Populism and the internet – a toxic mix shaping the age of conspiracy theories

Conspiracy theories have generally had a bad press. They conjure up images of eccentrics in tinfoil hats who believe that aliens have landed and the government is hushing up the news. And maybe it’s statistically true that most conspiracy theories belong on the harmless fringe of the credibility spectrum.

Conspiracy theories have generally had a bad press. They conjure up images of eccentrics in tinfoil hats who believe that aliens have landed and the government is hushing up the news. And maybe it’s statistically true that most conspiracy theories belong on the harmless fringe of the credibility spectrum.

On the other hand, the historical record contains some conspiracy theories that have had profound effects. Take the “stab in the back” myth, widely believed in Germany after 1918, which held that the German army did not lose the First World War on the battlefield but was betrayed by civilians on the home front. When the Nazis came to power in 1933 the theory was incorporated in their revisionist narrative of the 1920s: the Weimar Republic was the creation of the “November criminals” who stabbed the nation in the back to seize power while betraying it. So a conspiracy theory became the inspiration for the political changes that led to a second global conflict.

More recent examples relate to the alleged dangers of the MMR jab and other vaccinations and the various conspiracy theories fuelling denial of climate change.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/25/populism-and-the-internet-a-toxic-mix-shaping-the-age-of-conspiracy-theories

How WhatsApp Leads Mobs to Murder in India

In India, false rumors about child kidnappers have gone viral on WhatsApp, prompting fearful mobs to kill two dozen innocent people since April.

In India, false rumors about child kidnappers have gone viral on WhatsApp, prompting fearful mobs to kill two dozen innocent people since April.

One of the first to be killed was a 65-year-old woman named Rukmani.

She and four family members were driving to a temple in the southern state of Tamil Nadu in May. A mob on this road mistook them for “child lifters” and assaulted them.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/11/23/technology/whatsapp-india-killings-ES.html

Google crackdown on secret ‘dark adverts’ in EU

Google has launched a set of tools across Europe to help ensure political transparency in the run-up to the 2019 EU elections in an attempt to crack down on “dark adverts” online.

Google has launched a set of tools across Europe to help ensure political transparency in the run-up to the 2019 EU elections in an attempt to crack down on “dark adverts” online.

The tools are a response, in part, to the Russian misinformation campaign during the 2016 US election, in which overseas operatives were able to buy political adverts to target Americans.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/nov/22/google-crackdown-on-secret-dark-adverts-in-eu-elections

FIFA Joins .SPORT As Lausanne 2020 Launches New Domain

The world football’s governing body, FIFA, has acquired a .sport domain name portfolio, the manager of the new gTLD, the Global Association of International Sports Federations (GAISF) announced. FIFA currently uses fifa.com as their domain name

The world football’s governing body, FIFA, has acquired a .sport domain name portfolio, the manager of the new gTLD, the Global Association of International Sports Federations (GAISF) announced. FIFA currently uses fifa.com as their domain name.

With 211 national federations and more than 270 million people playing football worldwide, FIFA is one of the biggest and most influential IFs in sport. It is estimated that 3.4 billion people across the globe watched FIFA’s flagship event, the Russia 2018 World Cup earlier this year.

FIFA believes that in the crowded and complex world of the internet, the use of a .sport domain gives them greater degree of visibility and searchability and, because of the criteria applied by GAISF, confers approval and membership of an exclusive community.

GAISF is responsible for managing the programme to market, as well as sanctioning and managing the use of .sport. Critically this includes deciding which applicants should be given permission to use the .sport domain.

This is important because one of the key benefits of adopting .sport is that it confers legitimacy and credibility to the user because it meets key criteria established by GAISF.

Possessing a unique and identifiable domain is a symbol of each organisation’s trust, authenticity and visibility within the sports movement, and offers successful applicants a significant brand-building tool with increased commercial opportunities.

“FIFA’s decision is a massive boost and a testament to the positive impact of a .sport URL,” said GAISF Head of Digital Pierre Germeau. “It underlines that this is the global community every sports organisation want to be part of.”

In addition, the Lausanne 2020 Youth Olympic Winter Games has become the latest major sports events organiser to officially migrate to a .sport domain.

Speaking about the new Lausanne 2020 .sport website, Director General Ian Logan said:

“Launching Lausanne2020.sport demonstrates our focus on innovation and determination to lead the way. Our new .sport website will make our event easy to follow for fans from all around the world as well as highlighting the importance of the Youth Olympic Games and its place in world sport. Fans will visit the site to catch-up on all the news and updates in the build up to the event and follow all the incredible action throughout the two weeks.”

Lausanne2020.sport is now the home for all the latest news, videos and information about the upcoming Games, which will take place from 9 to 22 January 2020.

