Re: [ME ICANN] Topic selection: deadline extended
Hi Amr, Thank you for the clarification. In relation to the importance, I think all 3 proposed topics are indeed important. As for the EPDP Phase 2 final report and the subsequent procedures final report being at the same stage, this I do not agree to. They are both at the same stage only in the sense that they are both going to be considered by the board. However, the public comment period in relation to the subsequent procedures has already concluded, that is the community input has already been provided. As for the EPDP Phase 2 recommendations final report the public comment period is still open, that is we as a community still have a chance to comment, so there lies the big difference. So again it is not about the importance of the topic, it is about the timing. The time now is for the EPDP phase 2 final report public comment and we have a chance to contribute to this as a community. Why we are choosing to avoid this, is not clear to me. In the end whatever we agree to as a group would be certainly good. Kind regards Hadia From: Amr Elsadr [mailto:amr@unr.com] Sent: Sunday, March 07, 2021 8:46 PM To: Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi; Rafik Dammak; Tijani BEN JEMAA; middle-east@icann.org Subject: Re: [ME ICANN] Topic selection: deadline extended Hi, FWIW, I did say the following when beginning to address the topic of Sub Pro: “New gTLD Subsequent Procedures is the topic I believe we should focus on.” I also explained my reasons for preferring this topic over the other two, so I will not repeat them in this email. However, Rafik’s point on both the EPDP Phase 2 Final Report and Subsequent Procedures Working Group Final Report both being at the same stage of consideration by the ICANN Board is a relevant one to this discussion IMO (if comparisons between the two topics are being made). Having said that, I’m happy with whatever topics the members of this space ultimately choose. They are all important topics. To me, it’s just a matter of prioritizing one over the others. Prioritizing, to me, in this context doesn’t suggest one is more important than the other two. Other factors are more of an issue to me, such as which of these topics is most significant to our region. Sub Pro strikes me as a more significant and pressing issue to the MEAC region than the SSAD or DNS Abuse. Thanks. Amr From: Middle-East <middle-east-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi via Middle-East <middle-east@icann.org> Reply-To: Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi <Hadia@tra.gov.eg> Date: Sunday, 7 March 2021 at 12:08 PM To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@gmail.com>, Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn>, "middle-east@icann.org" <middle-east@icann.org> Subject: Re: [ME ICANN] Topic selection: deadline extended Dear Rafik, Tijani and all, Rafik, I did not understand Amr's comment as particularly supporting sub pro. In relation to sub pro Amr actually said "It is important to note, however, that if we do develop a statement with the intent of submitting it as part of the current public comment period that we keep in mind that this is an ICANN Board public comment period. That means that it would be largely pointless to suggest amendments to the recommendations. The Board may not amend or create new recommendations, but can always send some back to the GNSO for review, if it chooses to do so" And said in relation to the EPDP ". If we do choose this as a topic, we don’t necessarily need to address every aspect of the SSAD. We can always choose which ones we wish to comment on,. And Tijani, I totally agree we need to present a consensus opinion of the region. All what I am saying is that I am sure we shall always be able to reach consensus in relation to some of the issues related to a certain topic. We do not need to agree on all the issues. The statement can only mention what we agree on. Kind regards Hadia From: Middle-East [mailto:middle-east-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rafik Dammak via Middle-East Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2021 2:31 AM To: Tijani BEN JEMAA Cc: middle-east@icann.org Subject: Re: [ME ICANN] Topic selection: deadline extended Hi all, I support Amr comments and focusing on subpro makes sense. If I am not mistaking EPDP and subpro were both approved by GNSO council but yet by the board. I do believe we will find more consensus and direct impact on regions for issues related to subpro and the implementation matters even more. One example is about applicant support in previous round which was implemented too late even if the JAS WG worked hard and delivered. Best, Rafik On Sat, Mar 6, 2021 at 3:50 Tijani BEN JEMAA via Middle-East <middle-east@icann.org<mailto:middle-east@icann.org>> wrote: Dear Amr, Hadia and all, Wonderful discussion ! Thank you so much for your contributions. @Amr, the content abuse or regulation is out of our scope. So, no fear from this side. The DNS Abuse is our days discussed in ICANN, but no action or proposal for action is done yet. So, our region consencus position could be brought to the debate. For the New gTLD Subsequent Procedure, as you rightly said, our statement will have very few effect if not no effect since the final report has been already adopted by the board. @Hadia, as per the ME Space charter, the objective of our work is to express the consensus opinion of the region. If we don't reach consensus, we can't issue a statement with the region position and thus, it won't have any effect. Of course, we can organize sessions out of the ICANN meetings with the purpose of discussion different opinions without issueing a statement. I hope to receive other contributions so that we can agree all on a topic by the week-end. Best Chokri Ben Romdhane <chokribr@gmail.com<mailto:chokribr@gmail.com>> a écrit : Dear Hadia, Thank you very much for the clarification, indeed and as I mentioned during the call, the SSAD is a crucial element in EPDP team work and commenting this topic is an urgent needs since the comment period will be closed at 30/03/2021 , and I don't think that our community will have another opportunity to make her voice heard about this topic. Friendly Chokri Le jeu. 4 mars 2021 à 09:55, Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi via Middle-East <middle-east@icann.org<mailto:middle-east@icann.org>> a écrit : Hi All, Thank you Tijani for sharing a summary about the proposed topics, this is really helpful. Apologies for not being able to join the call. I listened to part of it and intend to continue listening to the rest today or tomorrow at most. So, I would like to share my view in relation to the three proposed topics from a different aspect. I would like to look at the three proposals not in relation to how much consensus the community has in relation to any of them or how much the topic is controversial. At some point we need as a community to start discussing controversial topics. We cannot continue avoiding them, just because we think we cannot reach some kind of consensus. Having said that, I would like to look at the three topics in terms of current benefit to decision making in relation to ICANN's policy development. So, DNS Abuse: This is indeed an important topic and no matter how controversial it is, we need at some point to start discussing it. However, it is not pressing nor urgent right now. New gTLD subsequent procedures final report: This is also an important topic, but as Amr mentions the public comment period is over and the council has already adopted the report on its last call. Providing guidelines in relation to implementation is important, but doing this after the Board adopts the report makes more sense. I would simply say this is not the right timing for this topic, our statement would neither have an impact on the policy nor the implementation. EPDP Phase 2 final recommendations: An important topic as well, but more importantly it is a timely issue. The report is out for public comment and our statement can have an impact on decision making. It does not matter if we cannot agree on some of the issues discussed in the report. In the end we can submit what we agree on and support as a community. As Amr mentions we do not need to discuss every aspect of the report, we could even discuss the idea itself of having the SSAD. For sure we shall find aspects to which we all agree and can present. To that end, and reading Amr's thoughts in relation to all three topics, I support EPDP phase 2 final recommendations to be our topic. Again, I do not think there is a reason for us to avoid putting out an opinion in relation to a current policy under development. I have always thought that having meaningful impact is what should matter most. Thanks again Tijani for all your support to this group and your extensive work and effort and thank you all for your thoughts. Kind regards Hadia From: Middle-East [mailto:middle-east-bounces@icann.org<mailto:middle-east-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Amr Elsadr via Middle-East Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2021 9:53 PM To: Tijani BEN JEMAA; middle-east@icann.org<mailto:middle-east@icann.org> Cc: rolla hassan Subject: Re: [ME ICANN] Topic selection: deadline extended Hi, I watched the recording of yesterday’s call, and pretty much agree with most of what was expressed by others. Thanks for sharing the link, Tijani. Here’s my personal take on these 3 topics: 1. Agree that the topic of DNS Abuse is not the ideal one. In general, I believe it might be helpful for the designations commonly used to be revised. DNS Abuse itself should be (as others have said) defined narrowly in the technical scope of ICANN mandate. “Content Abuse” is a term that strikes me as strange. Something more like “illegal content” seems more appropriate to me. I’m not sure how content may be abused in the way the DNS can be. Content can be abusive, but describing it as illegal seems to more accurately describe it. There are more nuances to this, imo. Abusive material or behavior (for lack of a better word or description) like malware or phishing (and spam associated with both) even strike me as content delivered using the DNS. There’s much work that needs to be done on this and I’m not sure we (as a community) might be able to address it to the satisfaction of all parties in the time we have. 2. The EPDP Phase 2 Final Report and Recommendations is likely the most divisive topic we can hope to tackle. In fact, multiple members of the Middle East Space have been involved in this effort and we have disagreed on issues more often than we have agreed. I find it unlikely that we will have a consensus position on the Final Report. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t continue to discuss it among ourselves, but issuing some kind of statement might be challenging. I don’t mind engaging in an attempt to do so, if the Middle East Space decides to tackle it, but we should probably manage our expectations on what we might achieve over the next month if we do. Also noteworthy that this topic is just as substantively complex as any other we may wish to tackle. The Standardized System for Access and Disclosure (SSAD) is the subject of the Phase 2 report. All the recommendations coming out of Phase 2 essentially address features of the SSAD. So limiting our input on this topic to the SSAD doesn’t mean we only need to address a small part of the Report. If we do choose this as a topic, we don’t necessarily need to address every aspect of the SSAD. We can always choose which ones we wish to comment on, but everything in that Report is about the SSAD, and how it is expected to function, how the different parties may use it, how it is expected to be financed, etc… 3. New gTLD Subsequent Procedures is the topic I believe we should focus on. As Tijani suggested, we don’t need to address the entire 400-page report. There are several topics in this Final Report that we can focus on, and which may have a direct impact on our region. IDNs is one. Applicant Support is another. The Sub Pro PDP Working Group also made recommendations on how ICANN should conduct its communication strategy to inform potential applicants. This is something I believe might be relevant to our region if there are to be successful applications for new gTLDs coming out of it. It is important to note, however, that if we do develop a statement with the intent of submitting it as part of the current public comment period that we keep in mind that this is an ICANN Board public comment period. That means that it would be largely pointless to suggest amendments to the recommendations. The Board may not amend or create new recommendations, but can