Sixth Status Report Under ICANN/US Government Memorandum of Understanding

31 March 2003


Report by ICANN to United States Department of Commerce Re: Progress Toward Objectives of Memorandum of Understanding
31 March 2003

Contents

A. Introduction

B. High-Level Summary of Status of Project

C. Detailed Description of Status

1. Summary

2. Progress Towards Completion of ICANN's Reforms

a. Reform of ICANN's Relationship with RIRs

b. Establishment of Supporting Organization for ccTLD Issues

c. Implementation of the At-Large Advisory Committee

d. Nominating Committee

3. Strengthening of ICANN's Organizational Resources

a. Appointment of New President and Chief Executive Officer

b. Staff Augmentation

c. Fiscal 2003-2004 Preliminary Budget

4. Significant Operational and Policy-Development Activities

a. Ongoing IANA Operations

b. IANA Contract

c. ccTLD Sponsorship Agreements

d. CRADA Reports

e. Other Root-Nameserver Activities

f. Security and Stability

i. Securing the Edge

ii. ccTLD Zone-File Access

g. Dot Org Transition

h. Annual Independent Neutrality Audit of VeriSign

i. Internationalized Domain Names

j. gTLD Domain Policy Developments

i. Redemption Grace Period

ii. Whois

iii. Transfers

iv. Deletions, UDRP, and Privacy

k. New TLD Evaluation and Criteria

i. gTLD Evaluation

ii. Consideration of Namespace Structuring

iii. Sponsored TLD Evaluation Criteria and Process

5. Other Significant Activities During the Quarter

a. Government Advisory Committee Reorganization

b. .sg trademark issue

c. ITU ccTLD Workshop

d. WSIS PrepCom II

e. UN ICT Task Force

f. ASO Workshop

D. Conclusion

Appendix A – Summary of IANA Activities, January-February 2003

A. Introduction

On 19 September 2002, the United States Department of Commerce ("DOC") and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ("ICANN") entered into Amendment 5 to the Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") originally entered into by those same parties on 25 November 1998. Amendment 5 was a substantive reformation of the original MOU, and among other differences, calls for quarterly rather than annual reports of ICANN's progress toward the objectives of the MOU.

The first such report was for the fourth calendar quarter of 2002 and was submitted on 8 January 2003. This report is for the first calendar quarter of 2003.

B. High-Level Summary of Status of Project

The following table provides a high-level summary of progress on the project, organized according to the specification of ICANN's tasks in Part C of the MOU, as amended. Detailed descriptions of these and other significant ICANN activities appear in section C of this report.

Task

Progress

C. ICANN. ICANN agrees to perform the following activities and provide the following resources in support of the DNS Project, in conformity with the ICANN Board-approved mission and core values and in furtherance of its ongoing reform efforts: In accordance with ICANN's mission and the DNS Project, the following tasks were performed:

  • Appointment of new President CEO
  • Movement forward on completion of reform process
  • Establishment of Nominating Committee for selection of high-quality candidates for Board and other key positions
  • Ongoing execution of the IANA function and other ICANN operations
  • Progress on development of policies in multiple areas
  • Resources developed to ensure effective operation of reformed ICANN
1. Continue to provide expertise and advice on private sector functions related to technical management of the DNS. Continued progress:
2. Work collaboratively on a global and local level to pursue formal legal agreements with the RIRs, and to achieve stable relationships that allow them to continue their technical work, while incorporating their policy-making activities into the ICANN process.
  • Detailed ongoing discussions with RIR personnel
  • Exchange of proposals regarding improvements to policy-development and address-allocation processes
  • Issuance of IANA performance reports
  • Conduct of ASO workshop
3. Continue to develop, to test, and to implement processes and procedures to improve transparency in the consideration and adoption of policies related to technical management of the DNS.
4. Continue to develop, to test, and to implement accountability mechanisms to address claims by members of the Internet community that they have been adversely affected by decisions in conflict with ICANN's by-laws, contractual obligations, or otherwise treated unfairly in the context of ICANN processes.
5. Collaborate with the Department to complete development of a proposal for enhanced architecture for root server security together with the development of the following documentation to be used in connection with testing and implementation of the enhanced root-server system architecture:

a. A written description of the enhanced architecture incorporating a dedicated primary root server and standards for physical protection;

b. A procedural plan for transition to the enhanced architecture;

c. An implementation schedule for transition to the enhanced architecture;

  • A completed proposal concerning these elements was submitted at the end of the fourth quarter of 2002
  • A public summary was posted on 14 March 2003

d. The documentation of IANA procedures for root zone editing, root zone generation, and root zone WHOIS service; and

  • Continued work on development of root-zone editing and root-zone generation functions
  • Continued (production) testing of root-zone Whois service
  • Preparation of documentation proceeding in parallel with development and testing work
e. An agreement between ICANN and root-server operators that formalizes stable, secure, and professional operation of the root-servers in accordance with the enhanced architecture.
  • Agreement not yet established, but root-server operators participated actively in mid-March 2003 RSSAC meeting and at ICANN Rio meeting at end of March 2003
ICANN shall submit a report to the Department no later than November 30, 2002, providing a description of the current status of the root server system. ICANN shall submit a report to the Department no later than December 31, 2002, providing a description of the proposal for enhanced architecture for root server security as set forth above, a procedural plan for the transition to such enhanced architecture, and an implementation schedule for such transition.
  • Both reports submitted on time
6. Following Departmental review and approval of the documentation listed in paragraph 5 above, test and implement the enhanced root-server system architecture, including ICANN's operation of the authoritative root, under appropriate terms and conditions.
  • Awaiting formal DOC review and approval of 5(a), (b), and (c)
  • Submission of 5(d) and (e) not yet accomplished
7. Continue its efforts to achieve stable agreements with ccTLD operators that address, among other things, issues affecting the stable and secure operation of the DNS, including: delegation and redelegation of ccTLDs; allocation of global and local policy-formulation responsibility; and the relationship between a ccTLD operator and its relevant government or public authority. Such efforts shall include activities to foster greater dialogue between ccTLD operators and the GAC.
  • Establishment of ccNSO Assistance Group to work toward design of a supporting organization appropriate for ccTLD issues
  • Proposals posted for public review and comment
  • Multiple presentations regarding the proposals made at the ICANN Rio meeting to the Public Forum and other constituencies
  • ccNSO Assistance Group proposals discussed comprehensively by several constituencies at the Rio de Janeiro meeting
  • Completion of agreements for three additional ccTLDs, bringing the total of completed agreements to ten
  • Discussions underway regarding agreements with several additional ccTLD managers
8. Continue the process of implementing new top level domains (TLDs), which process shall include consideration and evaluation of:

a. The potential impact of new TLDs on the Internet root server system and Internet stability.

b. The creation and implementation of selection criteria for new and existing TLD registries, including public explanation of the process, selection criteria, and the rationale for selection decisions.

c. Potential consumer benefits/costs associated with establishing a competitive environment for TLD registries.

d. Recommendations from expert advisory panels, bodies, agencies, or organizations regarding economic, competition, trademark, and intellectual property issues.

