[Consultation] PIR Transaction and Proposed Public Interest Commitments Update

Tue Apr 21 06:42:09 EEST 2020

Thanks Bruna for follow-up.
@amr can you propose the amendments?

Rafik

On Mon, Apr 20, 2020, 23:51 Bruna Martins dos Santos <bruna.mrtns at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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/20200421/f28a5d8e/attachment.htm>