Skip to main content
Resources

ICANN POLICY UPDATE | Volume 13, Issue 11 – December 2013 Issue

PDF Version [462 KB]

http://www.icann.org/en/resources/policy/update

CONTENTS:

Across ICANN

  1. Over 20 ICANN Community Leaders are First Graduates of Successful 2013 ICANN Academy
  2. Issues Currently Open for Public Comment

ASO

  1. Address Council Elections
  2. ASO Buenos Aires Activities

ccNSO

  1. Buenos Aires ccNSO Members' Meeting Evaluation Results
  2. Four New Members Join the ccNSO
  3. ccNSO Council Re-selects Chris Disspain for ICANN Board for Additional Three-year Term
  4. Recommendations on Voting in ccNSO by ccNSO Quorum Study Group
  5. ccNSO Council Adopts New Guideline for Financial Contribution
  6. ccNSO Adopts DSSA Working Group Final Report
  7. ccNSO Adopts JIG Final Report on Universal Acceptance

GNSO

  1. GNSO Council Adopts Protection of IGO and INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs Policy Recommendations – Public Comment Forum Opened Prior to Board Consideration
  2. GNSO WHOIS Studies Project Nears Completion

At-Large

  1. At-Large Achievements in Buenos Aires
  2. ALAC Submits Four Policy Advice Statements and One Correspondence Communication in early November and early December
  3. The At-Large Community Expands to 163 At-Large Structures

GAC

  1. GAC Concludes Buenos Aires Meeting

RSSAC

  1. RSSAC-Executive
  2. Buenos Aires and Beyond

SSAC

  1. SSAC Publishes Advisory Concerning the Mitigation of Name Collision Risk
  2. SSAC Published Advisory on DNSSEC Key Rollover in the Root Zone

Read in Your Preferred Language

ICANN Policy Update is available in all six official languages of the United Nations. Policy Update is posted on ICANN's web site and available via online subscription. To receive the Update in your Inbox each month, visit the ICANN subscriptions page, enter your e-mail address, and select "Policy Update" to subscribe. This service is free.

ICANN Policy Update statement of purpose

Send questions, comments and suggestions to: policy-staff@icann.org.

Policy Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees

Address Supporting Organization ASO
Country Code Names Supporting Organization ccNSO
Generic Names Supporting Organization GNSO
At-Large Advisory Committee ALAC
Governmental Advisory Committee GAC
Root Server System Advisory Committee RSSAC
Security and Stability Advisory Committee SSAC

Across ICANN

1. Over 20 ICANN Community Leaders are First Graduates of Successful 2013 ICANN Academy

At a Glance

More than 20 current and incoming leaders from ICANN's Advisory Committees and Supporting Organizations (AC/SOs) and Board were the first graduates of the 2013 ICANN Academy that took place the week prior to the 48th ICANN Public Meeting in Buenos Aires. The program consisted of four training modules, both online and face-to-face, which combined both theory and practice on facilitation skills training and AC/SO orientation. A feedback survey by participants resulted in over 90 percent of respondents stating the course program was "very good" or "good". The impact of the 2013 ICANN Academy continues with participants across AC/SOs continuing to communicate on topics related to their activities in ICANN.

Recent Developments

The 2013 ICANN Academy consisted of a four-part course consisting of:

  1. Online Learning Platform – Prior to arriving, program participants accessed a training module developed especially for the Academy through ICANN's Online Learning Platform.
  2. Facilitation Skills Training (13-14 November) – When participants were not in the plenary room learning and trying out new meeting frameworks and models, they were actively participating in breakout groups practicing meeting facilitation skills.
  3. Orientation Training (15-16 November) – This course was organized fully by the ICANN community within the Expanded ICANN Academy Working Group. It offered incoming and current leaders an opportunity to get to know more about all AC/SOs as well as many current ICANN issues.
  4. Feedback Session (20 November) – All Leadership Program participants had the opportunity to provide feedback on the program.

