1) Six Questions for 2019 & Twelve for 2018 Answered
Six Questions for 2019:
Editor's note: For $135 million, ICANN will do whatever you want.
2. New gTLD .AMAZON: Bezos vs Brazil et al
3. New gTLD .AFRICA Litigation
Will DCA Trust Finally Get Its 'Day in Court'?
Editor's note: another mess Fadi Chehade & Akram Atallah left behind.
4. GDPR, ICANN Temp Spec & EPDP, WHOIS AccessEditor's note: another mess Fadi Chehade & Akram Atallah left behind.
Standardized Access, Unified Access?
Editor's note: the dysfunctional EPDP grinds on, but ICANN Org has a different agenda.
Editor's note: the dysfunctional EPDP grinds on, but ICANN Org has a different agenda.
5. ICANN New gTLD Auction Proceeds
6. IGF 2019 Berlin 25-29 November
Action Or Just More Talk?
Editor's note:the fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) will be hosted by the Government of Germany in Berlin from 25 to 29 November 2019. The first face-to-face 2019 Open Consultations and MAG meeting takes place on 28-30 January 2019 at the Palais des Nations in Geneva, Switzerland. A Call for Issues has been published and submissions are due Thursday 24 January 2019. UPDATE: Among the issues already submitted in the Category: Evolution of Internet Governance:
#22 Quels solutions préconisez vous pour l'évolution de la gouvernance de l'Internet? [What solutions do you recommend for the evolution of Internet governance?]
#37 A middle ground between the vested-interest capture of multi-stakeholderism and government capture of multi-lateralism is badly needed. How can IGF stimulate such innovation? Comment submitted with this issue below (highlighting added)--
The 12 Questions for 2018 Answered:
- Domain Names: Will 2018 Be As Bad As 2017 or Worse, particularly for new gTLDs (new generic top-level domains)? New gTLDs No Longer In Decline, But Hardly Healthy
- Will the Internet Society (ISOC) find its way in 2018? New Leadership, But Jury Still Out
- What's Next for Internet Net Neutrality? More of the Same, See You In Court
- Should the Internet Governance Forum be allowed to die? Depends on What Happens in Berlin, November, 2019
- China's 5th World Internet Conference in 2018: Even Bigger, Broader, and Bolder? No
- Was ICANN ready for EU GDPR compliance on 25 May 2018? No, It Was A Train Wreck
- Will NTIA extend the Cooperative Agreement with Verisign on or before November 30, 2018, and specifically, what will happen to .com pricing? Extended But Verisign Got More $$$
- Will ICANN "roll the root zone KSK" in 2018 or "break the internet" in the process? Delayed But Everything Turned Out OK
- What will be the outcomes of ICANN litigation in 2018? Ruby Glen (Donuts) Lost vs ICANN, ICANN Lost vs EPAG (Tucows), For Everything Else See 2019 Above
- What will the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division do about new gTLD .WEB, Verisign and ICANN? Nothing, File Closed, No Action
- What will happen to the ICANN Reviews, including the still suspended SSR2? SSR2 Back In Business, As For The Rest, Nobody Cares
- Will the global internet community begin taking steps to reform or replace ICANN in 2018, including at PP-18, ITU Plenipotentiary Conference 2018, Dubai, UAE 29 Oct - 16 Nov 2018, or establish a new root? Only Macron at IGF2018 in Paris Gave A Glimmer Of Hope
2) ICANN News
Editor's note: The following quotes from the chat transcript (embed below) sum up the dysfunctional EPDP meeting on January 3, 2019:
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG): (09:37) "Let us ask the legal counsel to explain how one goes about elucidating purposes of processing. It is a bit late, but we are a long way from bringing this thing home, in my opinion. Better late than never."
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG): (09:59) "My comment about seeking legal advice, was to try to explain to us what this process is. We do not have a sound methodology, people are all over the map, in my view because they do not really understand what we are trying to do."Thursday meeting agenda, EPDP leadership's note (pdf), meeting transcript (pdf); Adobe recording, PCRT (Public Comment Review Tool), notes & action items, and Chat transcript (pdf) embed below:
GNSO Council EPDP page and updates; links to all EPDP meetings' transcripts and recordings on the GNSO calendar; EPDP working group wiki, mail list, action items, Temp Spec, EPDP Charter (pdf), Data Elements Workbooks (pdf).
