[Consultation] PIR Transaction and Proposed Public Interest Commitments Update

[Bruna Martins dos Santos]

Hey all,

Just a short follow up on my previous email for us to know what to exclude
from the document...

Le jeu. 16 avr. 2020 à 12:30, Bruna Martins dos Santos <
bruna.mrtns at gmail.com> a écrit :

> Hey all,
>
> Thanks to the replies and comments! @Amr I understood and agree with your
> concern of the supposed empowerment of the OSC through this suggested new
> competence and how it could extrapolate whats initially expected of the
> OSC. So I have two questions: (a) would you suggest the complete
> suppression of the section? (b) cant we come to a compromise around a less
> specific sort of oversight provision on this ?
>
> Thinking if we should come up with a new language to the section or simply
> suppress it..
>
> Best,
> B
>
> Le jeu. 16 avr. 2020 à 07:43, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at icannpolicy.ninja> a
> écrit :
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Bruna…, thank you so much for pulling this together from the different
>> views expressed here. There’s one part I’m not comfortable with:
>>
>> *Org Stewardship Council *
>> We would like to also offer our concerns with regards to the proposed
>> stewardship council. NCSG understands that the OSC must be able to present
>> a counter point or even oppose to policy implementations on behalf of PIR.
>> Foreseeing the possible issues with the implementation of policies such as
>> the PIR Anti-Abuse Policy that allows PIR “to comply with any   applicable
>> laws, government rules or requirements, requests of law enforcement, or any
>> dispute resolutio process" we would like to note the importance of an
>> independent OSC able to express powers to examine difficult issues of
>> jurisdiction and protect free expression for organizations and individuals
>> engaged in political debates.
>>
>>
>> 1. Most of the examples of policies in this section strictly refer to PIR
>> policies; specifically, what may be included in the current or future
>> anti-abuse policy at PIR, and how that policy is implemented in order to
>> cater to requirements resulting from applicable laws and regulations as
>> well as to requests by governments and law enforcement. Opposing instances
>> of implementation of this policy is suggested as a power of the Stewardship
>> Council, and this is where I think there will be a problem.
>>
>> Personally, I don’t want to see the Stewardship Council turning in to
>> some kind of regulatory beast similar to ICANN, which is what I believe the
>> current draft letter is proposing. I’m not a fan of heavy-handed regulation
>> in principle. For one thing, it is costly and burdensome, especially that
>> the way I see this working based on the text here (as well as Kathy’s
>> original email proposing this) to mean that every domain name takedown
>> resulting from implementation of PIR’s anti-abuse policy will need to go
>> through the Council, or at least be challengeable by it. This can’t be good
>> for the Registry’s ability to operate in an agile and cost-effective
>> manner. I’m always hesitant in proposing policies that add financial burden
>> to Contracted Parties, because ultimately, these burdens are shifted to
>> Registrants. Also, we’re effectively proposing a costly solution to an
>> undefined problem. I say that the problem is undefined, because I’m not
>> aware of any issues with controversial .org name takedowns in the past.
>>
>> Another issue of concern with heavy-handed regulation for me is potential
>> capture of the Stewardship Council by special interest groups other than
>> civil-society or non-commercial registrants. This is always a risk with any
>> regulatory body, and there’s no guarantee I can see that this Council will
>> not include, or even be controlled by interests like those of trademark
>> holders, governments/law enforcement, domain name investors, etc… at some
>> point in the future. Why would we propose so much power to what is
>> essentially a pilot right now (or ever even)?
>>
>> I don’t believe the Stewardship Council should have this kind of
>> oversight on implementation of PIR policies. Instead, I believe the
>> Council’s role should be focused on how these policies are developed and
>> adopted, as well as have the ability to review existing policies, which may
>> not be fit-for-purpose if they are to safeguard FoE and privacy in the .org
>> gTLD space.
>>
>> We might also propose that PIR’s Stewardship Council adopt a complaints
>> service in its Charter, where registrants who have been subject to
>> takedowns are able to submit complaints to the Council, and have the
>> Council evaluate the complaint - not on a subjective basis, but rather on
>> wether the takedown is consistent with existing policy, or not. The Council
>> dealing with these kinds of complaints should provide it with the means to
>> address any problem in implementation of PIR policies without having it
>> meddle in the day-to-day operations of the Registry.
>>
>> 2. Having said that, not all the examples concern just PIR policies.
>> There is mention of dispute resolution processes in there too. This is
>> where I believe this section becomes really problematic. Compliance with
>> dispute resolution processes is an obligation imposed on Contracted Parties
>> by ICANN contracts. It seems like the NCSG is considering proposing powers
>> for the Stewardship Council, which could potentially result in conflicts
>> between what the Council tells PIR to do, and what its contractual
>> obligations towards ICANN are. This seems rather nonsensical to me, and I
>> also very much doubt that either PIR or ICANN will agree to this. The only
>> reason I can see to asking this is to create a contentious issue between
>> NCSG on one hand, and PIR and ICANN on the other where there would be no
>> chance for the NCSG to prevail, but could potentially land us in a
>> protracted disagreement with both parties. Even if this proposal is
>> entertained, all it would accomplish is stalling the process for ICANN to
>> either agree or disagree to PIR’s change of control.
>>
>> Instead (and again), it makes more sense to me for the Stewardship
>> Council to have an active role in working with PIR to determine how to best
>> advocate for FoE and privacy during ICANN policy development. This means
>> that the Stewardship Council will have a role in guiding PIR’s positions in
>> determination of what is included in its contract with ICANN, instead of
>> providing PIR with advice (binding or otherwise), which would conflict with
>> its contractual obligations. I’ve already proposed this in a personal
>> comment I submitted on Goran's blog
>> <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/pir-transaction-and-proposed-public-interest-commitments-update>, and
>> I suggest that the NCSG adopt a similar approach in its letter to the ICANN
>> Board.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Amr
>>
>> On Apr 15, 2020, at 11:25 PM, Bruna Martins dos Santos <
>> bruna.mrtns at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> Putting together some of the comments on this list, this is what the NCSG
>> "comment" looks like:
>>
>> Pad: https://pad.codingrights.org/p/NCSGCommentPIR
>> -------
>>
>> *NCSG Statement on the "PIR Transaction and Proposed Public Interest
>> Commitments Update"*
>>
>> Back in november 2011, the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group issued a
>> letter to the ICANN Board advocating for Ethos Capital to uphold its
>> previously acquired obligations with regards to  noncommercial registrants.
>> The letter also pointed out that it was ICANN's duty to to enter into
>> negotiations with Ethos Capital to ensure that its operation of the ORG
>> domain conforms to criteria upon which the original award of ORG was
>> contingent (related to noncommercial registrants).
>>
>> *Lack of a Freedom of Expression related provision on the PIC*
>> Due to concerns regarding eventual restrictions to rights such as Freedom
>> of Expression, NCSG asked that the PIC text included both a
>> process-oriented commitment to allow the Org Stewardship Council to veto
>> “modifications” of RO’s policies pertaining to free expression and a
>> positive commitment to ensuring rights such as freedom of expression in the
>> .Org domain. Despite stating this point previously in statements and to the
>> PIR Leadership team, the lack of mention to this request on the modified
>> PIC makes it harder for us to fully support the revised document.
>>
>> *Extended registration terms for .org registrants *
>> With regards to the possible extension of registration terms for .org
>> registrants this was also a topic in which NCSG pointed out the need for a
>> stronger PIR commitment. Despite understanding the eventual policy changes
>> entailed by the proposed change, we would like to, once again, state the
>> need for a sronger PIR involvement in creating such a change.
>>
>> *Org Stewardship Council *
>> We would like to also offer our concerns with regards to the proposed
>> stewardship council. NCSG understands that the OSC must be able to present
>> a counter point or even oppose to policy implementations on behalf of PIR.
