Logo

051040011 GNSO Council - Shared screen with speaker view
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to GAC)
47:56
Does he have the time to do this and to be involved in the ODP discussions with ICANN? I thought he left his chair position because of other commitments
Terri Agnew - ICANN Org
59:43
Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en
Kurt Pritz
01:19:03
6 weeks for comment period for comment period; 4 weeks to incorporate changes.That leaves 42 weeks to ready initial report. (Is that 42 meetings?) Were there 78 topics?
Kurt Pritz
01:19:21
I would leave it to the WG to determine a timeline after convening
Marie Pattullo
01:19:45
Is there super urgency needing the 12 month limit?
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to GAC)
01:19:52
Kurt - Yes and no.....there is a LOT of overlap in the topics and once decisions are made, other topics will be very easy to move forward.
Berry Cobb
01:20:04
@Kurt @All, that is preferable. It will be the EPDP-IDNs and its Chair to be accountable to delivering to the committed delivery dates.
Berry Cobb
01:21:27
Also not of importance. All projects require a relief valve. Hence the PCR, Project Change Request for changes in scope or timing or resource. BUT, PCRs are a last resort option once deliverable dates are committed to.
Berry Cobb
01:21:52
Also <note>
stephanieeperrin
01:22:08
Agree with Kurt, sounds like it could be confusing if the overlaps result in divergent views between groups
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to GAC)
01:24:36
I will find that letter and post it.
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to GAC)
01:27:08
I wouldn't say that IDNs were not a priority. Its just that there are so much complexities.
Kurt Pritz
01:27:13
“The next round might be delayed for the completion of the IDN EPDP” makes no sense. Why delay the next round, which will affect <1% of IDN registrations going forward. If the Board’s concern is valid, it would make more sense to suspend all IDN second-level registrations until the IDN EPDP is completed. (And of course, this doesn’t make sense.)
John McElwaine
01:27:28
GNSO Working Group Guidelines state 6.2 A Charter is expected to include . . . expected deliverables, key milestones, and a target timeline - all of which can, if necessary, be further refined by the WG at its onset in conjunction with the CO.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC Liaison to the GNSO Council
01:28:18
It is also the strong opinion of the APRALO from At-Large and the ALAC/At-Large community statements re SubPro that IDN's should be a key focus of any next round
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to GAC)
01:28:59
See https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/botterman-to-langdon-orr-neuman-30sep20-en.pdf
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to GAC)
01:29:03
Page 7
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to GAC)
01:29:05
topic 25
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to GAC)
01:30:37
Letter F of that topic
John McElwaine
01:31:20
@Jeff thanks for the pinpoint
Maxim Alzoba
01:31:54
so it will be up to the WG of IDN ePDP
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to GAC)
01:32:18
Subject to Council approval I would assume
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to GAC)
01:32:33
So if the group comes back and says 5 years?
Pam Little
01:38:19
Many thanks to the Charter Drafting Team!
Dennis Tan
01:38:52
Thank you Pam!
Pam Little
01:41:37
Thanks, Kurt
Pam Little
01:42:19
We will be sure to have a more fullsome discussion as soon as possible.
Kurt Pritz
01:42:27
Nice job Dennis
Maxim Alzoba
01:42:33
+1
Dennis Tan
01:42:45
Thank you Kurt, Maxim
Maxim Alzoba
01:44:54
without inclusion of ccTLDs it will not be universal
Rod Rasmussen (SSAC Chair)
01:47:57
@Maxim - good point. The report notes this and also points out that without many other players in the overall DNS ecosystem beyond those in ICANN, there will not be universal standards either. The report looks towards how we bring this wider ecosystem together to define such standards and processes. Its an ambitious goal, but if incident responses are not normalized throughout the broader ecosystem which includes DNS-specific players, we will continue to have silos and large inefficiencies.
Mark Datysgeld
01:48:19
Maxim, continuing a conversation we were having the other day, how could we do outreach with ccTLDs to align with us other than asking politely? Do we have any mechanism at all?
Mark Datysgeld
01:48:42
(repeated message to reach all those present)Maxim, continuing a conversation we were having the other day, how could we do outreach with ccTLDs to align with us other than asking politely? Do we have any mechanism at all?