always send some back to the GNSO for review, if it chooses to do so. What we might want to do is provide guidance on how best to implement the recommendations that have been adopted by the GNSO, taking into consideration how the implementation method would be of benefit to the MEAC region. These are just some thoughts I had in reaction to this week’s call, but am happy to discuss further. I hope this helps. Thanks. Amr From: Middle-East <middle-east-bounces@icann.org<mailto:middle-east-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Tijani BEN JEMAA via Middle-East <middle-east@icann.org<mailto:middle-east@icann.org>> Reply-To: Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn<mailto:tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn>> Date: Tuesday, 2 March 2021 at 11:35 PM To: "middle-east@icann.org<mailto:middle-east@icann.org>" <middle-east@icann.org<mailto:middle-east@icann.org>> Cc: "rollah@tra.gov.eg<mailto:rollah@tra.gov.eg>" <rollah@tra.gov.eg<mailto:rollah@tra.gov.eg>> Subject: Re: [ME ICANN] Topic selection: deadline extended Dear all, The ME Space community met (virtually) this afternoon to discuss the best topic to be addressed in the ME Space session at ICANN70. After a constructive debate, 3 topics were supported with different degree of support: · DNS Abuse · New gTLD subsequent Procedure · EPDP phase 2 final policy recommendations It was proposed to extend the deadline for topic selection to give those who couldn't attend the call to give their preference. Please give your preferred topic among the 3 above topics by Friday 5 March 2021. To help you understand the context of the proposed topics, here are elements that were raised during the call: · DNS Abuse It’s meant to be Domain Name System abuse only out of any content consideration which is out of ICANN remit. The contracted parties have issued a paper about this topic and we can invite one of them to explain their opinion. Also, “Internet & Jurisdiction” Policy Network is working on this issue trying to give practical ways to address the DNS Abuse. We can also invite either the chair of the group “Domain and Jurisdiction” or the Executive Director of the “Internet & Jurisdiction” Policy Network as a whole. · New gTLD Subsequent Procedure final report There are several parts of this huge report (hundreds of pages) that can be addressed separately. Those who support this topic should identify which part shall we address. · EPDP Phase 2 Final Policy Recommendations The proposal was to give the consensus position of our region about the System for Standardized Access/Disclosure to non-public registration information ("SSAD") which is today under public comment. Best ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tijani BENJEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Telephone: +216 52 385 114 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tijani BENJEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Telephone: +216 52 385 114 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Middle-East mailing list Middle-East@icann.org<mailto:Middle-East@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/middle-east _______________________________________________ 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. -- Rafik Dammak @rafik "fight for the users"
Dear ME group members; I listened to the EPDP team discussion last week and as a first time attendee I understand that they themselves haven't reached a consensus position yet. An outstanding issue is the optional "flag" idea and whether consent to get one's personal data published has been obtained rightfully or not. Risks to data protection exist in spite of the legislation and examples of best practice are needed. 8 Mar 2021 Pzt 11:20 tarihinde Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi via Middle-East <middle-east@icann.org> şunu yazdı:
Hi Amr,
Thank you for the clarification. In relation to the importance, I think all 3 proposed topics are indeed important. As for the EPDP Phase 2 final report and the subsequent procedures final report being at the same stage, this I do not agree to. They are both at the same stage only in the sense that they are both going to be considered by the board. However, the public comment period in relation to the subsequent procedures has already concluded, that is the community input has already been provided. As for the EPDP Phase 2 recommendations final report the public comment period is still open, that is we as a community still have a chance to comment, so there lies the big difference. So again it is not about the importance of the topic, it is about the timing. The time now is for the EPDP phase 2 final report public comment and we have a chance to contribute to this as a community. Why we are choosing to avoid this, is not clear to me.
In the end whatever we agree to as a group would be certainly good.
Kind regards
Hadia
*From:* Amr Elsadr [mailto:amr@unr.com] *Sent:* Sunday, March 07, 2021 8:46 PM *To:* Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi; Rafik Dammak; Tijani BEN JEMAA; middle-east@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [ME ICANN] Topic selection: deadline extended
Hi,
FWIW, I did say the following when beginning to address the topic of Sub Pro: *“New gTLD Subsequent Procedures is the topic I believe we should focus on.”*
I also explained my reasons for preferring this topic over the other two, so I will not repeat them in this email. However, Rafik’s point on both the EPDP Phase 2 Final Report and Subsequent Procedures Working Group Final Report both being at the same stage of consideration by the ICANN Board is a relevant one to this discussion IMO (if comparisons between the two topics are being made).
Having said that, I’m happy with whatever topics the members of this space ultimately choose. They are all important topics. To me, it’s just a matter of prioritizing one over the others. Prioritizing, to me, in this context doesn’t suggest one is more important than the other two. Other factors are more of an issue to me, such as which of these topics is most significant to our region. Sub Pro strikes me as a more significant and pressing issue to the MEAC region than the SSAD or DNS Abuse.
Thanks.
Amr
*From: *Middle-East <middle-east-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi via Middle-East <middle-east@icann.org> *Reply-To: *Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi <Hadia@tra.gov.eg> *Date: *Sunday, 7 March 2021 at 12:08 PM *To: *Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@gmail.com>, Tijani BEN JEMAA < tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn>, "middle-east@icann.org" <middle-east@icann.org
*Subject: *Re: [ME ICANN] Topic selection: deadline extended
Dear Rafik, Tijani and all,
Rafik, I did not understand Amr's comment as particularly supporting sub pro. In relation to sub pro Amr actually said "It is important to note, however, that if we do develop a statement with the intent of submitting it as part of the current public comment period that we keep in mind that this is an ICANN Board public comment period. That means that it would be largely pointless to suggest amendments to the recommendations. The Board may not amend or create new recommendations, but can always send some back to the GNSO for review, if it chooses to do so"
And said in relation to the EPDP ". If we do choose this as a topic, we don’t necessarily need to address every aspect of the SSAD. We can always choose which ones we wish to comment on,.
And Tijani, I totally agree we need to present a consensus opinion of the region. All what I am saying is that I am sure we shall always be able to reach consensus in relation to some of the issues related to a certain topic. We do not need to agree on all the issues. The statement can only mention what we agree on.
Kind regards
Hadia
*From:* Middle-East [mailto:middle-east-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Rafik Dammak via Middle-East *Sent:* Saturday, March 06, 2021 2:31 AM *To:* Tijani BEN JEMAA *Cc:* middle-east@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [ME ICANN] Topic selection: deadline extended
Hi all,
I support Amr comments and focusing on subpro makes sense. If I am not mistaking EPDP and subpro were both approved by GNSO council but yet by the board. I do believe we will find more consensus and direct impact on regions for issues related to subpro and the implementation matters even more. One example is about applicant support in previous round which was implemented too late even if the JAS WG worked hard and delivered.
Best,
Rafik
On Sat, Mar 6, 2021 at 3:50 Tijani BEN JEMAA via Middle-East < middle-east@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Amr, Hadia and all,
Wonderful discussion ! Thank you so much for your contributions.
@Amr, the content abuse or regulation is out of our scope. So, no fear from this side. The DNS Abuse is our days discussed in ICANN, but no action or proposal for action is done yet. So, our region consencus position could be brought to the debate. For the New gTLD Subsequent Procedure, as you rightly said, our statement will have very few effect if not no effect since the final report has been already adopted by the board.
@Hadia, as per the ME Space charter, the objective of our work is to express the consensus opinion of the region. If we don't reach consensus, we can't issue a statement with the region position and thus, it won't have any effect. Of course, we can organize sessions out of the ICANN meetings with the purpose of discussion different opinions without issueing a statement.
I hope to receive other contributions so that we can agree all on a topic by the week-end.
Best
Chokri Ben Romdhane <chokribr@gmail.com> a écrit :
Dear Hadia,
Thank you very much for the clarification, indeed and as I mentioned during the call, the SSAD is a crucial element in EPDP team work and commenting this topic is an urgent needs since the comment period will be closed at 30/03/2021 , and I don't think that our community will have another opportunity to make her voice heard about this topic.
Friendly
Chokri
Le jeu. 4 mars 2021 à 09:55, Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi via Middle-East <middle-east@icann.org> a écrit :
Hi All,
Thank you Tijani for sharing a summary about the proposed topics, this is really helpful.
Apologies for not being able to join the call. I listened to part of it and intend to continue listening to the rest today or tomorrow at most.
So, I would like to share my view in relation to the three proposed topics from a different aspect. I would like to look at the three proposals not in relation to how much consensus the community has in relation to any of them or how much the topic is controversial. At some point we need as a community to start discussing controversial topics. We cannot continue avoiding them, just because we think we cannot reach some kind of consensus. Having said that, I would like to look at the three topics in terms of current benefit to decision making in relation to ICANN's policy development. So,
*DNS Abuse:*
This is indeed an important topic and no matter how controversial it is, we need at some point to start discussing it. However, it is not pressing nor urgent right now.
*New gTLD subsequent procedures final report:*
This is also an important topic, but as Amr mentions the public comment period is over and the council has already adopted the report on its last call. Providing guidelines in relation to implementation is important, but doing this after the Board adopts the report makes more sense. I would simply say this is not the right timing for this topic, our statement would neither have an impact on the policy nor the implementation.
*EPDP Phase 2 final recommendations:*
An important topic as well, but more importantly it is a timely issue. The report is out for public comment and our statement can have an impact on decision making. It does not matter if we cannot agree on some of the issues discussed in the report. In the end we can submit what we agree on and support as a community. As Amr mentions we do not need to discuss every aspect of the report, we could even discuss the idea itself of having the SSAD. For sure we shall find aspects to which we all agree and can present.
To that end, and reading Amr's thoughts in relation to all three topics, I support EPDP phase 2 final recommendations to be our topic. Again, I do not think there is a reason for us to avoid putting out an opinion in relation to a current policy under development. I have always thought that having meaningful impact is what should matter most.
Thanks again Tijani for all your support to this group and your extensive work and effort and thank you all for your thoughts.