>> Foreseeing the possible issues with the implementation of policies such as
>> the PIR Anti-Abuse Policy that allows PIR “to comply with any   applicable
>> laws, government rules or requirements, requests of law enforcement, or any
>> dispute resolutio process" we would like to note the importance of an
>> independent OSC able to express powers to examine difficult issues of
>> jurisdiction and protect free expression for organizations and individuals
>> engaged in political debates.
>>
>> Another possible issue listed on the same policy is the discussion of
>> “trusted notifiers” as a type of fast-track method of reporting and taking
>> down domain names with disliked content. In order for this provision to
>> happen in an adequate manner we must ensure that the OSC composition also
>> have experts in topics such as Freedom of Expression, Free Speech and Human
>> rights. These experts must have deep   substantive legal and policy
>> background and ability to independently research and expertly comment on
>> substantive and procedural issues brought before them by Ethos/PIR.
>>
>>
>> *OSC Representation and NCSG participation*
>> NCSG also informed the PIR leadership the need for more independence on
>> the proposed ORG Stewardship Council (OSC). Despite being a point that was
>> mentioned on the new PICs and PIR statements, we believe the proposed
>> process could still be improved.  Specifically, they say “The PIR Board
>> will not appoint the first five members of the .ORG Stewardship Council. To
>> ensure independence, Ethos will engage an internationally-recognized
>> executive search firm to oversee and manage a process for identifying
>> candidates to be the inaugural members. The search firm will solicit
>> applications from a variety of .ORG Stakeholders, including ICANN’s
>> Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) and At-Large Advisory Committee
>> (ALAC) and provide its proposed nominations to a Selection Committee
>> established by the PIR Board.”.
>>
>> When it comes to the ORG Stewardship Council representatives, we would
>> like to state the following:
>>
>> (a) From what it seems, even with the new proposed selection process, PIR
>> will still be responsbible for selecting all the OSC members. Additionally,
>> despite the mention to NCSG on the document, there are no guarantees that
>> the selection committee nor PIR will ensure NCSGs participation on the OSC.
>> We also must note that ALAC contains, and to some extent is more
>> representative of, commercial users as well as noncommercial users and has
>> no historical connection to the ORG domain;
>> (b) PIR and Ethos Capital should ensure that the OSC members include
>> include multiple and well-known experts in free speech and freedom of
>> expression, human rights,  copyright/trademark/fair use. Also, as pointed
>> above, it is of utter importance that the selected appointees hold the same
>> compromise with ensuring that the registry keeps its allignment with the
>> Noncommercial registrants.
>>
>>
>> Le mer. 15 avr. 2020 à 17:08, Peter Micek <petermicek at gmail.com> a
>> écrit :
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I fully support a comment by NCSG. Access Now are just finalizing ours,
>>> I'll paste a draft below. I support holding them to account for their
>>> promise of clarity on the selection process, but as you can see, I feel
>>> that committee is more like a deck chair arrangement than hand on the
>>> ship's tiller.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Peter
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *In Access Now’s last letter
>>> <https://www.accessnow.org/ORG-ICANN-Response-2020Mar13> to ICANN, we
>>> outlined some of the many reasons why the proposed Public Interest
>>> Commitments (PICs) would in no way be sufficient to hold PIR — and Ethos
>>> Capital as its controlling investor — accountable to the .ORG community or
>>> to ensure the needs and interests of those who rely on .ORG are protected.
>>> The several adjustments Ethos has made to its proposal since we wrote that
>>> letter are not significant and do not change our position.ICANN has an
>>> important opportunity to restore the .ORG community’s confidence, and to do
>>> its part in protecting online civic space — which is already under attack
>>> all around the world. It can do that by taking the following steps:Extend
>>> the public comment period. If ICANN is serious about getting meaningful
>>> input from the community on the current proposal, a seven-day comment
>>> period isn’t enough. At a minimum ICANN needs to allow its standard 30-day
>>> window for comments, especially considering the additional strain civil
>>> society around the world is burdening under the ongoing COVID-19 crisis.
>>> This falls in line with guidance
>>> <https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=25788&LangID=E>
>>> from the UN special rapporteur on the freedom of assembly, that
>>> “multilateral institutions should take steps to ensure civil society
>>> organizations can continue to participate in all policy decisions,
>>> including those related to the Covid-19 response, especially in the case of
>>> public-private partnerships.” That ICANN is multi-stakeholder, not
>>> multilateral (like the UN), only adds to its responsibility to meaningfully
>>> consult civil society.Negotiate an extension with PIR and Ethos.ICANN is
>>> rushing to get in public comments in just seven days, with only two working
>>> days to process the results ahead of their April 20th deadline for deciding
>>> .ORG’s future. Further, ICANN is still waiting for responses
>>> <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/jeffrey-to-nevett-03apr20-en.pdf>
>>> from Ethos to many very important questions (covering issues like PIR’s
>>> financial solvency, avenues for community input going forward, and who
>>> would actually be in control of PIR across the several holding companies
>>> involved in the transaction). Getting the information they need both from
>>> Ethos and the community is essential to the long-term sustainability of
>>> .ORG, and ICANN should insist on more time to make this decision.Withhold
>>> consent to the transfer of control of .ORG.Even without extended comment
>>> periods and additional information, though, ICANN already has all it needs
>>> to reject this deal. Simply put, this is an underhanded and dangerous deal
>>> that puts all of us at risk, and ICANN should stop it. After several rounds
>>> of empty concessions from Ethos, and their continued failure to produce
>>> essential information about how the deal is structured, it is very clear
>>> that there is no path to redeeming this sale.Lead a community consultation
>>> on the future of .ORG.ICANN should provide an inclusive, substantive,
>>> community-driven venue for discussing a viable path forward for .ORG. If
>>> ISOC no longer has an interest in being a steward for the domain, it is
>>> essential that we can collectively identify a new solution that — first and
>>> foremost — meets the needs of the .ORG community, now and in the future.*
>>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 9:20 AM <kathy at dnrc.tech> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Raphael,
>>>> Tx for your comments.  You'll note my comments/points reference both
>>>> free speech (law where .ORG has been based for 34 years, and of its
>>>> proposed upcoming owners) and free expression (referencing Article 19
>>>> of the UN Declaration of Human Rights).  It is the language of both
>>>> sets of laws, and expertise in both, that I advise in points 1 and 3
>>>> below.
>>>>
>>>> I can't imagine how that would be controversial -- there are people
>>>> who are experts on protecting free expression around the world -- and
>>>> if this controversial sale goes through, we will need them here. It's
>>>> hard to hold your ground in complex circumstances (against private
>>>> corporate attorneys) if you are not an expert -- we want people who
>>>> know the precedent and the laws and protections around the world. Glad
>>>> you like the second proposition!
>>>>
>>>> In all events, our NCSG voice needs to be heard here.  Bruna offered
>>>> to prepare a quick comment -- I think we we should move forward.  Time
>>>> is of the essence!
>>>>
>>>> Best, Kathy
>>>>
>>>> Quoting Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix <rbeauregardlacroix at gmail.com>:
>>>>
>>>> > I think we have some materials for a comment, but are lacking a few
>>>> more
>>>> > days to put things together. Not only is that 7 days too short, but
>>>> > blogpost comments are not quite appropriate either to say the least.
>>>> Given
>>>> > the unanimity of those who commented on the blogpost, we can hope
>>>> they will
>>>> > change their mind (and we can individually join such request for a
>>>> standard
>>>> > public comment period.
>>>> >
>>>> > As for the substance of our comment, I find myself closer to Milton's
>>>> > propositions. Kathy, I think your first and third proposition are
>>>> difficult
>>>> > to work out in practice without enunciating what the base line is
>>>> supposed
>>>> > to be - I understand it would be the US (i.e. assuming jurisdiction,
>>>> PIR
>>>> > should not comply with requests which could not validly be made under
>>>> US
>>>> > law by a US entity) I have difficulties with that position as it puts
>>>> US
>>>> > free speech law on a pedestal and means committee members must be
>>>> immersed
>>>> > in the US understanding of free speech. Globally, with its extremely
>>>> high
>>>> > thresholds before the government can directly regulate speech, the US
>>>> rides
>>>> > alone.