  • Evaluation launched concerning the process for introducing the seven new TLDs selected in November 2000; contract issued to FINAKI
  • Proposed criteria for evaluation of new sponsored TLDs posted for public comment in March 2003; comment period still underway
  • In response to ICANN Board request, the GNSO Council has convened a committee that is considering the desirability and possible methods of structuring the name space; preparation of draft report underway
  • Commentary on new TLDs has been sought from the public in multiple in-person public forums (most recently in late March 2003 at Rio de Janeiro) as well as electronically

9. Continue to develop, to test, and to implement appropriate mechanisms that foster informed participation in ICANN by the global Internet community.

  • At-Large Advisory Committee established; work proceeding on establishment of various At-Large Structures and on specifying requirements for Regional At-Large Organizations
  • Continued regional outreach to encourage participation in ICANN, particularly in Latin America, Africa, and Asia
  • Improvements to webcasting of ICANN meetings
  • Improvements to the real-time electronic captioning first introduced at the Accra meeting in March 2002
  • Establishment of numerous working groups of Governmental Advisory Committee to facilitate closer coordination with other parts of the ICANN process
  • Refinement of process for establishment of ICANN budget, focusing on improved participation by non-funding groups
10. Collaborate on other activities as appropriate to fulfill the purpose of this Agreement, as agreed by the Parties.  
11. Provide a status report on its progress towards the completion of its tasks under this Agreement on or before December 31, 2002, and at the end of each quarter thereafter for the term of this Agreement. Such report shall also describe the status of the implementation of ICANN's reform efforts.


C. Detailed Description of Status

1. Summary

In February 2002, ICANN embarked on an ambitious and comprehensive reform process designed to enhance its effectiveness in providing technical coordination services for the Internet. After circulation of several dozen papers for community consultation on various proposed improvements and extensive dialog and debate within the ICANN community, on 15 December 2002 New Bylaws became effective, specifying significant reforms in several aspects of ICANN's structure, processes, and operation. At the same time, the Board adopted a transition plan, to guide the move from the historical ICANN structure to that established by the New Bylaws.

In the first quarter of 2003, considerable effort was devoted to completing the transition process, as is described in more detail below. In addition, there was renewed attention to a large number of policy-development activities and operational tasks by various ICANN constituencies and organizations. In several concrete respects, the reformed ICANN structure and processes are beginning to take effect, and to demonstrate their enhanced effectiveness.

The goal of the transition is to complete the reform of ICANN while simultaneously continuing to carry out ongoing ICANN responsibilities for policy development and implementation without any significant interruption or impairment. We believe that goal is being met.

The following detailed description of status begins with a discussion of progress towards completion of ICANN's reforms. It then describes significant achievements in enhancing ICANN's organizational ability to accomplish the tasks that are assigned to it. Next, it discusses significant policy-development and operational activities for the quarter. Finally, it describes various other significant activities in which ICANN engaged in the quarter.

2. Progress Towards Completion of ICANN's Reforms

In our last report, we noted that there were still a small number of important reform initiatives yet to be completed. Work has continued apace on those initiatives.

a. Reform of ICANN's Relationship with RIRs

Discussions have continued with the four RIRs over the precise structure and operation of the Address Supporting Organization and their operational relationship with ICANN. In particular, there have been very constructive discussions over the shape and operation of the address policy-development process, as well as other important issues, such as the appropriate way to populate the Address Council, contractual relationships between the RIRs and ICANN, and the methodology controlling the allocation of numbering resources to the RIRs according to their established needs. These discussions continued at the Rio de Janeiro meetings in late March 2003, where a work program was agreed upon to develop these issues, with weekly monitoring of progress and intense communication in order to take full advantage of the momentum and good understanding prevalent.

All of the Executive Directors of the RIRs are involved in these discussions, as are many members of their Boards of Directors, members of the ICANN Evolution and Reform Committee, other ICANN Board members, and ICANN staff. There has been a gradual but consistent buildup of trust among all parties involved.

b. Establishment of Supporting Organization for ccTLD Issues

When ICANN was established, ccTLD registries were incorporated under the then-established Domain Name Supporting Organization (DNSO), together with other constituencies. As the ICANN reform process has matured, it has become clear that ccTLD registries are sufficiently unique that it is appropriate for them to participate within ICANN in a different way, through a different structure than generic registries, and at the same level of contact and weight as other registries. This reasoning led to the proposal, now actively pursued, of creating the Country-Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO).

The ccNSO is intended to provide that structure. In its Blueprint, the Evolution and Reform Committee (ERC) acknowledged that many of the responsibilities of ccTLD administrators fall strictly under the purview of national or otherwise local jurisdiction, but that others, such as responsibilities to maintain interoperability, require or would benefit from global harmonization and coordination. The ccNSO is conceived as the forum where this distinction will be further understood and developed, and from which the global aspects will be appropriately addressed.

Global issues of domain-name administration and coordination cannot be solved by the sole sum of national jurisdictions. Rather, they can only be addressed through appropriate interaction between policies concerning ccTLD domain names and other identifiers that are globally coordinated through policies within ICANN's purview. This interaction requires coordination within the ICANN sphere, and the creation of a Supporting Organization dedicated to the development of global policies relating to ccTLDs.

The ccNSO Assistance Group was formed in September 2002 to assist the ERC by proposing recommendations on a structure and set of operating procedures for the ccNSO. The ccNSO Assistance Group has subsequently developed recommendations on five areas. Those are: scope of the ccNSO as a global policy-development body; process of policy development in the ccNSO; ccNSO membership; structure of the ccNSO; and the ccNSO Council. Participants in the ccNSO Assistance Group have included ccTLD managers, participants from the Governmental Advisory Committee, and other knowledgeable members of the community. All participants contributed to the ccNSO Assistance Group in their individual capacities and contributed based on their personal views and experiences.

In its work, the ccNSO Assistance Group recommended a high-level framework for the allocation of policy-development and operational responsibilities between ICANN and ccTLD organizations, together with components and tools that focus on the needs for effective global coordination through ICANN. The ccNSO Assistance Group recognized the complex history of DNS management and explored frameworks that it believed provide a sound methodology for the future. The ccNSO Assistance Group has also defined responsibilities and roles in functional areas of the DNS management to build confidence in the ccNSO as a major component of the universal domain-name system and the collective role of ccTLDs in the global management of the Internet through ICANN.