Maxim Alzoba
01:49:00
@Mark , each ccTLD has own ideas
Mark Datysgeld
01:49:05
Exactly
Maxim Alzoba
01:49:18
and they will not be happy to follow
Maxim Alzoba
01:49:26
so no
Mark Datysgeld
01:49:50
The best we can hope is that a strong ICANN position would have a cascade effect
Mark Datysgeld
01:50:01
Point to a set of norms that are the industry standard
Mark Datysgeld
01:50:12
Which is why I still believe this is very worth our time
Maxim Alzoba
01:50:34
this seems to be quite optimistic
Mark Datysgeld
01:51:08
I'm pretty much a ray of light, don't you know >:)
Rod Rasmussen (SSAC Chair)
01:51:36
A related example to the ccTLD issue is that different countries have different requirements on abuse reporting. For example, some countries require abuse reports/requests for action to be either sent directly to their national SIRT or at least be reported to them. Service providers, including registries and registrars, but also ISPs and web hosts may have to have a “ticket” from their national SIRT to take action.
Mark Datysgeld
01:52:54
That is an interesting point, Rod. Do we even have a master list of those contact points from the ICANN side? Or only from the M3AAWG and so forth?
Rod Rasmussen (SSAC Chair)
01:54:19
It would be really useful for global interoperability for such processes to be standardized as much as possible, and for the correct entities to be provided the right kind of evidence for action. We outline these issues and the need for convening some sort of discussions and a potential mechanism to lead to such abuse handling standards that all can at least understand even if they have some additional or different items they may need or limitations on action imposed on them.
Rod Rasmussen (SSAC Chair)
01:55:52
@Mark - not publicly available to my knowledge. This is one of the things we would be looking for a “common facilitator” to provide. Right now this is very siloed information, with the best resource probably being FIRST’s list of worldwide SIRTs.
Rod Rasmussen (SSAC Chair)
01:56:16
SIRT = Security Incident Response Team :-)
Mark Datysgeld
01:56:31
Definitely something to look into, longer term. I am making a note of that.
Maxim Alzoba
01:56:41
since laws worldwide are different - there might not be a unified way at all
Mark Datysgeld
01:57:03
Not from the legal side, but from the procedure side they can probably be approximated
Maxim Alzoba
02:00:49
evidentiary standards vary per jurisdiction (in criminal laws)
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to GAC)
02:01:34
The CPH gave us a briefing on the last call which talked about all of the work they were doing on this both within the CPH, but also within I&J
Rod Rasmussen (SSAC Chair)
02:03:08
@Maxim - we are looking for interoperability, not necessarily the same way to do things everywhere.
Mark Datysgeld
02:03:13
@Maxim supposing we had a fairly strong reporting standard as a basis within ICANN, it would likely cover many cases. Fine tuning would be needed of course. The problem right now is that there is no standard at all, or baseline, or anything.
Maxim Alzoba
02:06:09
@Mark, the reporting depends on local laws (vary a lot)+ previous contracts (vary a lot). The common thing is - make a proper report according to laws + policies of the parties
Mark Datysgeld
02:06:38
Fair enough. We could still do better, though. We can agree on that at least, right.
Maxim Alzoba
02:07:26
thanks
Marie Pattullo
02:07:44
That was really useful - thank you both!
Maxim Alzoba
02:09:27
IGOs can withdraw at any moment and we can not do anything about it
Rod Rasmussen (SSAC Chair)
02:09:33
@Jeff - we referred to both sets of work in the paper - good stuff. The I&J approach in particular is very complimentary with what we’re proposing - they’re focused on cross-border issues, but it’s even a problem within jurisdictions. Interoperability is the key concept.
Berry Cobb
02:09:45
The need for legal advice is not definitive. The WT understands there is a process to request funds should it come to that.
Rod Rasmussen (SSAC Chair)
02:10:03
@Marie - thanks - very glad to be having this discussion with you and hope to continue the dialogue!
Maxim Alzoba
02:10:31
@Rod, the issue is - usually trusted notifiers tend to be from the same jurisdiction as a registry or registrar (so complaining to existing notifiers might be another option to add to the matrix)
Flip Petillion
02:11:09
Hi Keith !
Maxim Alzoba
02:11:17
Hi Keith
Jeff Bedser
02:11:33
@maxim very good point!
Maxim Alzoba
02:13:09
guidelines do not seem to be obligatory, so it is not a policy
Rod Rasmussen (SSAC Chair)
02:14:48
@Maxim - great point on trusted notifiers - we did touch on trusted notifier programs as well as part of the solution space. They may be a very useful conduit to add efficiency, enforce standards of evidence and reporting formats, and many other things. Such entities would be natural participants in an overall discussion since they have already done a lot of work around creating their own standards that can be shared and normalized to some extent to improve the way incidents are handled.
Mark Datysgeld
02:15:12
From an objective perspective, most ccTLDs do not even need to be present at ICANN. And yet they are. So the institution must carry some weight. It's just not absolute.