Background

The concept of an ICANN Academy was initiated by the At-Large Community and then expanded to include representatives from all ICANN Advisory Committees and Supporting Organizations.

This "pilot" four-part leadership program enabled ICANN to test the range, format and effectiveness of training courses designed to help AC/SOs leaders to more effectively manage contributions to ICANN's policy development efforts within their communities.

More Information

Staff Contact

Sandra Hoferichter, Community Contact

David Kolb, Facilitation Skills Course Contact

Heidi Ullrich, Senior Director, At-Large


2. Issues Currently Open for Public Comment

Numerous public comment periods are currently open on issues of interest to the ICANN community. Act now to share your views on such topics as:

Protection of IGO and INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs (PDP) Recommendations for Board Consideration. Community input is welcome before consideration by the ICANN Board of Directors. Comment period closes 18 December; reply period closes 8 January 2014.

ccNSO FoI WG's Interim Report on "Revocation." ICANN seeks public comment on its initial interpretations of current policy and guidelines related to "Revocation," the process by which the IANA Operator rescinds responsibility for management of a ccTLD from a manager. Comment period ends 20 December; reply period closes 31 January 2014.

Study on WHOIS Misuse. Help us examine the extent to which public WHOIS contact information for gTLD domain names is misused. Comment period ends 27 December; reply period ends 18 January 2014.

ICANN's Draft Vision, Mission & Focus Areas for a Five-Year Strategic Plan. ICANN is seeking general feedback, as well as specific input on measurable outcomes for the organization's Focus Area Goals. Community feedback will help inform additional strategic considerations that are not yet included in, but are candidates to be elements of ICANN's final strategic and/or operating plans and budget. Comment period ends 31 January 2014; no reply period posted.

Status Update from the Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services. How can we better meet global Internet community needs for domain name registration data with greater privacy, accuracy, and accountability? We want to hear your thoughts. Comment period ends 28 February 2014; no reply period posted.

For the full list of issues open for public comment, plus recently closed and archived public comment forums, visit the Public Comment web page.

The staff also populates a web page to help preview potential "upcoming" public comment opportunities. This page – "Public Comments – Upcoming" page – provides information about potential future public comment opportunities. The page is updated after every ICANN Public Meeting to help individuals and the community to set priorities and plan their future workloads.


ASO

ASO Logo

3. Address Council Elections

The ASO Address Council is in the midst of its annual election season. Filiz Yilmaz has been elected to replace Hans-Petter Holen for the RIPE region. Jorge Villa will be joining the ASO on behalf of LACNIC – replacing Alejandro Guzman. Tomohiro Fujisaki and Jason Schiller have been re-elected for the APNIC and ARIN regions, respectively. AFRINIC has concluded their elections and Fiona Asanga has been re-elected for the AFRINIC region.


4. ASO Buenos Aires Activities

Though the ASO Address Council did not formally meet in Buenos Aires, the ASO participated in the Monday SO/AC-led session and held meetings with other constituencies during the week. Additionally, several ASO members met to discuss ways of improving communications with the various ICANN stakeholder groups to ensure the ICANN community is well aware of the work being done in the number resource communities.


Adiel Akplogan, AFRINIC CEO and NRO member has taken the responsibility of leading the Cross Constituency Working Group for ICANN's preparations for the upcoming global multi-stakeholder meeting on the future of Internet governance in Brazil in April 2014. Further information is available through the /1net.org website, and in other sections of the ICANN newsletter.

Staff Contact

Barbara Roseman, Policy Director and Technical Analyst

Carlos Reyes, Senior Policy Analyst


ccNSO

5. Buenos Aires ccNSO Members' Meeting Evaluation Results

ccNSO Logo

Recent Developments

The results of the ccNSO Members' Meeting Survey are now available for public review.

Background

The ccNSO Program Working Group is surveying the ccTLD Community after each ccNSO members' meeting to see what topics were well received and what could be improved. The format of the survey changed significantly for the Buenos Aires meeting, where fewer questions were asked, but with a higher focus on upcoming meetings. Differing from previous surveys, all questions were also open-ended this time, allowing the respondent to freely express their feelings.