The ccNSO Assistance Group produced its preliminary recommendations in stages, then adjusted them based on community comment to produce compiled recommendations in five key areas on 26 February 2003. Those compiled recommendations were augmented on 11 March 2003. In summary, the recommendations deal with:

  • Scope of the ccNSO as a global policy-development body – The Recommendations on Scope set forth a framework for analyses to identify issues that fall into the mandate of the ccNSO policy development role. This framework for analyses distinguishes between three elements or roles as to which responsibility must be assigned on any given issue.
  • Policy Development Process in the ccNSO – The ccNSO Assistance Group used the GNSO Policy Development Process (PDP) as a starting point for its recommendations, making adjustments as appropriate for the ccNSO. This policy-development process contemplates that the membership of the ccNSO will play an important role in policy-development activities, in a collaborative environment promoted by the Council. To facilitate a simple membership process, interested members will submit a letter to the Launching Group (and subsequent to its formation, the Council) recognizing the role of the ccNSO within the ICANN structure and its policy-development process, and agreeing to adhere to the rules of membership and fees.
  • Membership of the ccNSO – The ccNSO Assistance Group recommends that membership of the ccNSO should be open to all ccTLD registries, or designated representatives, that agree to adhere to the membership criteria as set out in the recommendations. The ccNSO Assistance Group discussion reflected the need to ensure that membership was possible without any economic barriers, but with a commitment to the role and responsibility of the ccNSO.
  • Council of the ccNSO – According to the recommendations, the ccNSO Council should be consist of 18 voting members, 15 of which are elected by the membership and 3 that are selected by the ICANN Nominating Committee.
  • Structure of the ccNSO – The issues addressed by the ccNSO Assistance Group's recommendations regarding structure reflect how to transition to the ccNSO. The ccNSO Assistance Group recommends there be a Launching Group, which has the responsibility to formalize the arrangements for the ccNSO, liaise with the ccTLD community and ICANN regarding this, and to organize the election for the first ccNSO Council. The Launching Group would also accept applications for membership of the ccNSO. Elections for the Council should be held within 120 days after the inclusion in the ICANN bylaws of provisions concerning the ccNSO.

The ccNSO Assistance Group's recommendations were the subject of considerable discussion at the ICANN meeting in Rio de Janeiro just concluded, including at a meeting of managers of 57 ccTLDs. At that meeting, a resolution by ccTLD managers was adopted endorsing the concept of the ccNSO as recommended by the ccNSO Assistance Group, with various reservations and additional suggestions that will be the subject of continuing discussion within the ccNSO Assistance Group, the ccTLD community, and the ICANN community as a whole. At the Rio de Janeiro meeting, members of the Board noted the progress made in the formation of the ccNSO and the fruitful discussions and feedback. The ERC anticipates developing and posting a set of recommendations to the Board that incorporates the feedback received. Following public comment, additions and changes to the ICANN bylaws will be prepared and posted for public comment and subsequent consideration by the Board. Members of the ccNSO Assistance Group have noted that they stand prepared to assist and work with the ERC in addressing the feedback and will work with the ERC and the ccTLD community to conclude the formation of the ccNSO.

c. Implementation of the At-Large Advisory Committee

Under the New Bylaws, ICANN's At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) is responsible for considering and providing advice on the activities of ICANN as they relate to the interests of individual Internet users (the "At-Large" community). The New Bylaws call for the ALAC to eventually consist of ten members selected by Regional At-Large Organizations, supplemented by five members selected by ICANN's Nominating Committee. To allow the ALAC to begin functioning immediately, the Transition Article of the Interim Bylaws provides for the Board to appoint ten members (two from each of ICANN's five regions) to an Interim ALAC.

Ultimately, underpinning the ALAC will be a network of self-organizing, self-supporting At-Large Structures throughout the world involving individual Internet users at the local or issue level. The At-Large Structures (either existing organizations or newly formed for this purpose) will self-organize into five Regional At-Large Organizations (one in each ICANN region – Africa, Asia-Pacific, Europe, Latin America/Caribbean, and North America). The Regional At-Large Organizations will manage outreach and public involvement and will be the main forum and coordination point in each region for public input to ICANN.

This structure for At-Large user participation provides significant advantages over the one foreseen in ICANN before reform, as it provides for accountable, transparent stakeholder organization, and allows for the ability to identify clearly who is speaking, as well as to assess the quantitative weight associated with that voice. The ALAC has been structured to make sure that the voice of different sectors of the Internet community will be heard and that their representation can be effectively taken into account.

On 20 January 2003, the ICANN Board appointed the following individuals to the Interim At-Large Advisory Committee:

  • Africa
    • Pierre Dandjinou (Benin)
    • Clement Dzidonu (Ghana)
  • Asia/Pacific
    • Izumi Aizu (Japan)
    • Xue Hong (China)
  • Europe
    • Vittorio Bertola (Italy)
    • Thomas Roessler (Germany)
  • Latin America/Caribbean
    • Erick Iriarte Ahon (Peru)
    • Sebastián J. Ricciardi (Argentina)
  • North America
    • Esther Dyson (United States)
    • Wendy Seltzer (United States)

All of these individuals have support in one or more communities, have proven their commitment and capability of working intensely and in coordinated fashion, and add important capabilities and outreach. They form a diverse, balanced, constructive group that, in the aggregate, is optimally positioned to build the structure that will guarantee that ICANN is provided with the views and needs of Internet users worldwide and kept operating in an efficient, transparent, and accountable manner.

Interim ALAC members will serve until a Regional At-Large Organization is established in their respective region and elects its own members to the permanent ALAC.

In addition to serving the advisory role envisioned for the permanent ALAC, the Interim ALAC will assist in the formation and qualification of At-Large Structures and Regional At-Large Organizations (RALOs). The At-Large Structures and RALOs will meet requirements such as openness, participatory opportunities, transparency, accountability, and diversity in their structure and procedures.

The Interim ALAC has organized itself and selected Vittorio Bertola of Italy as its Chair. The Interim ALAC has also appointed a non-voting liaison to the Generic Names Supporting Organization's Council, which is responsible for developing and recommending to the ICANN Board policies relating to generic top-level domains. It has also selected five delegates to ICANN's Nominating Committee, which will select eight of the 15 voting members of the new ICANN Board and also will select individuals to serve in other key positions. When ICANN's New Board takes over from the Transition Board, the ALAC will also appoint a non-voting liaison to the ICANN Board.

Other activities expected to be undertaken by the Interim (and permanent) ALAC and its supporting organizations include:

  • Proposing criteria and an accreditation process for self-forming At-Large Structures (which will organize the RALOs);
  • Certifying (and de-certifying) organizations for "At-Large Structure" designation;
  • Proposing a "memorandum of understanding" template to be used to define the role and responsibilities of RALOs within the ICANN structure;
  • Assisting with initial outreach strategies on At-Large and relevant ICANN issues in each geographic region;
  • Publicizing and analyzing ICANN's proposed policies and decisions and their (potential) regional impact and (potential) effect on individuals in the region;
  • Providing advice to various policy-making organizations within ICANN on issues, proposals, and activities that are relevant to individual Internet users and fall within ICANN's purview; and
  • Offering Internet-based mechanisms and processes that enable discussions among members of At-Large structures and with those involved in ICANN decision-making so interested individuals can share their views on pending ICANN issues.

d. Nominating Committee

The Nominating Committee is an important cornerstone of the ICANN reform effort. It is responsible for selecting individuals to serve as ICANN Board Directors, GNSO Council members, and At-Large Advisory Committee members. When the ccNSO is formed, it will also appoint three members to the ccNSO Council. The Nominating Committee thus plays a critical role in ensuring both the reality and the perception that ICANN is a broadly representative organization of all those interested in the issues on which it acts. It also has an enormous responsibility to ensure that those persons selected to serve in important positions within ICANN have the personal and other characteristics necessary for the proper functioning of such a unique body – one designed to try to develop global consensus over what are frequently highly contentious issues. The Nominating Committee is made up of delegates from a large number of constituencies that, taken together, cover the entirety of the ICANN community.