Kind regards
Hadia
*From:* Middle-East [mailto:middle-east-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of* Amr Elsadr via Middle-East *Sent:* Wednesday, March 03, 2021 9:53 PM *To:* Tijani BEN JEMAA; middle-east@icann.org *Cc:* rolla hassan *Subject:* Re: [ME ICANN] Topic selection: deadline extended
Hi,
I watched the recording of yesterday’s call, and pretty much agree with most of what was expressed by others. Thanks for sharing the link, Tijani. Here’s my personal take on these 3 topics:
1. Agree that the topic of DNS Abuse is not the ideal one. In general, I believe it might be helpful for the designations commonly used to be revised. DNS Abuse itself should be (as others have said) defined narrowly in the technical scope of ICANN mandate. “Content Abuse” is a term that strikes me as strange. Something more like “illegal content” seems more appropriate to me. I’m not sure how content may be abused in the way the DNS can be. Content can be abusive, but describing it as illegal seems to more accurately describe it.
There are more nuances to this, imo. Abusive material or behavior (for lack of a better word or description) like malware or phishing (and spam associated with both) even strike me as content delivered using the DNS. There’s much work that needs to be done on this and I’m not sure we (as a community) might be able to address it to the satisfaction of all parties in the time we have.
2. The EPDP Phase 2 Final Report and Recommendations is likely the most divisive topic we can hope to tackle. In fact, multiple members of the Middle East Space have been involved in this effort and we have disagreed on issues more often than we have agreed. I find it unlikely that we will have a consensus position on the Final Report. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t continue to discuss it among ourselves, but issuing some kind of statement might be challenging. I don’t mind engaging in an attempt to do so, if the Middle East Space decides to tackle it, but we should probably manage our expectations on what we might achieve over the next month if we do.
Also noteworthy that this topic is just as substantively complex as any other we may wish to tackle. The Standardized System for Access and Disclosure (SSAD) is the subject of the Phase 2 report. All the recommendations coming out of Phase 2 essentially address features of the SSAD. So limiting our input on this topic to the SSAD doesn’t mean we only need to address a small part of the Report. If we do choose this as a topic, we don’t necessarily need to address every aspect of the SSAD. We can always choose which ones we wish to comment on, but everything in that Report is about the SSAD, and how it is expected to function, how the different parties may use it, how it is expected to be financed, etc…
3. New gTLD Subsequent Procedures is the topic I believe we should focus on. As Tijani suggested, we don’t need to address the entire 400-page report. There are several topics in this Final Report that we can focus on, and which may have a direct impact on our region. IDNs is one. Applicant Support is another. The Sub Pro PDP Working Group also made recommendations on how ICANN should conduct its communication strategy to inform potential applicants. This is something I believe might be relevant to our region if there are to be successful applications for new gTLDs coming out of it.
It is important to note, however, that if we do develop a statement with the intent of submitting it as part of the current public comment period that we keep in mind that this is an ICANN Board public comment period. That means that it would be largely pointless to suggest amendments to the recommendations. The Board may not amend or create new recommendations, but can always send some back to the GNSO for review, if it chooses to do so. What we might want to do is provide guidance on how best to implement the recommendations that have been adopted by the GNSO, taking into consideration how the implementation method would be of benefit to the MEAC region.
These are just some thoughts I had in reaction to this week’s call, but am happy to discuss further.
I hope this helps.
Thanks.
Amr
*From:* Middle-East <middle-east-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Tijani BEN JEMAA via Middle-East <middle-east@icann.org> *Reply-To:* Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn> *Date:* Tuesday, 2 March 2021 at 11:35 PM *To:* "middle-east@icann.org" <middle-east@icann.org> *Cc:* "rollah@tra.gov.eg" <rollah@tra.gov.eg> *Subject:* Re: [ME ICANN] Topic selection: deadline extended
Dear all,
The ME Space community met (virtually) this afternoon to discuss the best topic to be addressed in the ME Space session at ICANN70.
After a constructive debate, 3 topics were supported with different degree of support: · DNS Abuse · New gTLD subsequent Procedure · EPDP phase 2 final policy recommendations
It was proposed to extend the deadline for topic selection to give those who couldn't attend the call to give their preference. Please give your preferred topic among the 3 above topics by *Friday 5 March 2021.*
To help you understand the context of the proposed topics, here are elements that were raised during the call:
· *DNS Abuse* It’s meant to be *Domain Name System* abuse only out of any content consideration which is out of ICANN remit. The contracted parties have issued a paper about this topic and we can invite one of them to explain their opinion. Also, “Internet & Jurisdiction” Policy Network is working on this issue trying to give practical ways to address the DNS Abuse. We can also invite either the chair of the group “Domain and Jurisdiction” or the Executive Director of the “Internet & Jurisdiction” Policy Network as a whole.
· *New gTLD Subsequent Procedure final report* There are several parts of this huge report (hundreds of pages) that can be addressed separately. Those who support this topic should identify which part shall we address.
· *EPDP Phase 2 Final Policy Recommendations*
The proposal was to give the consensus position of our region about the System for Standardized Access/Disclosure to non-public registration information ("SSAD") which is today under public comment.
Best
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Tijani BENJEMAA* Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (*FMAI*) Telephone: +216 52 385 114
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Tijani BENJEMAA* Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (*FMAI*) Telephone: +216 52 385 114
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ Middle-East mailing list Middle-East@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/middle-east
_______________________________________________ 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.
--
Rafik Dammak
@rafik
"fight for the users" _______________________________________________ Middle-East mailing list Middle-East@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/middle-east
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Hi NP, I’m glad you’ve been following the work of the EPDP. Please keep it up, and don’t hesitate to reach out with questions should you have any. It’s a little confusing, but the calls every Thursday that you’ve been listening to are for Phase 2A of the EPDP (which you can think of as Phase 3). More information about this phase of the EPDP’s work can be found here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=150177878 The open public comment period is for Phase 2, which isn’t to be confused for 2A. The Phase 2 Final Report was sent to the GNSO Council for its consideration in July 2020, and the Council subsequently adopted it in its September 2020 meeting. The Final Report for Phase 2 can be found here: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/epdp-phase... Details on the open public comment period being held by the ICANN Board on this report can be found here: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/epdp-2-policy-recs-board-2021-02-08-en I hope this helps. Thanks. Amr From: NP Kurtböke <npkurtboke@gmail.com> Date: Monday, 8 March 2021 at 12:03 PM To: Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi <Hadia@tra.gov.eg> Cc: Amr Elsadr <amr@unr.com>, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@gmail.com>, Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn>, "middle-east@icann.org" <middle-east@icann.org> Subject: Re: [ME ICANN] Topic selection: deadline extended Dear ME group members; I listened to the EPDP team discussion last week and as a first time attendee I understand that they themselves haven't reached a consensus position yet. An outstanding issue is the optional "flag" idea and whether consent to get one's personal data published has been obtained rightfully or not. Risks to data protection exist in spite of the legislation and examples of best practice are needed. 8 Mar 2021 Pzt 11:20 tarihinde Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi via Middle-East <middle-east@icann.org<mailto:middle-east@icann.org>> şunu yazdı: Hi Amr, Thank you for the clarification. In relation to the importance, I think all 3 proposed topics are indeed important. As for the EPDP Phase 2 final report and the subsequent procedures final report being at the same stage, this I do not agree to. They are both at the same stage only in the sense that they are both going to be considered by the board. However, the public comment period in relation to the subsequent procedures has already concluded, that is the community input has already been provided. As for the EPDP Phase 2 recommendations final report the public comment period is still open, that is we as a community still have a chance to comment, so there lies the big difference. So again it is not about the importance of the topic, it is about the timing. The time now is for the EPDP phase 2 final report public comment and we have a chance to contribute to this as a community. Why we are choosing to avoid this, is not clear to me. In the end whatever we agree to as a group would be certainly good. Kind regards Hadia From: Amr Elsadr [mailto:amr@unr.com<mailto:amr@unr.com>] Sent: Sunday, March 07, 2021 8:46 PM To: Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi; Rafik Dammak; Tijani BEN JEMAA; middle-east@icann.org<mailto:middle-east@icann.org> Subject: Re: [ME ICANN] Topic selection: deadline extended Hi, FWIW, I did say the following when beginning to address the topic of Sub Pro: “New gTLD Subsequent Procedures is the topic I believe we should focus on.” I also explained my reasons for preferring this topic over the other two, so I will not repeat them in this email. However, Rafik’s point on both the EPDP Phase 2 Final Report and Subsequent Procedures Working Group Final Report both being at the same stage of consideration by the ICANN Board is a relevant one to this discussion IMO (if comparisons between the two topics are being made). Having said that, I’m happy with whatever topics the members of this space ultimately choose. They are all important topics. To me, it’s just a matter of prioritizing one over the others. Prioritizing, to me, in this context doesn’t suggest one is more important than the other two. Other factors are more of an issue to me, such as which of these topics is most significant to our region. Sub Pro strikes me as a more significant and pressing issue to the MEAC region than the SSAD or DNS Abuse. Thanks. Amr From: Middle-East <middle-east-bounces@icann.org<mailto:middle-east-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi via Middle-East <middle-east@icann.org<mailto:middle-east@icann.org>> Reply-To: Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi <Hadia@tra.gov.eg<mailto:Hadia@tra.gov.eg>> Date: Sunday, 7 March 2021 at 12:08 PM To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@gmail.com<mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com>>, Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn<mailto:tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn>>, "middle-east@icann.org<mailto:middle-east@icann.org>" <middle-east@icann.org<mailto:middle-east@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [ME ICANN] Topic selection: deadline extended Dear Rafik, Tijani and all, Rafik, I did not understand Amr's comment as particularly supporting sub pro. In relation to sub pro Amr actually said "It is important to note, however, that if we do develop a statement with the intent of submitting it as part of the current public comment period that we keep in mind that this is an ICANN Board public comment period. That means that it would be largely pointless to suggest amendments to the recommendations. The Board may not amend or create new recommendations, but can always send some back to the GNSO for review, if it chooses to do so" And said in relation to the EPDP ". If we do choose this as a topic, we don’t necessarily need to address every aspect of the SSAD. We can always choose which ones we wish to comment on,. And Tijani, I totally agree we need to present a consensus opinion