All, Yesterday the ICANN Board approved more of the CCT-RT Recommendations<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cct-pending-recs-board-action-22...> (11 of the remaining 17). More specifically, the approved recommendations can be found here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cct-pending-recs-board-action-22.... I do not believe any of these recommendations or approved actions will have any material impact on our work or on us completing our work by the end of this year. Here is my (very unofficial summary). To get the full text, see the Scorecard<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cct-pending-recs-board-action-22...>. In general: 1. ICANN shall try to collect TLD registration number data per TLD and registrar at a country-by-country level. 2. ICANN shall investigate existing definitions of parking......in order to provide a definition of parking for community review, and a transparent methodology and process for data collection. 3. For Recommendations 8 and 11 calling for registrant and end user surveys, ICANN shall conduct periodic surveys of registrants (every 3 years) to ensure baseline data for future analysis s well as to reduce response burden, given the survey length and the pace of behavioral change associated with the domain name marketplace. 4. For Recommendation 13: * CCT-RT Recommendation: ICANN should collect data in conjunction with its related data collection activities on the impact of restrictions on who can buy domains within certain new gTLDs (registration restrictions) to help regularly determine and report: 1. Whether consumers and registrants are aware that certain new gTLDs have registration restrictions; 2. Compare consumer trust levels between new gTLDs with varying degrees of registration restrictions; 3. Determine whether the lower abuse rates associated with gTLDs that impose stricter registration policies identified in the Statistical Analysis of DNS Abuse in gTLDs Study continue to be present within new gTLDs that impose registration restrictions as compared with new gTLDs that do not 4. Assess the costs and benefits of registration restrictions to contracted parties and the public (to include impacts on competition and consumer choice) and; 5. Determine whether and how such registration restrictions are enforced or challenged. * What Board Approved: i. The Board notes that data collection concerning consumer awareness of registration restrictions (part 1) and consumer trust levels in TLDs with restrictions versus those without (part 2) can be incorporated into future surveys of consumer-end users and registrants (see recommendations 8 and 11). ii. Determining a correlation between lower abuse rates and stricter registration policies (part 3) entails extending parts of the "Statistical Analysis of DNS Abuse in gTLDs" study. iii. Regarding part 4 on assessing "costs and benefits of registration restrictions to contracted parties and the public", with clarification received from CCT-RT Implementation Shepherds, the Board calls for questions around costs and benefits to be integrated into the voluntary data gathering collection efforts, along with parts 1 and 2. The Board also expects that these data sets will be provided to the future review team to conduct a cost/benefit analysis based on the data. iv. On part 5, determining "whether and how such registration restrictions are enforced or challenged", the Board directs ICANN org to conduct a voluntary pilot survey to gather the requested data, and to review results and participation rates to determine whether the survey should be continued at regular intervals. Data collection efforts must be preceded by consultation with contracted parties on the approach and methods for a voluntary survey (or other means of contacting contracted parties), to ensure the most meaningful and useful data can be collected. 1. The Board notes that ICANN org will continue to collect data and generate monthly reports on an ongoing basis. DAAR itself is not and cannot be a compliance/enforcement tool. Rather, it is a tool that monitors third party reputation lists to indicate possible concentration of DNS security threats. 2. With respect to WHIOS Accuracy to help the WHOIS Review Team, the Board notes that no further action is required at this time, and that if future RDS reviews request that data, ICANN org will provide the information in #18 to help inform their work. 3. With respect to Recommendation 20 on DNS Abuse Complaints: * CCT-RT Recommendation: Assess whether mechanisms to report and handle complaints have led to more focused efforts to combat abuse by determining: (1) the volume of reports of illegal conduct in connection with the use of the TLD that registries receive from governmental and quasi-governmental agencies; (2) the volume of inquires that registries receive from the public related to malicious conduct in the TLD; (3) whether more efforts are needed to publicize contact points to report complaints that involve abuse or illegal behavior within a TLD; and (4) what actions registries have taken to respond to complaints of illegal or malicious conduct in connection with the use of the TLD. Such efforts could include surveys, focus groups, or community discussions. If these methods proved ineffective, consideration could be given to amending future standard Registry Agreements to require registries to more prominently disclose their abuse points of contact and provide more granular information to ICANN. * What Board Approved: The Board directs ICANN org to conduct a voluntary pilot survey to obtain the requested data. Data collection efforts must be preceded by consultation with contracted parties on the approach and methods for a voluntary survey (or other means of contacting contracted parties), to ensure the most meaningful and useful data can be collected. The Board directs ICANN org to review results and participation rates, after completion of the survey, to determine whether the survey should be continued at regular intervals. 4. For Recommendation 23 on new TLDs operating in highly-regulated sectors, ICANN Agreed to the following: * The Board notes that ICANN org, through its Contractual Compliance team, currently reports on volume and nature of complaints received regarding gTLDs operating in highly-regulated sectors. * The Board directs ICANN org to conduct a voluntary pilot survey to capture the recommended data, as well as a review of a sample of domain websites within the highly regulated sector. With respect to collecting data from resellers, the Board notes that ICANN does not have the means to communicate with resellers. For the corresponding datapoint, this will need to be obtained through registrars, on a voluntary basis. Data collection efforts must be preceded by consultation with contracted parties on the approach and methods for a voluntary survey (or other means of contacting contracted parties), to ensure the most meaningful and useful data can be collected. Following completion of the survey, the Board directs ICANN org to review the results before determining whether to proceed with the survey on an ongoing basis. * Regarding the portion of the recommendation calling for an audit on registration practices, the Board notes existing Registry Agreement limitations to two audits per year and that ICANN Compliance data shows insignificant volumes of complaints, indicating that this is a low risk area. The Board believes it is important to ensure limited resources are used to focus on obligations that have the largest potential impact to the Safety, Security and Resiliency of the DNS. As a result, the Board directs ICANN org to continue to monitor complaint trends in this area, and to plan for an audit if any risk is identified. 5. For Recommendation 24, which asks for a quarterly report on complaints received for a registry's failure to comply with either the safeguard related to gTLDs with inherent governmental functions r the safeguard related to Cyberbullying. ICANN Agreed to: The Board directs ICANN org to conduct a voluntary pilot survey to gather the data requested under 24b, and to review results and participation rates to determine whether the survey should be continued at regular intervals. Data collection efforts must be preceded by consultation with contracted parties on the approach and methods for a voluntary survey (or other means of contacting contracted parties), to ensure the most meaningful and useful data can be collected. 6. For Recommendation 26: * CCT-RT Recommendation: A study to ascertain the impact of the New gTLD Program on the costs required to protect trademarks in the expanded DNS space should be repeated at regular intervals to see the evolution over time of those costs. The CCT Review Team recommends that the next study be completed within 18 months after issuance of the CCT Final Report, and that subsequent studies be repeated every 18 to 24 months. The CCT Review Team acknowledges that the Nielsen survey of INTA members in 2017 intended to provide such guidance yielded a lower response rate than anticipated. We recommend a more user friendly and perhaps shorter survey to help ensure a higher and more statistically significant response rate. * What Board Approved: The Board encourages collaboration with relevant partners, as appropriate, to gain a deeper insight into the effects of the New gTLD Program on trademark enforcement, using a combination of qualitative and quantitative research. [cid:image001.png@01D6A938.FE23F380] Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC p: +1.202.549.5079 E: jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com> http://jjnsolutions.com