- Gnso-igo-ingo - lists.icann.org

Agenda - Reconvened IGO-INGO Protections PDP Working Group (Red Cross) - 10 May 2018 @ 14:00 UTC
by mail＠berrycobb.com May 9, 2018

May 9, 2018

Hi All, In preparation for tomorrow’s meeting, I reviewed the spreadsheet of the 191 National Society identifiers. Note that Stephane has sent me a slightly updated version from the one he sent back on 30 April 2018, but is attached here. Below you will find some notes and a list of detailed rows that the WG should review through as we get to a final definitive list to be submitted to the GNSO Council, but also to refine/expand the variant criteria that can be used for maintenance of this list should new societies be formed after implementation. The goal here, as per the principles discussed in prior WG calls, is to refine and ready this definitive list for the DNS label algorithm. Ultimately, the Tab 2 list below is an inventory of rows that likely need correction to ready the list of identifiers for the algo. For explanations about the construction of the spreadsheet, please refer to emails sent to the list from Stephane: · Feb 2018 - https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo/2018-February/000120.html · Apr 2018 - https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo/2018-April/000131.html Please refer to the XLS attachment: Tab 1 “icrc_ifrc_identifiers”: · Cells containing red text should be deleted as the original recommendation for these is protection in the UN6 only Tab 2 “national_societies” (current count 3,999 identifiers): · Many National Societies contained the use of "National" in their common name for which our working draft of variant options did not document. Should this be added as a variant category? · Several National Societies also contained a variation of Nationality vs. Country (ex. Ethiopian vs. Ethiopia) in their common name for which our working draft of variant options did not document. Should this be added as a variant category? · For Linguistic versions and translations of the of identifiers, please refer to the Feb 2018 email above for context of short versions of the names, many of which are highlighted below from an inventory perspective. · Within the XLS you will notice several cells highlighted in yellow, please refer to the Feb 2018 email above for context. I’d note that the Red Cross representatives have mentioned to me that the these are not intended for inclusion in the reservation of these identifiers, but were included to help understand how a society uses these in their respective country. I continue to highlight below, because there will ultimately be deleted as we narrow down the definitive list. · Row 16 - Red Cross (w/ translation in Dari/Pashto) · Rows 170 to 171 - Red Crescent Society, Red Cross (w/ translation in Azerbaijani/Russian) · Rows 290 to 293 - Red Cross Society, The Red Cross Society, Red Cross (w/ translation in Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian), The Red Cross · Rows 319 to 321 - The Red Cross, Red Cross (w/ translation in Portuguese), Brazilian Red Cross Association · Row 332 - use of "charity" – see Feb 2018 email above on Branches or sub-divisions · Row 404 - The Red Cross · Rows 489 to 498 - use of "headquarters", "/", "Association" · Rows 559 to 581 - use of "Côte d'Ivoire" (non-English?, might be converted to u-label), several location names like Ivory Coast · Rows 635 to 636 - The Red Cross, Red Cross (w/ translation in Czech) · Row 804 - The Red Cross (w/ translation in Finnish/Swedish) · Rows 805 to 824 - variations on the former republic; Should this be added as a variant category? · Rows 889 to 890 - The Red Cross, Red Cross (w/ translation in German) · Rows 943 to 950 - The use of "-" as part of official name and common name · Row 1074 - The Red Crescent (w/ translation in Arabic /Kurdish) · Row 1179 - Red Cross Society (w/ translation in Swahili) · Row 1218 - The use of "public association" as part of common name · Rows 1315 to 1317 - Lithuanian Red Cross organization, Red Cross, Red Cross society (w/ translation in Lithuanian) · Rows 1376 - Red Crescent society (w/ translation in Malay) · Rows 1393 to 1396 - use of "republic" · Rows 1553 to 1556 - contains non-readable strings in Burmese · Rows 1605 to 1606 - The Red Cross, Red Cross (w/ translation in Dutch/Papiamento) · Rows 1597 to 1604 - contains multiple locations under the Netherlands territory · Row 1600 - column F duplicates the English version · Rows 1602 to 1604 - column F contains the English versions variants instead of translated · Row 1663 - Red Cross (w/ translation in Norwegian/New Norwegian) · Rows 1700 to 1701 - Red Crescent, The Red Crescent (w/ translation in Arabic) · Row 1715 - The National Society of the Panamanian Red Cross (w/ translation in Spanish) · Row 1739 - Red Cross (w/ translation in Spanish / Guaraní) · Rows 1824 to 1843 - use of "republic" in formal and common names; candidate for variant? · Rows 1844 to 1859 - use of "republic" in formal and common names; candidate for variant? · Row 1884 - "All-Russia non-government organization «Russian Red Cross»" - contains "<<>>" + "-" + other generic terms (w/ translation in Russian); could exceed 63 char · Rows 1949 to 1964 - use of "São Tomé" (non-English?, might be converted to u-label) · Row 1975 - The Red Crescent Authority (w/ translation in Arabic) · Rows 2066 to 2093 - use of several variations on Somali · Rows 2078 to 2079 - Red Crescent, The Red Crescent (w/ translation in Somali/Arabic) · Row 2130 - Red Cross (w/ translation in Spanish / Guaraní) · Row 2179 - Red Cross (w/ translation in Spanish / Swedish) · Rows 2216 to 2217 - use of the word "Organization" · Row 2218 - The Red Crescent (w/ translation in Arabic) · Row 2246 - Red Cross Society (w/ translation in Swahili) · Rows 2259 to 2266 - The use of "-" as part of official name and common name · Rows 2325 - Red Crescent (w/ translation in Turkish) · Rows 2379 to 2380 - Red Cross, Red Cross in Ukraine ["in"] (w/ translation in Українська/Русский) · Rows 2381 to 2400 - several variation on Emirates · Rows 2414 to 2427 - duplicates of translations in columns E & F Thank you. B Berry A. Cobb 720.839.5735 mail(a)berrycobb.com @berrycobb