Since the launch of the .sport initiative in September, when GAISF officially began accepting applications, over 200 organisations have registered for a domain. This includes major events organisers, brands, broadcasters, media outlets as well as IFs.

Applications are still open for all leading sports organisations to register their exclusive domain name. Prospective applicants can find out more information and check the availability of their requested URL at start.sport.

ICANN: Initial Report of the Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP) on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data Team

Brief Overview

Purpose: This public comment proceeding seeks to obtain input on the Initial Report of the EPDP on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data Team. The EPDP Team is tasked with evaluating the Temporary Specification on gTLD Registration Data (Temp Spec) and deciding whether it should become an ICANN Consensus Policy as is, or with modifications, while complying with the GDPR and other relevant privacy and data protection laws and regulations.

Brief Overview

Purpose: This public comment proceeding seeks to obtain input on the Initial Report of the EPDP on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data Team. The EPDP Team is tasked with evaluating the Temporary Specification on gTLD Registration Data (Temp Spec) and deciding whether it should become an ICANN Consensus Policy as is, or with modifications, while complying with the GDPR and other relevant privacy and data protection laws and regulations.

Current Status: This Initial Report is being posted for public comment as foreseen in the EPDP Team’s charter and EPDP Manual.

Next Steps: Following review of public comments submitted, the EPDP Team will integrate public comments received as it works towards recommendations for inclusion in its Final Report.

Section I: Description and Explanation

The Initial Report outlines the core issues discussed, proposed responses to charter questions and accompanying preliminary recommendations.

This EPDP Team was chartered to determine if the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data should become an ICANN Consensus Policy as is, or with modifications, while complying with the GDPR and other relevant privacy and data protection laws and regulations. Additionally, the EPDP Team’s charter contemplates a discussion of a standardized access model to nonpublic registration data; however, the discussion of a standardized access model will occur only after the EPDP Team has comprehensively answered a series of “gating questions”, which have been specified in the EPDP Team’s Charter. Specifically, the gating questions require the EPDP Team to examine (i) the validity, legitimacy and legal basis of the purposes outlined in the Temporary Specification, (ii) the legitimacy, necessity and scope of the registrar collection of registration data as outlined in the Temporary Specification, (iii) the legitimacy, necessity and scope of the transfer of data from registrars to registries as outlined in the Temporary Specification and (iv) the publication of registration data by registrars and registries as outlined in the Temporary Specification. Although compliance with GDPR was the principal reason behind the Temp Spec, the policy emerging from this EPDP is meant to be flexible enough to accommodate other privacy regimes.

In addition to the above-referenced gating questions, the EPDP Team is required to examine: (i) the transfer of data from registrars and registries to escrow providers and ICANN, (ii) the transfer of data from registries to emergency back-end registry operators (“EBERO“), (iii) the definition and framework for reasonable access to registration data, (iv) respective roles and responsibilities under the GDPR, i.e., the responsible parties, (v) applicable updates to ICANN Consensus Policies, e.g., Transfer Policy, Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP“), Uniform Rapid Suspension (“URS“), et al. The EPDP Team will also consider what subsidiary recommendations it might make for future work by the GNSO which might be necessary to ensure relevant Consensus Policies, including those related to registration data, are reassessed to become consistent with applicable law.

The EPDP Team welcomes feedback from the community on any of the issues raised in this report; however, the EPDP Team is particularly interested in obtaining input on the following questions. Please note all answers should consider compliance with GDPR:

