May 2019 - Ssr2-review - lists.icann.org

CCT recommendation 16
by Jennifer Bryce May 22, 2019

May 22, 2019

Dear SSR2 RT members, Please see the below note sent on behalf of Larisa Gurnick. -- Dear Members of the SSR2, The purpose of this note is to highlight the Board resolution passed on 1 March 2019 - see https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2019-03-01-en - that calls for a set of Competition, Consumer Trust, and Consumer Choice Review Team (CCT-RT) Final Recommendations to be passed through to community groups. As articulated in the Board resolution, “recognizing that the Board has the obligation and responsibility to balance the work of ICANN in order to preserve the ability for ICANN org to serve its Mission and the public interest, the Board decided on three categories of action”: * Accepting recommendations, subject to costing and implementation considerations; * Placing recommendations (in whole or in part) in "Pending" status, directing ICANN org to perform specific actions to enable the Board to take further actions; * Passing recommendations (in whole or in part) to community groups the CCT-RT identified for their consideration. The Board noted fourteen such recommendations (9, 10, 12, 16, 19, 20, 25, 27, 28, 29, 32, 33, 34, 35). We invite you to refer to pages 1-4 of the scorecard https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/resolutions-final-cct-recs-scor… which compile pass-through recommendations, including the groups they are addressed to. Accordingly, ICANN org wishes to notify you of the recommendation the ICANN Board resolved to pass through to you, in whole or in part, for your consideration: * Recommendation 16 (in part). Note: this recommendation was also passed through to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG, Registries Stakeholder Group, Registrar Stakeholder Group, Generic Names Supporting Organization, as suggested by the CCT-RT. In the scorecard, the Board noted that “it is not accepting the policy directives that may be inherent here but rather, passes on such elements of the recommendation to the relevant community groups to consider”. We would like to highlight the following language of the Board resolution: “in passing these recommendations through, the Board is neither accepting, nor rejecting the recommendations. […] Passing recommendations through to community groups is not a directive that the groups identified should formally address any of the issues within those recommendations. It is within the purview of each group to identify whether work will be taken on and the topics that the group will address”. As indicated in the resolution, the Board encourages community groups to be “mindful of any interdependencies with ongoing work and discussions”. Additionally, the Board suggests “to the referenced community groups that the CCT-RT's proposed priority levels be taken into account as the groups decide whether, how and when to address the CCT-RT recommendations that are being passed through […]”. Additionally, we would like to flag the Board suggestion that for transparency purposes, “it would be helpful to have records or reporting made available to the ICANN community on how the community group considered the items coming out of the CCT-RT. The Board encourages any level of reporting that the groups are able to provide as the ICANN org and Board track action on the CCT-RT's recommendations”. Please consider providing updates on your progress in addressing (as appropriate) this recommendation, to be included with ICANN org’s reporting. Background The Competition, Consumer Trust, and Consumer Choice Review Team (CCT-RT) released its Final Report on 8 September 2018 – see https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cct-final-08sep18-en.pdf. The CCT-RT Final Report contains 35 recommendations and is the culmination of nearly three years of work, reviewing how the expansion of top-level domain names impacted competition, consumer trust and choice. For more information on the CCT Review and Specific Reviews, please read https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en#article4.6. The ICANN Board took action on each of the 35 recommendations produced by the CCT-RT - see https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2019-03-01-en - on 1 March 2019 and was informed by public comment input received on the Final report (see https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cct-final-recs-2018-10-08-en) The Board’s decisions on each recommendation is documented in the scorecard published at https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/resolutions-final-cct-recs-scor…. A blog post on the Board action can be found at https://www.icann.org/news/blog/board-action-on-competition-consumer-trust-… for more context. We thank you for your collaboration in considering the CCT-RT output. Please let us know whether you have any questions. Thank you. Best regards, Larisa Gurnick, VP, Multistakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives

1 0

Re: [Ssr2-review] FW: [EXT] SSR2_Recommendations-v3
by Barrett, Kerry-Ann May 20, 2019

