Thursday, March 15, 2018

Update: Phishing, a few days after

I wrote a small article (in French) on several procedures that I just tried at the ICANN and at a Registrar hosting a domain name used for phishing.

What we did
Basically, ICANN offers 2 emails to write to and we also used two different procedures at the Registrar concerned: the abuse email and a dedicated form.

The result is the one expected: the ICANN created a case and answered us the below but none of the other two parties we contacted even answered us.

Answer received from ICANN
Dear Jean Guillon,
Thank you for contacting the ICANN Global Support Center.
I will be happy to provide you with further information. Please note, the 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) requires ICANN-accredited registrars to provide abuse contact information, take steps to investigate reports, and respond appropriately to any reports of abuse. The full abuse contact requirements can be found in Section 3.18 of the 2013 RAA at: .
For more information about Registrar Abuse Reports and the type of reports, please see: .
If you wish to submit a complaint to our Contractual Compliance about the registrar failing to comply with the requirements, please complete the form at: .
Please allow 3-5 business days for our Contractual Compliance Team to respond to your complaint submission.
I hope this information is helpful to you. Please contact us if you have any additional questions or concerns. This case will now be resolved. Thank you for contacting ICANN.
The ICANN form (...)
I submitted a complaint to the Contractual Compliance Team (as suggested in the answer received by the ICANN) but at this stage, I thought that ICANN would already have acted since I already sent all informations: this form is probably going to be sent to the


Oh, and note that at the moment of this publication, result is zero, nothing's happened.

Phishers / Gmail filter = 1
Icann / = 0

Read my article in French.

Tuesday, March 6, 2018

New gTLDs: overarching issues

These are recent slides extracted from today's meeting. These topics will be discussed in the next ICANN meeting in Puerto Rico:

Something written about the next new gTLD applicant guidebook's format (the famous AGB):
Exciting, isn't it?

For action:
  1. Add to the slides for Council planning for PDP WG time at ICANN62 in Panama City.
  2. Take the list of topics in the Initial Report structure and send it to the WG in case we missed any topics.

  1. SOI Updates:  No updates.
  2. Work Track updates:
    1. Work Track 1:
      1. Going through all of the topics and trying to make sure we reflected feedback from the calls and the CC2 responses.
      2. Getting that text into the Initial Report.
      3. Call scheduled for 06 March is TBD.
    2. Work Track 3:
      1. Finished meetings and going through topics.
      2. Making sure we've captured all of the input.
      3. Putting the language into the Initial Report.
    3. Work Track 4:
      1. Looked at preparing text for the Initial Report.
      2. Discussed Registry Testing System.
      3. Preparing topics for Puerto Rico.
      4. Name Collisions also will be a topic.
      5. ICANN Board resolution on a longer term study.  See: Draft Project Plan for Name Collision Analysis:
    4. Work Track 5:
      1. Going through the different categories of Geographic names in the Applicant Guidebook.  Identifying pros and cons.
      2. Looking at how we may want to consider doing the same thing in future or changing the AGB.  Addressing variations between the initial policy work and the final AGB content.
      3. Look at categories that were not in the AGB.
      4. Working Session dedicated to WT5 in San Juan on 14 March 0830.
  3. Review of suggested Initial Report structure/planning for ICANN61
    1. Slide 2: Initial Report
    2. Slide 3:
      1. Complete the Final Report by the end of 2018.
      2. For the Initial Report we are not doing consensus calls. We are putting options out for public comment.  Not the time to take a consensus call on one or more of the recommendations.
      3. Goal is to get out the Draft Initial Report out by the end of March and then have the WG review it in April.
      4. Thinking of changing the meeting schedule to meet every week to help with the review of the Initial Report, starting Monday, 26 March.
      5. In the planning for Panama we need to understand if the PDP WG will need a good chunk of the time at ICANN62.
    3. Slide 4: Work Track 1-4 and overarching issues.
    4. Slide 5:
      1. Overarching Issues and Work Track Topics.
      2. Options and open questions have not gone through a consensus call.
    5. Slide 6:
      1. Status Update Overview.
      2. Overarching Issues.
      3. Recommendations on 4 topics.
      4. Options/questions on 3 topics.
      5. Community Engagement: a lot of overlap with predictability or where we have tried to get feedback on this PDP.
    6. Slide 7:
      1. Status Update Drill-Down.
      2. Overarching Issues.
    7. Slide 8:
      1. Status Update Overview.
      2. Work Track 1.
  4. AOB: ICANN FY19 Budget:
    1. Only a short mention of the Subsequent Procedures PDP, but statement that there are no funds allocated for implementing any GNSO policy on subsequent procedures.
    2. FY19 goes from 01 July 2018 to 30 June 2019.
    3. If the Board waits until FY20 to allocate funds some think this could delay the launch of the next round.
    4. No time for this WG to file formal comments.
    5. PDP WG Co-Chairs may file individual comments.