Next Steps

The Program Working Group will examine the survey responses and will draft future Public Meeting agendas based substantially on the feedback received.

More Information

Staff Contact

Gabriella Schittek, Policy Specialist


6. Four New Members Join the ccNSO

Recent developments

In a very brief time span, the ccNSO has had the pleasure of welcoming four new members: .EE (Estonia), .VN (Vietnam), .TV (Tuvalu) and .CK (Cook Island).

More Information

Staff Contact

Gabriella Schittek, Policy Specialist


7. ccNSO Council Re-selects Chris Disspain for ICANN Board for Additional Three-year Term

Recent Developments

At its meeting on 10 December the ccNSO Council unanimously selected Chris Disspain to serve on the ICANN Board for three more years.

Background

The ccNSO nomination process started in August 2013. The call for nominations was sent out in October 2013 and Chris Disspain was the only candidate duly nominated. After nomination by the ccNSO members, the ccNSO Council selects the Board candidate.

Next Steps

The chair of the ccNSO will formally inform ICANN's Secretary of the selection and Chris will start his second term on the ICANN Board at the Annual General Meeting, October 2014.

More Information

Staff Contact

Gabriella Schittek, Policy Specialist


8. Recommendations on Voting in ccNSO by ccNSO Quorum Study Group

Recent Developments

At its meeting on 20 December, the ccNSO Council extensively discussed recommendations from the ccNSO Quorum Study Group. The Council will revisit topics such as whether there is a need for a ccPDP to implement the recommendations of implementation of the recommendations are clarified.

Background

The ccNSO Quorum Study Group has submitted its Final Report to the ccNSO Council, which includes the following recommendations:

The group identified and explained the fundamental benefits of having quorum rules, but also acknowledged that in some cases those rules can cause operational obstacles (e.g., during Council Elections). The Study Group recommended that the Council:

  • Keep the current quorum rule for Policy Development voting as is.
  • Develop a mechanism where ccNSO members can indicate how their "non-vote" should be interpreted during voting.·
  • Abandon the current quorum needed for Council elections (50 percent +1), in order to make the process smoother. Instead, a "simple majority" model should be used, where the majority of the ballots cast decide who will win the Council election.
  • Review and update the Rules of the ccNSO according to the current needs of the organization.

The Quorum Study Group was launched in April 2013. The ccNSO Council initiated the group to prepare recommendations to the Council pertaining to the quorum rule for voting in the ccNSO.

More Information

Staff Contact

Gabriella Schittek, Policy Specialist


9. ccNSO Council Adopts New Guideline for Financial Contribution

Recent Developments

The ccNSO Finance Working Group has submitted its final report on the financial contributions of ccTLDs to ICANN. This report was intended to inform the community about a reasonable and acceptable method of attributing ICANN's expenses (value exchange model) and a banded, voluntary model for ccTLDs to calculate their contributions to ICANN. The "value exchange model" was developed in close collaboration with ICANN staff.

At its meeting in Buenos Aires, the ccTLD community discussed the final report extensively. The ccNSO Council unanimously adopted the 2013 Guideline for voluntary financial contributions to ICANN. Replacing the 2007 Guideline, the new guideline became effective 27 November 2013. With adoption of the new guideline a longstanding and intense discussion between the ccTLD community and ICANN has closed.

Background

The ccNSO Finance WG was created in November 2010. Its members and chair were named in early 2011. The Financial WG's mandate included:

"a. to discuss with ICANN (i.) the amounts attributed to ccTLDs and (ii) the underlying attribution method(s) to attempt to establish which of those amounts and method(s) are reasonable and may be acceptable to the ccTLD community

b. to discuss with ICANN a methodology for individual ccTLDs to use to calculate a fair and equitable voluntary financial contribution to ICANN and propose such a methodology to the ccTLD community.