May 20, 2019

Thanks Jen [OAS.org]<http://www.oas.org/> Sincerely Kerry-Ann Barrett Cybersecurity Program Officer Secretariat of the Inter-American Committee against Terrorism (CICTE) Secretariat for Multidimensional Security (SMS) Organization of American States 1889 F Street NW Washington D.C. 20006 [http://www.oas.org/en/sms/signature_images/phone.png] (202) 370 4675 - [http://www.oas.org/en/sms/signature_images/fax.png] (202) 458 3857 www.oas.org/cyber<http://www.oas.org/cyber> @KerryOAS<https://twitter.com/KerryOAS>| @OEA_Cyber<https://twitter.com/OEA_Cyber> Register to our distribution list here!<http://oas.us11.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=353ff0663258ae5a775d460db&id=10…> From: Jennifer Bryce [mailto:jennifer.bryce@icann.org] Sent: Monday, May 20, 2019 2:56 PM To: Barrett, Kerry-Ann <KABarrett(a)oas.org>; ICANN SSR2 <ssr2-review(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ssr2-review] FW: [EXT] SSR2_Recommendations-v3 CAUTION: EXTERNAL SENDER Hi Kerry-Ann, Thanks for checking. The mail is legitimate and links to the same Google doc I shared in my email. The mail below comes from Angie Graves, the technical writer, apologies about the confusion. Best, Jennifer From: Ssr2-review <ssr2-review-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:ssr2-review-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Barrett, Kerry-Ann" <KABarrett(a)oas.org<mailto:KABarrett@oas.org>> Date: Monday, May 20, 2019 at 3:50 PM To: ICANN SSR2 <ssr2-review(a)icann.org<mailto:ssr2-review@icann.org>> Subject: [Ssr2-review] FW: [EXT] SSR2_Recommendations-v3 Can someone confirm if this was sent legitimately…I received the detailed email from Jen..not sure about this one… [AS.org][oas.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.oas.org_&d=DwMGaQ&c…> Sincerely Kerry-Ann Barrett Cybersecurity Program Officer Secretariat of the Inter-American Committee against Terrorism (CICTE) Secretariat for Multidimensional Security (SMS) Organization of American States 1889 F Street NW Washington D.C. 20006 [ttp://www.oas.org/en/sms/signature_images/phone.png] (202) 370 4675 - [ttp://www.oas.org/en/sms/signature_images/fax.png] (202) 458 3857 www.oas.org/cyber [oas.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.oas.org_cyber&d=DwM…> @KerryOAS [twitter.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_KerryOAS&d…>| @OEA_Cyber [twitter.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_OEA-5FCybe…> Register to our distribution list here! [oas.us11.list-manage.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__oas.us11.list-2Dmanage.…> From: Angie Graves (via Google Docs) [mailto:angie12345@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2019 4:36 AM To: Barrett, Kerry-Ann <KABarrett(a)oas.org<mailto:KABarrett@oas.org>> Cc: krsic(a)denic.de<mailto:krsic@denic.de>; lists(a)osterweil.net<mailto:lists@osterweil.net>; kc(a)caida.org<mailto:kc@caida.org>; laurin.weissinger(a)yale.edu<mailto:laurin.weissinger@yale.edu>; ameen(a)cert-in.org.in<mailto:ameen@cert-in.org.in>; noorul.ameen(a)meity.gov.in<mailto:noorul.ameen@meity.gov.in>; housley(a)vigilsec.com<mailto:housley@vigilsec.com>; zarko.kecic(a)rnids.rs<mailto:zarko.kecic@rnids.rs> Subject: [EXT] SSR2_Recommendations-v3 CAUTION: EXTERNAL SENDER angie12345(a)gmail.com<mailto:angie12345@gmail.com> has shared a link to the following document: [https://ssl.gstatic.com/docs/documents/share/images/services/document-4.png] SSR2_Recommendations-v3 [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> [nknown profile photo]Dear SSR2 Team members, Please use this link to access the latest version of the SSR2 Recommendations document ("SSR2_Recommendations-v3"), as discussed on the 19 May 2019 (UTC+2) SSR2 Team call/face-to-face Brussels meeting. Thank you, Angie Open in Docs [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> Snapshot of the item below: Google Docs: Create and edit documents online. Google LLC, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, USA You have received this email because someone shared a document with you from Google Docs. [ogo for Google Docs][drive.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__drive.google.com&d=DwM…>

1 0

Re: [Ssr2-review] FW: [EXT] SSR2_Recommendations-v3
by Jennifer Bryce May 20, 2019