of the region. All what I am saying is that I am sure we shall always be able to reach consensus in relation to some of the issues related to a certain topic. We do not need to agree on all the issues. The statement can only mention what we agree on. Kind regards Hadia From: Middle-East [mailto:middle-east-bounces@icann.org<mailto:middle-east-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Rafik Dammak via Middle-East Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2021 2:31 AM To: Tijani BEN JEMAA Cc: middle-east@icann.org<mailto:middle-east@icann.org> Subject: Re: [ME ICANN] Topic selection: deadline extended Hi all, I support Amr comments and focusing on subpro makes sense. If I am not mistaking EPDP and subpro were both approved by GNSO council but yet by the board. I do believe we will find more consensus and direct impact on regions for issues related to subpro and the implementation matters even more. One example is about applicant support in previous round which was implemented too late even if the JAS WG worked hard and delivered. Best, Rafik On Sat, Mar 6, 2021 at 3:50 Tijani BEN JEMAA via Middle-East <middle-east@icann.org<mailto:middle-east@icann.org>> wrote: Dear Amr, Hadia and all, Wonderful discussion ! Thank you so much for your contributions. @Amr, the content abuse or regulation is out of our scope. So, no fear from this side. The DNS Abuse is our days discussed in ICANN, but no action or proposal for action is done yet. So, our region consencus position could be brought to the debate. For the New gTLD Subsequent Procedure, as you rightly said, our statement will have very few effect if not no effect since the final report has been already adopted by the board. @Hadia, as per the ME Space charter, the objective of our work is to express the consensus opinion of the region. If we don't reach consensus, we can't issue a statement with the region position and thus, it won't have any effect. Of course, we can organize sessions out of the ICANN meetings with the purpose of discussion different opinions without issueing a statement. I hope to receive other contributions so that we can agree all on a topic by the week-end. Best Chokri Ben Romdhane <chokribr@gmail.com<mailto:chokribr@gmail.com>> a écrit : Dear Hadia, Thank you very much for the clarification, indeed and as I mentioned during the call, the SSAD is a crucial element in EPDP team work and commenting this topic is an urgent needs since the comment period will be closed at 30/03/2021 , and I don't think that our community will have another opportunity to make her voice heard about this topic. Friendly Chokri Le jeu. 4 mars 2021 à 09:55, Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi via Middle-East <middle-east@icann.org<mailto:middle-east@icann.org>> a écrit : Hi All, Thank you Tijani for sharing a summary about the proposed topics, this is really helpful. Apologies for not being able to join the call. I listened to part of it and intend to continue listening to the rest today or tomorrow at most. So, I would like to share my view in relation to the three proposed topics from a different aspect. I would like to look at the three proposals not in relation to how much consensus the community has in relation to any of them or how much the topic is controversial. At some point we need as a community to start discussing controversial topics. We cannot continue avoiding them, just because we think we cannot reach some kind of consensus. Having said that, I would like to look at the three topics in terms of current benefit to decision making in relation to ICANN's policy development. So, DNS Abuse: This is indeed an important topic and no matter how controversial it is, we need at some point to start discussing it. However, it is not pressing nor urgent right now. New gTLD subsequent procedures final report: This is also an important topic, but as Amr mentions the public comment period is over and the council has already adopted the report on its last call. Providing guidelines in relation to implementation is important, but doing this after the Board adopts the report makes more sense. I would simply say this is not the right timing for this topic, our statement would neither have an impact on the policy nor the implementation. EPDP Phase 2 final recommendations: An important topic as well, but more importantly it is a timely issue. The report is out for public comment and our statement can have an impact on decision making. It does not matter if we cannot agree on some of the issues discussed in the report. In the end we can submit what we agree on and support as a community. As Amr mentions we do not need to discuss every aspect of the report, we could even discuss the idea itself of having the SSAD. For sure we shall find aspects to which we all agree and can present. To that end, and reading Amr's thoughts in relation to all three topics, I support EPDP phase 2 final recommendations to be our topic. Again, I do not think there is a reason for us to avoid putting out an opinion in relation to a current policy under development. I have always thought that having meaningful impact is what should matter most. Thanks again Tijani for all your support to this group and your extensive work and effort and thank you all for your thoughts. Kind regards Hadia From: Middle-East [mailto:middle-east-bounces@icann.org<mailto:middle-east-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Amr Elsadr via Middle-East Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2021 9:53 PM To: Tijani BEN JEMAA; middle-east@icann.org<mailto:middle-east@icann.org> Cc: rolla hassan Subject: Re: [ME ICANN] Topic selection: deadline extended Hi, I watched the recording of yesterday’s call, and pretty much agree with most of what was expressed by others. Thanks for sharing the link, Tijani. Here’s my personal take on these 3 topics: 1. Agree that the topic of DNS Abuse is not the ideal one. In general, I believe it might be helpful for the designations commonly used to be revised. DNS Abuse itself should be (as others have said) defined narrowly in the technical scope of ICANN mandate. “Content Abuse” is a term that strikes me as strange. Something more like “illegal content” seems more appropriate to me. I’m not sure how content may be abused in the way the DNS can be. Content can be abusive, but describing it as illegal seems to more accurately describe it. There are more nuances to this, imo. Abusive material or behavior (for lack of a better word or description) like malware or phishing (and spam associated with both) even strike me as content delivered using the DNS. There’s much work that needs to be done on this and I’m not sure we (as a community) might be able to address it to the satisfaction of all parties in the time we have. 2. The EPDP Phase 2 Final Report and Recommendations is likely the most divisive topic we can hope to tackle. In fact, multiple members of the Middle East Space have been involved in this effort and we have disagreed on issues more often than we have agreed. I find it unlikely that we will have a consensus position on the Final Report. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t continue to discuss it among ourselves, but issuing some kind of statement might be challenging. I don’t mind engaging in an attempt to do so, if the Middle East Space decides to tackle it, but we should probably manage our expectations on what we might achieve over the next month if we do. Also noteworthy that this topic is just as substantively complex as any other we may wish to tackle. The Standardized System for Access and Disclosure (SSAD) is the subject of the Phase 2 report. All the recommendations coming out of Phase 2 essentially address features of the SSAD. So limiting our input on this topic to the SSAD doesn’t mean we only need to address a small part of the Report. If we do choose this as a topic, we don’t necessarily need to address every aspect of the SSAD. We can always choose which ones we wish to comment on, but everything in that Report is about the SSAD, and how it is expected to function, how the different parties may use it, how it is expected to be financed, etc… 3. New gTLD Subsequent Procedures is the topic I believe we should focus on. As Tijani suggested, we don’t need to address the entire 400-page report. There are several topics in this Final Report that we can focus on, and which may have a direct impact on our region. IDNs is one. Applicant Support is another. The Sub Pro PDP Working Group also made recommendations on how ICANN should conduct its communication strategy to inform potential applicants. This is something I believe might be relevant to our region if there are to be successful applications for new gTLDs coming out of it. It is important to note, however, that if we do develop a statement with the intent of submitting it as part of the current public comment period that we keep in mind that this is an ICANN Board public comment period. That means that it would be largely pointless to suggest amendments to the recommendations. The Board may not amend or create new recommendations, but can always send some back to the GNSO for review, if it chooses to do so. What we might want to do is provide guidance on how best to implement the recommendations that have been adopted by the GNSO, taking into consideration how the implementation method would be of benefit to the MEAC region. These are just some thoughts I had in reaction to this week’s call, but am happy to discuss further. I hope this helps. Thanks. Amr From: Middle-East <middle-east-bounces@icann.org<mailto:middle-east-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Tijani BEN JEMAA via Middle-East <middle-east@icann.org<mailto:middle-east@icann.org>> Reply-To: Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn<mailto:tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn>> Date: Tuesday, 2 March 2021 at 11:35 PM To: "middle-east@icann.org<mailto:middle-east@icann.org>" <middle-east@icann.org<mailto:middle-east@icann.org>> Cc: "rollah@tra.gov.eg<mailto:rollah@tra.gov.eg>" <rollah@tra.gov.eg<mailto:rollah@tra.gov.eg>> Subject: Re: [ME ICANN] Topic selection: deadline extended Dear all, The ME Space community met (virtually) this afternoon to discuss the best topic to be addressed in the ME Space session at ICANN70. After a constructive debate, 3 topics were supported with different degree of support: · DNS Abuse · New gTLD subsequent Procedure · EPDP phase 2 final policy recommendations It was proposed to extend the deadline for topic selection to give those who couldn't attend the call to give their preference. Please give your preferred topic among the 3 above topics by Friday 5 March 2021. To help you understand the context of the proposed topics, here are elements that were raised during the call: · DNS Abuse It’s meant to be Domain Name System abuse only out of any content consideration which is out of ICANN remit. The contracted parties have issued a paper about this topic and we can invite one of them to explain their opinion. Also, “Internet & Jurisdiction” Policy Network is working on this issue trying to give practical ways to address the DNS Abuse. We can also invite either the chair of the group “Domain and Jurisdiction” or the Executive Director of the “Internet & Jurisdiction” Policy Network as a whole. · New gTLD Subsequent Procedure final report There are several parts of this huge report (hundreds of pages) that can be addressed separately. Those who support this topic should identify which part shall we address. · EPDP Phase 2 Final Policy Recommendations The proposal was to give the consensus position of our region about the System for Standardized Access/Disclosure to non-public registration information ("SSAD") which is today under public comment. Best ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tijani BENJEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Telephone: +216 52 385 114 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tijani BENJEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Telephone: +216 52 385 114 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Middle-East mailing list Middle-East@icann.org<mailto:Middle-East@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/middle-east _______________________________________________ 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. -- Rafik Dammak @rafik "fight for the users" _______________________________________________ Middle-East mailing list Middle-East@icann.org<mailto:Middle-East@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/middle-east _______________________________________________ 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 for very useful links Amr; I've been behind due to four subsequent deaths in the family and I hope to catch up with the group's work soon. 8 Mar 2021 Pzt 13:26 tarihinde Amr Elsadr <amr@unr.com> şunu yazdı:
Hi NP,
I’m glad you’ve been following the work of the EPDP. Please keep it up, and don’t hesitate to reach out with questions should you have any.