1 0

Table of National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies' names - Reconvened WG - Red Cross Society Names Protections
by Stephane Hankins April 30, 2018

April 30, 2018

Dear Berry, dear Thomas, Dear all, As agreed during our last telephone conference of 15 February, please find attached a copy of the completed Table of National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies' names. This was prepared on the basis of the previously agreed criteria and conforms to the mock-up list we had submitted to the Reconvened Working Group earlier this year. Safe for exceptional cases where this was not manageable, the attached list was prepared in close coordination and consultation with the respective National Societies. Please note that, as previously discussed, some slight variations were introduced to the criteria where this was expressly requested and justified - e.g. in some rare cases, we included the words "red cross" or "red crescent" in the national language on their own (without the adjective indicating national affiliation) and thus, where the words "red cross" or "red crescent" constitute the commonly used name of the National Society (for instance, the words "Red Cross" in Swahili are included, as this is a name under which the Kenya Red Cross is commonly known and identified in Kenya: the words "Red Crescent" are included in Dari and in Pashto as this is the commonly used name of the Afghan Red Crescent in Afghanistan). In such instances, the English translation is inserted in the table in a yellow cell and is not proposed, as such, for protection/reservation. Please note that in a number of cases, certain translations of the names in national languages could not be included due to the fact that they do not exist (for instance, in the case of languages which do not make use of definite articles). In these cases, the concerned cells in official languages other than English were left blank. Thank you for any questions or querries that you would have on the attached table. With kind regards, Stéphane Stéphane J. Hankins Legal adviser Cooperation and Coordination within the Movement International Committee of the Red Cross Tel (Prof.):++41 22 730 24 19 ----- Forwarded by Stephane Hankins/DIR_GEN_MOUV_CHF/GVA/ICRC on 27.04.2018 15:55 ----- From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> To: Stephane Hankins <shankins(a)icrc.org>, Berry Cobb Mail <mail(a)berrycobb.com> Cc: "gnso-igo-ingo(a)icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo(a)icann.org> Date: 25.04.2018 16:09 Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo] Reconvened WG - Red Cross Society Names Protections - Update Dear Stephane and everyone, Depending on when the Working Group agrees on its recommendations that are to be published for public comment, that is when staff can go ahead and start the public comment period – and the timeline can be adjusted based on that date, if need be. However, please note that before the report is then submitted to the GNSO Council, the Working Group is obliged to review all public comments submitted (if any) and determine if any changes need to be made to its recommendations and/or report. Given that the deadline for documents for the Council’s consideration in Panama is 10 June, staff believes that it is highly unlikely that the final report can be submitted in time for the Council to consider it at its meeting in Panama. For your information, the document deadline for the Council’s July 2018 meeting is 9 July. We hope this is helpful. Thanks and cheers Mary From: Gnso-igo-ingo <gnso-igo-ingo-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Stephane Hankins <shankins(a)icrc.org> Date: Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 09:30 To: Berry Cobb Mail <mail(a)berrycobb.com> Cc: "gnso-igo-ingo(a)icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo] Reconvened WG - Red Cross Society Names Protections - Update Dear Berry, dear Thomas, Thank you for your message. Was the agreement not, during the last ConfCall, that the list of National Societies' names and the GNSO Working Group's draft Report and decision, would be released for public comment asap and then discussed at ICANN 62. I went back to the transcript of the last ConfCall, but some parts may be missing. It does quote Heather however as saying that "[i]n its recent meeting in Los Angeles, the GNSO Council undertook strategic planning for the year and raised the question as to whether this reconvened PDP could be wound up by mid-year". Would it not be better, subject to the confirmation of the list of National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies' names by the WG at its upcoming 10 May session, to aim for the Report to be presented, and for the GNSO Council's determination to be made, end June in Panama? Thanks for your thoughts and kind regards, Stéphane Stéphane J. Hankins Legal adviser Cooperation and Coordination within the Movement International Committee of the Red Cross Tel (Prof.):++41 22 730 24 19 From: Heather Forrest <haforrestesq(a)gmail.com> To: Berry Cobb Mail <mail(a)berrycobb.com> Cc: gnso-igo-ingo(a)icann.org Date: 25.04.2018 14:38 Subject: Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo] Reconvened WG - Red Cross Society Names Protections - Update Sent by: "Gnso-igo-ingo" <gnso-igo-ingo-bounces(a)icann.org> Many thanks, Berry and Thomas, for your continued hard work here. I particularly appreciate the detailed timeline, and the efforts already expended to meet it. Best wishes, Heather Forrest On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 11:14 PM, <mail(a)berrycobb.com> wrote: Hi All, I wanted to provide you an update on the Reconvened WG effort regarding the protection of Red Cross National Society names. In consultation with the Red Cross representatives, they have provided an update that they are on target for the end of April to complete the definitive list of identifiers (193 orgs) to be considered for reservation protection. You will recall at our last session they provided examples of 12 National Societies where there was general agreement on the variations and the parameters that define those variations. In parallel, staff has started drafting the WG’s report that will outline the background of this issue, the WG’s deliberations, and proposed recommendations. The intent is to have both deliverables ready for review by the WG at our next meeting. Shortly, you will see a calendar invite for 10 May 2018 at 14:00 UTC for 90 minutes. At this session, we will first review the definitive list and deliberate on issues, if any. We will also review the draft report. The following is a proposed timeline to complete this effort. Staff and Thomas realize this will be a challenging time given the competition with GDPR efforts, but this group has committed to conclude at the end of June. As you will see, assuming the WG achieves consensus and no frictions with GDPR, this effort will may be behind schedule around mid-July. The WG can consider having a shorter comment period of 30 days given the reduced scope of this issue, but the WG should consider the balance of the 40 day rule versus delivering on time. We’re happy to have members thoughts on the mailing list in the meantime. Proposed timeline: · 10 May: WG Meeting · 18 May: Launch Public Comment proceeding for 40 days · 25 June: Start of ICANN61 – Staff has not planned on having a session at the meeting, at best an update to the Council · 27 June: Close of Public comment · 05 July: WG Meeting to review comments (don’t anticipate a ton of comments) · 13 July: Submit Report to Council Thank you for your time, and please submit your thoughts/comments on the mailing list. B Berry A. Cobb 720.839.5735 mail(a)berrycobb.com @berrycobb _______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo _______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo The ICRC - working to protect and assist people affected by armed conflict and other situations of violence. Find out more: www.icrc.org[icrc.org] This e-mail is intended for the named recipient(s) only. Its contents are confidential and may only be retained by the named recipient(s) and may only be copied or disclosed with the consent of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). If you are not an intended recipient please delete this e-mail and notify the sender. =============================================================================== The ICRC - working to protect and assist people affected by armed conflict and other situations of violence. Find out more: www.icrc.org This e-mail is intended for the named recipient(s) only. Its contents are confidential and may only be retained by the named recipient (s) and may only be copied or disclosed with the consent of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). If you are not an intended recipient please delete this e-mail and notify the sender. ===============================================================================

