[gnso-igo-wt] IGO WT - Preparation for our first call on 22 Feb at 1600 UTC

McGrady, Paul D. PMcGrady at taftlaw.com
Sun Feb 14 13:54:58 UTC 2021

Thanks Kris.

All, Kris raises many interesting questions in his email.  However, I can’t help but wonder whether or not much/most of the issues are outside the scope of this PDP, which I thought was to be quite narrow.  No doubt, Chris will provide some guidance on our kickoff call.


Taft /

Paul D. McGrady / Partner
Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP
111 E. Wacker Drive, Suite 2800
Chicago, Illinois 60601-3713
Tel: 312.527.4000 • Fax: 312.754.2354
Direct: 312.836.4094 • Cell: 312.882.5020
www.taftlaw.com<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/www.taftlaw.com__;!!Hj9Y_P0nvg!FNKvIEyshxhz3HHt072eH_iNwf79nKyqakxZB8jZqCzWoJXy0UjuwXRsWIr4nb8vSQvjbbMwoQ$> / PMcGrady at taftlaw.com<mailto:PMcGrady at taftlaw.com>

This message may contain information that is attorney-client privileged, attorney work product or otherwise confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, use and disclosure of this message are prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.
From: gnso-igo-wt <gnso-igo-wt-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of Kris Seeburn
Sent: Saturday, February 13, 2021 9:27 PM
To: Chris Disspain <chris at disspain.uk>
Cc: gnso-secs at icann.org; gnso-igo-wt at icann.org
Subject: Re: [gnso-igo-wt] IGO WT - Preparation for our first call on 22 Feb at 1600 UTC

Hi again Chris,,

I forgot in line on domain names there is a bigger issue that does not fall under domain names specifically but the dark web issue which goes under an IANA issue for IP address. We know that about more than 85 to 90 % of the dark web business is stacked under IP address and we all know what sort of businesses happen in that sphere commonly called “bulletproof hosting”. The affirmation talks by itself am sure GAC also has a big headache with this issue.

I do not know what staff of ICANN thinks but I would say there needs to be an extension to that issue since GAC and of course ICANN despite now suggestively not involved in this matter is an issue since the allocation of IP Addressing has a major impact on the world , all counties are as much involved as we are.

I did a work on bullet proof hosting and the research came out very damming for the public that uses internet at large. I can cite blatantly the solar wings attack which had a caveat to it whereby information was sent to a bullet proof hosting site, where no one knows since it was a hopping IP address and still is. Who would the government look to to readily address some of these issues, loads of ipv4 addresses were used none was an ipv6 track. We perhaps need to ensure this is also in a framework... it needs addressing not talking that most of the web is dark web then the issue is greater as well.

I did not see it in the document sent by staff but coming from also having been a board member of an RIR , i have problems with that issue. We had worked on pdp process for addressing the issue of allocation of Ip addressing but since IANA  had a set procedure which the 5 RIR use as basis like the Bible to allocate space it passes through the test that is in place.

So the question from me to staff is whether that issue is catered for under this charter or will be allowed and managed differently as one thing to bear in mind is that the search starts with a domain name then you , get spam sites, survey sites, hacked sites or plain Ip redirection to the bulletproof hosting site which cannot br tracked and if you mange to track the Ip the firm hosting that particular site would just point to another IP address.

This is legally an issue that needs addressing as well, I’ve raised this issue before and it went into a rabbit whole as if no one cared. But I do since blockchain has been put in place a lot of business are using it for anonymously fraudulently get to people as well.

So my question tests on the table would we be seeking at ensuring some framework that is definitely required since it concerns. GAC as well as the International Court as well, because there is no support and nothing for protection as The Hague has pointed and many countries have also pointed out ... then who is responsible in the short or long term?

It’s a question to ICANN staff as a point of clarity and an issue to address. As much as I said that the charter document looks fine but ambiguities and other issues are being overlooked unless I am mistaken in my thought process. As a past board member of an RIR I still have the decisions and discussions since am subscribed to it. Not seen that issue addressed. I am not saying we take up the task but it starts with us and drills down to the Ip addresses as we know very clearly, can be separated but I think we have part responsibility to this as well.

I guess staff will respond if I’m wrong, and being addressed in a different forum.


On 11 Feb 2021, at 18:25, Chris Disspain <chris at disspain.uk<mailto:chris at disspain.uk>> wrote:


Thank you all for your patience. We now have our first call scheduled for 22 February and, as promised, I attach a briefing paper with thanks to Mary Wong and Steve Chan for all the work to put it together. I hope you find it useful and please send any questions or clarification requests to this list.

You will see from the briefing paper that the scope and boundaries of the work of this group is very limited and I would like to specifically draw your attention to the paragraph at the top of page 3 which states:

"As such, the Work Track may wish to consider an early discussion as to the likelihood of it reaching consensus on an appropriate policy solution within the above framework that is also likely to be acceptable to the GNSO Council and the GAC, such as to be a solution that can be adopted by the Board as being in the best interests of ICANN or the ICANN community (as required under the Bylaws)."

It would help in our work if each of us could consider possible policy solutions that we think fit within the scope and boundaries provided by the GNSO and bring those ideas to our first meeting. We can then list of those possible solutions, add others that may arise in the group discussions and then test them for group consensus and consider the likelihood of wider acceptance. At this early brainstorm stage, there are no bad ideas, only useful contributions to get our work started.

I am very much looking forward to working with you all and will see you on zoom on the 22nd.


Chris Disspain
chris at disspain.uk<mailto:chris at disspain.uk>

+44 7880 642456

gnso-igo-wt mailing list
gnso-igo-wt at icann.org<mailto:gnso-igo-wt at icann.org>

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/gnso-igo-wt/attachments/20210214/4c4dbd4b/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the gnso-igo-wt mailing list