>>>> >
>>>> > But the problem is not solved by choosing any other law, or some sort
>>>> of
>>>> > generic transnational mix of "free speech best practices" as a strict
>>>> set
>>>> > of legal rules. I get your worry that PIR will comply with any law
>>>> > enforcement order it receives, bogus and legitimate alike, for
>>>> business
>>>> > reasons. I guess the domain name industry is not in a position to
>>>> make the
>>>> > very brazen move to apply US speech regulation threholds to all their
>>>> > customers... Nor even to do so with a slightly watered down best
>>>> practices.
>>>> > While that's not new, I still think we can ask for PIR to do better
>>>> than
>>>> > others. But the choice they would be facing is jeopardizing their
>>>> business
>>>> > (or their finances, eventually) in the name of values.
>>>> >
>>>> > Hence the language that Milton suggests, a written commitment to a
>>>> more
>>>> > general value and ensuring that members of the committee come from
>>>> diverse
>>>> > civil society background, is, I find, more likely to find a broader
>>>> appeal
>>>> > among our community and the ICANN/dot org community in general. Public
>>>> > opinion and community pressure (stirred by a vigilant council) might
>>>> be a
>>>> > better safeguard against opportunistic or otherwise undesirable
>>>> behavior by
>>>> > PIR with regards to LEA requests than some sort of inbedded court of
>>>> review
>>>> > with an ad-hoc set of very binding but still very vague rules.
>>>> >
>>>> > Your second proposition seems fine as is! We can legitimately request
>>>> that
>>>> > trusted notifiers be actually neutral and not a IP
>>>> > rightsholders association...
>>>> >
>>>> > have a nice evening,
>>>> >
>>>> > On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 5:57 PM <kathy at dnrc.tech> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> To Milton's proposed comments below, I offer key substantive changes
>>>> >> -- otherwise I fear the Stewardship Council will be completely
>>>> >> bypassed by Ethos and PIR.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Specifically:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Powers of the Stewardship Council must allow it to strongly, clearly
>>>> >> and with authority support (or oppose) Ethos/PIR LLC's implementation
>>>> >> of PIR's Anti-Abuse Policy.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Background: In October 2019, the then-new PIR President Jon Nevett
>>>> >> announced a PIR Anti-Abuse Policy that allows PIR “to comply with any
>>>> >> applicable laws, government rules or requirements, requests of law
>>>> >> enforcement, or any dispute resolution process.”
>>>> >> https://thenew.org/doing-our-part-for-a-safer-stronger-dns/  The
>>>> >> Stewardship Council -- to protect free speech and free expression in
>>>> >> .ORG -- *must* have the ability to oversee (and veto) Ethos/PIR's
>>>> >> interpretation and implementation of the PIR Anti-Abuse Policy.
>>>> >> Otherwise, it cannot protect .ORG registrants against censorship.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Concern 1:  The Anti-Abuse Policy commits PIR to responses to
>>>> >> "requests of law enforcement" without stating whether the law
>>>> >> enforcement requests must come from a law enforcement agency with
>>>> >> jurisdiction over the registry, registrar or registrant.  Is the
>>>> >> request for takedown of speech even legal in the country in which the
>>>> >> speech originated?  Is the speech perhaps purposely and intentionally
>>>> >> directed to expose corruption or malfeasance of a national government
>>>> >> or official who has stepped beyond their authority and law?
>>>> >>
>>>> >> **Accordingly, the Stewardship Council must have express powers to
>>>> >> examine difficult issues of jurisdiction and protect free expression
>>>> >> for organizations and individuals engaged in political debates.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Concern 2:  The PIR Anti-Abuse policy discusses “trusted notifiers”
>>>> as
>>>> >> a type of fast-track method of reporting and taking down domain names
>>>> >> with disliked content. Recent PIR President Jon Nevett, when he was
>>>> >> General Counsel/VP of Donuts, paired up with controversial “trusted
>>>> >> notifier” the Motion Picture Association (MPAA),
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> https://www.multichannel.com/news/mpaa-donuts-team-takedown-best-practice-402440
>>>> >> The MPAA is not known for its neutrality or fairness in its
>>>> accusations,
>>>> >> see e.g.,
>>>> >>
>>>> https://www.brainz.org/14-most-ridiculous-lawsuits-filed-riaa-and-mpaa/
>>>> >>
>>>> >> ** Accordingly, the Stewardship Council must be able to review all
>>>> >> “trusted notifiers” and veto those that are not genuinely fair and
>>>> >> neutral and will not genuinely protect free speech and free
>>>> >> expression, including legitimate critique and legal fair use.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Problem 3: Nice people on the Stewardship Council without deep
>>>> >> expertise in free speech, free expression, human rights, privacy and
>>>> >> relate laws can be easily captured by Ethos/PIR’s own research and
>>>> >> reasoning.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> ** Accordingly, all Stewardship Councils must include *multiple and
>>>> >> well-known experts in free speech and free expression, human rights,
>>>> >> copyright/trademark/fair use.* These experts must have deep
>>>> >> substantive legal and policy background and ability to independently
>>>> >> research and expertly comment on substantive and procedural issues
>>>> >> brought before them by Ethos/PIR.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Best, Kathy
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Quoting "Mueller, Milton L" <milton at gatech.edu>:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> > Rafik:
>>>> >> > Thanks for your initiative. NCSG must comment on this. We are being
>>>> >> > derelict in our duties to represent noncommercial users if we
>>>> don’t.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > I may not be up to date about this, but one important issue still
>>>> >> > seems to be unresolved. In its commitment to amend the PIC in a way
>>>> >> > that would satisfy the concerns of noncommercial registrants, PIR
>>>> >> > wrote that “he search firm and nomination criteria process will be
>>>> >> > announced on March 23, 2020.” Has that been done? If so, I don’t
>>>> >> > know where it is.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > Some comments about the modified PIC that could be used as is or
>>>> >> > incorporated into a NCSG comment.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > 1.       We had asked that the PIC text include not just a
>>>> >> > process-oriented commitment to allow the Org Stewardship Council to
>>>> >> > veto “modifications” of RO’s policies pertaining to free
>>>> expression,
>>>> >> > but a positive commitment to fostering freedom of expression in the
>>>> >> > .Org domain. The CEO of Org seemed to express a favorable view of
>>>> >> > that request in a public consultation. The modified PIC contains no
>>>> >> > such modification. This is disappointing, and makes it impossible
>>>> >> > for us to fully support the revised PIC.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > 2.       We had also asked for PIR to express a stronger commitment
>>>> >> > to extending registration terms for org registrants. While we
>>>> >> > understand that extending registration terms requires a policy
>>>> >> > change, we were hoping for a statement that PIR would join in
>>>> >> > efforts to create such a change. The modified PIC contains no such
>>>> >> > commitment.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > 3.       We informed PIR that the ORG Stewardship Council (OSC)
>>>> >> > needed to be more independent of PIR. The new PICs and PIR
>>>> >> > statements have been partially responsive to that request, but
>>>> still
>>>> >> > fall short. Specifically, they say “The PIR Board will not appoint
>>>> >> > the first five members of the .ORG Stewardship Council. To ensure
>>>> >> > independence, Ethos will engage an internationally-recognized
>>>> >> > executive search firm to oversee and manage a process for
>>>> >> > identifying candidates to be the inaugural members. The search firm
>>>> >> > will solicit applications from a variety of .ORG Stakeholders,
>>>> >> > including ICANN’s Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) and
>>>> >> > At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) and provide its proposed
>>>> >> > nominations to a Selection Committee established by the PIR Board.”
>>>> >> > Clearly, in this process PIR will still select all the OSC members.