1 0

Reconvened WG - Red Cross Society Names Protections - Update
by mail＠berrycobb.com April 25, 2018

April 25, 2018

Hi All, I wanted to provide you an update on the Reconvened WG effort regarding the protection of Red Cross National Society names. In consultation with the Red Cross representatives, they have provided an update that they are on target for the end of April to complete the definitive list of identifiers (193 orgs) to be considered for reservation protection. You will recall at our last session they provided examples of 12 National Societies where there was general agreement on the variations and the parameters that define those variations. In parallel, staff has started drafting the WG's report that will outline the background of this issue, the WG's deliberations, and proposed recommendations. The intent is to have both deliverables ready for review by the WG at our next meeting. Shortly, you will see a calendar invite for 10 May 2018 at 14:00 UTC for 90 minutes. At this session, we will first review the definitive list and deliberate on issues, if any. We will also review the draft report. The following is a proposed timeline to complete this effort. Staff and Thomas realize this will be a challenging time given the competition with GDPR efforts, but this group has committed to conclude at the end of June. As you will see, assuming the WG achieves consensus and no frictions with GDPR, this effort will may be behind schedule around mid-July. The WG can consider having a shorter comment period of 30 days given the reduced scope of this issue, but the WG should consider the balance of the 40 day rule versus delivering on time. We're happy to have members thoughts on the mailing list in the meantime. Proposed timeline: . 10 May: WG Meeting . 18 May: Launch Public Comment proceeding for 40 days . 25 June: Start of ICANN61 - Staff has not planned on having a session at the meeting, at best an update to the Council . 27 June: Close of Public comment . 05 July: WG Meeting to review comments (don't anticipate a ton of comments) . 13 July: Submit Report to Council Thank you for your time, and please submit your thoughts/comments on the mailing list. B Berry A. Cobb 720.839.5735 mail(a)berrycobb.com @berrycobb

4 3

ADOBE CONNECT – WHAT NEXT? - ICANN Blog By Ash Rangan
by Nathalie Peregrine April 20, 2018