More Information

Staff Contact

Bart Boswinkel, ccNSO Policy Advisor


10. ccNSO Adopts DSSA Working Group Final Report

Recent Developments

The DSSA Working Group Final Report Phase 1, which was published in August 2012, has been upgraded to the Final Report of the Working Group. As the first of the participating SOs and ACs, the ccNSO has adopted the Final Report and the recommendation of the co-chairs of the DSSA. The ccNSO has informed the other SOs and ACs ( ALAC, GNSO and NRO) accordingly. If the other SOs and ACs would act accordingly, this would close the DSSA.

Background

The DSSA WG was created in December 2010, with participation from the ALAC, the NRO (in this instance performing the role of the ASO), ccNSO and GNSO. The objective of the DSSA Working Group was to draw upon the collective expertise of the participating SOs and ACs, solicit expert input and advice and report to the respective participating SOs and ACs on the actual level, frequency and severity of threats to the DNS.

More Information

Staff Contact

Bart Boswinkel, ccNSO Policy Advisor


11. ccNSO Adopts JIG Final Report on Universal Acceptance

Recent Developments

The joint ccNSO-GNSO Working Group (JIG) has published its Final Report on Universal Acceptance of Internationalized Domain Name TLDs just prior to the ICANN meeting in Buenos Aires. At its meeting in BA, the ccNSO Council adopted the report, including its recommendations.

Next Steps

The GNSO Council will discuss and vote on the Final Report. If the recommendations are also adopted by the GNSO, then the chairs of both the GNSO and ccNSO wlll submit the report to the ICANN Board for Directors.

The members of the JIG have also been asked to propose a method to follow-up on their work to date by the Singapore meeting. These proposals are to be submitted to both the ccNSO and GNSO Councils.

Background

The JIG was created to discuss issues of common interest between the ccNSO and the GNSO on IDNs especially IDN TLDs. The JIG has identified three issues of common interest to date:

  1. Single Character IDN TLDs
  2. IDN TLD Variants
  3. Universal Acceptance of IDN TLDs

The issue of the Universal Acceptance of TLDs (Top-Level Domains) is not new. The introduction of new gTLDs, especially those that are longer than three characters exposed this Universal Acceptance issue in the 2000 experimental expansion round, and was continued to be felt through the 2004 gTLD extension round. The introduction of IDN ccTLDs through the IDN ccTLD fast track in 2010 further exposed the issue and also made this into an issue of common interest between ccTLDs and gTLDs.

More Information

Staff Contact

Bart Boswinkel, ccNSO Policy Advisor


GNSO

12. GNSO Council Adopts Protection of IGO and INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs

Policy Recommendations – Public Comment Forum Opened Prior to Board Consideration

At a Glance

The GNSO Council has now unanimously adopted the Protection of IGO and INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs Final Report, including 29 consensus recommendations, which are intended to protect organizational identifiers of full names and limited acronyms of international governmental organizations (IGO) and international non-governmental organizations (INGO), including the International Committee of the Red Cross and the International Olympic Committee. Certain protections are to be granted via reservation at the top and second level domains. Where an identifier is not so reserved the protection may consist of clearinghouse/claims protections at the second level, depending on the organization.

Next Steps

Following adoption of the Final Report by the GNSO Council, a public comment forum has been opened for community/public input prior to Board consideration of the recommendations. Comments may be submitted until 18 December 2013, followed by a reply period if applicable. The Board will also provide notice to the GAC that they are now considering the issue.

Background

The ICANN Board asked the GNSO Council to provide policy advice on whether to protect IGO, Red Cross, IOC and other INGO names at the top and second levels for new gTLDs. The GNSO Council initiated a PDP in October 2012 to cover both new and existing gTLDs. A PDP Working Group met on a weekly basis, producing an Initial Report [PDF, 609 KB], Draft Final Report [PDF, 676 KB], and Final Report [PDF, 644 KB], with each draft accompanied by a public comment forum for community feedback. Following review of the public comments received on its Draft Final Report, the Working Group submitted its Final Report to the GNSO Council on 10 November 2013. The GNSO Council unanimously adopted the Final Report that includes 29 consensus recommendations for protections of IGO-INGO identifiers at its meeting in Buenos Aires on 20 November 2013.