>>>> >> > While the solicitation of applications specifically mentions NCSG,
>>>> >> > there is no guaranteed representation from NCSG on the OSC. We also
>>>> >> > must note that ALAC contains, and to some extent is more
>>>> >> > representative of, commercial users as well as noncommercial users
>>>> >> > and has no historical connection to the ORG domain.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > From: NCSG-Discuss <NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU> On Behalf Of
>>>> Rafik
>>>> >> Dammak
>>>> >> > Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 7:25 PM
>>>> >> > To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>>>> >> > Subject: Re: [Consultation] PIR Transaction and Proposed Public
>>>> >> > Interest Commitments Update
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > hi all,
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > resending this to ask if there is anything we would like to comment
>>>> >> > regarding .org proposed PICs.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > Best,
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > Rafik
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > Le ven. 10 avr. 2020 à 08:30, Rafik Dammak
>>>> >> > <rafik.dammak at gmail.com<mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> a écrit :
>>>> >> > Hi all,
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > there is an update related to PIR and ,org sale with regard to
>>>> >> > communication between PIR and ICANN, and the matter of PIC (Public
>>>> >> > Interest Commitments). As ICANN has to make decision within the
>>>> >> > timeline regarding the change on control of PIR , it is asking the
>>>> >> > community to provide feedback regarding the proposed PICs. it won't
>>>> >> > be through usual public comment but either by responding as comment
>>>> >> > to the blog (unusual) or sending letter to the board.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > As this topic is of interest to NCSG and it is an opportunity to
>>>> >> > share comments on the PIC, we should draft a letter quickly and
>>>> send
>>>> >> > it as correspondence to boars. For more information you can check
>>>> >> > the blog post here
>>>> >> >
>>>> >>
>>>> https://www.icann.org/news/blog/pir-transaction-and-proposed-public-interest-commitments-update
>>>> >> or
>>>> >> > below.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > Best regards,
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > Rafik
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > ---------- Forwarded message ---------
>>>> >> > De : Michelle DeSmyter
>>>> >> > <michelle.desmyter at icann.org<mailto:michelle.desmyter at icann.org>>
>>>> >> > Date: ven. 10 avr. 2020 à 00:02
>>>> >> > Subject: [council] FYI: [ICANN Community Leaders] 9 April 2020
>>>> >> > To: GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:
>>>> >> council at gnso.icann.org>>
>>>> >> > Cc: gnso-secs at icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>
>>>> >> > <gnso-secs at icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>>
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > FYI:
>>>> >> > [Image removed by sender.]
>>>> >> > Thursday, 9 April 2020
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > ICANN Community Leadership Digest
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > [Image removed by sender.]
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > The ICANN org Policy Development Support function publishes this
>>>> >> > twice-weekly digest
>>>> >> > to help ICANN community leaders track requests and follow updates.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > Table of Contents
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > Information Sharing
>>>> >> > •     NEW: PIR Transaction and Proposed Public Interest Commitments
>>>> >> Update
>>>> >> > •     NEW: Addressing Recent Zoom News
>>>> >> > •     ENDS TOMORROW: Your Feedback about this Digest
>>>> >> > •     REMINDER: Call for Expressions of Interest: Standing Panel
>>>> for
>>>> >> > ICANN’s Independent Review Process
>>>> >> > Public Comment
>>>> >> > •     CLOSES MONDAY: Revised Community Travel Support Guidelines
>>>> >> > •     Proposal for Chinese Script Root Zone Label Generation Rules
>>>> >> > •     Proposal for Bangla Script Root Zone Label Generation Rules
>>>> >> > •     Phase 1 Initial Report of the Review of All Rights Protection
>>>> >> > Mechanisms in All gTLDs Policy Development Process
>>>> >> > •     Addendum to the Initial Report of the Expedited Policy
>>>> >> > Development Process (EPDP) on the Temporary Specification for gTLD
>>>> >> > Registration Data Team – Phase 2
>>>> >> > •     Guidelines for Developing Reference Label Generation Rules
>>>> >> > (LGRs) for the Second Level Version 2
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > Information Sharing
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > NEW: PIR Transaction and Proposed Public Interest Commitments
>>>> Update
>>>> >> > Executive: Göran Marby, ICANN President and CEO
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > Since Public Interest Registry (PIR) formally notified ICANN of the
>>>> >> > proposed change of control transaction on 14 November 2019
>>>> >> > [r20.rs6.net]<
>>>> >>
>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r20.rs6.net_tn.jsp-3Ff-3D001ksZaHYpLxs73N74vLz88Vq0p2eY7hNPIUETQItxPS1zFOkKdqUiWFt-2DqViuZxFtMbojNo0l3-5FANH24DHECSiWoBxsLSaqGlloXx-5FUcAwJwakeQ9Zmj6QVbLPEgY1YoMQ30XcWD0EfoICTUD3fQsUgTRutD1d4E9y-2D5LUMBGXHzz5KkRxQtTHxwFk0xJWQ0E5Dc20U-2DqwV-5FjHI6W5uMb0IMvlWR-2D5vUUlNlzJnBCaG0Q-3D-26c-3Dwy9XJGNosEnEjdPoYLdJwvuIgsRRZOESZYkznmQPNTaHtmURx3UpcA-3D-3D-26ch-3D3Nfh4df3oGcxggBTYNdpswIf0un3QheyxW0pkf2jmeEOezCq3E9Zxg-3D-3D&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=8_WhWIPqsLT6TmF1Zmyci866vcPSFO4VShFqESGe_5iHWGlBLwwwehFBfjrsjWv9&m=Lr1oOkYZ9081GhqSfAb5smovhT1n5h6sykrEY1gEbF0&s=mLXHpNOHqUpl4b9smtPPhoUEZkfXME5gylo_YK5fpHA&e=
>>>> >,
>>>> >> the ICANN org and Board have worked together to thoughtfully and
>>>> thoroughly
>>>> >> evaluate the proposed acquisition to ensure that the .ORG registry
>>>> remains
>>>> >> secure, reliable, and stable. Throughout this process, ICANN has
>>>> urged PIR,
>>>> >> the Internet Society (ISOC), and Ethos Capital (Ethos) to engage and
>>>> >> consult with the .ORG community, and to provide full transparency
>>>> regarding
>>>> >> the proposed
>>>> >> > transaction.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > Today, ICANN is publishing
>>>> >> > [r20.rs6.net]<
>>>> >>