Given the critical importance of this body, and especially its role in populating the first Board of Directors seated pursuant to the New Bylaws, it is gratifying that Linda Wilson was willing to agree to serve as the first non-voting Chair of the Nominating Committee. Linda Wilson has been an ICANN Board Member since ICANN's founding in 1998. She has had a distinguished career in higher education, having served as president of Radcliffe College for a decade, prior to which she was vice president for research at the University of Michigan. In addition, Pindar Wong of Hong Kong (a Director of ICANN from October 1999 to September 2000) has graciously agreed to serve as non-voting Associate Chair.

The Nominating Committee has solicited members of the Internet community to think about the positions to be filled, potential candidates they might recommend, and their own interest in volunteering a Statement of Interest in being considered. By early April the Nominating Committee expects to be ready to extend a Formal Call for Recommendations and Statements of Interest for the positions to be filled. When that Formal Call is issued, it will describe the specific information needed by the Nominating Committee in these communications, and will describe how the process will work. It also plans to complete the development of most of its procedures by early April. The Committee's procedures will be published on the Nominating Committee's homepage.

In the meantime, members of Internet Community have been encouraged to review the relevant sections in the Bylaws about the (1) ICANN Mission and Core Values, (2) the roles of Directors, GNSO Council members, and ALAC members; (3) the criteria, qualifications, and eligibility factors for these positions; (4) the Nominating Committee; and (5) the Transition to the New Board so that their Recommendations and Statements of Interest will be well focused and clearly meet the applicable requirements.

The Nominating Committee is designed to function independently from the Board, the Supporting Organizations, and Advisory Committees. Nominating Committee members act only on behalf of the interests of the global Internet community and within the scope of the ICANN mission and responsibilities assigned to it by the ICANN Bylaws.

Members contribute to the Nominating Committee both their understanding of the broad interests of the Internet as a whole and their knowledge and experience of the concerns and interests of the Internet constituencies that have appointed them. The challenge for the Nominating Committee is to integrate these perspectives and derive consensus in its selections. Although appointed by Supporting Organizations and other ICANN entities, individual Nominating Committee members are not accountable to their appointing constituencies. Members are, of course, accountable for adherence to the Bylaws and for compliance with the rules and procedures established by the Nominating Committee.

All but one of the voting delegates and one of the three non-voting liaisons to the Nominating Committee have been appointed. The delegates appointed to date include Christian Ahlert, Mark Bohannon, Leopoldo Brandt, Pavan Duggal, Bret Fausett, Grant Forsyth, Henning Grote, Don Heath, Didier Kasole, Ram Mohan, Mike Roberts, Mike St. Johns, Anthony Staley, Marc Schneiders, Antonio Tavares, German Valdez, Danny Weitzner, Christopher Wilkinson, Linda Wilson (Chair), and Pindar Wong (Associate Chair). In the aggregate, these delegates offer experience, knowledge of the issues, knowledge of people able to occupy the positions for which the Nominating Committee makes selections, discerning choice, and diversity of geography, function and point of view.

3. Strengthening of ICANN's Organizational Resources

One significant goal of the 2002 reform process has been to enhance ICANN's funding levels, and thereby the resources available for ICANN to achieve its mission. During the first quarter of 2003, ICANN strengthened its organizational resources by (a) completion of the process of replacement of its President and CEO (who retired in late March); (b) filling of several previously unfilled staff positions; and (c) development of the preliminary budget for 2003-2004, which is the first to provide funding at reformed levels.

a. Appointment of New President and Chief Executive Officer

On 19 March 2003, ICANN announced the appointment of Dr. Paul Twomey as the new President and CEO of ICANN, effective 27 March 2003. Dr. Twomey replaces retiring President/CEO Stuart Lynn, who has served for the past two years.

From 1989 through 1994 Dr. Twomey worked for the global consulting firm, McKinsey & Company. Specializing in telecommunications and financial services, he consulted for clients in Hong Kong, Singapore, Sydney, and New York. His work focused on enhancing the organizational effectiveness of private- and public-sector entities and designing mechanisms to bridge the gap between strategy and execution.

Between 1994 and 1997, he gained further international experience as Executive General Manager of the Australian Trade Commission. From 1997-2000, he headed Australia's National Office for the Information Economy (NOIE). As Special Adviser, he coordinated the government's National Strategy for the Information Economy. In 2000, the Australian government appointed him its Special Representative for the Internet and ICANN.

From 2000 until assuming his position as ICANN's President and CEO, Dr. Twomey served as Managing Director of Argo P@cific, an Australian Internet consulting and incubator corporation.

Dr. Twomey's considerable background with ICANN dates back to his involvement with the original White Paper process that led to ICANN's founding. For the three years ending November 2002, he served as the first chair of the ICANN Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC), a global forum of governmental representatives that provides advice to the ICANN Board on public policy issues. In his GAC role, Dr. Twomey has worked with global constituencies in arriving at consensus on broad policy issues.

Dr. Twomey holds a Bachelor of Arts (First Class Honors) from the University of Queensland, a Master of Arts (Political Science and International Relations) from Pennsylvania State University and a PhD in International Relations from the University of Cambridge.

This appointment, following a lengthy global search, is another milestone in the development of ICANN. Its timing, essentially simultaneous with the implementation of ICANN 2.0, offers the opportunity to ensure that ICANN's reformed structure effectively focuses on ICANN's basic mission, which there seems to be universal consensus is both necessary and highly desirable.

The search and interviews with other candidates further proved enriching for ICANN as they provided insights and identified people who are now willing and committed to help make ICANN successful.

b. Staff Augmentation

ICANN's staff now consists of 23 individuals. Since the last quarterly report, it has hired a webmaster, a Manager of Registry Relations, a Registry Liaison, a financial analyst, and a receptionist. It has also retained the services of a consultant to serve as the New TLD Program Manager. Several other positions are posted or budgeted, and unfilled, including positions dealing with GNSO support and policy development, technical systems support, a ccTLD liaison, and the Manager of Public Participation. ICANN is in the process of contracting for a study on how the Ombudsman function called for in the Bylaws can best be operated.

With the additions made in the first quarter of 2003, ICANN's ability to manage its relations with gTLD registry operators and registrars is considerably enhanced. The addition of the Manager of Registry Relations and the Registry Liaison for the first time provides ICANN with staffing dedicated to ICANN's relations with gTLD registry operators. As a result, responsiveness to inquiries by or about these operators should be greatly enhanced, and the timely completion of associated tasks (such as review of periodic reports) should be greatly enhanced. In addition, the hiring of personnel into these positions will free up other ICANN personnel who have been "filling in" to devote more attention to their regularly assigned tasks. (See MOU task C1.)

The retention of a New TLD Program Manager will allow ICANN to proceed more expeditiously with the process of implementing new TLDs, and particularly the evaluation of the introduction of the seven new TLDs that were selected in 2000. (See MOU task C8.)

Finally, the addition of a webmaster and financial analyst will assist greatly in ICANN's efforts to enhance the transparency of its operations to the community. (See MOU tasks C3 and C9.)

c. Fiscal 2003-2004 Preliminary Budget

As noted above, one principal goal of ICANN's 2002 reform process was to enhance ICANN's funding to a level that permits it to accomplish its mission. The FY2003-2004 Budget, which goes into effect on 1 July 2003, will be the first budget to reflect the outcome of the reform process.