It’s a little confusing, but the calls every Thursday that you’ve been listening to are for *Phase 2A* of the EPDP (which you can think of as Phase 3). More information about this phase of the EPDP’s work can be found here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=150177878
The open public comment period is for Phase 2, which isn’t to be confused for 2A. The Phase 2 Final Report was sent to the GNSO Council for its consideration in July 2020, and the Council subsequently adopted it in its September 2020 meeting. The Final Report for Phase 2 can be found here: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/epdp-phase...
Details on the open public comment period being held by the ICANN Board on this report can be found here: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/epdp-2-policy-recs-board-2021-02-08-en
I hope this helps.
Thanks.
Amr
*From: *NP Kurtböke <npkurtboke@gmail.com> *Date: *Monday, 8 March 2021 at 12:03 PM *To: *Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi <Hadia@tra.gov.eg> *Cc: *Amr Elsadr <amr@unr.com>, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@gmail.com>, Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn>, "middle-east@icann.org" < middle-east@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [ME ICANN] Topic selection: deadline extended
Dear ME group members; I listened to the EPDP team discussion last week and as a first time attendee I understand that they themselves haven't reached a consensus position yet. An outstanding issue is the optional "flag" idea and whether consent to get one's personal data published has been obtained rightfully or not. Risks to data protection exist in spite of the legislation and examples of best practice are needed.
8 Mar 2021 Pzt 11:20 tarihinde Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi via Middle-East <middle-east@icann.org> şunu yazdı:
Hi Amr,
Thank you for the clarification. In relation to the importance, I think all 3 proposed topics are indeed important. As for the EPDP Phase 2 final report and the subsequent procedures final report being at the same stage, this I do not agree to. They are both at the same stage only in the sense that they are both going to be considered by the board. However, the public comment period in relation to the subsequent procedures has already concluded, that is the community input has already been provided. As for the EPDP Phase 2 recommendations final report the public comment period is still open, that is we as a community still have a chance to comment, so there lies the big difference. So again it is not about the importance of the topic, it is about the timing. The time now is for the EPDP phase 2 final report public comment and we have a chance to contribute to this as a community. Why we are choosing to avoid this, is not clear to me.
In the end whatever we agree to as a group would be certainly good.
Kind regards
Hadia
*From:* Amr Elsadr [mailto:amr@unr.com] *Sent:* Sunday, March 07, 2021 8:46 PM *To:* Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi; Rafik Dammak; Tijani BEN JEMAA; middle-east@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [ME ICANN] Topic selection: deadline extended
Hi,
FWIW, I did say the following when beginning to address the topic of Sub Pro: *“New gTLD Subsequent Procedures is the topic I believe we should focus on.”*
I also explained my reasons for preferring this topic over the other two, so I will not repeat them in this email. However, Rafik’s point on both the EPDP Phase 2 Final Report and Subsequent Procedures Working Group Final Report both being at the same stage of consideration by the ICANN Board is a relevant one to this discussion IMO (if comparisons between the two topics are being made).
Having said that, I’m happy with whatever topics the members of this space ultimately choose. They are all important topics. To me, it’s just a matter of prioritizing one over the others. Prioritizing, to me, in this context doesn’t suggest one is more important than the other two. Other factors are more of an issue to me, such as which of these topics is most significant to our region. Sub Pro strikes me as a more significant and pressing issue to the MEAC region than the SSAD or DNS Abuse.
Thanks.
Amr
*From: *Middle-East <middle-east-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi via Middle-East <middle-east@icann.org> *Reply-To: *Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi <Hadia@tra.gov.eg> *Date: *Sunday, 7 March 2021 at 12:08 PM *To: *Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@gmail.com>, Tijani BEN JEMAA < tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn>, "middle-east@icann.org" <middle-east@icann.org
*Subject: *Re: [ME ICANN] Topic selection: deadline extended
Dear Rafik, Tijani and all,
Rafik, I did not understand Amr's comment as particularly supporting sub pro. In relation to sub pro Amr actually said "It is important to note, however, that if we do develop a statement with the intent of submitting it as part of the current public comment period that we keep in mind that this is an ICANN Board public comment period. That means that it would be largely pointless to suggest amendments to the recommendations. The Board may not amend or create new recommendations, but can always send some back to the GNSO for review, if it chooses to do so"
And said in relation to the EPDP ". If we do choose this as a topic, we don’t necessarily need to address every aspect of the SSAD. We can always choose which ones we wish to comment on,.
And Tijani, I totally agree we need to present a consensus opinion of the region. All what I am saying is that I am sure we shall always be able to reach consensus in relation to some of the issues related to a certain topic. We do not need to agree on all the issues. The statement can only mention what we agree on.
Kind regards
Hadia
*From:* Middle-East [mailto:middle-east-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Rafik Dammak via Middle-East *Sent:* Saturday, March 06, 2021 2:31 AM *To:* Tijani BEN JEMAA *Cc:* middle-east@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [ME ICANN] Topic selection: deadline extended
Hi all,
I support Amr comments and focusing on subpro makes sense. If I am not mistaking EPDP and subpro were both approved by GNSO council but yet by the board. I do believe we will find more consensus and direct impact on regions for issues related to subpro and the implementation matters even more. One example is about applicant support in previous round which was implemented too late even if the JAS WG worked hard and delivered.
Best,
Rafik
On Sat, Mar 6, 2021 at 3:50 Tijani BEN JEMAA via Middle-East < middle-east@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Amr, Hadia and all,
Wonderful discussion ! Thank you so much for your contributions.
@Amr, the content abuse or regulation is out of our scope. So, no fear from this side. The DNS Abuse is our days discussed in ICANN, but no action or proposal for action is done yet. So, our region consencus position could be brought to the debate. For the New gTLD Subsequent Procedure, as you rightly said, our statement will have very few effect if not no effect since the final report has been already adopted by the board.
@Hadia, as per the ME Space charter, the objective of our work is to express the consensus opinion of the region. If we don't reach consensus, we can't issue a statement with the region position and thus, it won't have any effect. Of course, we can organize sessions out of the ICANN meetings with the purpose of discussion different opinions without issueing a statement.
I hope to receive other contributions so that we can agree all on a topic by the week-end.
Best
Chokri Ben Romdhane <chokribr@gmail.com> a écrit :
Dear Hadia,
Thank you very much for the clarification, indeed and as I mentioned during the call, the SSAD is a crucial element in EPDP team work and commenting this topic is an urgent needs since the comment period will be closed at 30/03/2021 , and I don't think that our community will have another opportunity to make her voice heard about this topic.
Friendly
Chokri
Le jeu. 4 mars 2021 à 09:55, Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi via Middle-East <middle-east@icann.org> a écrit :
Hi All,
Thank you Tijani for sharing a summary about the proposed topics, this is really helpful.
Apologies for not being able to join the call. I listened to part of it and intend to continue listening to the rest today or tomorrow at most.
So, I would like to share my view in relation to the three proposed topics from a different aspect. I would like to look at the three proposals not in relation to how much consensus the community has in relation to any of them or how much the topic is controversial. At some point we need as a community to start discussing controversial topics. We cannot continue avoiding them, just because we think we cannot reach some kind of consensus. Having said that, I would like to look at the three topics in terms of current benefit to decision making in relation to ICANN's policy development. So,
*DNS Abuse:*
This is indeed an important topic and no matter how controversial it is, we need at some point to start discussing it. However, it is not pressing nor urgent right now.
*New gTLD subsequent procedures final report:*
This is also an important topic, but as Amr mentions the public comment period is over and the council has already adopted the report on its last call. Providing guidelines in relation to implementation is important, but doing this after the Board adopts the report makes more sense. I would simply say this is not the right timing for this topic, our statement would neither have an impact on the policy nor the implementation.
*EPDP Phase 2 final recommendations:*
An important topic as well, but more importantly it is a timely issue. The report is out for public comment and our statement can have an impact on decision making. It does not matter if we cannot agree on some of the issues discussed in the report. In the end we can submit what we agree on and support as a community. As Amr mentions we do not need to discuss every aspect of the report, we could even discuss the idea itself of having the SSAD. For sure we shall find aspects to which we all agree and can present.
To that end, and reading Amr's thoughts in relation to all three topics, I support EPDP phase 2 final recommendations to be our topic. Again, I do not think there is a reason for us to avoid putting out an opinion in relation to a current policy under development. I have always thought that having meaningful impact is what should matter most.
Thanks again Tijani for all your support to this group and your extensive work and effort and thank you all for your thoughts.
Kind regards
Hadia
*From:* Middle-East [mailto:middle-east-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of* Amr Elsadr via Middle-East *Sent:* Wednesday, March 03, 2021 9:53 PM *To:* Tijani BEN JEMAA; middle-east@icann.org *Cc:* rolla hassan *Subject:* Re: [ME ICANN] Topic selection: deadline extended
Hi,
I watched the recording of yesterday’s call, and pretty much agree with most of what was expressed by others. Thanks for sharing the link, Tijani. Here’s my personal take on these 3 topics:
1. Agree that the topic of DNS Abuse is not the ideal one. In general, I believe it might be helpful for the designations commonly used to be revised. DNS Abuse itself should be (as others have said) defined narrowly in the technical scope of ICANN mandate. “Content Abuse” is a term that strikes me as strange. Something more like “illegal content” seems more appropriate to me. I’m not sure how content may be abused in the way the DNS can be. Content can be abusive, but describing it as illegal seems to more accurately describe it.
There are more nuances to this, imo. Abusive material or behavior (for lack of a better word or description) like malware or phishing (and spam associated with both) even strike me as content delivered using the DNS. There’s much work that needs to be done on this and I’m not sure we (as a community) might be able to address it to the satisfaction of all parties in the time we have.
2. The EPDP Phase 2 Final Report and Recommendations is likely the most divisive topic we can hope to tackle. In fact, multiple members of the Middle East Space have been involved in this effort and we have disagreed on issues more often than we have agreed. I find it unlikely that we will have a consensus position on the Final Report. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t continue to discuss it among ourselves, but issuing some kind of statement might be challenging. I don’t mind engaging in an attempt to do so, if the Middle East Space decides to tackle it, but we should probably manage our expectations on what we might achieve over the next month if we do.