>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r20.rs6.net_tn.jsp-3Ff-3D001ksZaHYpLxs73N74vLz88Vq0p2eY7hNPIUETQItxPS1zFOkKdqUiWFt-2DqViuZxFtMjl-2DLfzT9kl16ErkR6z6u2dnFIk8nbt5udOqVrVKLsftd1T8OPz2mml3-2DC-2DH7IAjX29PnKBS-5FBmWKWgICCjqgyzR4c8NWnenXlseFPEKyVB16RneWbnmGzb0G1T7WZWmhO-2DJA9b67bhA0s30fnk2HieXDOgw9WXF6u-5FntnNq2sjl-2DbfHRdB-5F-5FCg-3D-3D-26c-3Dwy9XJGNosEnEjdPoYLdJwvuIgsRRZOESZYkznmQPNTaHtmURx3UpcA-3D-3D-26ch-3D3Nfh4df3oGcxggBTYNdpswIf0un3QheyxW0pkf2jmeEOezCq3E9Zxg-3D-3D&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=8_WhWIPqsLT6TmF1Zmyci866vcPSFO4VShFqESGe_5iHWGlBLwwwehFBfjrsjWv9&m=Lr1oOkYZ9081GhqSfAb5smovhT1n5h6sykrEY1gEbF0&s=ts4XYR8T3ZJT4y-6SxsLyD1y4BIj0BUeGrarBKdExLU&e=
>>>> >
>>>> >> PIR's recently updated Public Interest Commitments (PICs), which were
>>>> >> received by ICANN on 7 April 2020. PIR proposes that these PICs be
>>>> added to
>>>> >> the .<
>>>> >>
>>>> http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001ksZaHYpLxs73N74vLz88Vq0p2eY7hNPIUETQItxPS1zFOkKdqUiWFt-qViuZxFtMMIlnB_968dbzElej_FsRAoGq9Eqxvee5Q_KV5Ct9-uvF3B31UTR6Pun8VJszaEAlzU4xxfVyba-mp3rK4vMyrYD5X7zBxTYL-Y2bodULglcmjvrcd2FKT5ZvSFm834cHPq-Lo-SHUpaAa10pknkz_QmRkfJzm_COPRwJcwnEAZIq0fVsl5mIrAuPWKCpT_0bS9JLJoOeypYS3lYOf8USOG9-Lnbs0VPbBZvw6z7abI16KnPdxcAd8ilswdLQVIKP58l2duFHIEfp_5jKkTmexLuak03kILHIa569s8HYm2jzhPYFwc30tXVW7a89Hu-2JoexXh6ZHsF4Ly5aM9lr3oG1z5LFmgsIBEZuu4ZtvCdXnl3JIDWTLsCvY5gP8VaKpDf_sU5EVVKYmg9DuNkuIpPYMB4w6Knz3koBfDS71iKx_MiXAc-a4n0KRH04OAFSnK9SoDHcro7hFDPzd-y_oY-NdPKWVWBy43QVOxGMzUxgS0TgrW6gmetCRBpI_TDSU62AMXlzBng-VsqHgkUvtQ==&c=wy9XJGNosEnEjdPoYLdJwvuIgsRRZOESZYkznmQPNTaHtmURx3UpcA==&ch=3Nfh4df3oGcxggBTYNdpswIf0un3QheyxW0pkf2jmeEOezCq3E9Zxg==
>>>> >ORG
>>>> >> Registry Agreement  [r20.rs6.net]<
>>>> >>
>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r20.rs6.net_tn.jsp-3Ff-3D001ksZaHYpLxs73N74vLz88Vq0p2eY7hNPIUETQItxPS1zFOkKdqUiWFt-2DqViuZxFtMt8ZrQ-5FUUDPTpBScWUeesMbPDgtiEx9JsqUZ2RBBSmfuo3amjba4h6H0FCK6sF6ZzI563CxHXZiQNwwMvlhv1A-5FqJiOclOyojun5IxJ71bhFSHVpJ8RCrubAItweNsQgV39EXBLH9hvA-3D-26c-3Dwy9XJGNosEnEjdPoYLdJwvuIgsRRZOESZYkznmQPNTaHtmURx3UpcA-3D-3D-26ch-3D3Nfh4df3oGcxggBTYNdpswIf0un3QheyxW0pkf2jmeEOezCq3E9Zxg-3D-3D&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=8_WhWIPqsLT6TmF1Zmyci866vcPSFO4VShFqESGe_5iHWGlBLwwwehFBfjrsjWv9&m=Lr1oOkYZ9081GhqSfAb5smovhT1n5h6sykrEY1gEbF0&s=PFZv7yhgsFMq0lzJYXDEZdNlTGoZ4scsPzhlOXouNvA&e=
>>>> >should
>>>> >> ICANN approve the change of control request submitted by PIR. Two
>>>> versions
>>>> >> of the PICs are being published: a "clean [r20.rs6.net]<
>>>> >>
>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r20.rs6.net_tn.jsp-3Ff-3D001ksZaHYpLxs73N74vLz88Vq0p2eY7hNPIUETQItxPS1zFOkKdqUiWFt-2DqViuZxFtMPkg-5FIhS82AYz2s0agDU9ankQXLYTjJeksRZN597OYN1pXU7CA-2DizP91h-2DCxUrMPyE581jkJBcMq5gWufSkDdhOW2M-2DkMl3vUtj4urTtIr99h-5FkiqRZTERHDJtge9P-5Fz5WerwaZluwmVlaNURyQf-2DAvXUwzYPpFr-5FYvXFhHORQWqTP5NK7uD3-5Fg-3D-3D-26c-3Dwy9XJGNosEnEjdPoYLdJwvuIgsRRZOESZYkznmQPNTaHtmURx3UpcA-3D-3D-26ch-3D3Nfh4df3oGcxggBTYNdpswIf0un3QheyxW0pkf2jmeEOezCq3E9Zxg-3D-3D&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=8_WhWIPqsLT6TmF1Zmyci866vcPSFO4VShFqESGe_5iHWGlBLwwwehFBfjrsjWv9&m=Lr1oOkYZ9081GhqSfAb5smovhT1n5h6sykrEY1gEbF0&s=yrlvXk8vaOH9RSyqAuJb1YP_VxI3vFuz6Yyo4WxRdkc&e=
>>>> >"
>>>> >> version and a "redline [r20.rs6.net]<
>>>> >>
>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r20.rs6.net_tn.jsp-3Ff-3D001ksZaHYpLxs73N74vLz88Vq0p2eY7hNPIUETQItxPS1zFOkKdqUiWFt-2DqViuZxFtM2NGnW2TWIbAuSn-5Fra-2DV40EhKb8SQVrjtcMLlKR3PwRnjHjXMd-5FJWOT4i6SC-5FtTb-5FuTMBKCjdgG-5FAnOVMddwuP-5F-2DZMTcbzNklSTp6b1EE960w0cwLdtSoQOXwcvOfLoT1zI-2DzoNWdc4nTxw5lQIXMfgZyb5cgQbeVhbscHVmg5otVtAqawVBTSLJaHeGb7Xy2-26c-3Dwy9XJGNosEnEjdPoYLdJwvuIgsRRZOESZYkznmQPNTaHtmURx3UpcA-3D-3D-26ch-3D3Nfh4df3oGcxggBTYNdpswIf0un3QheyxW0pkf2jmeEOezCq3E9Zxg-3D-3D&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=8_WhWIPqsLT6TmF1Zmyci866vcPSFO4VShFqESGe_5iHWGlBLwwwehFBfjrsjWv9&m=Lr1oOkYZ9081GhqSfAb5smovhT1n5h6sykrEY1gEbF0&s=L2bmKUr5EWBlGGQCZOhCeVTqRJu6SEUQgFgHIAjmJ1M&e=
>>>> >"
>>>> >> version that shows changes made by PIR from its 16 March 2020 version
>>>> >> submitted to ICANN following PIR's Public Engagement process.
>>>> >> > [r20.rs6.net]<
>>>> >>
>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r20.rs6.net_tn.jsp-3Ff-3D001ksZaHYpLxs73N74vLz88Vq0p2eY7hNPIUETQItxPS1zFOkKdqUiWFt-2DqViuZxFtM1ecPoHkp0Qu90ued5Lbmf3r3DQM-2DRewknXnd2HMqbj-2DaC7vftx82qbFD6UixhfAJk6asLfO5ZiM5vpvaysPdcYLV2k7nAGJHjgvpt54cmoCnd2VcNM43hg-3D-3D-26c-3Dwy9XJGNosEnEjdPoYLdJwvuIgsRRZOESZYkznmQPNTaHtmURx3UpcA-3D-3D-26ch-3D3Nfh4df3oGcxggBTYNdpswIf0un3QheyxW0pkf2jmeEOezCq3E9Zxg-3D-3D&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=8_WhWIPqsLT6TmF1Zmyci866vcPSFO4VShFqESGe_5iHWGlBLwwwehFBfjrsjWv9&m=Lr1oOkYZ9081GhqSfAb5smovhT1n5h6sykrEY1gEbF0&s=ANKFOin7HLmMPYHXq1AFPnYmvexcAakJovbMGTdQr8A&e=
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > The revised PICs that ICANN is publishing today are in response to
>>>> >> > additional questions posed by ICANN as part of its diligence around
>>>> >> > the change of control request. On 3 April 2020, ICANN provided PIR
>>>> >> > with two sets of questions. One set of questions are in follow-up
>>>> to
>>>> >> > previous ICANN inquiries designed to further understand the
>>>> proposed
>>>> >> > transaction and its potential effect on PIR and the .ORG top-level
>>>> >> > domain (TLD). The second set of questions relate specifically to
>>>> the
>>>> >> > proposed PICs. PIR has indicated that it is working to answer all
>>>> of
>>>> >> > the questions from ICANN.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > It is ICANN's intention to post PIR's responses to these questions
>>>> >> > when they are available, subject to any appropriate requests for
>>>> >> > confidentiality made by PIR.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > Many people have questioned the enforceability of PICs by ICANN. To
>>>> >> > be clear, PICs are enforceable by ICANN. Any Internet user may
>>>> >> > submit complaints to ICANN Contractual Compliance. In addition,
>>>> >> > ICANN Contractual Compliance may identify an issue through its
>>>> >> > proactive monitoring. ICANN's follow-up questions to PIR seek to
>>>> >> > ensure that ICANN has a clear understanding of each commitment
>>>> >> > within the PICs, such that it could be enforced should the need
>>>> >> > arise. The ICANN Board continues to have reservations regarding the
>>>> >> > enforceability of PIR's proposed PICs.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > The .ORG Registry Agreement stipulates a specified time period for
>>>> >> > ICANN to approve or withhold consent of the proposed change of
>>>> >> > control of PIR. ICANN and PIR have agreed to extend the deadline
>>>> >> > several times since the original deadline in mid-January, and the
>>>> >> > deadline for ICANN's response is now 20 April 2020.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > Similar to when voluntary commitments in the form of PICs were
>>>> >> > proposed by applicants for new generic TLDs, ICANN is providing
>>>> >> > PIR's proposed PICs to the ICANN community with this public notice.