A preliminary budget for FY2003-2004 was prepared by the outgoing President and CEO (Stuart Lynn), based on consultation with various segments of the ICANN community since October 2002, and posted in March 2003. This is the first posted step in the annual ICANN budget process that will culminate with the Board adoption of the Adopted FY2003-2004 Budget on 26 June 2003, following posting – in accordance with the Bylaws – of the Proposed FY2003-2004 Budget on or about 15 May 2003. The preliminary budget can be found at <http://www.icann.org/financials/preliminary-budget-15mar03.htm>.

Subject to certain cautions noted in the document, ICANN's financial performance continues to improve. Furthermore, the budget changes that occurred between FY2001-2002 and FY2002-2003 have led to increased staffing and funding levels. Although recruiting has proceeded more slowly than expected, ICANN now has 6 more staff on board than a year ago; this has helped to relieve some of the backlog and to allow ICANN to respond more effectively to service and other demands. Coupled with the additional resources realized (if funded as proposed in the preliminary budget document) from the transition to the reformed ICANN, ICANN would, for the first time, be in a position where (a) it has resources at its disposal commensurate with its obligations, and (b) where it can plan to build its reserves to a fiscally prudent level. The members of the community, especially those that provide the bulk of ICANN's funding, have responded in a supportive and statesmanlike manner to previous management calls for the need to stabilize ICANN's resources and staffing environment at adequate levels.

The preliminary FY2003-2004 Budget incorporates advice received from the ICANN Finance Committee and from members of the ICANN Budget Advisory Group. It builds substantially on the budget requirements imposed as a result of the reforms adopted and incorporated into revised Bylaws by the ICANN Board in October 2002 and December 2002. The new President and CEO. Paul Twomey, will review both the preliminary budget and any comments received on it, and will provide any modifications he thinks appropriate when the final Proposed FY2003-2004 Budget is posted in May 2004.

4. Significant Operational and Policy-Development Activities

a. Ongoing IANA Operations

During the first quarter of 2003, ICANN continued its operation of the IANA. The activities for which the IANA is responsible include coordination of the assignment of technical protocol parameters, administrative functions associated with management of the DNS root, and allocation of Internet numbering resources. See Appendix A for a statistical summary of IANA activities through 1 March 2003. (See MOU task C1.)

b. IANA Contract

On 13 March 2003, the contract between ICANN and the Department of Commerce for the operation of the IANA function was renewed, on a basis that synchronizes its term with that of the MOU.

c. ccTLD Sponsorship Agreements

ICANN continues to make steady progress in reaching agreements with ccTLDs. In addition to those ccTLD sponsorship agreements described in prior status reports, namely with .au (Australia), .jp (Japan), .bi (Burundi), .mw (Malawi), .sd (Sudan), .la (Lao People's Democratic Republic), and .ke (Kenya), ICANN completed agreements during the first quarter of 2003 with the managers of the .af (Afghanistan), .tw (Taiwan) , and .uz (Uzbekistan) ccTLDs. The .af agreement is a bilateral Memorandum of Understanding, while the .tw and .uz Agreements are sponsorship agreements forming part of a three-part written framework of accountability also involving the relevant government or public authority, as recommended by the February 2000 Governmental Advisory Committee principles for the administration and delegation of ccTLDs. Several other agreements are in various stages of discussion. (See MOU task C7.)

d. CRADA Reports

In 1999, ICANN and the DOC, as represented by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), entered into Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) CN-1634, which establishes a joint project entitled "Improvements to Management of the Internet Root Server System". Under the CRADA, the parties have been collaborating on a study and process for making the management of the Internet (DNS) root server system more robust and secure.

In late 2002, two reports under ICANN's CRADA were submitted to the Department of Commerce. A 30 November 2002 report provided a description of the current status of the root server system. A 31 December 2002 report concerned a proposal for enhanced architecture for root server security, a procedural plan for the transition to that enhanced architecture, and a schedule for the transition. These reports address items (a) through (c) of task C5 under the MOU; work on items (d) and (e) is ongoing.

Both reports contain security-sensitive and proprietary information, as well as information that may be disclosed publicly without compromising security of the root nameserver system or proprietary information. As a result, a public summary was prepared to provide the Internet community with information from the reports that may appropriately be disclosed. It can be found at http://www.icann.org/general/crada-report-summary-14mar03.htm. (See MOU task C5.)

e. Other Root-Nameserver Activities

While agreements between ICANN and the root-nameserver operators have not yet been established, numerous other forms of cooperation have continued to proceed. On 24 March 2003, the ICANN Root Server System Advisory Committee (which includes the operators of the root nameservers) held its fifteenth meeting. Topics addressed included use of shared unicast (popularly called "anycast") technology for introducing additional, geographically dispersed, instances of the thirteen root nameservers, implications of the introduction of IPv6 and internationalized domain names on root-nameserver-system performance, development of guidelines for the IANA to assess delegation response size, and progress on continued studies of the level of service provided by the root-nameserver system to various locations on the Internet.

During the ICANN meeting in Rio de Janeiro, the Root Server System Advisory Committee participated actively and gave presentations at the Public Forum and to the Governmental Advisory Committee. Key participants in the Internet community were positive in their assessment of the excellent performance of these operators and their unvarying commitment to stability, security, robustness of the system, and technical innovation as it supports these. (See MOU task C5(e).)

f. Security and Stability

The ICANN Security and Stability Advisory Committee, which draws its membership from operators of Internet infrastructure and other security specialists, participated in publication of two documents during the first quarter of 2003:

i. Securing the Edge

This paper discusses the facilitation of distributed denial-of-service attacks by insecure hosts at the edge of the network. It describes the beneficial effects on security of appropriate filtering of source addresses in ingress flows from the edge. The paper is available at <http://www.icann.org/committees/security/sac004.txt>.

ii. ccTLD Zone-File Access

Following review of the concerns that had been raised by ccTLD managers concerning internal IANA procedures regarding accessing ccTLD zone files during the IANA's analysis of requests for nameserver changes by ccTLD managers, a working group involving ccTLD managers, the IANA staff, and members of the ICANN Security and Stability Advisory Committee concluded that the IANA's procedure for accessing of the zone files was not required as an essential step in changing nameservers. In mid-March, the IANA posted a revised specification of its procedures for analyzing nameserver-change requests, which eliminates the access step. The intent of this procedural modification to prior procedures is to streamline the procedures for ordinary changes without compromising the minimally necessary checks for the integrity of the top level of the domain name system.

The revised statement of procedures, which can be found at: <http://www.iana.org/cctld/nameserver-change-procedures-19mar03.htm>, specifically focuses on handling requests for changes in nameserver information in the root zone relating to ccTLDs. gTLD changes have various minor differences based upon contractual relationships.

In addition to publishing these two papers, the Security and Stability Advisory Committee continues work on several ongoing projects, including:

  • advice on VeriSign's IDN Program
  • assessment of the requirements for and status of implementation of DNSSEC
  • preparation of an overall security assessment
  • analysis of the requirements for and status of transition to IPv6
  • a revised version of the Committee's Whois recommendations (previously issued in December 2002)

(See MOU task C1.)

g. Dot Org Transition

On 1 January 2003, Public Interest Registry (PIR) officially assumed responsibility as the registry operator for the .org top-level domain. PIR is a not-for-profit corporation created by the Internet Society (ISOC) to manage the .org registry. PIR was selected by ICANN from among eleven competing proposals through an open request-for-proposals process. Proposals were judged on criteria including the need to preserve a stable, well-functioning .org registry, enhancement of competition for registration services; responsiveness to the noncommercial Internet user community; and the type, quality, and cost of the registry services proposed.

