[CPWG] Engagement on DNS Abuse

Thu Feb 4 16:57:04 UTC 2021

Hi all

I agree with Evan on both points.

Indeed the scope of the advice of ALAC does not have the limits that are imposed on other bodies, like the SOs. This because it is advice, and not a binding decision.

And agree as well about the strictly technical mandate of ICANN. Quoting one of Evan’s examples, the new gTLDs, there were just a couple of things that were within that remit, like the study on how many TLDs could be introduced with no risk for the root - and how fast this could be done - or issues about collision with widely used keywords. All the rest has nothing to do with technical issues. If somebody can explain to me what is technical about, for instance, whether large non-capital cities should have their name reserved or not, I might change my mind - but until then I remain convinced that the footprint of ICANN expands well beyond a coordination of technical issues.

Cheers,
Roberto

PS: since Evan mentions it, my opinion about .XXX is that it should not have been delegated for the simple reason that it violated one key condition for sponsored TLDs: evidence of consensus of the served community - and we have received, as Board, many statements from parts of the adult industry who disagreed (for a number of reasons) with the delegation of .XXX. Initially the Board denied delegation, but later (but I was already off the Board) changed the opinion - some folks hinted that it was for fear of lawsuits. But the question is: what was the impact of that decision on the technical infrastructure management? Who is ICANN to have the power to decide yes or no?