  • Are the proposed purposes outlined in the Initial Report sufficiently specific and, if not, how do you propose to modify them? Please provide a rationale, keeping in mind compliance with GDPR. Should any purposes be added? If so, please identify the proposed additional purposes and provide a rationale for including them.
  • Are the recommended data elements as listed in the Initial Report as required for registrar collection necessary for the purposes identified? If not, why not? Are any data elements missing that are necessary to achieve the purposes identified? If so, please provide the missing data element(s) and a rationale.
  • Are there other data elements than those listed in the Initial Report that are required to be transferred between registrars and registries / escrow providers that are necessary to achieve the purposes identified? If so, please provide the relevant rationale.
  • Are there other data elements than those listed in the Initial Report that are required to be transferred between registrars and registries / ICANN Compliance that are necessary to achieve the purposes identified? If so, please identify those data elements and provide the relevant rationale. Are there identified data elements that are not required to be transferred between registrars and registries / ICANN Compliance and are not necessary to achieve the purposes identified? If so, please identify those data elements and explain.
  • Should the EPDP Team consider any changes in the redaction of data elements, compared to what is recommended in the Initial Report? If so, please identify those changes and provide the relevant rationale.
  • Should the EPDP Team consider any changes to the recommended data retention periods compared to those recommended in the Initial Report? If so, please identify those changes and provide the relevant rationale. Do you believe the justification for retaining data beyond the term of the domain name registration is sufficient? Why or why not? Please provide a rationale for your answer.
  • What other factors should the EPDP team consider about whether Contracted Parties should be permitted or required to differentiate between registrants on a geographic basis? Between natural and legal persons? Are there any other risks associated with differentiation of registrant status (as natural or legal person) or geographic location? If so, please identify those factors and/or risks and how they would affect possible recommendations. Should the community explore whether procedures would be feasible to accurately distinguish on a global scale whether registrants/contracted parties fall within jurisdiction of the GDPR or other data protection laws? Can the community point to existing examples of where such a differentiation is already made and could it apply at a global scale for purposes of registration data?
  • Should the EPDP Team consider any changes to its recommendations in relation to “reasonable access” as outlined in the Initial Report? If so, please identify the proposed changes and please provide the relevant rationale.
  • Are there any changes that the EPDP Team should consider in relation to the URS and UDRP that have not already been identified in the Initial Report? If so, please provide the relevant rationale, keeping in mind compliance with the GDPR.
  • Are there any changes that the EPDP Team should consider in relation to the Transfer Policy that have not already been identified Initial Report? If so, please provide the relevant rationale

To provide your input, please complete the following form which is intended to facilitate your input by focusing on those aspects that the EPDP Team is looking for particular input on, as well as subsequent review by the EPDP Team: https://goo.gl/forms/ysTGEVBOBWlJ0Wqz1. To facilitate offline work, or for those who may not have access to the form, you can download an offline version of the form here: https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/epdp-gtld-registration-data-specs-public-comment-input-form-21nov18-en.docx. Please note that similar to other public comment proceedings, all responses will be made public.

Please note that due to the overall timeline by which the EPDP Team is constrained, it will not be possible to extend the closing date of the public comment forum.

Community input will be carefully reviewed and used to support development of final responses to charter questions, as well as recommendations and implementation guidance in the form of a Final Report that is to be submitted to the GNSO for their consideration. Following approval of the proposal(s) by the GNSO, it will be submitted to the ICANN Board for its consideration.

Section II: Background

On 17 May 2018, the ICANN Board of Directors (ICANN Board) adopted the Temporary Specification for generic top-level domain (gTLD) Registration Data1 (“Temporary Specification”) pursuant to the procedures for the establishment of temporary policies in ICANN‘s agreements with Registry Operators and Registrars (“Contracts”). The Temporary Specification provides modifications to existing requirements in the Registrar Accreditation and Registry Agreements in order to comply with the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”). Following adoption of a temporary specification, the procedure for Temporary Policies as outlined in the Registrar Accreditation and Registry Agreements, provides the Board “shall immediately implement the Consensus Policy development process set forth in ICANN‘s Bylaws.” Additionally, the procedure provides this Consensus Policy development process on the Temporary Specification must be carried out within a one-year period as the Temporary Specification can only remain in force for up to one year; from the effective date of 25 May 2018, i.e., the Temporary Specification will expire on 25 May 2019.

On 19 July 2018, the GNSO Council initiated an Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP) and chartered the EPDP on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data team. Unlike other GNSO PDP efforts, which are open for anyone to join, the GNSO Council chose to limit the membership composition of this EPDP, primarily in recognition of the need to complete the work in a relatively short timeframe and to resource the effort responsibly. GNSO Stakeholder Groups, the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC), the Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO), the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC), the Root Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC), and the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) were each invited to appoint up to a set number of members and alternates, as outlined in the charter. In addition, the ICANN Board and ICANN Org were invited to assign a limited number of liaisons to this effort. A call for volunteers to the aforementioned groups was issued in July and the EPDP Team held its first meeting on 1 August 2018.


1 Because the Temporary Specification is central to the EPDP Team’s work, readers unfamiliar with the Temporary Specification may wish to read it before reading this Initial Report to gain a better understanding of and context for this Initial Report.

Section III: Relevant Resources

Section IV: Additional Information

This ICANN announcement was sourced from:
https://www.icann.org/public-comments/epdp-gtld-registration-data-specs-initial-2018-11-21-en

Facebook criticised for post promoting child bride auction

Facebook has been criticised for failing to remove a viral post promoting an auction of a child bride in South Sudan, which eventually led to the payment of the largest dowry ever recorded in the civil war-torn country.

[AP] Facebook has been criticised for failing to remove a viral post promoting an auction of a child bride in South Sudan, which eventually led to the payment of the largest dowry ever recorded in the civil war-torn country.