April 20, 2018

Dear all: Please take a look at this blog on Adobe Connect. And note the request: Before we make these changes, we want to hear from you. What do you think? Please submit your thoughts on this contemplated move before May 2nd here: RP-tool(a)icann.org<mailto:RP-tool@icann.org> Best regards, David https://www.icann.org/news/blog/adobe-connect-what-next[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_blo…> ADOBE CONNECT – WHAT NEXT? As you know, the ICANN organization took down its Adobe Connect service midway through the ICANN61 meeting in response to reported issues[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_blo…> with this service. Concurrently, we began to conduct our own forensic analysis of the reported incident and began working with our Adobe cloud service provider, CoSo Cloud LLC, and through them with Adobe to learn more. Shortly thereafter, we rolled out instances of Zoom and WebEx for the community to support remote participation (RP) and collaboration. Here's where we are now: The Forensics Investigation With respect to our forensics work, we received application logfiles from CoSo Cloud, going back for a period of one year. ICANN Engineering and Security teams have examined these application log files and the results of our investigation clearly show "fingerprints of incursion" by the researcher who reported the issue. We were unable to find any other indication that anyone else either identified or exploited this issue. Thanks to the person who found the bug again. Working closely with CoSo Cloud, we were able to recreate the reported issue, and understand the conditions required to trigger it. This information has been communicated to Adobe, and Adobe is working on a software fix to address the root cause of the issue. We have also been working with CoSo on options to re-enable Adobe Connect in the shorter term. We have determined there are two viable paths to accomplish this goal. They are: 1. Deploy a hardened configuration to eliminate "man-in-the-middle" exploitations by encrypting relevant traffic, or 2. Implement a programmatic fix from CoSo Cloud to substantially reduce the window during which the issue can be exploited. With respect to the first option, we attempted to hack the hardened configuration in a test environment last week, and were not able to do so over the course of 7 hours. Separately, CoSo Cloud and Adobe conducted similar tests and confirmed that this configuration is protected from exploitation of the issue. Community Feedback and Next Steps For the last three weeks, we have been gathering limited feedback regarding users' experiences with WebEx and Zoom. So far, we have input from about 200 people, including ICANN org meeting organizers and the ICANN community. Our analysis of this feedback indicates a desire to revert back to an Adobe Connect, providing the security of the service is ensured. Accordingly, we would like to propose the following plan to the broader community for consideration: 1. We would like to restore Adobe Connect services with both the new hardened configuration and the programmatic fix discussed above. Our intent would be to restore service by 3 May. This would allow us to use Adobe Connect during several upcoming events including the Board Workshop, the GDD Industry Summit, and ICANN62. 2. Once Adobe releases a new version of the software with a fix for this issue from their perspective, and provides assurance the update has been adequately tested, we will move toward that release of Adobe Connect in a prudent manner, with the help of CoSo Cloud. We believe that this approach will ensure the security of our content, and of our community interactions, while also enabling our community to use the collaboration tools of their choice. Before we make these changes, we want to hear from you. What do you think? Please submit your thoughts on this contemplated move before May 2nd here: RP-tool(a)icann.org<mailto:RP-tool@icann.org> Meanwhile, we will continue to offer WebEx and Zoom for RP and collaboration purposes. We will also continue to follow industry developments, including the research ALAC is doing on the RP and collaboration space, to ensure we are using secure and cost-effective tools that are appropriate for our needs. I look forward to your comments! David A. Olive Senior Vice President Policy Development Support Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

1 0

FW: [Gnso-next-gen-rds-lead] FW: URGENT REQUEST - Community Input re Accreditation Model Draft
by Terri Agnew April 2, 2018

April 2, 2018

FYI From: Brian Winterfeldt <Brian(a)Winterfeldt.law <mailto:Brian@Winterfeldt.law> > Date: Monday, April 2, 2018 at 15:07 To: "so-ac-sg-cleaders(a)icann.org <mailto:so-ac-sg-cleaders@icann.org> " <so-ac-sg-cleaders(a)icann.org <mailto:so-ac-sg-cleaders@icann.org> > Cc: "internet(a)winterfeldt.law <mailto:internet@winterfeldt.law> " <internet(a)winterfeldt.law <mailto:internet@winterfeldt.law> > Subject: RE: URGENT REQUEST - Community Input re Accreditation Model Draft Dear ICANN Community Leadership Colleagues: I write to follow up on my prior communication below to provide you with a formal invitation from the IPC and the BC to participate in a community-wide discussion regarding the proposed accreditation and access model for non-public WHOIS data, which was first circulated to the community during ICANN 61. The discussion will take place via ICANN-supported remote participation and/or audio bridge this Friday April 6, 2018 from 1400-1600 UTC. Please find the formal invitation