Also noteworthy that this topic is just as substantively complex as any other we may wish to tackle. The Standardized System for Access and Disclosure (SSAD) is the subject of the Phase 2 report. All the recommendations coming out of Phase 2 essentially address features of the SSAD. So limiting our input on this topic to the SSAD doesn’t mean we only need to address a small part of the Report. If we do choose this as a topic, we don’t necessarily need to address every aspect of the SSAD. We can always choose which ones we wish to comment on, but everything in that Report is about the SSAD, and how it is expected to function, how the different parties may use it, how it is expected to be financed, etc…
3. New gTLD Subsequent Procedures is the topic I believe we should focus on. As Tijani suggested, we don’t need to address the entire 400-page report. There are several topics in this Final Report that we can focus on, and which may have a direct impact on our region. IDNs is one. Applicant Support is another. The Sub Pro PDP Working Group also made recommendations on how ICANN should conduct its communication strategy to inform potential applicants. This is something I believe might be relevant to our region if there are to be successful applications for new gTLDs coming out of it.
It is important to note, however, that if we do develop a statement with the intent of submitting it as part of the current public comment period that we keep in mind that this is an ICANN Board public comment period. That means that it would be largely pointless to suggest amendments to the recommendations. The Board may not amend or create new recommendations, but can always send some back to the GNSO for review, if it chooses to do so. What we might want to do is provide guidance on how best to implement the recommendations that have been adopted by the GNSO, taking into consideration how the implementation method would be of benefit to the MEAC region.
These are just some thoughts I had in reaction to this week’s call, but am happy to discuss further.
I hope this helps.
Thanks.
Amr
*From:* Middle-East <middle-east-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Tijani BEN JEMAA via Middle-East <middle-east@icann.org> *Reply-To:* Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn> *Date:* Tuesday, 2 March 2021 at 11:35 PM *To:* "middle-east@icann.org" <middle-east@icann.org> *Cc:* "rollah@tra.gov.eg" <rollah@tra.gov.eg> *Subject:* Re: [ME ICANN] Topic selection: deadline extended
Dear all,
The ME Space community met (virtually) this afternoon to discuss the best topic to be addressed in the ME Space session at ICANN70.
After a constructive debate, 3 topics were supported with different degree of support: · DNS Abuse · New gTLD subsequent Procedure · EPDP phase 2 final policy recommendations
It was proposed to extend the deadline for topic selection to give those who couldn't attend the call to give their preference. Please give your preferred topic among the 3 above topics by *Friday 5 March 2021.*
To help you understand the context of the proposed topics, here are elements that were raised during the call:
· *DNS Abuse* It’s meant to be *Domain Name System* abuse only out of any content consideration which is out of ICANN remit. The contracted parties have issued a paper about this topic and we can invite one of them to explain their opinion. Also, “Internet & Jurisdiction” Policy Network is working on this issue trying to give practical ways to address the DNS Abuse. We can also invite either the chair of the group “Domain and Jurisdiction” or the Executive Director of the “Internet & Jurisdiction” Policy Network as a whole.
· *New gTLD Subsequent Procedure final report* There are several parts of this huge report (hundreds of pages) that can be addressed separately. Those who support this topic should identify which part shall we address.
· *EPDP Phase 2 Final Policy Recommendations*
The proposal was to give the consensus position of our region about the System for Standardized Access/Disclosure to non-public registration information ("SSAD") which is today under public comment.
Best
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Tijani BENJEMAA* Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (*FMAI*) Telephone: +216 52 385 114
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Tijani BENJEMAA* Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (*FMAI*) Telephone: +216 52 385 114
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ Middle-East mailing list Middle-East@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/middle-east
_______________________________________________ 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.
--
Rafik Dammak
@rafik
"fight for the users"
_______________________________________________ Middle-East mailing list Middle-East@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/middle-east
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Hi Hadia, While the Sub Pro PDP Working Group’s work has been subject to several public comment periods so far, these have all been initiated by the Working Group itself as it was developing its outputs. The public comment period on this PDP that will be held as part of the ICANN Board’s consideration of the GNSO’s recommendations has yet to begin. A similar one for the EPDP Phase 2 Final Report is now open, as you pointed out, and will close on 30 March. The type of input we may provide on both topics is pretty much the same (which is to say that it would be input for Board consideration), as they are indeed both at the same stage from a process perspective. The EPDP Phase 2 topic is slightly ahead of the Sub Pro PDP, whose output has only been recently adopted by the GNSO Council. I hope this helps. Thanks. Amr From: Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi <Hadia@tra.gov.eg> Date: Monday, 8 March 2021 at 11:20 AM To: Amr Elsadr <amr@unr.com>, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@gmail.com>, Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn>, "middle-east@icann.org" <middle-east@icann.org> Subject: RE: [ME ICANN] Topic selection: deadline extended Hi Amr, Thank you for the clarification. In relation to the importance, I think all 3 proposed topics are indeed important. As for the EPDP Phase 2 final report and the subsequent procedures final report being at the same stage, this I do not agree to. They are both at the same stage only in the sense that they are both going to be considered by the board. However, the public comment period in relation to the subsequent procedures has already concluded, that is the community input has already been provided. As for the EPDP Phase 2 recommendations final report the public comment period is still open, that is we as a community still have a chance to comment, so there lies the big difference. So again it is not about the importance of the topic, it is about the timing. The time now is for the EPDP phase 2 final report public comment and we have a chance to contribute to this as a community. Why we are choosing to avoid this, is not clear to me. In the end whatever we agree to as a group would be certainly good. Kind regards Hadia From: Amr Elsadr [mailto:amr@unr.com] Sent: Sunday, March 07, 2021 8:46 PM To: Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi; Rafik Dammak; Tijani BEN JEMAA; middle-east@icann.org Subject: Re: [ME ICANN] Topic selection: deadline extended Hi, FWIW, I did say the following when beginning to address the topic of Sub Pro: “New gTLD Subsequent Procedures is the topic I believe we should focus on.” I also explained my reasons for preferring this topic over the other two, so I will not repeat them in this email. However, Rafik’s point on both the EPDP Phase 2 Final Report and Subsequent Procedures Working Group Final Report both being at the same stage of consideration by the ICANN Board is a relevant one to this discussion IMO (if comparisons between the two topics are being made). Having said that, I’m happy with whatever topics the members of this space ultimately choose. They are all important topics. To me, it’s just a matter of prioritizing one over the others. Prioritizing, to me, in this context doesn’t suggest one is more important than the other two. Other factors are more of an issue to me, such as which of these topics is most significant to our region. Sub Pro strikes me as a more significant and pressing issue to the MEAC region than the SSAD or DNS Abuse. Thanks. Amr From: Middle-East <middle-east-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi via Middle-East <middle-east@icann.org> Reply-To: Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi <Hadia@tra.gov.eg> Date: Sunday, 7 March 2021 at 12:08 PM To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@gmail.com>, Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn>, "middle-east@icann.org" <middle-east@icann.org> Subject: Re: [ME ICANN] Topic selection: deadline extended Dear Rafik, Tijani and all, Rafik, I did not understand Amr's comment as particularly supporting sub pro. In relation to sub pro Amr actually said "It is important to note, however, that if we do develop a statement with the intent of submitting it as part of the current public comment period that we keep in mind that this is an ICANN Board public comment period. That means that it would be largely pointless to suggest amendments to the recommendations. The Board may not amend or create new recommendations, but can always send some back to the GNSO for review, if it chooses to do so" And said in relation to the EPDP ". If we do choose this as a topic, we don’t necessarily need to address every aspect of the SSAD. We can always choose which ones we wish to comment on,. And Tijani, I totally agree we need to present a consensus opinion of the region. All what I am saying is that I am sure we shall always be able to reach consensus in relation to some of the issues related to a certain topic. We do not need to agree on all the issues. The statement can only mention what we agree on. Kind regards Hadia From: Middle-East [mailto:middle-east-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rafik Dammak via Middle-East Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2021 2:31 AM To: Tijani BEN JEMAA Cc: middle-east@icann.org Subject: Re: [ME ICANN] Topic selection: deadline extended Hi all, I support Amr comments and focusing on subpro makes sense. If I am not mistaking EPDP and subpro were both approved by GNSO council but yet by the board. I do believe we will find more consensus and direct impact on regions for issues related to subpro and the implementation matters even more. One example is about applicant support in previous round which was implemented too late even if the JAS WG worked hard and delivered. Best, Rafik On Sat, Mar 6, 2021 at 3:50 Tijani BEN JEMAA via Middle-East <middle-east@icann.org<mailto:middle-east@icann.org>> wrote: Dear Amr, Hadia and all, Wonderful discussion ! Thank you so much for your contributions. @Amr, the content abuse or regulation is out of our scope. So, no fear from this side. The DNS Abuse is our days discussed in ICANN, but no action or proposal for action is done yet. So, our region consencus position could be brought to the debate. For the New gTLD Subsequent Procedure, as you rightly said, our statement will have very few effect if not no effect since the final report has been already adopted by the board. @Hadia, as per the ME Space charter, the objective of our work is to express the consensus opinion of the region. If we don't reach consensus, we can't issue a statement with the region position and thus, it won't have any effect. Of course, we can organize sessions out of the ICANN meetings with the purpose of discussion different opinions without issueing a statement. I hope to receive other contributions so that we can agree all on a topic by the week-end. Best Chokri Ben Romdhane <chokribr@gmail.com<mailto:chokribr@gmail.com>> a écrit : Dear Hadia, Thank you very much for the clarification, indeed and as I mentioned during the call, the SSAD is a crucial element in EPDP team work and commenting this topic is an urgent needs since the comment period will be closed at 30/03/2021 , and I don't think that our community will have another opportunity to make her voice heard about this topic. Friendly Chokri Le jeu. 4 mars 2021 à 09:55, Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi via Middle-East <middle-east@icann.org<mailto:middle-east@icann.org>> a écrit : Hi All, Thank you Tijani for sharing a summary about the proposed topics, this is really helpful. Apologies for not being able to join the call. I listened to part of it and intend to continue listening to the rest today or tomorrow at most. So, I would like to share my view in relation to the three proposed topics from a different aspect. I would like to look at the three proposals not in relation to how much consensus the community has in relation to any of them or how much the topic is controversial. At some point we need as a community to start discussing controversial topics. We cannot continue avoiding them, just because we