The highest bidder was a man three times the age of the 17-year-old girl who was auctioned. At least four other men in Eastern Lakes state competed, including the region’s deputy governor, said Philips Anyang Ngong, a human rights lawyer who tried to stop the bidding last month.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/nov/21/facebook-criticised-for-post-promoting-child-bride-auction

European privacy search engines aim to challenge Google

In the battle for online privacy, Google is a U.S. Goliath facing a handful of European Davids.

In the battle for online privacy, Google is a U.S. Goliath facing a handful of European Davids.

The backlash over Big Tech’s collection of personal data offers new hope to a number of little-known search engines that promise to protect user privacy.

Sites like Britain’s Mojeek , France’s Qwant , Unbubble in Germany and Swisscows don’t track user data, filter results or show “behavioral” ads.
https://apnews.com/dd8824e6f9424439b66e3992882b5c0b
washingtonpost.com/business/technology/european-privacy-search-engines-aim-to-challenge-google/2018/11/21/9f884fd0-edee-11e8-8b47-bd0975fd6199_story.html

Facebook’s Secret Weapon for Fighting Election Interference: The Government

Facebook Inc. had one major victory in the midterm elections: securing help from the government to keep foreign influence campaigns at bay.

Facebook Inc. had one major victory in the midterm elections: securing help from the government to keep foreign influence campaigns at bay.

As recently as September, the cooperation seemed difficult to achieve. While Facebook knew it would be held responsible for stopping the spread of misinformation, especially from foreign fake accounts, the company was nervous that it wouldn’t be able to deliver on that promise without help from U.S. authorities, people familiar with the matter said at the time.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-11-11/facebook-s-secret-weapon-for-fighting-election-interference-the-government

Ahead of EU Vote, Google Unveils New Policy for Election Ads

Google said it will roll out new policies in Europe to provide more transparency around political ads, ahead of European Union elections in the spring.

Google said it will roll out new policies in Europe to provide more transparency around political ads, ahead of European Union elections in the spring.

The announcement Thursday by the Alphabet Inc. division follows a year of intense global scrutiny over how popular internet services were used to spread misinformation during elections. A lack of disclosure about who pays for political ads has been a particular sore point.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-11-21/ahead-of-eu-vote-google-unveils-new-policy-for-election-ads

Also see:

Google to Demand More Disclosure From Buyers of European Election Ads
Google said on Wednesday that it would begin requiring more information from buyers of online ads linked to next year’s European Parliament elections, expanding a program introduced for political ads in the United States.

The company said in a blog post that people and groups buying ads that mention a political party, a candidate or an officeholder related to the parliamentary elections would need to make clear who is paying for the advertisement. The company will also require verification that they are citizens, legal residents or groups lawfully allowed to participate in the election.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/21/business/google-europe-election-ad-buying.html

NamesCon Joins Black Friday Frenzy With 25% Discount on Passes

Americans in particular get a little excited about Black Friday sales to coincide with Thanksgiving and Christmas but a month away. And NamesCon is no different. They’re offering 25% off the current price for all passes bought between Friday 23 and Monday 26 November

Americans in particular get a little excited about Black Friday sales to coincide with Thanksgiving and Christmas but a month away. And NamesCon is no different. They’re offering 25% off the current price for all passes bought between Friday 23 and Monday 26 November.

The discount is only available by following this link:
eventbrite.com/e/namescon-global-2019-tickets-42541784623?discount=FridayMonday

Currently standard passes are available for $399, while VIP passes cost $599, and this ends on 30 November. So 25% makes for a handy discount – almost $100 on the standard pass and $150 on VIP passes.

Standard passes will cost $699 from 1 December to 26 January and $999 at the door, while VIP passes will cost $899 from 1 December to 26 January and then $1,349 at the door, all plus booking fees.

NamesCon is holding their flagship event at the Tropicana Hotel in Las Vegas from 27 to 30 January 2019, and it has, so NamesCon claims, grown to be the largest and most anticipated domain industry event of the year. There’s a focus on quality networking and compelling content.

It’s expected that well over 1,000 people will attend, and their 2017 conference drew nearly 1,300 delegates from around the world. Attendees at NamesCon come from all aspects of the domain industry, from registrars, registries, web hosting companies, attorneys, brand managers, domain name investors, start-ups, affiliate marketing companies, parking companies, financial service providers, individual end-users, and everyone else in between!

NamesCon was acquired by WorldHostingDays in 2016 so that both organisations could benefit from the synergies between the domain, hosting and cloud industries. Their teams now jointly produce more than 10 industry events internationally each year, from blockbuster global shows to highly focused regional events and invite-only CXO retreats.

And submissions for their live domain name auction are now open! Click here for more information.
rotd.com/auction-submission