May 20, 2019

Hi Kerry-Ann, Thanks for checking. The mail is legitimate and links to the same Google doc I shared in my email. The mail below comes from Angie Graves, the technical writer, apologies about the confusion. Best, Jennifer From: Ssr2-review <ssr2-review-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of "Barrett, Kerry-Ann" <KABarrett(a)oas.org> Date: Monday, May 20, 2019 at 3:50 PM To: ICANN SSR2 <ssr2-review(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ssr2-review] FW: [EXT] SSR2_Recommendations-v3 Can someone confirm if this was sent legitimately…I received the detailed email from Jen..not sure about this one… [AS.org][oas.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.oas.org_&d=DwMGaQ&c…> Sincerely Kerry-Ann Barrett Cybersecurity Program Officer Secretariat of the Inter-American Committee against Terrorism (CICTE) Secretariat for Multidimensional Security (SMS) Organization of American States 1889 F Street NW Washington D.C. 20006 [ttp://www.oas.org/en/sms/signature_images/phone.png] (202) 370 4675 - [ttp://www.oas.org/en/sms/signature_images/fax.png] (202) 458 3857 www.oas.org/cyber [oas.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.oas.org_cyber&d=DwM…> @KerryOAS [twitter.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_KerryOAS&d…>| @OEA_Cyber [twitter.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_OEA-5FCybe…> Register to our distribution list here! [oas.us11.list-manage.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__oas.us11.list-2Dmanage.…> From: Angie Graves (via Google Docs) [mailto:angie12345@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2019 4:36 AM To: Barrett, Kerry-Ann <KABarrett(a)oas.org> Cc: krsic(a)denic.de; lists(a)osterweil.net; kc(a)caida.org; laurin.weissinger(a)yale.edu; ameen(a)cert-in.org.in; noorul.ameen(a)meity.gov.in; housley(a)vigilsec.com; zarko.kecic(a)rnids.rs Subject: [EXT] SSR2_Recommendations-v3 CAUTION: EXTERNAL SENDER angie12345(a)gmail.com<mailto:angie12345@gmail.com> has shared a link to the following document: [https://ssl.gstatic.com/docs/documents/share/images/services/document-4.png] SSR2_Recommendations-v3 [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> [nknown profile photo]Dear SSR2 Team members, Please use this link to access the latest version of the SSR2 Recommendations document ("SSR2_Recommendations-v3"), as discussed on the 19 May 2019 (UTC+2) SSR2 Team call/face-to-face Brussels meeting. Thank you, Angie Open in Docs [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> Snapshot of the item below: Google Docs: Create and edit documents online. Google LLC, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, USA You have received this email because someone shared a document with you from Google Docs. [ogo for Google Docs][drive.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__drive.google.com&d=DwM…>

1 0

FW: [EXT] SSR2_Recommendations-v3
by Barrett, Kerry-Ann May 20, 2019

May 20, 2019

Can someone confirm if this was sent legitimately…I received the detailed email from Jen..not sure about this one… [OAS.org]<http://www.oas.org/> Sincerely Kerry-Ann Barrett Cybersecurity Program Officer Secretariat of the Inter-American Committee against Terrorism (CICTE) Secretariat for Multidimensional Security (SMS) Organization of American States 1889 F Street NW Washington D.C. 20006 [http://www.oas.org/en/sms/signature_images/phone.png] (202) 370 4675 - [http://www.oas.org/en/sms/signature_images/fax.png] (202) 458 3857 www.oas.org/cyber<http://www.oas.org/cyber> @KerryOAS<https://twitter.com/KerryOAS>| @OEA_Cyber<https://twitter.com/OEA_Cyber> Register to our distribution list here!<http://oas.us11.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=353ff0663258ae5a775d460db&id=10…> From: Angie Graves (via Google Docs) [mailto:angie12345@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2019 4:36 AM To: Barrett, Kerry-Ann <KABarrett(a)oas.org> Cc: krsic(a)denic.de; lists(a)osterweil.net; kc(a)caida.org; laurin.weissinger(a)yale.edu; ameen(a)cert-in.org.in; noorul.ameen(a)meity.gov.in; housley(a)vigilsec.com; zarko.kecic(a)rnids.rs Subject: [EXT] SSR2_Recommendations-v3 CAUTION: EXTERNAL SENDER angie12345(a)gmail.com<mailto:angie12345@gmail.com> has shared a link to the following document: [https://ssl.gstatic.com/docs/documents/share/images/services/document-4.png] SSR2_Recommendations-v3<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1giGuTH2_PDRkgdxXIgPP1YP3cb5mQ5FhTg7Hkc5…> [Unknown profile photo]Dear SSR2 Team members, Please use this link to access the latest version of the SSR2 Recommendations document ("SSR2_Recommendations-v3"), as discussed on the 19 May 2019 (UTC+2) SSR2 Team call/face-to-face Brussels meeting. Thank you, Angie Open in Docs<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1giGuTH2_PDRkgdxXIgPP1YP3cb5mQ5FhTg7Hkc5…> Snapshot of the item below: Google Docs: Create and edit documents online. Google LLC, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, USA You have received this email because someone shared a document with you from Google Docs. [Logo for Google Docs]<https://drive.google.com>