think we cannot reach some kind of consensus. Having said that, I would like to look at the three topics in terms of current benefit to decision making in relation to ICANN's policy development. So, DNS Abuse: This is indeed an important topic and no matter how controversial it is, we need at some point to start discussing it. However, it is not pressing nor urgent right now. New gTLD subsequent procedures final report: This is also an important topic, but as Amr mentions the public comment period is over and the council has already adopted the report on its last call. Providing guidelines in relation to implementation is important, but doing this after the Board adopts the report makes more sense. I would simply say this is not the right timing for this topic, our statement would neither have an impact on the policy nor the implementation. EPDP Phase 2 final recommendations: An important topic as well, but more importantly it is a timely issue. The report is out for public comment and our statement can have an impact on decision making. It does not matter if we cannot agree on some of the issues discussed in the report. In the end we can submit what we agree on and support as a community. As Amr mentions we do not need to discuss every aspect of the report, we could even discuss the idea itself of having the SSAD. For sure we shall find aspects to which we all agree and can present. To that end, and reading Amr's thoughts in relation to all three topics, I support EPDP phase 2 final recommendations to be our topic. Again, I do not think there is a reason for us to avoid putting out an opinion in relation to a current policy under development. I have always thought that having meaningful impact is what should matter most. Thanks again Tijani for all your support to this group and your extensive work and effort and thank you all for your thoughts. Kind regards Hadia From: Middle-East [mailto:middle-east-bounces@icann.org<mailto:middle-east-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Amr Elsadr via Middle-East Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2021 9:53 PM To: Tijani BEN JEMAA; middle-east@icann.org<mailto:middle-east@icann.org> Cc: rolla hassan Subject: Re: [ME ICANN] Topic selection: deadline extended Hi, I watched the recording of yesterday’s call, and pretty much agree with most of what was expressed by others. Thanks for sharing the link, Tijani. Here’s my personal take on these 3 topics: 1. Agree that the topic of DNS Abuse is not the ideal one. In general, I believe it might be helpful for the designations commonly used to be revised. DNS Abuse itself should be (as others have said) defined narrowly in the technical scope of ICANN mandate. “Content Abuse” is a term that strikes me as strange. Something more like “illegal content” seems more appropriate to me. I’m not sure how content may be abused in the way the DNS can be. Content can be abusive, but describing it as illegal seems to more accurately describe it. There are more nuances to this, imo. Abusive material or behavior (for lack of a better word or description) like malware or phishing (and spam associated with both) even strike me as content delivered using the DNS. There’s much work that needs to be done on this and I’m not sure we (as a community) might be able to address it to the satisfaction of all parties in the time we have. 2. The EPDP Phase 2 Final Report and Recommendations is likely the most divisive topic we can hope to tackle. In fact, multiple members of the Middle East Space have been involved in this effort and we have disagreed on issues more often than we have agreed. I find it unlikely that we will have a consensus position on the Final Report. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t continue to discuss it among ourselves, but issuing some kind of statement might be challenging. I don’t mind engaging in an attempt to do so, if the Middle East Space decides to tackle it, but we should probably manage our expectations on what we might achieve over the next month if we do. Also noteworthy that this topic is just as substantively complex as any other we may wish to tackle. The Standardized System for Access and Disclosure (SSAD) is the subject of the Phase 2 report. All the recommendations coming out of Phase 2 essentially address features of the SSAD. So limiting our input on this topic to the SSAD doesn’t mean we only need to address a small part of the Report. If we do choose this as a topic, we don’t necessarily need to address every aspect of the SSAD. We can always choose which ones we wish to comment on, but everything in that Report is about the SSAD, and how it is expected to function, how the different parties may use it, how it is expected to be financed, etc… 3. New gTLD Subsequent Procedures is the topic I believe we should focus on. As Tijani suggested, we don’t need to address the entire 400-page report. There are several topics in this Final Report that we can focus on, and which may have a direct impact on our region. IDNs is one. Applicant Support is another. The Sub Pro PDP Working Group also made recommendations on how ICANN should conduct its communication strategy to inform potential applicants. This is something I believe might be relevant to our region if there are to be successful applications for new gTLDs coming out of it. It is important to note, however, that if we do develop a statement with the intent of submitting it as part of the current public comment period that we keep in mind that this is an ICANN Board public comment period. That means that it would be largely pointless to suggest amendments to the recommendations. The Board may not amend or create new recommendations, but can always send some back to the GNSO for review, if it chooses to do so. What we might want to do is provide guidance on how best to implement the recommendations that have been adopted by the GNSO, taking into consideration how the implementation method would be of benefit to the MEAC region. These are just some thoughts I had in reaction to this week’s call, but am happy to discuss further. I hope this helps. Thanks. Amr From: Middle-East <middle-east-bounces@icann.org<mailto:middle-east-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Tijani BEN JEMAA via Middle-East <middle-east@icann.org<mailto:middle-east@icann.org>> Reply-To: Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn<mailto:tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn>> Date: Tuesday, 2 March 2021 at 11:35 PM To: "middle-east@icann.org<mailto:middle-east@icann.org>" <middle-east@icann.org<mailto:middle-east@icann.org>> Cc: "rollah@tra.gov.eg<mailto:rollah@tra.gov.eg>" <rollah@tra.gov.eg<mailto:rollah@tra.gov.eg>> Subject: Re: [ME ICANN] Topic selection: deadline extended Dear all, The ME Space community met (virtually) this afternoon to discuss the best topic to be addressed in the ME Space session at ICANN70. After a constructive debate, 3 topics were supported with different degree of support: · DNS Abuse · New gTLD subsequent Procedure · EPDP phase 2 final policy recommendations It was proposed to extend the deadline for topic selection to give those who couldn't attend the call to give their preference. Please give your preferred topic among the 3 above topics by Friday 5 March 2021. To help you understand the context of the proposed topics, here are elements that were raised during the call: · DNS Abuse It’s meant to be Domain Name System abuse only out of any content consideration which is out of ICANN remit. The contracted parties have issued a paper about this topic and we can invite one of them to explain their opinion. Also, “Internet & Jurisdiction” Policy Network is working on this issue trying to give practical ways to address the DNS Abuse. We can also invite either the chair of the group “Domain and Jurisdiction” or the Executive Director of the “Internet & Jurisdiction” Policy Network as a whole. · New gTLD Subsequent Procedure final report There are several parts of this huge report (hundreds of pages) that can be addressed separately. Those who support this topic should identify which part shall we address. · EPDP Phase 2 Final Policy Recommendations The proposal was to give the consensus position of our region about the System for Standardized Access/Disclosure to non-public registration information ("SSAD") which is today under public comment. Best ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tijani BENJEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Telephone: +216 52 385 114 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tijani BENJEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Telephone: +216 52 385 114 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Middle-East mailing list Middle-East@icann.org<mailto:Middle-East@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/middle-east _______________________________________________ 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. -- Rafik Dammak @rafik "fight for the users"
Hi All, I totally agree with Hadia, although Rafik Amr and most of our community members have an attraction for Sub Pro. since there is a regional interest in some Sub Pro items, but I think if the SSAD will be approved by the board our community will miss an opportunity to make her voice heard about such a crucial element. . Friendly Chokri Le lun. 8 mars 2021 à 10:20, Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi via Middle-East <middle-east@icann.org> a écrit :
Hi Amr,
Thank you for the clarification. In relation to the importance, I think all 3 proposed topics are indeed important. As for the EPDP Phase 2 final report and the subsequent procedures final report being at the same stage, this I do not agree to. They are both at the same stage only in the sense that they are both going to be considered by the board. However, the public comment period in relation to the subsequent procedures has already concluded, that is the community input has already been provided. As for the EPDP Phase 2 recommendations final report the public comment period is still open, that is we as a community still have a chance to comment, so there lies the big difference. So again it is not about the importance of the topic, it is about the timing. The time now is for the EPDP phase 2 final report public comment and we have a chance to contribute to this as a community. Why we are choosing to avoid this, is not clear to me.
In the end whatever we agree to as a group would be certainly good.
Kind regards
Hadia
*From:* Amr Elsadr [mailto:amr@unr.com] *Sent:* Sunday, March 07, 2021 8:46 PM *To:* Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi; Rafik Dammak; Tijani BEN JEMAA; middle-east@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [ME ICANN] Topic selection: deadline extended
Hi,
FWIW, I did say the following when beginning to address the topic of Sub Pro: *“New gTLD Subsequent Procedures is the topic I believe we should focus on.”*
I also explained my reasons for preferring this topic over the other two, so I will not repeat them in this email. However, Rafik’s point on both the EPDP Phase 2 Final Report and Subsequent Procedures Working Group Final Report both being at the same stage of consideration by the ICANN Board is a relevant one to this discussion IMO (if comparisons between the two topics are being made).
Having said that, I’m happy with whatever topics the members of this space ultimately choose. They are all important topics. To me, it’s just a matter of prioritizing one over the others. Prioritizing, to me, in this context doesn’t suggest one is more important than the other two. Other factors are more of an issue to me, such as which of these topics is most significant to our region. Sub Pro strikes me as a more significant and pressing issue to the MEAC region than the SSAD or DNS Abuse.
Thanks.
Amr
*From: *Middle-East <middle-east-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi via Middle-East <middle-east@icann.org> *Reply-To: *Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi <Hadia@tra.gov.eg> *Date: *Sunday, 7 March 2021 at 12:08 PM *To: *Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@gmail.com>, Tijani BEN JEMAA < tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn>, "middle-east@icann.org" <middle-east@icann.org
*Subject: *Re: [ME ICANN] Topic selection: deadline extended
Dear Rafik, Tijani and all,
Rafik, I did not understand Amr's comment as particularly supporting sub pro. In relation to sub pro Amr actually said "It is important to note, however, that if we do develop a statement with the intent of submitting it as part of the current public comment period that we keep in mind that this is an ICANN Board public comment period. That means that it would be largely pointless to suggest amendments to the recommendations. The Board may not amend or create new recommendations, but can always send some back to the GNSO for review, if it chooses to do so"
And said in relation to the EPDP ". If we do choose this as a topic, we don’t necessarily need to address every aspect of the SSAD. We can always choose which ones we wish to comment on,.
