[CPWG] Engagement on DNS Abuse
David Mackey
mackey361 at gmail.com
Thu Feb 4 18:09:01 UTC 2021
Laurin,
It's my understanding the ICANN by-laws give voting power to the ALAC in a
way that balances the interests of different stakeholders as
originally intended when ICANN was created.
If the ALAC is currently structured in a way that it cannot fulfill its
by-law duties, because the DNS Abuse issue "might not be best addressed by
a small body of volunteers", I'd like to suggest that maybe the entire
ICANN organization has a problem meeting its mission as stated in our
bylaws. It may be wise to address any perceived capability problems with
ALAC directly, rather than bypassing ICANN's bylaws for the sake of
expediency.
However, I do agree it's best to look for consensus within the current
context, since the question about the capability of "a small body of
volunteers" won't be solved quickly.
Cheers!
David
On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 12:50 PM Laurin B Weissinger via CPWG <cpwg at icann.org>
wrote:
> Dear Roberto, Evan, Carlton, and all,
>
> Thank you — in my humble opinion, the essential problem here is that ICANN
> is filling roles that are problematic to fill for an organization like
> ICANN, all advisory committees and so on considered. (Not that other
> approaches would be better)
>
> Nevertheless, there are many decisions that must be made by someone (not
> blaming anyone here) that simply are purely policy and extremely
> value-based. Therefore, these questions are linked to normative and
> fundamental legal questions that might not be best addressed by a small
> body of volunteers in a system marked by overly strong industry presence
> (again no blame here, statement of fact).
>
> I can definitely tell you from experience that the differences between
> Europe and US on some of these matters are stark, not even zooming out to
> the world. (We are seeing similar issues with the tech giants, making
> unilateral global decisions from a private company and US
> perspective—things could be worse. ;) )
>
> This is why I fear we will struggle to find consensus here that will be
> acceptable to everyone. That is why, in a previous email, I was proposing
> that we might want to be thinking about where at least some consensus could
> be reached, where we have a chance to get somewhere. To me, this will
> likely be in the area of cybercrime and what is covered by criminal law.
> Yes, there will be differences between what is perceived as crime in
> different countries/regions but there is likely more there that consensus
> can be reached about. (And where legal requirements will already require
> some action).
>
> Hope this makes sense.
>
> All the best
> Laurin
>
> On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 17:57, Roberto Gaetano <
> mail.roberto.gaetano at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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>
> 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 <jkuleszaicann at gmail.com>
>> *Sent: *Wednesday, January 27, 2021 2:12 AM
>> *To: *Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard at gmail.com>; Jonathan Zuck
>> <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> 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.
>>
>>
>> 1. *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.
>> 2. *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.
>>
>>
>> 1.
>> *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.
>> 2.
>> *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.
>> 3.
>> *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.
>>
>>
>> 1. *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>
>> *Date: *Friday, January 22, 2021 at 12:00 PM
>> *To: *"maureen.hilyard at gmail.com" <maureen.hilyard at gmail.com>, Jonathan
>> Zuck <JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org>, "jkuleszaicann at gmail.com" <
>> jkuleszaicann at gmail.com>
>> *Cc: *"Brian F. Cimbolic" <BCimbolic at pir.org>, Jim Galvin <
>> jgalvin at afilias.info>, Graeme Bunton <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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> 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
>>
>> TT: @KuleszaJ
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20210204/86a058c8/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the CPWG
mailing list