1 0

sections of report
by k claffy May 20, 2019

May 20, 2019

i filled in all my @@ (marks where i had text), and i've made a ton of comments on the dns ssr ws doc and the recommendations (and a few in the q&a). few other issues, that i'm not sure if/where to put in the docs. (1) i am wondering if the final report doesn't need a whole category about measurement and data sharing. so many of the recommendations seem to be asking for measurement/ data sharing. but it may be that just because the perceived need for measurement is so pervasive, making it a separate section would be unbalanced. so i didn't try to do it. but maybe we should consider separately collating all the specific measurements we are asking for, and what the specific questions we believe those measurements would answer. because i think we do not do a great job of tying our asks to the need/purpose/question/harm right now. we ask for too much, and we cannot prioritize measurements until we prioritize harms we're trying to mitgiate/prevent. which means we need a taxonomy.. and if if we can't document (maybe even quantify) a serious need/problem that the measurement will inform/address, we should drop it. (2) in this context, i think we probably need to ask for a new curated data section of the web site, and we should specify urls. maybe something like. https://data.icann.org -- for raw data sets https://statistics.icann.org -- for derivative data sets. and then explicit data sets we think should go in there, and important metadata (like dates when page is updated, which often seem missing, e.g., http://www.dns.icann.org/imrs/stats/ indeed, i think we should recommend that every page have a 'content last updated' date, because trying to figure out what's stale and what's current on the web site seems beyond even icann staff i ask for help ;( e.g., icann has recently posted http://www.icann.org/opendata/, which some vague promises, no date, and a promise for updates as progress is made.. this is not what we want. we should be specific about each type of measurement, that every update must include a date, type of data, expected use of data, questions the data can answer, how to get the data, usage terms. now to elephants in the room: (3) many ssr gaps are rooted in the lack of balance of stakholders in the presumably multistakeholder process. in particular, there is no significant representation of public interest/consumer protection issues. it's amazing how broad the consensus seems to be on this point. in this context, i find the report puzzling in many places, asking for things as if they haven't been asked for many times, including in ssr1. are we still having the report on explicit analysis of ssr1 implementation? because i think it's important to state in our new set of recommendations that some of these attempts to get more attention to consumer protection have been going on for over a decade. and that if (when) they fail this time, we have a backup recommendation to put in play. that could have the word 'regulation' in it, but maybe we figure out a way to make sure that if icann fails to achieve what we consider needed in terms of substantial progress on consumer protection, then icann should publish a report stating that it failed to achieve ssr2 recommendations within 12,24,36 months. e.g., one of our recommendations could be " icann org should seek explicit consensus with 4-5 consumer protection agencies on how abuse should be defined and handled, before any discussion with CPs, and publish an explicit summary of this consensus, or exactly where the consensus got stuck, within 12 months of this report." then, if they fail, there is a document that asserts it, that at least advances this groundhog day conversation to the next step? (4) a related recommendation could/should be an ongoing function to track progress of these recommendations, and prove monthly reports to SSR2, and explicitly solicits our feedback on whether the recommendation was implemented as we intended. i.e., don't wait for SSR3 who may have no idea what we even meant back in 2019... (5) i hear a growing number of others argue that we dont see real change on consumer protection (SSR issues) until the fiscal architecture changes. we can discuss, but one example: "center of excellence". is a nice idea, but so long as it answers to icann, and so long as icann answers to the industry that solely funds it, i don't see how it will effect change. what is its incentive structure? it is likely to just waste many millions generating the appearance of "something is being done". i think it's our responsibility to point out the fundamental incentive misalignment and lack of stakeholder balance in the ssr context, and that it is not rational to expect anything to change while the incentives/money flows remain as they are. which means there needs to be a center of excellence, but it needs to be funded by several governments, industry, as well as icann, and have statutory support for access to data (at least for researchers to data from r&rs within their own country.) it must not require publication review from funding sources. it must be truly independent. that would have a chance to escape the stalemate wrt consumer protection. or if we cannot get consensus on such an idea, those of us who agree can add it to the report as a minority view. k