More Information

Staff Contact

Mary Wong, Senior Policy Director


13. GNSO WHOIS Studies Project Nears Completion

At a Glance

On 27 November 2013 the final commissioned GNSO study on the WHOIS system relating to WHOIS Misuse was published for public comment. This marks the publication of the last of the various studies of the WHOIS system that were commissioned by the GNSO Council between 2010 and 2011.

Recent Development and Next Steps

As of mid-2013, two of the studies approved by the GNSO Council remained to be completed. With the recent September 2013 publication of the WHOIS Privacy and Proxy Abuse Study performed by the National Physical Laboratory in the United Kingdom (NPL) and the November 2013 publication of the WHOIS Misuse Study performed by Carnegie Mellon University's Cylab (CMU), the GNSO's WHOIS Studies project is expected to be fully complete by early 2014.

ICANN staff has published its report on public comments received for NPL's Privacy and Proxy Abuse Study, for which a Final Report will shortly follow. The public comment forum for the Misuse Study will close on 18 January 2014, following which ICANN staff will publish a report on public comments, and CMU will prepare a Final Report.

The GNSO Council and community review all the empirical findings obtained through the various studies it follows upon the publication of the Final Reports of all the studies, with a view toward considering their utility in ICANN's ongoing efforts to improve the WHOIS system.

Background

As part of its effort to develop a comprehensive understanding of the gTLD WHOIS system, the GNSO Council had chartered a number of Working Groups and Drafting Teams to develop various possible hypotheses for studies to be performed in relation to several key aspects of WHOIS. These efforts include the WHOIS Working Group chartered in 2007, and work done in 2008 by the WHOIS Studies Working Group, the WHOIS Hypothesis Working Group and the WHOIS Study Drafting Team. In 2009 the GNSO Council requested that ICANN staff perform cost and feasibility analysis on a number of high-priority topics related to WHOIS proposed by the community. In 2010 the GNSO Council approved the first WHOIS-related study, on WHOIS Misuse. The project was awarded to CMU in April 2011. Other WHOIS studies subsequently approved by the GNSO Council concerned WHOIS Registrant Identification (performed by NORC at the University of Chicago, whose Final Report was published in June 2013) and WHOIS Privacy & Proxy Abuse (performed by NPL, with an initial report published in September 2013). In addition, surveys were done on WHOIS Privacy and Proxy Identity Relay and Reveal Requests (performed by the Interisle Consulting Group, with a Final Report published in August 2012) and on WHOIS Service Requirements (done by a GNSO Working Group, with a Final Report published in August 2013). Besides the GNSO-commissioned studies and surveys, NORC had also conducted a study on WHOIS Accuracy at ICANN's request in 2010.

With the pending conclusion of the Privacy and Proxy Abuse and Misuse Studies, the GNSO will complete one of its most comprehensive empirical projects undertaken to date, and will have gathered extensive factually-based data on a number of aspects of the WHOIS system. It will utilize this data to inform its future work on WHOIS – including the recently-launched PDP on Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation – and to collaborate with other ICANN groups on improving WHOIS, including the ongoing work by ICANN's Expert Working Group on gTLD Data Directory Services.

More Information

Staff Contact

Mary Wong, ICANN Senior Policy Director


At-Large

14. At-Large Achievements in Buenos Aires

At a Glance

The At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) and the members of the At-Large community achieved many policy and process-related goals during the ICANN 48 Meeting that took place in Buenos Aires, Argentina 17-22 November 2013. These included ratifying three policy advice statements and establishing the At-Large Registration Issues Working Group. As it was the ICANN Annual General Meeting, At-Large said goodbye to several ALAC and Regional Leaders and welcomed new leaders.