attached with the pertinent participation details. Please distribute the invitation to your respective stakeholders and encourage broad distribution to encourage as much participation as possible in the discussion. Of course, please continue to channel written comments on the accreditation model proposal to <mailto:3amcomments@gmail.com> 3amcomments(a)gmail.com, with a copy to <mailto:internet@winterfeldt.law> internet(a)winterfeldt.law. Thank you very much for your assistance and engagement with respect to this ongoing effort. Best regards, Brian _____ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.winterfeldt.law_&d =DwMFAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2 x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=2B8W8Arbme-D4u-B_TRTbN1ysc44yNrgdHI9xYiXehQ&s=XWpe sj5trpbb65DYwAD6KtjhoswZ8rGSMTTB7LZrTRc&e=> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.winterfeldt.law_&d =DwMFAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2 x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=2B8W8Arbme-D4u-B_TRTbN1ysc44yNrgdHI9xYiXehQ&s=XWpe sj5trpbb65DYwAD6KtjhoswZ8rGSMTTB7LZrTRc&e=> [winterfeldt.law] Brian J. Winterfeldt Principal Winterfeldt IP Group <x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> 1200 17 <x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> th <x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> St NW, <x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> Ste 501 <x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> Washington, DC 20036 <mailto:brian@winterfeldt.law> brian(a)winterfeldt.law +1 202 903 4422 From: Brian Winterfeldt Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2018 7:24 PM To: <mailto:so-ac-sg-cleaders@icann.org> so-ac-sg-cleaders(a)icann.org Cc: <mailto:internet@winterfeldt.law> internet(a)winterfeldt.law Subject: URGENT REQUEST - Community Input re Accreditation Model Draft Importance: High Dear ICANN Community Leadership Colleagues: As a follow-up to my statement on behalf of the IPC during Public Forum II at ICANN 61 in Puerto Rico with Steve DelBianco (from the BC), I am writing to again request your stakeholders' input and collaboration on the proposed Accreditation Model for access to non-public WHOIS data (Version 1.3). Our sincere hope is that this model will be implemented alongside the ICANN-developed Proposed Interim Model for GDPR Compliance. The Accreditation Model can be found here: <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ipconstituency.org_ assets_docs_WHOIS-2520Access-2520Accreditation-2520Process-25201.3-255b1-255 d.pdf&d=DwMFAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhp AMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=2B8W8Arbme-D4u-B_TRTbN1ysc44yNrgdHI9xYiXehQ &s=ZVAEQxooXzT86rLVPfHTxmzU0WSDnjHfiAcifwTNcmk&e=> http://www.ipconstituency.org/assets/docs/WHOIS%20Access%20Accreditation%20P rocess%201.3[1].pdf[ipconstituency.org]. We welcome any questions or feedback on the proposed Accreditation Model, put forward as a strawman to facilitate broader community-wide efforts to develop an accreditation system proposal. We had hoped to convene a community-wide call swiftly after ICANN 61, but the absence of Adobe Connect has made facilitating community discussion and input difficult. However, with the stop-gap solutions being put into place, we hope to convene a call to discuss Accreditation Model development within the next week or so. Developing an Accreditation Model for access to non-public WHOIS data is a critical yet-to-be-developed element of the interim GDPR compliance model, and as Goran noted in his letter to DPAs, the community has achieved consensus that something must be finalized and implemented to assure the appropriate functioning of a gated/tiered/layered access WHOIS system. Again, we hope that the Accreditation Model proposal we are sharing can act as a starting point for the community to make quick progress in this respect. Please send any input on this matter to <mailto:3amcomments@gmail.com> 3amcomments(a)gmail.com as soon as possible, with a copy to <mailto:internet@winterfeldt.law> internet(a)winterfeldt.law. This will help us make sure all the input provided is received and appropriately captured. Again, we hope to convene a community call to facilitate continued discussion on this issue next week, so we would love to receive your feedback ideally before the community session! Thank you for your input and timely engagement in this vital aspect of our ongoing work around GDPR and WHOIS! Best regards, Brian _____ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.winterfeldt.law_&d =DwMFAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2 x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=2B8W8Arbme-D4u-B_TRTbN1ysc44yNrgdHI9xYiXehQ&s=XWpe sj5trpbb65DYwAD6KtjhoswZ8rGSMTTB7LZrTRc&e=> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.winterfeldt.law_&d =DwMFAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2 x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=2B8W8Arbme-D4u-B_TRTbN1ysc44yNrgdHI9xYiXehQ&s=XWpe sj5trpbb65DYwAD6KtjhoswZ8rGSMTTB7LZrTRc&e=> [winterfeldt.law] Brian J. Winterfeldt Principal Winterfeldt IP Group <x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> 1200 17 <x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> th <x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> St NW, <x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> Ste 501 <x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> Washington, DC 20036 <mailto:brian@winterfeldt.law> brian(a)winterfeldt.law +1 202 903 4422