>>>> >> > Given the fast-approaching deadline for ICANN to make a decision to
>>>> >> > approve or withhold consent on the requested change of control of
>>>> >> > PIR, the typical 30-day public notice period has been condensed to
>>>> >> > seven days. We recognize the full engagement of the .ORG community
>>>> >> > in PIR's consultation process, but wanted to ensure ICANN remained
>>>> >> > fully transparent in what is being considered, the concerns still
>>>> >> > present in the Board's review, and what the Board will be
>>>> reviewing.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > How to Participate: Feedback may be submitted as a comment to this
>>>> >> > blog
>>>> >> > [r20.rs6.net]<
>>>> >>
>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r20.rs6.net_tn.jsp-3Ff-3D001ksZaHYpLxs73N74vLz88Vq0p2eY7hNPIUETQItxPS1zFOkKdqUiWFt-2DqViuZxFtMlCsaRdGZCZWr6aGU7qSTQtpUsX57iyMIgI8JJa96lU54JNF3m0f3uwiK5VBqZGvI76JFMJ2xpZj-5FzGN7OihHOFJm5gB4DU1i7ZfKQR5gT36asgmsO8S0kradGtN09wQ0WCwZLgYbr-5F5OrqP-5F5rE8mBR-2DqBQzg-5FCJ1NMSJx02GVq7aag0yuegdg-3D-3D-26c-3Dwy9XJGNosEnEjdPoYLdJwvuIgsRRZOESZYkznmQPNTaHtmURx3UpcA-3D-3D-26ch-3D3Nfh4df3oGcxggBTYNdpswIf0un3QheyxW0pkf2jmeEOezCq3E9Zxg-3D-3D&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=8_WhWIPqsLT6TmF1Zmyci866vcPSFO4VShFqESGe_5iHWGlBLwwwehFBfjrsjWv9&m=Lr1oOkYZ9081GhqSfAb5smovhT1n5h6sykrEY1gEbF0&s=IWPBCoMxSRD7G3awtw0MQUJ1KUg5OrIsYh5MhUj_Jvk&e=
>>>> >
>>>> >> or through correspondence to me or the ICANN
>>>> >> > Board.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > We thank the ICANN community for its active participation in this
>>>> >> > matter and remain committed to keeping you informed of new
>>>> >> > developments.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > NEW: Addressing Recent Zoom News
>>>> >> > Executive: Ashwin Rangan, Senior Vice President, Engineering and
>>>> >> > Chief Information Officer
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > ICANN’s video conferencing platform, Zoom, has been in the news
>>>> >> > quite a bit. With shelter-in-place and work-from-home becoming more
>>>> >> > familiar, not only for the ICANN community but the world at large,
>>>> >> > Zoom has become a vital tool for many businesses. With this recent
>>>> >> > increase in Zoom usage, we’ve also seen a number of bugs, flaws,
>>>> and
>>>> >> > security vulnerabilities come to light.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > It’s natural that a hugely popular system like Zoom will be poked
>>>> >> > and prodded, and it’s likely that alarming bits of information will
>>>> >> > continue to be revealed in the coming weeks and months.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > However, it’s important to remember that almost any piece of
>>>> >> > software has bugs and glitches. What’s vitally important in these
>>>> >> > moments is how the software vendor reacts to receiving such
>>>> >> > information. In this regard, ICANN applauds Zoom for their efforts.
>>>> >> > Every time a new vulnerability has been exposed, Zoom has reacted
>>>> >> > swiftly by releasing patches within a day or two, while remaining
>>>> >> > transparent about the nature of the underlying issues.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > If you care to learn more about any specific vulnerability or how
>>>> >> > Zoom has responded, we highly recommend taking a look at Zoom’s
>>>> >> > blog, which is available here
>>>> >> > [r20.rs6.net]<
>>>> >>
>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r20.rs6.net_tn.jsp-3Ff-3D001ksZaHYpLxs73N74vLz88Vq0p2eY7hNPIUETQItxPS1zFOkKdqUiWFt-2DqViuZxFtM6QSfysSoBf4quheUTAwEiPz0sCAeBTGnXtBWT3VOUDdgLqy-5FjkRDUX-2DDoc-5FAIJBNsEZCrqBaQEMqmDJxayUWRYd8HvkuefBV-26c-3Dwy9XJGNosEnEjdPoYLdJwvuIgsRRZOESZYkznmQPNTaHtmURx3UpcA-3D-3D-26ch-3D3Nfh4df3oGcxggBTYNdpswIf0un3QheyxW0pkf2jmeEOezCq3E9Zxg-3D-3D&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=8_WhWIPqsLT6TmF1Zmyci866vcPSFO4VShFqESGe_5iHWGlBLwwwehFBfjrsjWv9&m=Lr1oOkYZ9081GhqSfAb5smovhT1n5h6sykrEY1gEbF0&s=PcGAwKynwBZUH87c_nxV4y4WJ4UDzgrIgLEF0Y-yy3M&e=
>>>> >.