The actual operation of the .org registry was shifted from VeriSign Global Registry Services (VeriSign) to Afilias, the subcontractor selected by PIR, on 25 January 2003. The transition was completed without significant incident, and today the .org registry is fully functional. This is the first time such a significant registry (over 2.5 million registrations at the time of the transition) has been shifted from one registry operator to another, and the smoothness of this process is a testament to the hard work and good faith of all parties involved. VeriSign will continue providing nameservice for the .org top-level domain (using zone files prepared by Afilias) for approximately six months. Nameservice for the .org domain will then be transitioned to UltraDNS, which provides nameservice under contract with Afilias.

The community served by .org has responded favorably to the transition. There has been demonstrable enthusiasm for its services, and a willingness to support PIR by belonging to its Advisory Council. This is a useful, objective predictor that .org users the world over will provide input into the policies pursuant to which the domain is managed. (See MOU task C1.)

h. Annual Independent Neutrality Audit of VeriSign

The .com and .net registry agreements (and the former .org registry agreements) between ICANN and VeriSign include a Registry Code of Conduct. Each Code of Conduct states in part:

8. VGRS will conduct internal neutrality reviews on a regular basis. In addition, VGRS agrees that it will cooperate with an independent third party ("Auditor") performing Annual Independent Neutrality Audits ("AIN Audits"), to be conducted during the fourth quarter of each calendar year. The Auditor will be selected by ICANN, and will be an accounting firm with significant experience in the review of contractual and other legal commitments. All costs of the AIN Audits will be borne by VGRS. The AIN Audit is intended to determine whether VGRS has been in compliance with [Section 23 for .com; Subsection 3.5 for .net, and .org] of the Registry Agreement, and will utilize such tests and techniques as the auditor deems appropriate to determine that compliance. The terms of reference of the AIN Audit will be established by ICANN, subject to the approval of VGRS (such approval not to be unreasonably withheld), and provided to the Auditor by ICANN. A complete report of the results of each AIN Audit shall be provided by the Auditor to ICANN and VGRS no later than 1 December of each calendar year (and by ICANN to the US Departments of Commerce and Justice promptly thereafter). ICANN shall determine that VGRS is in compliance with [Section 23 for .com; Subsection 3.5 for .net, and .org] if:

(1) any material breach(es) of [Section 23 for .com; Subsection 3.5 for .net, and .org] found by the audit that are susceptible to cure have been cured, or are cured within a reasonable time; and

(2) in addition and not as an alternative to subparagraph (1) above, any monetary sanction that ICANN chooses to impose under the Sanctions Program set forth in Appendix Y for any such breach(es) has been timely paid.

A summary of each AIN Audit report, excluding any information that ICANN and VGRS agree (such agreement not to be unreasonably withheld) is confidential or proprietary, is posted on the ICANN web.

The AIN Audit for the 2002 calendar year is now completed and has been posted on ICANN's web site. The audit report describes the accountants' procedures designed to verify a Report of Management on Compliance representing that VeriSign had complied with the requirements of the Registry Code of Conduct and its Equivalent Access Certifications. VeriSign has prepared a response to the AIN Audit Report, which at VeriSign's request ICANN has also posted.

i. Internationalized Domain Names

Internet domain names are text-based identifiers for hosts and services on the Internet. Until now, only a subset of US-ASCII of Latin character encodings has been usable in domain names. Over the past 2+ years, the Internationalized Domain Name Working Group (IDN-WG) of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) has been working to internationalize the domain name system at the application layer by standardizing a system for the translation of codes used for scripts, symbols and glyphs used in languages other than English into unique ASCII strings that can be resolved by the existing domain name system.

In October 2002, a significant milestone toward internationalization of the DNS was achieved when the Internet Engineering Steering Group approved for publication the three documents that together define Internationalizing Domain Names in Applications (IDNA), a standards-track protocol. These three documents were published as RFCs 3490, 3491, and 3492 in March 2003. (A related document, RFC 3454, was published in December 2002.) Implementation of the IDNA specification by DNS registries will allow users to use domain names with non-ASCII characters.

Implementation of IDNA brings both significant benefits and significant risks for the domain name system. In particular, serious concerns have been raised about the likelihood of widespread user confusion and new opportunities for cybersquatting. These risks can be greatly reduced by the adoption of sensible registry-level policies for limiting which code-points (symbols, etc.) are actually permitted in the registration of non-English domain names, and by the coordination of consistent technical implementations across DNS registries.

IDNA will be a major step forward for the domain name system, but only if the DNS registries undertake to implement it in a thoughtful, responsible, and standards-compliant manner. The role of ICANN in this process is, of course, limited – ICANN's agreements with the major gTLD registries give it the responsibility to expressly authorize the registration of IDNA-compliant internationalized domain names, but ICANN's mission does not include micromanaging registry-level implementation.

ICANN's agreements with registry operators (including the gTLDs .com, .net, .org, .info, .biz, .name, .pro, .aero, .coop, .museum) provide that ICANN authorization is required before the registry can begin accepting registrations of internationalized domain names (IDNs). In March 2001, the ICANN Board created an Internal Working Group to investigate facts and identify issues that may arise concerning IDNs. The Internal Working Group issued its final report on 28 August 2001. Based on that report the ICANN Board created the IDN Committee, which worked closely with the entities interested in introduction of IDNs to develop a firm understanding of the many issues presented. After the IDN Committee issued its final report in June 2002, the Board directed the ICANN CEO to create a President's IDN Registry Implementation Committee consisting of interested registries, registrars, and technical experts to exchange information on ways to resolve the issues associated with implementation of IDN capabilities in existing TLDs.

ICANN published, on 13 March 2003, a paper setting forth a proposed answer to the question "What standards should ICANN apply in exercising its contractual responsibility to authorize IDNA registrations in these registries?" The basic premise of the paper is that ICANN should take a light-handed approach, limiting requirements for registries implementing IDNs to ensuring compliance with the applicable technical standards and promoting registry commitments to collaborate with the affected communities, relevant experts, and other registries in developing appropriate language-specific registration policies. Following this paper, the IDN-RIC (which includes representatives of both registry operators having contracts with ICANN and those that do not) and ICANN staff jointly produced a commonly agreed statement of Guidelines for the Implementation of Internationalized Domain Names. A draft of these Guidelines was presented at the ICANN Public Forum on 26 March 2003, where the registry operators under contract expressed their endorsement. Registry operators not having contracts with ICANN have also expressed their support for this approach. The Guidelines are still subject to editing, expected to be minor in effect, based on continued discussions among the IDN-RIC members and communications with the Internet Architecture Board.