1 0

Please share: Multistakeholder Ethos Award Nomination Process Extended
by Nathalie Peregrine March 20, 2018

March 20, 2018

https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2018-03-20-en[icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_ann…> Nominations Close 28 March 2018 Submit Nominations Via the Ethos Award Nomination Form[goo.gl]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__goo.gl_forms_gtjY7wFw1…> ICANN is pleased to remind community members that the nomination period for ICANN's Multistakeholder Ethos Award has been extended until 28 March 2018. The ideal recipient(s) will have served in roles in multiple ICANN working groups or committees and collaborated with more than one Supporting Organization and/or Advisory Committee in a significant capacity. Candidates for the award will demonstrate at least five years of participation in the ICANN Community. Candidates will be evaluated by a panel of community members appointed by the Chairs of each Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees using a merit-based point system evaluated against three criteria: 1. Demonstrated ability to work across community lines with both familiar and unfamiliar ICANNStakeholders with the aim of consensus building and collaboration that substantiate ICANN's multistakeholder model; 2. Facilitator of dialogue and open discussion in a fair and collegial manner, through the spirit of collaboration as shown through empathy and demonstrating a sincere desire to engage with people from other backgrounds, cultures, and interests; and 3. Demonstrated additional devotional factors exhibited by time spent supporting ICANN's multistakeholder model and its overall effectiveness through volunteer service via working groups or committees. Please submit your nominations via this Nomination Form[goo.gl]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__goo.gl_forms_gtjY7wFw1…> including detailed information outlining why the nominee meets the award criteria. Any additional information in support of nominations and/or questions about the award process may be submitted via email at ethosaward2018(a)icann.org<mailto:ethosaward2018@icann.org>. Award recipient(s) will be announced in June 2018 at ICANN62 Panama City. For more insights on the award program, please consult the ICANN Community Wiki.[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> Submit Nominations Via the Ethos Award Nomination Form[goo.gl]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__goo.gl_forms_gtjY7wFw1…>

1 0

Agenda - Reconvened IGO-INGO Protections PDP Working Group (Red Cross) - 15 February 2018 @ 14:00 UTC
by Berry Cobb Feb. 19, 2018

Feb. 19, 2018

Hi All, Below is the proposed agenda for our next meeting scheduled 15 February 2018 at 14:00 UTC. This meeting is scheduled for 90 minutes. Agenda: (0) Roll call, Agenda bash and SOI Updates (1) Recap of WG activities (2) Review spreadsheet of National Societies' Identifiers towards a finite list (attached XLS)** (3) Determine possible agreement of variants within definitive list and confirm criteria that defines the variations (4) If agreement, discuss parallel plan for WG report and public comment; timeline for completion of this effort (5) AoB and next meeting ** This definitive list example was provided by the Red Cross representatives working with each society to help define the scope of identifiers and possible variants. As of now, the list only contains eight National Societies. Red Cross representatives are actively working towards the ten agreed from our last meeting, so there might be an update prior to our scheduled call. As a reminder from our last call, the working version of variants from the official name: 1. Formal/Official name vs. "common or usual" name - the formal name will be supplied by the IFRC and acts as the foundation for a reconcilable list and collaboration is required with each National Society to understand the common or usual name(s). 2. Definite Articles ("the") - the use of definite articles is associated with how a National Society chooses to use their common or usual name. 3. "Society" - the use of "society" is associated with how a National Society chooses to use their common or usual name. 4. Language (English + Official Language(s)) - there was discussion about official language(s) as supplied from GAC advice versus "national language" as determined from the original WG's recommendation. This WG discussed that there was not much deliberation on languages other than English and that the original WG's intent was to match GAC advice on the use of "Official Language(s)" and likely a mistake to document national language. Thus, a few National Societies might have more than one official language. The important element is that each language is properly identified and can be traced backed to the English name of the respective National Society for reconciliation purposes. 5. Country Designation - this is also a variant form to how a National Society uses their common or usual name. PS: I will send this agenda once more next week as a reminder. Full participation is encouraged. Should you have any suggested amendments, please advise. Thank you. B Berry A. Cobb 720.839.5735 mail(a)berrycobb.com @berrycobb