> On 03.02.2021, at 19:01, Evan Leibovitch <evan at telly.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi Jonathan and Joanna,
> 
> A few comments on scope:
> I feel the need to periodically remind my colleagues that ALAC's scope is whatever it deems to be in scope. The ICANN bylaws explicitly do not limit the subject matter on which we can comment in the manner that SOs are. We are able to advise the Board on policy, on operations, on core values, on budget, and indeed on scope. I reject the arbitrary imposition of limitations upon what we can comment based on the limitations placed on (or assumed by) other ICANN sub-communities. If there is something that ALAC deems is (a) important to end users and (b) addressable by ICANN then it's in-scope. We are the sole arbitrators of what is important to us, and I find it intensely frustrating when ALAC muzzles itself in order to be synchronized with the self-imposed limits of others. 
> 
> In response to the question:
> "Does this mean we should finally abandon the well established yet always controversial narrative of a strictly technical infrastructure management?"
> I answer: That ship sailed long ago and is now on the ocean floor. Anyone who believes that ICANN adheres to a strictly technical mandate -- or even pretends to -- has not been following its history very deeply. From the money-driven decisions on expanding the number of gTLDs, to the utterly political decisions about the "appropriateness" of artifacts such as .XXX or vertical integration or closed generics, to philosophical issues such as the balance between registrant privacy versus accountability, ICANN long ago shed any pretense of purely technical function. Most recently, the admonishment of ICANN on the issue of the .ORG transfer by its overseer (the California Attorney General) demonstrates beyond doubt that societal expectations of ICANN's function go WELL beyond the purely technical.
> By all means let's be clear on what we mean by "DNS Abuse"; without clarity we won't have the necessary focus and our resulting advice will be easily ignored. But let's not artificially constrain ourselves in advance.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada
> @evanleibovitch / @el56
> 
> 
> On Wed, 3 Feb 2021 at 09:50, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org <mailto:JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org>> wrote:
> Evin has suggested that I had, perhaps, NOT forwarded this to the group. Here’s the discussion thread, initiated by Keith Drazek on the Contracted Party House DNS Abuse Work Group. This includes, Joanna’s expression of mission creep concern.
> 
> Jonathan
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Jonathan Zuck
> 
> Executive Director
> 
> Innovators Network Foundation
> 
> www.InnovatorsNetwork.org <http://www.innovatorsnetwork.org/>
>  
> 
> From: Joanna Kulesza <mailto:jkuleszaicann at gmail.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 2:12 AM
> To: Maureen Hilyard <mailto:maureen.hilyard at gmail.com>; Jonathan Zuck <mailto:JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org>
> Subject: Re: Engagement on DNS Abuse
> 
>  
> 
> Great stuff Jonathan, as always. Feel free to share. If I were to add my two cents, I'd put these in the "pain points" section while these are of a more general nature.
> 
> "From the discussions we've had within At-Large it is clear that the very scope and definition of DNS Abuse is a "pain point". This was also the take away from the discussions we've had with the invited guests from within and beyond the ICANN community. "DNS Abuse" as it is now defined in the proposed Framework affects the entire internet community of end users while being already covered by existing national and international norms and standards. Keeping these in mind the proposed definition and scope of DNS Abuse strikes as arbitrary: what were the criteria set for selecting these specific categories as DNS Abuse while leaving other potential categories out?
> 
> This is particularly relevant with regard to our second concern: the proposed scope of DNS Abuse clearly crosses the content "picket fence" that the ICANN community had set for itself. Including IP infringement on equal footing with CSAM raises serious concerns among At-Large members. We are concerned not only with the very fact of the picket fence being crossed but also by the way in which this is being done. Does this mean we should finally abandon the well established yet always controversial narrative of a strictly technical infrastructure management?
> 
> Once content is concerned, the existing and proposed  practice fails to recognize international legal safeguards when it comes to restrictions put on individual freedoms. Whenever an individual liberty is to be restricted, due process must be ensured. The procedures proposed by the DNS Abuse framework fail to ensure e.g. a right to an effective legal remedy. While we realize this argument brings us back tot he general discussion on limits of ICANN's contractual jurisdiction, that is an argument we would be interested to during any upcoming DNS Abuse work.
> 
> Only once these concerns relating to the scope of the definition of DNS Abuse can be addressed, can we focus on metrics and effective enforcement that will provide a fair and operational framework protecting the rights of end users."
> 
> By all means to feel free to rephrase!:) What I'm arguing for is that for us to be able to "measure" DNS Abuse we should first clearly and transparently decide what it means. The current framework means the contracted parties are indeed trying to play a self-proclaimed internet police (militia?). Why did we presume DNS Abuse is CSAM and (in the same breath) fake Gucci bags but not hate speech and inciting violence? While we clearly would not have the answer ready, that is definitely a discussion we should have. The GAC might be interested in this as well (see last update from Veni on the ITU processes). 
> 
> Thanks for considering team!
> 
> Best,
> 
> J.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> W dniu 27.01.2021 o 01:39, Maureen Hilyard pisze:
> 
> In your inimitable style. Love it. Send it.
> 
>  
> 
> M
> 
>  
> 
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 12:34 PM Jonathan Zuck <JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org <mailto:JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org>> wrote:
> 
> Ladies,
> 
> Here’s my draft response. Let me know what you think!
> 
> Jonathan
> 
> =============================================================
> 
> Hey folks! Thanks for reaching out. Joanna and I, for sure, would be willing to join you and I suspect others, as well, once we know the timing. With respect to the questions below, I’ll do my best to provide some initial responses but I suspect the first question might be pivotal. There seems to be a lack of real data on the topic and perhaps some additional objective research is the answers. We endeavored to begin this process, during the CCTRT (sadag-final-09aug17-en.pdf (icann.org) <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sadag-final-09aug17-en.pdf>, but obviously barely scratched the surface. Perhaps a more comprehensive study, funded by ICANN rather than the CPH or CSG might be in order? I know DAAR provides some answers but it seems to be more of a survey than an example of rigorous research. Specifically to your questions.
> 
>  
> What information do you use and how do you use it to assess DNS Abuse levels?
> This is obviously where we are weak. There doesn’t appear to be a great source for DNS Abuse “levels,” particularly because of the short time period over which a particular initiative takes place. A snapshot analysis doesn’t seem to get the full picture. The ALAC relies on the concerned raised by the GAC and the SSAC to fuel our belief that there’s more we should be doing. A recent report from Microsoft suggests the problem is bigger than we realize and David Taylor’s analysis of “responsiveness,” even among those who have signed onto the framework, seems damning.