At its public Board meeting in Rio de Janeiro, the ICANN Board adopted a resolution endorsing the IDN implementation approach set forth in the Guidelines, and authorized the President to implement the Guidelines by authorizing registration of IDNs in registries with agreements with ICANN on the basis of those Guidelines. In addition, the Board recommended the Guidelines for consideration by other registries, and encouraged further broad-based consultation and collaboration to study and develop appropriate language-specific IDN registration rules and policies. (See MOU task C1.)

j. gTLD Domain Policy Developments

i. Redemption Grace Period

ICANN's Redemption Grace Period (RGP) was implemented in the .com and .net TLDs on 25 January 2003. The RGP is a thirty (30) day registry "hold" period for deleted domain names. This hold period is designed to allow registrars the ability to "restore" names that were deleted accidentally or without the intent of the registrant. Before the RGP was implemented, names that were deleted by registrars were in most cases immediately made available for re-registration. This often had devastating consequences for registrants that inadvertently allowed their registrations to expire, who found that their domains were suddenly being held for ransom – often for several thousand dollars – and were possibly pointing to content they found distressing. The Redemption Grace Period was implemented in order to solve this problem and reduce the chances that registrants would lose the rights to their names unintentionally.

The introduction of the service in the .com and .net TLDs has led to some degree of confusion, which is being addressed by increased registrar and consumer education regarding the details of the service. Complaints have also been received regarding the fee levels charge by some registrars for redemption (some registrars charge over $200), but generally the intensity and number of complaints is greatly diminished from what was experienced before redemption grace period was introduced.

In the next quarter, ICANN expects to progress with introduction of the redemption grace period service in other unsponsored TLDs. (See MOU task C1.)

ii. Whois

On 20 February 2003, the GNSO Council accepted and forwarded to the ICANN Board a Final Report of the GNSO Council's Whois Task Force on Whois Data Accuracy and Bulk Access to Whois Data. These recommendations address the need to enhance the accuracy of Whois data, which is an important contributor to accountability and network security. (See the Whois Recommendation of the Security and Stability Advisory Committee posted at <http://www.icann.org/committees/security/sac003.htm>.)

They also seek to avoid, to some degree, Whois data being used for solicitation purposes.

Work on other issues related to Whois is ongoing. Other issues discussed by the Task Force, such as privacy protections for data subjects, will be presented in separate "issues reports" that will form the basis for further policy-development under the GNSO Council's direction.)

The Whois Task Force's Final Report on Accuracy and Bulk Access included four new consensus-policy recommendations. Two of these recommendations were intended to enhance data accuracy, and two limited the uses that may be made of Whois data obtained under the bulk-access provisions of the registrar accreditation agreements. ICANN's Board of Directors adopted the consensus policy recommendations at its March 2003 meeting in Rio de Janeiro.

The Board has acted on these recommendations in order to speedily move them forward. The quality of the process and content for these recommendations are solid evidence of continuous improvement of the GNSO, largely as an effect of ICANN reform. (See MOU task C1.)

iii. Transfers

On 20 February 2003, the GNSO Council voted unanimously to accept the Final Report of the GNSO Transfers Task Force and to forward it to the ICANN Board as a consensus-policy recommendation. The report included twenty-nine separate recommendations covering both general principles that should govern the inter-registrar transfer process, and specific procedures and standards for approving or denying transfer requests. The report was posted for public comment and discussed at the ICANN Public Forum in Rio de Janeiro. At its public Board meeting in Rio de Janeiro, the ICANN Board concluded that this recommendation might implicate public policy issues, and thus require notification of the Chair of the Governmental Advisory Committee pursuant to Article XI, Section 2 (1)(h) of the ICANN Bylaws. It instructed the President to so notify the Chair of the GAC, and expressed its intention to act on the recommendations at its next meeting, likely to be held by teleconference in late April 2003. (See MOU task C1.)

iv. Deletions, UDRP, and Privacy

GNSO policy development on deletion policies and UDRP review issues continue at the inter-constituency task force level. At its March 2003 meeting in Rio de Janeiro, the GNSO Council initiated a new policy development process to focus on privacy issues. (See MOU task C1.)

k. New TLD Evaluation and Criteria

i. gTLD Evaluation

The process to evaluate the effects of the first round of new gTLDs (i.e. the seven new TLDs selected in November 2000) already in operation, which is undertaken in order to guide the future calls for the creation of new gTLDs, is well underway. The Final Report of ICANN's New TLD Evaluation Process Planning Task Force was accepted by the ICANN Board in August 2002, and an evaluation based on the criteria and procedures recommended in that final report was commenced during the first quarter of 2003.

In order to further focus and accelerate these studies, ICANN has retained the services of Mr. Sebastién Bachollet through FINAKI. Mr. Bachollet, who has significant experience relevant to the task, will coordinate the conduct of this study. Mr. Bachollet will be working internationally on this project; on the basis of his qualifications and motivation, it can be expected that he will immediately establish a work program and follow up on it thoroughly. (See MOU task C8.)

ii. Consideration of Namespace Structuring

In December 2002, the ICANN Board requested that the GNSO Council analyze and make recommendations on whether the TLD namespace should be structured and, if so, how. The GNSO Council has convened a committee of the whole to analyze these questions. That committee is actively working on a report of its analysis and findings, which is currently in draft form. (See MOU task C8.)

iii. Sponsored TLD Evaluation Criteria and Process

In "A Plan for Action Regarding New gTLDs", ICANN's President recommended that the ICANN Board consider immediately initiating a round for selecting a limited number (originally specified as three) of sponsored top-level domains (sTLDs), subject to verification that the sTLDs introduced in 2001 had not admitted significant numbers of registrants that lie outside of their charters. A study of that question has now been completed and shows general adherence to the sTLD charters.

In resolution 02.152, the ICANN Board directed the ICANN President to develop a draft Request for Proposals for the purpose of soliciting proposals for a limited number of new sTLDs, without adopting any rigid numerical limitation. A paper has now been posted that describes proposed criteria and a proposed process for evaluating sTLD proposals, and is intended to prompt discussion that will lead to completion of a finalized Request for Proposals. The paper was promptly presented and discussed at the ICANN Public Forum in Rio de Janeiro and can be found at <http://www.icann.org/riodejaneiro/stld-rfp-topic.htm>. (See MOU task C8.)

5. Other Significant Activities During the Quarter

a. Government Advisory Committee Reorganization

The smooth transition of the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) Secretariat from Australia's National Office for the Information Economy to the European Commission has been completed. The new Chair and Vice-Chairs of the GAC, elected in late November, are in place. The Chair is from Malaysia, the Vice-Chairs from Brazil, Kenya, and Sweden. The GAC website can now be found at gac.icann.org.