2 1

Recordings, Attendance & AC Chat for IGO-INGO Protections in all gTLDS PDP WG on Red Cross Names on 15 February 2018
by Julie Bisland Feb. 15, 2018

Feb. 15, 2018

Dear all, Please find the attendance and Adobe Connect chat attached, and the mp3 and Adobe Connect recording below for the reconvened IGO-INGO Protections in all gTLDs PDP Working Group on Red Cross Names call held on Thursday, 15 February 2018 at 14:00 UTC. Mp3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-igo-ingo-15feb18-en.mp3 AC recording: https://participate.icann.org/p4wvq7ucej0/<https://participate.icann.org/p4wvq7ucej0/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=1671faeb6732bf44…> The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> Mailing list archive: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo/ Agenda Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/Xgi8B ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Thank you. Kind regards, Julie

1 0

Agenda - Reconvened IGO-INGO Protections PDP Working Group (Red Cross) - sample lists of National Societies names
by Stephane Hankins Feb. 12, 2018

Feb. 12, 2018

Dear Berry, dear colleagues, (1) In preparation for the Working Group’s next session planned on 15 February, please find attached as agreed a sample or mock-up of names/identifiers of National Red Cross or Red Crescent Societies for reservation prepared on the basis of the agreed criteria. (2) These lists were discussed and prepared in consultation with the respective National Societies in accordance with the following criteria 1. The official name (or names) of the National Society concerned. Official names mean the name of a National Society as it appears in the National Society's Recognition Act and/or in the National Society's own statutory or constitutional base texts. 2. The commonly used name (or names) of the concerned National Society (if different from the official name) both in English and in relevant national languages. Commonly used names are names by which a National Society is commonly known (as it might appear for instance as part of the National Society's logo or on the National Society's website). Most often, names' variations will consist in the inclusion of the definitive article, the inclusion of the word "Society", or the formulation of the National Society's national affiliation ("Croix-Rouge tchadienne" and "Croix-Rouge du Tchad"). Ex. "American National Red Cross" is the official name of the National Society; "American Red Cross" is the commonly used name (as it appears for instance on the National Society’s Website). 3. The name of the National Society in English, as well as in the latter's official national languages (or official languages where these are several) Ex: Swedish in the case of the Swedish Red Cross; French, German, Italian and Romanch in the case of the Swiss Red Cross. Official national languages should be understood as the official languages of the national State of the National Society. This should exclude in principle dialects or regional/minority languages (unless a good case is to be made for an exception – e.g. where the lingua franca in the country or in parts thereof is different from the State’s official language or languages). The designations in national official languages included in all relevant fonts in use in the country - but in ASCII style text and excluding PDF format. First letters of the words included in a National Society name should only be capitalized in accordance with national grammar rules (e.g. "Croix-Rouge du Tchad"; "Croix-Rouge tchadienne"); 4. Names of National Societies should be included in the list WITH and WITHOUT the word "Society" ("Finnish Red Cross" and "Finnish Red Cross Society"); 5. Names of National Societies should be included in the list WITH and WITHOUT the definite article – e.g."Finnish Red Cross" and "The Finnish Red Cross"; "The Netherlands Red Cross" and "Netherlands Red Cross"; 6. No acronyms or initials of National Societies should be included. (2) On Berry’ recommendation, please find below also an outline of some of the issues raised in the submissions and in discussions with the National Red Cross or Red Crescent Societies whose sample list of names is attached: Linguistic versions and translations of the names National Societies’ names submitted for reservation include the names in English and in official or regular languages (for instance, while the United States does not recognize an official language or official languages, the names of the American Red Cross are included both in English and in Spanish; as for Switzerland, the names are submitted in five languages: in English and in the 4 official languages of the Swiss Confederation); The suggestion made to protect the names in minority languages that do not enjoy official status was not retained. As for the names of the British Red Cross for example, they are submitted both in English and in Welsh since Welsh is an official language in Wales (and we have concrete evidence of usage of the name "British Red Cross" in Welsh - for instance on stationary. This is in contrast to the name British Red Cross in Scots or Gaelic Scottish or Irish which is not commonly used. Short versions of the names In several national contexts, National Societies are commonly known and referred to by the words “Red Cross” without additional specification indicating national affiliation – as in the case of the Azeri Red Crescent Society, the Swedish Red Cross, the Netherlands Red Cross – as illustrated in the National Societies' own logos. In these cases, these short names are submitted for protection as a “commonly used name”. Branches or sub-divisions Where the National Society is composed of regional or operational sub-divisions by which names the latter sub-divisions are widely known, these were exceptionally retained for inclusion (as in the case of the linguistic Communities of the Belgian Red Cross or the name Red Cross Charity for the British Red Cross). In other cases, regional or operational sub-divisions’ names or branches of National Societies were not included. Best regards, Stéphane Stéphane J. Hankins Legal adviser Cooperation and Coordination within the Movement International Committee of the Red Cross Tel (Prof.):++41 22 730 24 19 -----Transféré par Stephane Hankins/DIR_GEN_MOUV_CHF/GVA/ICRC le 10/02/2018 09:19 ----- A : <gnso-igo-ingo(a)icann.org> De : "Berry Cobb" Envoyé par : "Gnso-igo-ingo" Date : 09/02/2018 01:04 Objet : [Gnso-igo-ingo] Agenda - Reconvened IGO-INGO Protections PDP Working Group (Red Cross) - 15 February 2018 @ 14:00 UTC (Voir fichier joint : Table of National Societies' identifiers.Sample.xlsx) Hi All, Below is the proposed agenda for our next meeting scheduled 15 February 2018 at 14:00 UTC. This meeting is scheduled for 90 minutes. Agenda: (0) Roll call, Agenda bash and SOI Updates (1) Recap of WG activities (2) Review spreadsheet of National Societies’ Identifiers towards a finite list (attached XLS)** (3) Determine possible agreement of variants within definitive list and confirm criteria that defines the variations (4) If agreement, discuss parallel plan for WG report and public comment; timeline for completion of this effort (5) AoB and next meeting ** This definitive list example was provided by the Red Cross representatives working with each society to help define the scope of identifiers and possible variants. As of now, the list only contains eight National Societies. Red Cross representatives are actively working towards the ten agreed from our last meeting, so there might be an update prior to our scheduled call. As a reminder from our last call, the working version of variants from the official name: 1. Formal/Official name vs. "common or usual" name – the formal name will be supplied by the IFRC and acts as the foundation for a reconcilable list and collaboration is required with each National Society to understand the common or usual name(s). 2. Definite Articles ("the") – the use of definite articles is associated with how a National Society chooses to use their common or usual name. 3. “Society” – the use of “society” is associated with how a National Society chooses to use their common or usual name. 4. Language (English + Official Language(s)) – there was discussion about official language(s) as supplied from GAC advice versus “national language” as determined from the original WG’s recommendation. This WG discussed that there was not much deliberation on languages other than English and that the original WG’s intent was to match GAC advice on the use of “Official Language(s)” and likely a mistake to document national language. Thus, a few National Societies might have more than one official language. The important element is that each language is properly identified and can be traced backed to the English name of the respective National Society for reconciliation purposes. 5. Country Designation – this is also a variant form to how a National Society uses their common or usual name. PS: I will send this agenda once more next week as a reminder. Full participation is encouraged. Should you have any suggested amendments, please advise. Thank you. B Berry A. Cobb 720.839.5735 mail(a)berrycobb.com @berrycobb _______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo =============================================================================== The ICRC - working to protect and assist people affected by armed conflict and other situations of violence. Find out more: www.icrc.org This e-mail is intended for the named recipient(s) only. Its contents are confidential and may only be retained by the named recipient (s) and may only be copied or disclosed with the consent of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). If you are not an intended recipient please delete this e-mail and notify the sender. ===============================================================================