>>>> >> As stated before, it’s likely that this won’t be the last time we
>>>> will hear
>>>> >> about Zoom’s flaws, either from security researchers or new attack
>>>> >> > vectors.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > While we continue to monitor developments, ICANN remains committed
>>>> >> > to Zoom. We strive to offer the best solutions to our community,
>>>> and
>>>> >> > at this time, we are still confident that Zoom fits the bill.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > If you have any questions or comments regarding Zoom and how it may
>>>> >> > relate to you, please do not hesitate to reach out to
>>>> >> > mts at icann.org<mailto:mts at icann.org>.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > ENDS TOMORROW: Your Feedback about this Digest
>>>> >> > Executive: David Olive, Senior Vice President, Policy Development
>>>> Support
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > Reflecting on the first year of the ICANN Community Leadership
>>>> >> > Digest, the ICANN org Policy Development Support function seeks
>>>> your
>>>> >> > feedback. Please take this brief survey
>>>> >> > [r20.rs6.net]<
>>>> >>
>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r20.rs6.net_tn.jsp-3Ff-3D001ksZaHYpLxs73N74vLz88Vq0p2eY7hNPIUETQItxPS1zFOkKdqUiWFkIoDPRoPRvsBdZ-5FGoiv0BcyEsqTchFFXXkzDy-5FPrXuLQ2wWkGUnqMG5vB-5FBsL-2DexDGGYx9Z93RcP-5FqESAsVE1N-5Fes14Oc-5FQcEOwODWQkSy-2D-26c-3Dwy9XJGNosEnEjdPoYLdJwvuIgsRRZOESZYkznmQPNTaHtmURx3UpcA-3D-3D-26ch-3D3Nfh4df3oGcxggBTYNdpswIf0un3QheyxW0pkf2jmeEOezCq3E9Zxg-3D-3D&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=8_WhWIPqsLT6TmF1Zmyci866vcPSFO4VShFqESGe_5iHWGlBLwwwehFBfjrsjWv9&m=Lr1oOkYZ9081GhqSfAb5smovhT1n5h6sykrEY1gEbF0&s=9DQ1pHoBVR4vpcEUVnWV4Lw8sYIcbujzoWdUKYawy9U&e=
>>>> >
>>>> >> by Friday, 10 April
>>>> >> > 2020.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > REMINDER: Call for Expressions of Interest: Standing Panel for
>>>> >> > ICANN’s Independent Review Process
>>>> >> > Announcement
>>>> >> > [r20.rs6.net]<
>>>> >>
>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r20.rs6.net_tn.jsp-3Ff-3D001ksZaHYpLxs73N74vLz88Vq0p2eY7hNPIUETQItxPS1zFOkKdqUiWFhDXvOWShZvD2hLEBznqukU-2DzpGY9SKvgZYnzs8Pb7q6cYigVDx3lR28KNIIg1OZSSrtV6PTHjePVwGIxmZNiT5QJa0uMX2tqVpBsJG4J0BWWru2lfXIvdoYMrq-5FhNGeLCfd1j-5F1OZaM-26c-3Dwy9XJGNosEnEjdPoYLdJwvuIgsRRZOESZYkznmQPNTaHtmURx3UpcA-3D-3D-26ch-3D3Nfh4df3oGcxggBTYNdpswIf0un3QheyxW0pkf2jmeEOezCq3E9Zxg-3D-3D&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=8_WhWIPqsLT6TmF1Zmyci866vcPSFO4VShFqESGe_5iHWGlBLwwwehFBfjrsjWv9&m=Lr1oOkYZ9081GhqSfAb5smovhT1n5h6sykrEY1gEbF0&s=wh1fzSPiKMlK_nF31FLv2uByqlUbU5tu7_fdgg8Hif4&e=
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > On 31 March 2020, ICANN opened a call for Expressions of Interest
>>>> >> > for panelists to serve on the omnibus Standing Panel for ICANN's
>>>> >> > Independent Review Process (IRP). The deadline to submit
>>>> Expressions
>>>> >> > of Interest is 31 July 2020 at 23:59 UTC.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > Candidates for the IRP omnibus Standing Panel should review the
>>>> >> > Expressions of Interest document
>>>> >> > [r20.rs6.net]<
>>>> >>
>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r20.rs6.net_tn.jsp-3Ff-3D001ksZaHYpLxs73N74vLz88Vq0p2eY7hNPIUETQItxPS1zFOkKdqUiWFhDXvOWShZvDgPvUW1EhP8WCVbm7MS0BsmCnAHsaFMUEoj9AM6ObL9ubtekC1N1ukFoJ-5FBciA-2DgkijA-2DFBr90Ud-5FTOGNu8PWMhrNjdjjyZvqFIQ450g94Vru2c4WBkwiqkUG0w7QB7QlvcBo0S6i9KT2Lp9FwvFhrK2SAcT3d8Ft-26c-3Dwy9XJGNosEnEjdPoYLdJwvuIgsRRZOESZYkznmQPNTaHtmURx3UpcA-3D-3D-26ch-3D3Nfh4df3oGcxggBTYNdpswIf0un3QheyxW0pkf2jmeEOezCq3E9Zxg-3D-3D&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=8_WhWIPqsLT6TmF1Zmyci866vcPSFO4VShFqESGe_5iHWGlBLwwwehFBfjrsjWv9&m=Lr1oOkYZ9081GhqSfAb5smovhT1n5h6sykrEY1gEbF0&s=G4e0eHDidhaSHCLG-Lp0mdVooTB9Udt6NFCT4_hfNvQ&e=
>>>> >before
>>>> >> submission. The document includes the following
>>>> >> > information:
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > •     Panel Position Description
>>>> >> > •     Required or Highly Preferred Skills
>>>> >> > •     Required or Highly Preferred Experience
>>>> >> > •     Time Commitment
>>>> >> > •     Compensation and Selection
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > Expressions of Interest should be submitted to
>>>> >> > IRP-Standingpanel-EOI2020 at icann.org<mailto:
>>>> >> IRP-Standingpanel-EOI2020 at icann.org> by 23:59 UTC on 31 July
>>>> >> > 2020.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > Public Comment
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > CLOSES MONDAY: Revised Community Travel Support Guidelines
>>>> >> > [r20.rs6.net]<
>>>> >>
>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r20.rs6.net_tn.jsp-3Ff-3D001ksZaHYpLxs73N74vLz88Vq0p2eY7hNPIUETQItxPS1zFOkKdqUiWFtY89CwSG4vGP9QyFiNsydEQVAWcEV-5Fx-5FyYMuDyD9mhUkKrwtZ0UYkgE52pUAGJUVyllQf8HsJVLqUb7Hl-2DQJvk-2DtNR7dPmp0y3V4wbIVgix6rHxXUJcoqQekwI114IIACiTWznCmlJwYRq4nQbpRTCw-2Dara5yu37Emw-5FDvyjlUE-26c-3Dwy9XJGNosEnEjdPoYLdJwvuIgsRRZOESZYkznmQPNTaHtmURx3UpcA-3D-3D-26ch-3D3Nfh4df3oGcxggBTYNdpswIf0un3QheyxW0pkf2jmeEOezCq3E9Zxg-3D-3D&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=8_WhWIPqsLT6TmF1Zmyci866vcPSFO4VShFqESGe_5iHWGlBLwwwehFBfjrsjWv9&m=Lr1oOkYZ9081GhqSfAb5smovhT1n5h6sykrEY1gEbF0&s=KZRoix0AC0mirjIIP5MqMXYT8_kOVKpVj-AnQc4qVEI&e=
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > Close Date: Monday, 13 April 2020
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > Proposal for Chinese Script Root Zone Label Generation Rules
>>>> >> > [r20.rs6.net]<
>>>> >>