Maxim Alzoba
02:15:30
@Rod, the standards are depending on jurisdictions and contracts
Berry Cobb
02:18:23
Perfectly said, Keith. #July
Maxim Alzoba
02:18:38
old hand
Pam Little
02:19:38
Thank you Keith for the update.
Maxim Alzoba
02:19:42
thanks
Rod Rasmussen (SSAC Chair)
02:21:49
@Maxim - absolutely. There are really two things here. One, what things exist or could be brought into existence to be truly “universal” standards or interoperable processes. Two, where can one go to in order to find information on the particular standards and processes you need to follow within particular jurisdictions, industries, or even individual infrastructure providers? As a rough analogy. think of the the first as the base level wiring of the global network and think of the second as creating a way to properly interface disparate networks together. We don’t have either right now.
Maxim Alzoba
02:24:23
without a definition of what to find we might not know what to do
Marie Pattullo
02:25:54
That's what the scoping team is for, Maxim.
Mark Datysgeld
02:25:57
Thanks Maxim & Rod for the debate, this has great academic value for us to find paths and be able to move forward.
Maxim Alzoba
02:28:42
@Marie, not necessary, so far it is an item for GNSO Council discussion
Maxim Alzoba
02:34:45
GDPR added another definition of Accuracy
Maxim Alzoba
02:36:04
without a definition we even do not know who the experts are
Maxim Alzoba
02:36:17
NIS2 is just a text now
Maxim Alzoba
02:36:24
not even a directive
Maxim Alzoba
02:36:44
and the laws following NIS2 are long in the future
Maxim Alzoba
02:37:12
we can not make policy adjustments for drafts of texts
Marie Pattullo
02:38:52
That makes sense Kurt - thanks.
Maxim Alzoba
02:38:53
without a target we will have a fishing expedition without a reasonable timeline
Maxim Alzoba
02:40:04
like another endless PDP
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to GAC)
02:40:36
But according to the comments from the GAC, it is irrelevant what the term accuracy means per GDPR. They are asking about accuracy under the agreements
Maxim Alzoba
02:40:52
it causes confusion
Marie Pattullo
02:41:36
The scoping team could be asked to consider if legal advice is needed.
Kurt Pritz
02:42:24
yes
Kurt Pritz
02:42:33
Yes to Marie
stephanieeperrin
02:42:47
As long as people are not pointing to the GDPR and insisting on “accuracy”, Jeff, sure. But it would be more empirical as an approach to look at what accuracy means under different regimes.
John McElwaine
02:43:02
You can put me down for the small team
Marie Pattullo
02:43:06
Volunteering. :-)
Nathalie Peregrine - ICANN Org
02:43:11
Noted!
Carlton SAMUELS
02:43:18
Volunteering!
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to GAC)
02:43:26
The GAC has asked for Accuracy under the contracts.....not accuracy under GDPR, NIS or anything else
Maxim Alzoba
02:43:47
muted?
Carlton SAMUELS
02:44:24
@Jeff: Not in the contract but subsequent work spoke to standards and formats of data for some fields collected
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to GAC)
02:44:31
That was the GAC's point in raising the WHOIS Accuracy Reporting System and other efforts that have been going on for years
Olga Cavalli
02:44:42
I also volunteer Nathalie
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to GAC)
02:44:58
Nathalie - I suppose I should be on the accuracy team to report to the GAC
stephanieeperrin
02:44:59
The GAC is not having to pay for the process of obtaining accurate data. Non trivial issue….
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to GAC)
02:46:09
Stephanie - this is not a debate on whether this is a good idea or bad idea. The contracts state that accurate data will be collected. That has always been in the contracts since at least 1998 (if not before).
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to GAC)
02:46:19
And that was the GAC's point
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to GAC)
02:46:26
with my paraphrasing
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to GAC)
02:46:47
And I am only the messenger :)
Emily Barabas
02:46:59
Nothing from me
Emily Barabas
02:47:02
Thanks Philippe
Carlton SAMUELS
02:47:13
@Stephanie: My reading of the GAC is a very politic advice "ICANN, you need to define and say what you mean by accuracy sufficiently in contract"
Pam Little
02:47:13
Thanks all
Flip Petillion
02:47:18
thx
Maxim Alzoba
02:47:19
Thanks all
Carlton SAMUELS
02:47:21
Thank you all!
Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC Liaison to the GNSO Council
02:47:22
Bye for now then...
Osvaldo Novoa
02:47:25
Thank you all, bye!
Kristian Ørmen
02:47:31
Thank you
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to GAC)
02:47:33
@Carlton - yes
Tatiana Tropina
02:47:33
Thanks everyone, bye!
Tom Dale
02:47:34
Thanks all
Olga Cavalli
02:47:42
Bye