIC commitments on ORG
Jonathan,
You have a tendency to link DNS abuse and bulk registrations. Could you explain how bulk registrations are a form of DNS abuse?
Regards,
Nat Cohen
On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 12:13 PM Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote: Folks, Take a look at the PIC commitments proposed by PIR/Ethos for ORG. At present, they focus on pricing, free speech and privacy. https://www.keypointsabout.org/accountability
While a step in the right direction, including some binding powers in the above regards by the stewardship council, our concerns extend to the consumer trust implications of dramatically broadening the registrant profile of .ORG. We want it to remain predominantly a space for non-profit organizations and individuals and limit the potential for DSN abuse through practices such as bulk registrations.
In any case, give it a read and we will discuss on Wednesday. Jonathan
Jonathan Zuck | Executive Director | Innovators Network jzuck@innovatorsnetwork.org | O 202.420.7497 | S jvzuck | <image001.png>
_______________________________________________ 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.
After listening to the Ethos webinar, and thinking about it for a few days, a couple of ideas bubbled up. First, to address some of the concerns that have been raised, Ethos proposes several modifications to the contract with PIC for .org. ICANN could get those amendments to the contract (or something like them) in place before approving the sale. Since the changes were Ethos' suggestions, they shouldn't have a problem with them. (And if they do, well that would be a big red flag, wouldn't it?) That assures that they will actually happen as advertised. Second, having established the independent oversight committee with those contract amendments, ICANN and PIC could start populating it. Thus addressing the concerns expressed about how independent (of Ethos' board) it would actually be. I realize that this doesn't address every concern that has been raised. But it might be a start. Bill Jouris On Friday, February 21, 2020, 09:14:25 AM PST, Jonathan Zuck <jzuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote: <!--#yiv1576262852 _filtered {} _filtered {}#yiv1576262852 #yiv1576262852 p.yiv1576262852MsoNormal, #yiv1576262852 li.yiv1576262852MsoNormal, #yiv1576262852 div.yiv1576262852MsoNormal {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Calibri", sans-serif;}#yiv1576262852 a:link, #yiv1576262852 span.yiv1576262852MsoHyperlink {color:#0563C1;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv1576262852 span.yiv1576262852EmailStyle17 {font-family:"Calibri", sans-serif;color:windowtext;}#yiv1576262852 .yiv1576262852MsoChpDefault {font-family:"Calibri", sans-serif;} _filtered {}#yiv1576262852 div.yiv1576262852WordSection1 {}--> Folks, Take a look at the PIC commitments proposed by PIR/Ethos for ORG. At present, they focus on pricing, free speech and privacy. https://www.keypointsabout.org/accountability While a step in the right direction, including some binding powers in the above regards by the stewardship council, our concerns extend to the consumer trust implications of dramatically broadening the registrant profile of .ORG. We want it to remain predominantly a space for non-profit organizations and individuals and limit the potential for DSN abuse through practices such as bulk registrations. In any case, give it a read and we will discuss on Wednesday. Jonathan Jonathan Zuck | Executive Director | Innovators Network jzuck@innovatorsnetwork.org | O 202.420.7497 | S jvzuck | _______________________________________________ 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.
We probably do well to remember the library scene in Shawshank Redemption…and now that they’ve established a willingness to open the contract, ask. For a couple more things ANDY (reading a letter from the state) Dear Mr. Dufresne. In response to your repeated inquiries, the State Senate has allocated the enclosed funds for your library project... " (stunned, examines check) This is two hundred dollars. Wiley grins. Hadley glares at him. The grin vanishes. ANDY In addition, the Library District has generously responded with a charitable donation of used books and sundries. We trust this will fill your needs. We now consider the matter closed. Please stop sending us letters. Yours truly, the State Comptroller's Office. Andy gazes around at the boxes. The riches of the world lay at his feet. His eyes mist with emotion at the sight. HADLEY I want all this cleared out before the warden gets back, I shit you not. Hadley exits. Andy touches the boxes like a love-struck man touching a beautiful woman. Wiley grins. WILEY Good for you, Andy. ANDY Only took six years. (beat) From now on, I send two letters a week instead of one. From: Bill Jouris <b_jouris@yahoo.com> Date: Saturday, February 29, 2020 at 10:24 AM To: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org>, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> Subject: Re: [CPWG] PIC commitments on ORG After listening to the Ethos webinar, and thinking about it for a few days, a couple of ideas bubbled up. First, to address some of the concerns that have been raised, Ethos proposes several modifications to the contract with PIC for .org. ICANN could get those amendments to the contract (or something like them) in place before approving the sale. Since the changes were Ethos' suggestions, they shouldn't have a problem with them. (And if they do, well that would be a big red flag, wouldn't it?) That assures that they will actually happen as advertised. Second, having established the independent oversight committee with those contract amendments, ICANN and PIC could start populating it. Thus addressing the concerns expressed about how independent (of Ethos' board) it would actually be. I realize that this doesn't address every concern that has been raised. But it might be a start. Bill Jouris On Friday, February 21, 2020, 09:14:25 AM PST, Jonathan Zuck <jzuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote: Folks, Take a look at the PIC commitments proposed by PIR/Ethos for ORG. At present, they focus on pricing, free speech and privacy. https://www.keypointsabout.org/accountability While a step in the right direction, including some binding powers in the above regards by the stewardship council, our concerns extend to the consumer trust implications of dramatically broadening the registrant profile of .ORG. We want it to remain predominantly a space for non-profit organizations and individuals and limit the potential for DSN abuse through practices such as bulk registrations. In any case, give it a read and we will discuss on Wednesday. Jonathan Jonathan Zuck | Executive Director | Innovators Network jzuck@innovatorsnetwork.org<mailto:jzuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> | O 202.420.7497 | S jvzuck | [cid:image001.png@01D2AEED.C7EA7800] _______________________________________________ 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.
participants (7)
-
Bill Jouris -
Evan Leibovitch -
Greg Shatan -
Jonathan Zuck -
Laurin B Weissinger -
Nat Cohen -
Roberto Gaetano