And Tijani, I totally agree we need to present a consensus opinion of the region. All what I am saying is that I am sure we shall always be able to reach consensus in relation to some of the issues related to a certain topic. We do not need to agree on all the issues. The statement can only mention what we agree on.
Kind regards
Hadia
*From:* Middle-East [mailto:middle-east-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Rafik Dammak via Middle-East *Sent:* Saturday, March 06, 2021 2:31 AM *To:* Tijani BEN JEMAA *Cc:* middle-east@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [ME ICANN] Topic selection: deadline extended
Hi all,
I support Amr comments and focusing on subpro makes sense. If I am not mistaking EPDP and subpro were both approved by GNSO council but yet by the board. I do believe we will find more consensus and direct impact on regions for issues related to subpro and the implementation matters even more. One example is about applicant support in previous round which was implemented too late even if the JAS WG worked hard and delivered.
Best,
Rafik
On Sat, Mar 6, 2021 at 3:50 Tijani BEN JEMAA via Middle-East < middle-east@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Amr, Hadia and all,
Wonderful discussion ! Thank you so much for your contributions.
@Amr, the content abuse or regulation is out of our scope. So, no fear from this side. The DNS Abuse is our days discussed in ICANN, but no action or proposal for action is done yet. So, our region consencus position could be brought to the debate. For the New gTLD Subsequent Procedure, as you rightly said, our statement will have very few effect if not no effect since the final report has been already adopted by the board.
@Hadia, as per the ME Space charter, the objective of our work is to express the consensus opinion of the region. If we don't reach consensus, we can't issue a statement with the region position and thus, it won't have any effect. Of course, we can organize sessions out of the ICANN meetings with the purpose of discussion different opinions without issueing a statement.
I hope to receive other contributions so that we can agree all on a topic by the week-end.
Best
Chokri Ben Romdhane <chokribr@gmail.com> a écrit :
Dear Hadia,
Thank you very much for the clarification, indeed and as I mentioned during the call, the SSAD is a crucial element in EPDP team work and commenting this topic is an urgent needs since the comment period will be closed at 30/03/2021 , and I don't think that our community will have another opportunity to make her voice heard about this topic.
Friendly
Chokri
Le jeu. 4 mars 2021 à 09:55, Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi via Middle-East <middle-east@icann.org> a écrit :
Hi All,
Thank you Tijani for sharing a summary about the proposed topics, this is really helpful.
Apologies for not being able to join the call. I listened to part of it and intend to continue listening to the rest today or tomorrow at most.
So, I would like to share my view in relation to the three proposed topics from a different aspect. I would like to look at the three proposals not in relation to how much consensus the community has in relation to any of them or how much the topic is controversial. At some point we need as a community to start discussing controversial topics. We cannot continue avoiding them, just because we think we cannot reach some kind of consensus. Having said that, I would like to look at the three topics in terms of current benefit to decision making in relation to ICANN's policy development. So,
*DNS Abuse:*
This is indeed an important topic and no matter how controversial it is, we need at some point to start discussing it. However, it is not pressing nor urgent right now.
*New gTLD subsequent procedures final report:*
This is also an important topic, but as Amr mentions the public comment period is over and the council has already adopted the report on its last call. Providing guidelines in relation to implementation is important, but doing this after the Board adopts the report makes more sense. I would simply say this is not the right timing for this topic, our statement would neither have an impact on the policy nor the implementation.
*EPDP Phase 2 final recommendations:*
An important topic as well, but more importantly it is a timely issue. The report is out for public comment and our statement can have an impact on decision making. It does not matter if we cannot agree on some of the issues discussed in the report. In the end we can submit what we agree on and support as a community. As Amr mentions we do not need to discuss every aspect of the report, we could even discuss the idea itself of having the SSAD. For sure we shall find aspects to which we all agree and can present.
To that end, and reading Amr's thoughts in relation to all three topics, I support EPDP phase 2 final recommendations to be our topic. Again, I do not think there is a reason for us to avoid putting out an opinion in relation to a current policy under development. I have always thought that having meaningful impact is what should matter most.
Thanks again Tijani for all your support to this group and your extensive work and effort and thank you all for your thoughts.
Kind regards
Hadia
*From:* Middle-East [mailto:middle-east-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of* Amr Elsadr via Middle-East *Sent:* Wednesday, March 03, 2021 9:53 PM *To:* Tijani BEN JEMAA; middle-east@icann.org *Cc:* rolla hassan *Subject:* Re: [ME ICANN] Topic selection: deadline extended
Hi,
I watched the recording of yesterday’s call, and pretty much agree with most of what was expressed by others. Thanks for sharing the link, Tijani. Here’s my personal take on these 3 topics:
1. Agree that the topic of DNS Abuse is not the ideal one. In general, I believe it might be helpful for the designations commonly used to be revised. DNS Abuse itself should be (as others have said) defined narrowly in the technical scope of ICANN mandate. “Content Abuse” is a term that strikes me as strange. Something more like “illegal content” seems more appropriate to me. I’m not sure how content may be abused in the way the DNS can be. Content can be abusive, but describing it as illegal seems to more accurately describe it.
There are more nuances to this, imo. Abusive material or behavior (for lack of a better word or description) like malware or phishing (and spam associated with both) even strike me as content delivered using the DNS. There’s much work that needs to be done on this and I’m not sure we (as a community) might be able to address it to the satisfaction of all parties in the time we have.
2. The EPDP Phase 2 Final Report and Recommendations is likely the most divisive topic we can hope to tackle. In fact, multiple members of the Middle East Space have been involved in this effort and we have disagreed on issues more often than we have agreed. I find it unlikely that we will have a consensus position on the Final Report. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t continue to discuss it among ourselves, but issuing some kind of statement might be challenging. I don’t mind engaging in an attempt to do so, if the Middle East Space decides to tackle it, but we should probably manage our expectations on what we might achieve over the next month if we do.
Also noteworthy that this topic is just as substantively complex as any other we may wish to tackle. The Standardized System for Access and Disclosure (SSAD) is the subject of the Phase 2 report. All the recommendations coming out of Phase 2 essentially address features of the SSAD. So limiting our input on this topic to the SSAD doesn’t mean we only need to address a small part of the Report. If we do choose this as a topic, we don’t necessarily need to address every aspect of the SSAD. We can always choose which ones we wish to comment on, but everything in that Report is about the SSAD, and how it is expected to function, how the different parties may use it, how it is expected to be financed, etc…
3. New gTLD Subsequent Procedures is the topic I believe we should focus on. As Tijani suggested, we don’t need to address the entire 400-page report. There are several topics in this Final Report that we can focus on, and which may have a direct impact on our region. IDNs is one. Applicant Support is another. The Sub Pro PDP Working Group also made recommendations on how ICANN should conduct its communication strategy to inform potential applicants. This is something I believe might be relevant to our region if there are to be successful applications for new gTLDs coming out of it.
It is important to note, however, that if we do develop a statement with the intent of submitting it as part of the current public comment period that we keep in mind that this is an ICANN Board public comment period. That means that it would be largely pointless to suggest amendments to the recommendations. The Board may not amend or create new recommendations, but can always send some back to the GNSO for review, if it chooses to do so. What we might want to do is provide guidance on how best to implement the recommendations that have been adopted by the GNSO, taking into consideration how the implementation method would be of benefit to the MEAC region.
These are just some thoughts I had in reaction to this week’s call, but am happy to discuss further.
I hope this helps.
Thanks.
Amr
*From:* Middle-East <middle-east-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Tijani BEN JEMAA via Middle-East <middle-east@icann.org> *Reply-To:* Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn> *Date:* Tuesday, 2 March 2021 at 11:35 PM *To:* "middle-east@icann.org" <middle-east@icann.org> *Cc:* "rollah@tra.gov.eg" <rollah@tra.gov.eg> *Subject:* Re: [ME ICANN] Topic selection: deadline extended
Dear all,
The ME Space community met (virtually) this afternoon to discuss the best topic to be addressed in the ME Space session at ICANN70.
After a constructive debate, 3 topics were supported with different degree of support: · DNS Abuse · New gTLD subsequent Procedure · EPDP phase 2 final policy recommendations
It was proposed to extend the deadline for topic selection to give those who couldn't attend the call to give their preference. Please give your preferred topic among the 3 above topics by *Friday 5 March 2021.*
To help you understand the context of the proposed topics, here are elements that were raised during the call:
· *DNS Abuse* It’s meant to be *Domain Name System* abuse only out of any content consideration which is out of ICANN remit. The contracted parties have issued a paper about this topic and we can invite one of them to explain their opinion. Also, “Internet & Jurisdiction” Policy Network is working on this issue trying to give practical ways to address the DNS Abuse. We can also invite either the chair of the group “Domain and Jurisdiction” or the Executive Director of the “Internet & Jurisdiction” Policy Network as a whole.
· *New gTLD Subsequent Procedure final report* There are several parts of this huge report (hundreds of pages) that can be addressed separately. Those who support this topic should identify which part shall we address.
· *EPDP Phase 2 Final Policy Recommendations*
The proposal was to give the consensus position of our region about the System for Standardized Access/Disclosure to non-public registration information ("SSAD") which is today under public comment.
Best
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Tijani BENJEMAA* Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (*FMAI*) Telephone: +216 52 385 114
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Tijani BENJEMAA* Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (*FMAI*) Telephone: +216 52 385 114
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ Middle-East mailing list Middle-East@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/middle-east
_______________________________________________ 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.
--
Rafik Dammak
@rafik
"fight for the users" _______________________________________________ Middle-East mailing list Middle-East@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/middle-east
_______________________________________________ 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 (4)
-
Amr Elsadr -
Chokri Ben Romdhane -
Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi -
NP Kurtböke