[CPWG] Proposed Plenary Topic ICANN79

Wed Dec 6 16:00:59 UTC 2023

Dear Michael,

thanks for your contributions to proposed plenary topics. We did not 
have enough time discuss them in detail on today's call, but with a 
week's notice, may I suggest these are discussed on next week's call? 
This way every participant will also have had a chance to read your 
proposals.
Kindest regards,

Olivier

On 06/12/2023 13:49, mike palage.com via CPWG wrote:
>
> Hello Jonathan and Olivier,
>
> I have a conflicting appointment at 14:00 UTC and will likely miss the 
> first 45 min of the CPWG call.
>
> I would welcome discussing this proposed plenary topic later in the 
> call if that could be arranged.
>
> I have also not been able to speak to my colleagues who attended last 
> week’s RIPE meeting. Therefore I am not in a position to provide an 
> update at this time.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Michael
>
> *From:*CPWG <cpwg-bounces at icann.org> *On Behalf Of *mike palage.com 
> via CPWG
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 6, 2023 8:44 AM
> *To:* CPWG <cpwg at icann.org>
> *Subject:* [CPWG] Proposed Plenary Topic ICANN79
>
> Hello All,
>
> Last week on the CPWG call I proposed the following plenary topic for 
> ICANN79 that I thought could be co-sponsored by ALAC and the GAC, 
> although upon further reflection I think the BC and IPC would also 
> likely support this topic. NIS 2.0 was adopted earlier this year and 
> will go into effect late next year.  Several provisions impact the 
> domain name industry, namely Articles 21 and 28.
>
> Listed below is my current best thinking for the format and breakdown 
> of the session, including a list of projected speakers and speakers 
> who have already confirmed their interest.
>
> Ideally, this session would be a 75 to 90-minute session in the main 
> auditorium. The session would be broken down into two sub-panels. Each 
> panel would be 30 minutes long followed by a 15 to 30-minute Q&A 
> session with interventions from the in-person and online audience.
>
> Panel Co-Moderators: Michael Palage & TBD GAC Representative
>
> *Panel #1* – Business, Legal and Policy Sub-Panel. This panel will 
> primarily be composed of TLD name registries (gTLD and ccTLD) that 
> will discuss their existing registrant verification business 
> practices. Each speaker will be limited to a 5-minute presentation.
>
> ccTLD representative – I have already engaged in outreach to several 
> business/legal representatives from European ccTLDs who have expressed 
> interest in participating in this panel. These ccTLD already have in 
> place existing registrant verification processes and will discuss what 
> changes they may be making in response to NIS 2.0
>
> .SWISS – I have already engaged the .SWISS backend provider (CORE) who 
> is also a major registrar for the TLD. .SWISS currently has registrant 
> verification requirements for legal persons and uses the EPP Public ID 
> field to collect and publish this registrant information.  The .SWISS 
> TLD is considering expanding registrants to individuals which 
> represents a challenge for them. An additional consideration is that 
> the Swiss government is rolling out a new national digital identity 
> initiative.
>
> ICANN Org – Ideally /Elena/ Plexida would speak to the broader work 
> that ICANN has been engaged in about this Directive similar to her 
> engaged in the .eco Day Zero event in Hamburg.
>
> Thomas Rickert – Thomas moderated the .eco Day Zero event in Hamburg 
> and  a readout from that meeting was recently published. Ideally, 
> Thomas could give a summary of this readout and any other recent 
> developments that .eco has been following. I have not reached out to 
> Thomas yet, but I think he would be inclined to participate.
>
> EU GAC Rep – Two GAC reps participated in the .eco Day Zero event 
> (Gemma Carolillo & Finn Peterson). Ideally one of the individuals 
> would be able to participate in the panel.
>
> *Panel #2* – Technical Sub Panel. This panel will be more focused on a 
> high-level overview of some of the technical aspects of NIS 2.0 
> compliance for business, policy and regulator types. Each panelist 
> would be given approximately 7 minutes for each of their 
> presentations. These speakers have also been in discussion with the 
> ccNSO Tech Day planners to perhaps provide a more technical 
> interoperability deep-dive at ICANN79.
>
> DENIC would provide a summary of the work that they have been doing 
> with registrars to prepare for NIS 2.0 and other forward-thinking 
> initiatives that they have been following in other standards bodies.
>
> CIRA would provide a summary of the work that CIRA is doing in the 
> area of registrant verification and credentials, as well as some of 
> the standards work they are engaged in within the IETF.
>
> CZ.NIC would provide a summary of the work they have done historically 
> with MojeID and RegeID (an EU funded study on the federation of 
> registrant credentials between ccTLDs using eIDAS) as well as the use 
> cases that CZ.NIC has put forward as part of the EU eIDAS Large Scale 
> Pilot (EWC) and proposed uses of the European digital wallet.
>
> CORE would provide a summary of how they have engaged in various 
> registrant verification programs for the .SWISS and .SPORT TLD.
>
> *Q&A Session*
>
> I think there should be more than enough questions from attendees. 
> However, I will have a pre-approved list of questions to ask panelists 
> if there are limited questions from the audience. If we are in the 
> main auditorium, all panelists from both sub-panels should be able to 
> be seated at the main table. This will permit attendees to pose 
> questions to any panelists.
>
> Some of the feedback that I have received about this panel is that it 
> appears to be a little cTLD heavy.  However, when the NIS 2.0 
> Directive talks about best practices it does NOT differentiate between 
> gTLD and ccTLDs. Sadly, European ccTLD are currently employing some of 
> the best in class registrant verification practices, therefore, their 
> business practices are likely to be considered by the NIS 2.0 
> Cooperation Group when establishing the guidance in this area.
>
> In summary, I think this is an excellent proposal that should receive 
> the full support of both ALAC and the GAC.
>
> By early January, I should be able to have confirmation from all 
> proposed speakers.
>
> As always I welcome any feedback.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Michael
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20231206/e7ea7f07/attachment.html>