Structure of the Initial Report (chronological order):
  • Overarching issues
  • Foundational issues
  • Pre-launch activities
  • Application submission
  • Application processing
  • Application evaluation/criteria
  • Dispute proceedings
  • String contention resolution
  • Pre-delegation
  • Contracting
  • Post-delegation

Thursday, February 15, 2018

New gTLDs: 2,700 subscribers on LinkedIn

Friday, January 26, 2018

Could Verisign block the next new gTLD round?

I like to read that letter from the co-chairs of the GNSO’s policy development process on new gTLD subsequent procedures: it is positive and asking the right questions to ICANN. One paragraph caught my attention:
"We would also appreciate input on the total number of TLDs that could be delegated without negative impact to root server performance."
Honorable "new gTLD Boss" and ICANN CTO gave answers and I stopped on that section of a paragraph:

"There are also technical limits placed on capacity by the systems that handle root zone provisioning (operated by PTI as JANA Functions Operator and Verisign as Root Zone Maintainer)..."
Actually, I fell from my chair and broke two legs.

Verisign is the registry for ".com" domain name and has shown signs that new gTLDs were impacting its business: the more new domain name extension spread online, wider is the choice and - unless I am wrong - this reduces the choice to register a ".com" domain name.

I didn't know that the technical infrastructure of domain names relied on Verisign too but I believe that this could be used as a technical reason not to push for another round of new gTLDs.

Friday, January 19, 2018

ICANN for dummies

I just received an ICANN alert on "Operating Standards for ICANN's Specific Reviews" so I clicked to learn more. The purpose is to offer to comment to solicit feedback on "ICANN things" such as: "to assure selected review teams have the necessary skill set and diversity to conduct a successful review ".

What's the point?
The comments were open in october 2017 so I clicked to check the comments and guess what? There are none and comments are closing in 14 days. It's been opened for 4 months...

A staff is going to use this "no feedback" and it is going to do a reporting to...ICANN, take decisions...what's the point if there is no participation?

Zero feedback: why?
I first tried to understand the content of the page offering to participate. Unless you pay a strong interest and have been following this closely, read English, or work at ICANN, I don't see how someone normal can understand the content of this page.

The same for a lot of the ICANN work
I noticed that very few people participate with their comments and I believe that one of the reasons is just this one: potential participants still don't understand what all this is about:
  • There is no communication;
  • It is difficult to understand.
I checked the page again and my first thoughts is: "I don't want to read it completely because the first two bullet points...I just don't understand them clearly".

Criticizing is easy
Yes it is, but the the reason of this post is to offer solutions to ICANN to drive more people to pay interest and participate. I am a person to follow "things that ICANN does" and there are still plenty of things that I just don't follow up with because I have a problem understanding them! Note that I also have a problem with time (following group meetings requires some).

So I do imagine newcomers or law firms trying to participate in all this.

Time for change?
What about a simplified version of the ICANN website entitled "ICANN for Dummies" or just a paragraph added to these pages entitled "In simple words" (with a sumup written using a simple vocabulary)?

I personally like the simple way pages are designed on the ICANN website, and sections are of interest, but who can read this today but ICANN insiders? Isn't the purpose of such a pages to have people to participate and comment to provide ICANN a feedback? Well, if it is, something written by a non expert could make the difference.