>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r20.rs6.net_tn.jsp-3Ff-3D001ksZaHYpLxs73N74vLz88Vq0p2eY7hNPIUETQItxPS1zFOkKdqUiWFhiNYDgFY8zJdVvy8ZlKxm9ygyJmLgZOGIYB-2DzeG5FSuiAXh8oBSRbqMjNeUcl0ggkZN8rs6RO4JLtosigTh8p4JBv7Amc7V4tOTqIRpzAXok0l9gaWxurzrwTxTbtIpqbNaih-5Fc5l85eB854mYXP0gKGto16a6-5FING4f4AaT1yo-26c-3Dwy9XJGNosEnEjdPoYLdJwvuIgsRRZOESZYkznmQPNTaHtmURx3UpcA-3D-3D-26ch-3D3Nfh4df3oGcxggBTYNdpswIf0un3QheyxW0pkf2jmeEOezCq3E9Zxg-3D-3D&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=8_WhWIPqsLT6TmF1Zmyci866vcPSFO4VShFqESGe_5iHWGlBLwwwehFBfjrsjWv9&m=Lr1oOkYZ9081GhqSfAb5smovhT1n5h6sykrEY1gEbF0&s=g3VHZG_hmZ8ewQKGAD8iSf-O0ckPMC4xfCiO6F2bQkc&e=
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > Close Date: Monday, 20 April 2020
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > Proposal for Bangla Script Root Zone Label Generation Rules
>>>> >> > [r20.rs6.net]<
>>>> >>
>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r20.rs6.net_tn.jsp-3Ff-3D001ksZaHYpLxs73N74vLz88Vq0p2eY7hNPIUETQItxPS1zFOkKdqUiWFmKYv52uy6-2D4iiVzpAClZnxseaCCiGyXl0PjEyfQjPwmxWMXlc-5FOuVGUsBSfBJ4Mb8jrSF2ecxJcaUOwQrllleeTthNvI-5FKg7imzq2TklU4gGyf05gDt8XdZloNEILhO5PZupDyzOeDc6VBNUfC5kOBo8PJR7FS3KaJ6Hp2dBRu8-26c-3Dwy9XJGNosEnEjdPoYLdJwvuIgsRRZOESZYkznmQPNTaHtmURx3UpcA-3D-3D-26ch-3D3Nfh4df3oGcxggBTYNdpswIf0un3QheyxW0pkf2jmeEOezCq3E9Zxg-3D-3D&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=8_WhWIPqsLT6TmF1Zmyci866vcPSFO4VShFqESGe_5iHWGlBLwwwehFBfjrsjWv9&m=Lr1oOkYZ9081GhqSfAb5smovhT1n5h6sykrEY1gEbF0&s=7RSaqRNE7rwHcd2Sia8v2TRbLiflkRsGySbo33Pq9D0&e=
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > Close Date: Thursday, 23 April 2020
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > Phase 1 Initial Report of the Review of All Rights Protection
>>>> >> > Mechanisms in All gTLDs Policy Development Process
>>>> >> > [r20.rs6.net]<
>>>> >>
>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r20.rs6.net_tn.jsp-3Ff-3D001ksZaHYpLxs73N74vLz88Vq0p2eY7hNPIUETQItxPS1zFOkKdqUiWFj9fpHfmJJBeKb1epUydWc3EzsZSj8Uwcoii-2DXmD2XtnFwFaGxB-2Dx6I16WKdSg0EkEC8BAhBu2WHMbFq2sUIRInh2xgGkOwZhGqyawEOqZ634-5FhH7CQ8RxlXu63kefU2cg85EZjcOb2duwpwhMjATiAMPeaPDlTsxA-3D-3D-26c-3Dwy9XJGNosEnEjdPoYLdJwvuIgsRRZOESZYkznmQPNTaHtmURx3UpcA-3D-3D-26ch-3D3Nfh4df3oGcxggBTYNdpswIf0un3QheyxW0pkf2jmeEOezCq3E9Zxg-3D-3D&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=8_WhWIPqsLT6TmF1Zmyci866vcPSFO4VShFqESGe_5iHWGlBLwwwehFBfjrsjWv9&m=Lr1oOkYZ9081GhqSfAb5smovhT1n5h6sykrEY1gEbF0&s=nM36roD_xIofeZLEMtaGs4IFjj_j1wl-og3VAEvdazg&e=
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > Close Date: Monday, 27 April 2020
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > Addendum to the Initial Report of the Expedited Policy Development
>>>> >> > Process (EPDP) on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration
>>>> >> > Data Team – Phase 2
>>>> >> > [r20.rs6.net]<
>>>> >>
>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r20.rs6.net_tn.jsp-3Ff-3D001ksZaHYpLxs73N74vLz88Vq0p2eY7hNPIUETQItxPS1zFOkKdqUiWFkIoDPRoPRvs82iXYdszIj2pYDMS0rHPlAwpwN9mhLx55-5FummJlrmbA4Y8TZsI1OX7YHgEoYiLKBHSAHoMPs0M9SBwTeNrArt-5F5k46yplBom7C7hdDtQ5K1ogJhd-5Fl8lJkSnqckbjs4vzHjRTRP8RF2guXWgh9xErA-3D-3D-26c-3Dwy9XJGNosEnEjdPoYLdJwvuIgsRRZOESZYkznmQPNTaHtmURx3UpcA-3D-3D-26ch-3D3Nfh4df3oGcxggBTYNdpswIf0un3QheyxW0pkf2jmeEOezCq3E9Zxg-3D-3D&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=8_WhWIPqsLT6TmF1Zmyci866vcPSFO4VShFqESGe_5iHWGlBLwwwehFBfjrsjWv9&m=Lr1oOkYZ9081GhqSfAb5smovhT1n5h6sykrEY1gEbF0&s=372vmvMQMKD1hyBnYvsBdaqs5ENaZ83CYOFt3YlQQ5Q&e=
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > Close Date: Tuesday, 5 May 2020
>>>> >> > Guidelines for Developing Reference Label Generation Rules (LGRs)
>>>> >> > for the Second Level Version 2
>>>> >> > [r20.rs6.net]<
>>>> >>
>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r20.rs6.net_tn.jsp-3Ff-3D001ksZaHYpLxs73N74vLz88Vq0p2eY7hNPIUETQItxPS1zFOkKdqUiWFhkxpqfCSVcEKH3lZoDdmOeJGHXZWUszKwUfZd4u0uFjsOQLvwjUSG7DpH9-5Fmg09z483tj0jtrRtSrD-5FQHfMU-5F1gfUAgtIzJrrXdCCz60eVKM-2DMSL68SnYO77GMdeDFp8s8YUM5faEvCxgvyQZ-2D9yFNacpgtcwSCHA-3D-3D-26c-3Dwy9XJGNosEnEjdPoYLdJwvuIgsRRZOESZYkznmQPNTaHtmURx3UpcA-3D-3D-26ch-3D3Nfh4df3oGcxggBTYNdpswIf0un3QheyxW0pkf2jmeEOezCq3E9Zxg-3D-3D&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=8_WhWIPqsLT6TmF1Zmyci866vcPSFO4VShFqESGe_5iHWGlBLwwwehFBfjrsjWv9&m=Lr1oOkYZ9081GhqSfAb5smovhT1n5h6sykrEY1gEbF0&s=2L3B7qhd8walcslu4Qzo1xk083LuHFdGUKBwCMoEcVI&e=
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > Close Date: Tuesday, 12 May 2020
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > Volume 2, Issue 29 | Archive
>>>> >> > [r20.rs6.net]<
>>>> >>
>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__r20.rs6.net_tn.jsp-3Ff-3D001ksZaHYpLxs73N74vLz88Vq0p2eY7hNPIUETQItxPS1zFOkKdqUiWFvN81lnNY4rwlNDFDEUS18xytYwuCwvTM36th-2DNM1lg23ibrV1QS9vnURID3EAHR2bL3FO7PSkQ2LjAdsmzGVn3m9oxJsnuRYZ7gwJeaIqWDGMtkORnO7mab4cIUHDskuHoIGeGQcvuVLX-2D-2DaoviPHPVhZVgldulZGKw9xaC8AS22-5FJL9uFCJzA-3D-26c-3Dwy9XJGNosEnEjdPoYLdJwvuIgsRRZOESZYkznmQPNTaHtmURx3UpcA-3D-3D-26ch-3D3Nfh4df3oGcxggBTYNdpswIf0un3QheyxW0pkf2jmeEOezCq3E9Zxg-3D-3D&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=8_WhWIPqsLT6TmF1Zmyci866vcPSFO4VShFqESGe_5iHWGlBLwwwehFBfjrsjWv9&m=Lr1oOkYZ9081GhqSfAb5smovhT1n5h6sykrEY1gEbF0&s=LLA54bpW6lPOCy5iKFZ3Vb9RORKPyANq7iVQ7ex-Q_8&e=
>>>> >
>>>> >> | Next Issue: Monday, 13 April
>>>> >> > 2020
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > _______________________________________________
>>>> >> > council mailing list
>>>> >> > council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>
>>>> >> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > _______________________________________________
>>>> >> > 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.
>>>> >>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> *Bruna Martins dos Santos *
>>
>> Skype ID: bruna.martinsantos
>> @boomartins
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> *Bruna Martins dos Santos *
>
> Skype ID: bruna.martinsantos
> @boomartins
>


-- 
*Bruna Martins dos Santos *

Skype ID: bruna.martinsantos
@boomartins
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20200420/7b08023a/attachment.htm>