The EPDP Team must limit its focus to the charter if it is to complete its work by the anticipated February 1, 2019 Final Report publication date.
Several working methods have impeded the EPDP Team’s progress. Certain EPDP Team members spent a disproportionate amount of time (including during almost every meeting) discussing -- or trying to discuss -- access. These access discussions and efforts were premature, diverted the EPDP Team’s attention from its critical prerequisite work, and negatively impacted the Team’s progress. The Initial Report reflects this diversion and lack of progress. The EPDP Team has a responsibility to the ICANN community to be diligent about remaining “in scope;” otherwise, the Team risks not completing its work by February 1, 2019.
The EPDP Team has neither agreed upon – nor in many cases even conducted – significant foundational work including defining a minimum data set, performing a data audit, and defining roles and responsibilities of parties. Further, the Purposes put forth as Recommendations in the Initial Report, only stand on the analysis conducted in the workbooks which are overtly framed as ICANN Purposes only.
It is not appropriate for any PDP WG to propose new or materially different policy recommendations in its Final Report without providing the community an opportunity to comment. This is especially true for a subject as complex and important as GDPR compliance in the domain name registration ecosystem.
The Initial Report itself raises concerns. The lack of agreement behind the individual recommendations is clear. The lack of consensus calls is clear ... Although the Initial Report is written to suggest that the EPDP Team developed the recommendations, the CPH understands that it did not. To the contrary, ICANN Staff developed the specific language of the recommendations, many of which could not be tracked back to specific EPDP Team decisions or discussions. The timing of the Initial Report (and the time diverted to access discussions) left little time for the EPDP Team to properly deliberate on all recommendations, the data elements workbooks, or the Initial Report text itself. While the CPH understands the tremendous time pressure the EPDP Team faces, it is important for the integrity of the PDP process that working group members not be surprised by Initial Report recommendations, be able to trace the origin of recommendations, and have adequate time to sufficiently deliberate those recommendations. In addition, the EPDP Team must focus on creating a report that lends itself to a clear, implementable Consensus Policy. The Initial Report is simply too ambiguous. (emphasis added)
CPH Comment embed in full below:
b. ICANN Public Comment periods ending in January, 2019
Note: dates subject to change by ICANN org. Closing time is 23.59 UTC on each date shown:
- Maximal Starting Repertoire Version 4 (MSR-4) for Root ZoneLabel Generation Rules (RZ-LGR) 10 Jan 2019
3) Names, Domains & Trademarks
b. Domain Registrar can be held liable for pirate site, German Court rules--torrentfreak.com 24 Dec 2018.
c. The web really isn’t worldwide – every country has different access--theconversation.com.
d. How Much of the Internet Is Fake? Turns Out, a Lot of It, Actually--nymag.com.
4) ICYMI Internet Domain News: 2018 in Review
a. Big Wins for Privacy and Free Speech: 2018 in Review | EFF.org
b. The Year of the GDPR: 2018’s Most Famous Privacy Regulation in Review | EFF.org
b. The Year of the GDPR: 2018’s Most Famous Privacy Regulation in Review | EFF.org
Concerned about online privacy.— The Spectator Index (@spectatorindex) December 16, 2018
US: 83%
India: 83%
France: 78%
Italy: 78%
Mexico: 77%
UK: 76%
China: 76%
Nigeria: 75%
Turkey: 74%
Australia: 71%
Japan: 67%
Germany: 67%
Russia: 61%
(Ipsos)
InternetGovernance.org:
f. The Looming Battle over the GDPR and the Purpose of Whois in ICANN
g. The 2006 Definition of Whois Purpose: Case study of the “bad old days” in ICANN: “... everyone in the task force agrees the purpose of Whois is to provide a system for a given domain name to be looked up and produce a set of contact information ..." (emphasis added)
5) Most Read this past week on DomainMondo.com:
-- John Poole, Editor • Domain Mondo