> What are the ALAC’s pain points regarding DNS Abuse?
> Not sure to answer this in terms of how it’s handled inside ICANN or more generally from where our interests stems. To the latter point, we’re tasked with advancing the interests of those not represented by a constituency in the GNSO, namely those engaged in everyday use of the internet, as opposed to registrants. As the user base continues to grow, as we all desire, so too will the numbers of less sophisticated users, more easily duped by a phishing, malware or fraudulent advertising attack. 
> As for the situation inside ICANN, the At-Large community have attempted to engage constructively as opposed to “attacking” the CPH, focusing instead on so-called “bad actors.” The first session <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Meetings+-+Monday%2C+09+March+2020?preview=/124847126/126428447/CCWholistic02.pdf> was an attempt to bring the CPH and Contract Compliance into the same room to figure out where the holes are.
> What exactly are the relevant limits on Contract Compliance?
> We feel this is a question which comes up constantly and is never successfully or consistently answered. It seems to be an area in which the ICANN community is constantly chasing it’s tail. It would seem that the only real enforced contract provision is payment. I’m sure this is an exaggeration but it seems to be a repeated situation where that is ultimately what foils a “ bad actor” after YEARS of neglect, if not outright facilitation of abuse. The answer to THIS question should be a HIGH priority. It might just be agreeing to an interpretation of the contracts or it might require an amendment to the contracts but this issue needs to stop being a merry go round.
> Insufficient Transparency from Contract Compliance
> Contract Compliance undocumented endeavors at soft touch diplomacy with bad actors seem to need some better limits or, at least, transparency. For “the market” to play a role in this, knowing about legitimate complaints for every contracted party could help customers make better decisions about which businesses to use and help us better understand where policy development needs to take place.
> Deflection and Minimization of the Problem
> I would say that one “pain point” is that our efforts have been largely “trolled” by certain members of the CPH, rather than engaging constructively. EVEN our effort to conceive of some sort of end user education campaign, to take the pressure off the CPH, was trolled. Jim, not to put you on the spot but, during one conversation, you said you didn’t even understand why this was being discussed because it affects such a small percentage of registered names. To date, we have proposed:
>                                                               i.      Better contract enforcement
> 
>                                                              ii.      More tools for Contract Compliance
> 
>                                                            iii.      DNS Abuse “threshold,” an idea that found some support among the CPH at one point
> 
>                                                            iv.      Predictive Analytics platform, perhaps financed by ICANN
> 
> The At-Large community has absolutely no desire to over regulate or over tax the CPH and we understand most of the contracted parties, particularly those showing up to meetings, are trying to do well and continuously improve. That said, this notion that it’s somehow not “our place,” to be trying to help is nothing short of offensive. It is the active participation of the ALAC and GAC that enable the ICANN to portray itself as something other than a trade association. The At-Large mandate is to advance the interests of those MOST impacted by DNS Abuse. That said, we WELCOME suggestions on how better to engage with the CPH for constructive outcomes.
> 
>  
> Are you seeing practices from registrars or registries you find helpful?
> If we haven’t said it enough, the At-Large appreciates the efforts of those behind the Framework for DNS Abuse and the huge efforts that went into cooperation with law enforcement to track down COVID related abuse. We’d love to see the framework evolve to include specific commitments and metrics, however, for it to be something on which the community could truly rely.
>  
> We hope these answers are constructive and not inflammatory as it is our intention to find the most effective ways to proceed to further minimize the incidence of DNS Abuse , in all its forms. Thanks for the opportunity to be part of your conversation.
> 
>  
> Maureen, Joanna & Jonathan
> 
>  
>  
>  
> From: Keith Drazek <kdrazek at verisign.com <mailto:kdrazek at verisign.com>>
> Date: Friday, January 22, 2021 at 12:00 PM
> To: "maureen.hilyard at gmail.com <mailto:maureen.hilyard at gmail.com>" <maureen.hilyard at gmail.com <mailto:maureen.hilyard at gmail.com>>, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org <mailto:JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org>>, "jkuleszaicann at gmail.com <mailto:jkuleszaicann at gmail.com>" <jkuleszaicann at gmail.com <mailto:jkuleszaicann at gmail.com>>
> Cc: "Brian F. Cimbolic" <BCimbolic at pir.org <mailto:BCimbolic at pir.org>>, Jim Galvin <jgalvin at afilias.info <mailto:jgalvin at afilias.info>>, Graeme Bunton <gbunton at tucows.com <mailto:gbunton at tucows.com>>
> Subject: Engagement on DNS Abuse
> 
>  
>  
> Hello Maureen, Jonathan and Joanna,
> 
>  
> I hope you’re all doing well and staying healthy and safe. I am reaching out to you on behalf of the Contracted Party House DNS Abuse Working Group as we look ahead to ICANN 70 and the rest of 2021.
> 
>  
> The Contracted Party House (CPH) DNS Abuse Group is conducting outreach to our friends in other SO/AC/SG/Cs regarding DNS Abuse. As previously noted by the CPH, DNS Abuse <https://rrsg.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/CPH-Definition-of-DNS-Abuse.pdf> comprises five categories: phishing, pharming, malware, botnets, and spam when it acts as a delivery mechanism for one of the other forms of DNS Abuse.
> 
>  
> We want to open a more direct dialogue to understand pain points, hear suggestions and identify common ground where we can work together to mitigate DNS Abuse.  Is there a subset of the At-Large focusing on DNS Abuse questions that would be able to join the CPH DNS Abuse group on a call to discuss this topic? We want to encourage frank and productive discussions  on the topic that lead to really informing our dialogues and actions.
> 
>  
> As a starting point, we propose the following questions to guide our discussion.  Are there any other questions ALAC would like discuss?:
> 
>  
> What information do you use and how do you use it to assess DNS Abuse levels?
> 
>  
> What are the ALAC’s pain points regarding DNS Abuse?
> 
>  
> Are you seeing practices from registrars or registries you find helpful?
> 
>  
> Please let us know if a subgroup of the ALAC would be willing to join us.  Our group meets regularly on Tuesdays at 1500 UTC.  If so, please propose a Tuesday when you are available.
> 
>  
> Best regards,
> 
> Keith
> 
>  
> Keith Drazek
> 
> Vice President, Public Policy & Government Relations
> 
> Verisign, Inc.
> 
> +1-571-377-9182
> 
> Kdrazek at verisign.com <mailto:Kdrazek at verisign.com>
>  
>  
> 
> -- 
> Kind regards,
> Joanna Kulesza
> -------------------
> Joanna Kulesza, PhD
> University of Lodz, Poland
> ICANN ALAC Vice Chair 
> SOI: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/Joanna+Kulesza+SOI <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/Joanna+Kulesza+SOI>
> TT: @KuleszaJ
>  
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CPWG mailing list
> CPWG at icann.org <mailto:CPWG at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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 <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <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.
> _______________________________________________
> CPWG mailing list
> CPWG at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20210204/9d4bb372/attachment-0001.html>