The GAC has begun to work though Working Groups, announcing at its meeting in Rio de Janeiro the formation of Working Groups on gTLDs, IDNs, Whois, ccTLDs, Root Server Operation and DNS Security, and IPv6. In addition, the GAC has begun to engage much more actively in discussions and participation with the broader ICANN community and entities. At its meeting in conjunction with the ICANN meeting in Rio de Janeiro, the GAC designated liaisons to all ICANN structures for which the Bylaws called for such liaisons. These developments are encouraging signs that the public-private partnership that the ICANN reforms were intended to produce is developing well.

b. sg Trademark Issue

In January 2003, ICANN learned that the Singapore Network Information Centre (SGNIC) Pte Ltd., the operator of the .sg ccTLD, applied in September 1999 to register ".sg" as a trademark in Singapore. SGNIC's applications appeared to be contrary to clause 4.2 of the ICANN Governmental Advisory Committee's February 2000 Principles for the Delegation and Administration of Country Code Top Level Domains, which state that "No private intellectual or other property rights should inhere in the ccTLD itself, nor accrue to the delegee as the result of delegation or to any entity as a result of the management, administration or marketing of the ccTLD." Accordingly, ICANN contacted SGNIC regarding the trademark applications, as a result of which the parties agreed that the progress of the applications would be delayed by two months to allow the matter to be referred to the Governmental Advisory Committee. It was so referred on 10 February 2003, and on 14 March 2003 SGNIC advised that it had decided to withdraw the trademark applications.

c. ITU ccTLD Workshop

From 3-4 March 2003, ITU-T hosted a ccTLD Workshop to facilitate information to Member States on ccTLD issues. Attendees included Stuart Lynn, ICANN's then-CEO, and Theresa Swinehart, Counsel for International Legal Affairs; and members of ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC), including its Chair, two Vice-Chairs, and the GAC Secretariat. Additionally, members of ICANN's ccTLD community and At-Large community attended.

ICANN made three submissions: a) ICANN and the Global Internet; b) ICANN and Reform; and c) Administering the Root: Delegations and Redelegations – Every Country is Unique. Christopher Wilkinson, on behalf of the GAC, submitted a paper on the GAC Principles for Administration and Delegation of ccTLDs, and several individual GAC Members submitted very useful accounts of the situation with respect to ccTLDs in their countries. There were also other submissions concerning several other ccTLDs documenting their experiences. ICANN's GNSO Council submitted a resolution it had passed on the ITU Workshop, in which it confirmed its support for the participation of ccTLDs within ICANN, and for the establishment of the ccNSO as the appropriate body to address ccTLD issues. The resolution further encouraged governments and governmental entities to attend and participate in ICANN and its venues.

From the presentations, it was clear that ccTLD experiences with ICANN and approaches to solving problems varied across the world, and that there was a range of views on these experiences. Submissions also reflected strong use of and reliance on the GAC Principles for Administration and Delegation of ccTLDs, either by incorporation into national legislation, or using the principles to guide the national approach to ccTLD issues.

Participation and discussion at the meeting reflected an overall view that ICANN and the GAC are the appropriate bodies to address the functions for which ICANN is responsible, including the IANA functions. Many government participants that are not currently participating in the GAC expressed an interest in joining the GAC, in part because there seems to be a strong feeling within those in national governments active in this area that it is unwise and disruptive to the Internet for governments to "forum shop" where DNS coordination issues are involved. Broader participation in the GAC seems to many to be the best way to avoid this disruption and best utilize the advisory role the GAC has in ICANN, as well as benefit from direct information and updates on what is occurring with regard to the DNS and ICANN's areas of responsibility. As inter-governmental organizations also participate in the GAC, this ensures the insertion of the full range of views in GAC discussions.

This is especially the case since different governments house issues of the Internet and the DNS in various ministries – sometimes several ministries – they consider most appropriate to handle the issues, ranging from ministries of science and technology, commerce, telecommunication, to trade. This is reflected in the diversity of GAC membership, a diversity that one observer noted was a strength of the GAC.

Participants expressed the view that the ITU should continue to support ICANN through its participation in the GAC. Workshops such as these were welcomed as a very valuable means to improve mutual communications, to improve awareness of ICANN, and to further a solid understanding of ICANN's limited role and mandate. Participants noted that it would be beneficial to have another such information sharing workshop in approximately one year. Stuart Lynn invited the ITU to hold it alongside an ICANN meeting to foster greater understanding as to how ICANN operates. (See MOU task C7.)

d. WSIS PrepCom II

ICANN staff attended the first week of the WSIS PrepCom II meeting. While ICANN was not specifically on the program, the draft language of the WSIS document contains language on Internet address space, ccTLDs, and coordination of the Internet functions that is highly relevant to the ICANN mission and areas of responsibility. ICANN staff will continue, together with the Board and ICANN community, to monitor the discussions within the WSIS process, and work with appropriate entities to ensure that if issues within ICANN's mission are addressed, they reflect technical reality.

e. UN ICT Task Force

ICANN staff and Board member met with the UN ICT Task Force Working Group 1, to discuss the proposed project towards increasing participation by developing countries in ICANN. This proposed project builds the message of support for ICANN's role delivered by U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan to the ICANN Board of Directors at their meeting in Accra, Ghana, 14 March 2002, and a prior presentation by ICANN's CEO Stuart Lynn to the UN ICT last quarter.

f. ASO Workshop

ICANN's Address Supporting Organization (ASO) Council held a workshop in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, in late January. The workshop discussed the ASO Council's role in development of policy for numbering resources, the relationship between ICANN and the RIRs, the process for selecting the ICANN Board directors, and the ASO Council's work plan. The participants felt the workshop was helpful, and expressed their interest in solidifying ICANN's relationship with the RIRs. (See MOU task C2.)

D. Conclusion

The creation of ICANN 2.0 is moving ahead smoothly. We already see clear indications of the procedural and substantive benefits of the reform process. With the selection of a new Chief Executive Officer now complete, the final stage of reform transition is upon us, and within a short few months the construction of a new ICANN will be complete. The fact that the ICANN community of volunteers has continued to be very active on various important policy and operational issues throughout this reform effort is a testament to both their dedication and to the strenuous efforts by all involved to not let the reform work, important as it is, overwhelm the ongoing mission.

Respectfully submitted,


INTERNET CORPORATION FOR
ASSIGNED NAMES AND NUMBERS
31 March 2003


Appendix A
Summary of IANA Activities, January-February 2003

New Protocol Registries Created:

January 2003:
Compression Schemes
Stringprep Profiles


Protocol Parameters Assigned/Registered:

January 2003:
FEC Instance IDs - 1
IANA ifTypes - 1
Language Tags - 1
LDP Message Types - 2
LDP TLVs - 11
LDP Status Codes - 18
MIME Media Types - 2
PPP Numbers - 1
Private Enterprise Numbers - 303
Radius Types - 3
RSVP Parameters - 43
SIP Compression Schemes - 1
Stringprep Profiles - 1
URI Schemes in uri.arpa - 3
User TCP/UDP Port Numbers - 59

February 2003:
DHCP Option Codes - 1
Experimental Numbers - 1
Language Tags - 1
LDP Namespace TLVs - 6
LDP Namespace Status Codes - 10
Megaco Error Codes - 1
Megaco Public Packages - 1
MIME Media Types - 1
PPP Numbers - 5
Private Enterprise Numbers - 297
RSVP Parameters - 1
URN Schemes in urn.arpa - 1
User TCP/UDP Port Numbers - 17

Allocation of Numbering Resources:

January 2003:
IPv4 Multicast Address - 1
IPv6 /23 - 1

February 2003:
IPv4 Multicast Addresses - 3
IPv4 /8s - 2
IPv6 /23 - 1

Root-Management Activities:

January 2003:
Requests Completed - 10
IANA Reports - 1

February 2003:
Requests Completed - 22


Comments concerning the layout, construction and functionality of this site
should be sent to webmaster@icann.org.

Page Updated 11-Aug-2011
©2003  The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. All rights reserved.