2 1

Re: [Gnso-igo-ingo] Agenda - Reconvened IGO-INGO Protections PDP Working Group (Red Cross) - 14 December 2017 @ 18:00 UTC
by Berry Cobb Dec. 20, 2017

Dec. 20, 2017

Hi All, My apologies for the delay in sending the notes of our meeting on the 14th of December. Per the agenda below, staff reviewed the deliverable example with the WG for the eventual finite list of International Federation & National Society names to be reserved. As noted below, this is only to assist the WG to create a finite list of identifiers that can be validated, reconciled and free from errors when it eventually becomes implemented by ICANN staff (subject to GNSO Council and Board approval). Stephane then took the WG through the three examples he and his team first provided in Abu Dhabi and later sent to the mailing list. The intent of this example was to show relevance on the variations of formal National Society Names and the use of "Common or Usual" names. As noted on the mailing list from the IFRC General Counsel, National Societies are legal entities created under national law and thus their formal name. They are latter on admitted as a member to the IFRC. The use of the "Common or Usual" name is left to the National Society itself and thus the requirement to collaborate with the 190 National Societies to fully understand their common or usual use. In short, this led the WG to focus around four elements that can make up the variations of the formal and common use names. Do note, that no decisions were made on this call. Variant attributes: 1. Formal/Official name vs. "common or usual" name - the formal name will be supplied by the IFRC and acts as the foundation for a reconcilable list and collaboration is required with each National Society to understand the common or usual name(s). a. ACTION: WG to define either common or usual name for purposes of documenting its use in the WG's recommendation report. 2. Definite Articles ("the", "society") - the use of definite articles is associated to how a National Society uses their common or usual name. The definite article use can use both, one, or the other. 3. Language (English + Official Language(s)) - there was discussion about official language(s) as supplied from GAC advice versus "national language" as determined from the original WG's recommendation. This WG discussed that there was not much deliberation on languages other than English and that the original WG's intent was to match GAC advice on the use of "Official Language(s)" and likely a mistake to document national language. Thus, a few National Societies might have more than one official language. The important element is that each language is properly identified and can be traced backed to the English name of the respective National Society for reconciliation purposes. 4. Country Designation - this is also a variant form to how a National Society uses their common or usual name. Again, no decisions were made on this call. This is a working draft of elements that can form likely variants from the formal National Society names. Another aspect that was discussed is how are common or usual names can be confirmed. How can this WG confirm the validity of submissions from National Societies for the definitive list? What are safeguards? Who validates use? How does the formula/ruleset prevent the creation of new common names? Possible forms of validation could be: . Use on website . mailing list . campaigns . vehicles . uniforms . logos Stephane reinforced that the intent of identifying the most commonly used variants by National Societies is not to develop an open ended list, but a list that contains only the most important variants. Therefore, collaboration with each National Society will be crucial is developing the finite list for reservation. After the example as explained below in further detail, validation may not be required. Also of note, staff provided an update from one portion of the IRT implementing the recommendations that did not conflict with GAC advice and adopted by the Board. There, a procedure is being implemented to handle adds/deletes to the Spec 5 reservation list once the policy effective date has been established. The prior version only had the GAC informing ICANN Org of any changes to RCRC, IOC and IGO full names. Based on community input, the procedure now includes the GNSO being advised of any proposed changes and it will allow sufficient time to either confirm or express concerns with the proposed change prior to implementation. It is expected that this procedure will be used for the RC National Society names under discussion with this WG as well once it is passed to the IRT for implementation. And finally... Next Steps: Staff will work with the RCRC representative to develop an integrated example of identifiers of 5 to 10 National Societies that will form the basis of the finite list which is this group's primary deliverable. The intent is to merge the variant suggestions provided by Stephane with the template supplied by staff and better understand the possible variants from the four elements defined above. Should the WG approve the four elements and that the 5 to 10 examples meet the WG's criteria, then Stephane and his team will work with the remaining 180 or so National Societies to develop the final finite list of identifiers. At this point, we do not know how long it will take to compile the example of 5 to 10 National Societies. We hope to first populate the 5 to 10 with National Society identifiers that have already been supplied by Stephane's example and what exists on the Specification 5 list today. This will then be used to collaborate with the 5 to 10 National Societies and validate the variation of identifiers. For now, we are targeting end of January 2018 for the WG to reconvene, but it could be early February. After collaboration on our working example, I will communicate back to this group with a proposed date for the WG to meet again. In the meantime, I invite WG members who were not on the call to listen to the recording (https://community.icann.org/display/GWGTCT/2017-12-14+IGO+INGO+PDP+Working+ Group+on+Red+Cross+names). Should you have questions, please send them to the list. Thank you for your time. B Berry Cobb 720.839.5735 mail(a)berrycobb.com @berrycobb From: Gnso-igo-ingo [mailto:gnso-igo-ingo-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Berry Cobb Sent: Friday, December 8, 2017 09:03 To: gnso-igo-ingo(a)icann.org Subject: [Gnso-igo-ingo] Agenda - Reconvened IGO-INGO Protections PDP Working Group (Red Cross) - 14 December 2017 @ 18:00 UTC Dear all, Please find below the proposed agenda for the next Working Group call (scheduled for Wednesday 14 December at 18:00 UTC). As a part of the agenda review, please also review the attached files from the representatives of the Red Cross and staff. These were discussed at the informal session in Abu Dhabi and we will review these again for the benefit of the entire group. Both are examples to facilitate discussions for defining the finite list of identifiers to receive reservation protections as per the GNSO Council resolution and to also develop a formula for future changes as new National Societies are created by the IFRC. Attachments: 1. rcrc_list_example.pdf - As noted in a prior email, this was created by staff to provide a template of what the final output should look like for the finite list of identifiers. It in no way presupposes the final determinations of this group. This is based on principles from lessons learned in implementing reservation protections for those recommendations that were approved by the Board. The principles are that the definitive list be Reconcilable, Validated, and Free from Errors: a. Reconcilable - meaning that we clearly can articulate the 190 National Society names and their respective identifiers to be protected. The rationale for this principle is that in implementing the identifiers currently temporarily protected as a result of the Board resolution back in 2015, it was difficult for staff to determine whether the temporary list matched that of the recommendation as adopted by the GNSO Council. b. Validated - meaning that the definitive list is presented in a way to easily determine that variants of official identifiers meet the criteria of the reconvened group's recommendation (to be determined based on the continued deliberations). In implementing the temporary list, especially for those Society names that only contained non-Latin identifiers, they could not be matched back as being a part of one of the 189 (at the time) Societies identified per the WG's original recommendation. c. Free from Errors - as a part of the first two principles, that the listed identifiers are correct in their formal and usual names, especially those where non-Latin identifiers are concerned. In implementing the temporary reservation list, staff was later alerted to a few errors detected by Registry Operators. For example, the Russian National Society name, based on the list provided to staff, contained an error, where the generic work of "society" was reserved and not the formal or usual name of the National Society. 2. ICANN mock-ups 4 December 2017.pdf - This is an example provided by the representatives of the Red Cross. This is useful to help determine what the exact definitive list could be including asked for variants of usual names as based from formal names of the National Societies. It will also facilitate the development of a formula for when future National Societies are created by the IFRC and added to the reservation list. This formula is critical, especially for ICANN, as to avoid misinterpretations as to whether the new identifiers meet the exact criteria of the policy recommendations from this group. Session Notes from Abu Dhabi: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo/2017-October/000104.html Agenda: (0) Roll call, Agenda bash and SOI Updates (1) Review final output example and mock-up example (attached PDFs) (2) Discuss possible variants and formula to determine a finite list of identifiers that will receive protection and formulate principles to define the policy (3) Discuss next steps and possible timeline for completion of this effort Thank you. B Berry A. Cobb 720.839.5735 mail(a)berrycobb.com @berrycobb

1 1