1 0

SSR2 RT assignment
by Jennifer Bryce May 19, 2019

May 19, 2019

Dear SSR2 RT, The team has grouped related draft recommendations together. You can see the overview of draft recommendations and penholders for each here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1gAKc36QYmlrGZjow5fYrCVBXltgZvjSmFnG…. ACTION: Please work on merging and coming up with text for the related recommendations. The call on Thursday 23 May will be a coordination call with opportunity to ask questions and discuss issues with the team. The aim is to have consolidated text by the following call on Thursday 30 May. Please insert your draft consolidated text into the document here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1giGuTH2_PDRkgdxXIgPP1YP3cb5mQ5FhTg7Hkc5… The current text for draft recommendations can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CsuEYzQHve6a5rKQNeMQbjoyujdUQa9g__9_ojo… For quick reference, see the assigned recommendations below: Scott: 2, 6 Eric: 3, 24, 25, 26, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 Russ: 4, 5, Laurin: 14, 16, A Norm: 17, 37, 38, J, M, P, R1, R2 KC: 18, 19, L Denise: 39, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, K, N, O, Q, S, T Kerry-Ann: 10, 36, V1, V2, V3 Matogoro: 9 Ram and Alain: 35 Boban: 8, 11, 27, 40 Naveed: 15, 20, 21, 22, 23, 29 Angie: 1, 7, 13, 28 Best, Jennifer -- Jennifer Bryce MSSI Associate Project Manager Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: jennifer.bryce(a)icann.org Skype: jennifer.bryce.icann www.icann.org

1 0

DNS-CERT
by ALAIN AINA May 19, 2019

May 19, 2019

Hello, Below is the reference of the DNS CERT initiative which i mentioned yesterday. I was conducted in 2009 and 2010 and failed. https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/dns-cert-business-case-19mar10-… Was wondering if the "Centre of excellency “ idea is not another way of filling a vacuum of institution and mechanisms to combat DNS abuses and others security related issues to the DNS. —Alain

2 2

Will not join the face to face today
by ALAIN AINA May 19, 2019

May 19, 2019

Hello, I have an emergency to attend to with our NOC services. I do apology I will expect my assignments list. Thanks —Alain

1 0

Edits
by Barrett, Kerry-Ann May 19, 2019

May 19, 2019

Hi Team I made some suggested edits and am ok with the IoT and privacy clauses with minor edits. I’ll do the logic/ rationale for the IoT and compliance if needed. Please feel free to volunteer me for any write up this week as I have a lighter workload at the office this week. I won’t be able to join this session in the first half but will join 8am EST. Great work last few days guys Sincerely, Kerry-Ann Barrett Cybersecurity Policy Specialist Organization of American States

1 0

Action Requested: Doodle Poll for SSR2 Face to Face at ICANN65 | Marrakech
by MSSI Secretariat May 18, 2019

May 18, 2019

Dear SSR2 Members, Please see the doodle poll link below and select the dates you plan to join in-person the SSR2 Face to Face meetings in Marrakech. As noted on the doodle the dates are; 22 & 23 June (full days) and 27 June (half day). Please note the meeting on the 27th is not yet confirmed but we do not anticipate any issues. Thank you! https://doodle.com/poll/3qzvn8a8s73fi8kh With kind regards, Brenda --- Brenda Brewer, Projects & Operations Assistant Multistakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives (MSSI) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Skype: brenda.brewer.icann

1 0