Recent Developments

Among the many policy and process-related issues discussed during their meetings, there are several the ALAC would like to highlight as being of particular note:

Meetings

  • The ALAC held 21 formal meetings in Buenos Aires which resulted in many Action Items
  • Numerous additional informal working meetings were held including an informal joint meeting of the Board Candidate Evaluation Committee and the Board Member Selection Process Committee and Finance and Budget Sub-Committee Meeting to discuss the next steps for the ALAC regarding the CROPP. There were also transition meetings with AFRALO and NARALO regional leaders, an informal APRALO meeting with Yu Chuang Kuek to discuss the APRALO Showcase on Singapore, and informal discussions with LACRALO leadership.

ALAC Policy Advice Activities

ALAC Process Issues

  • The ALAC agreed by consensus to establish an At-Large Registration Issues Working Group.
    • As this new Working Group will address issues formerly covered in both the At-Large WHOIS Working Group and the At-Large Registration Rights and Responsibilities Working Group, these two Working Groups will be archived.

Incoming ALAC, Leadership Team and Liaisons

  • The ALAC had both incoming and departing members:
    • Incoming ALAC Members: Rafid Fatani, Leon Sanchez, Fatima Cambronero, Maureen Hilyard, Beran Dondeh Gillen
    • Exiting ALAC Members: Rinalia Abdul Rahim (ALT), Carlton Samuels (ALT), Natalia Enciso, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro, Titi Akinsanmi
  • 2014 ALAC Liaisons
    • ccNSO: Maureen Hilyard
    • GNSO: Alan Greenberg
    • NCSG: Evan Leibovitch
    • SSAC: Julie Hammer
    • .MOBI: Selection to be made
  • 2014 ALAC Leadership Team
    • Olivier Crépin-Leblond (Chair), Tijani Ben Jemaa (Vice-Chair), Evan Leibovitch (Vice-Chair), Dev Anand Teelucksingh, Holly Raiche

More Information

Staff Contact

Heidi Ullrich, Senior Director for At-Large


15. ALAC Submits Four Policy Advice Statements and One Correspondence Communication in early November and early December

At a Glance

The ALAC continues its high rate of preparing statements in response to ICANN public comments periods as well as other comment and communication opportunities. Between early November and early December, the ALAC submitted four Policy Advice Statements and one Correspondence Communication. The ALAC is currently developing several additional Policy Advice Statements.

Recent Developments

The four ALAC Policy Advice Statements and one Correspondence Communication submitted between early November and early December are summarized below.

ALAC Statement on the Revised Public Interest Commitments Dispute Resolution Procedure (PICDRP)

  • The ALAC appreciates the radical changes made to the PICDRP in response to the comments of the first draft. The process seems far more appropriate for addressing potential harms caused by a registry's failure to honor the Public Interest Commitment aspects of their registry agreements. However, the ALAC still firmly believes that this process does not address the PUBLIC INTEREST aspect of Public Interest Commitments.
  • There must be a provision for allowing reports of PIC violations, and particularly substantive PIC violations without the need to demonstrate harm.
  • A significant aspect of the PIC is to ensure registrant and Internet user trust in the TLD. To disallow reports of the perceived loss of that trust greatly lessens the benefit of the PIC, and could serve to make them completely ineffective.
  • The ALAC also offers the following more specific comments on the terms within the PICDRP:
    • The use of the undefined term "good standing" is both vague and inappropriate. If there are criteria under which ICANN will decide to not follow up on a report, they must be clearly stated and subject to appeal.
    • There should be no requirement for interaction between a Reporter and Registry if the complaint issues identified in the report are factually identifiable; there is no need to negotiate evidence-based issues.
    • Although perhaps obvious to some, it should be explicit that the Standing Panel will include one or more members with clear understanding of Public Interest issues.

ALAC Correspondence on the NGPC Response to the ALAC Statements on Community Applications

  • This Correspondence was sent by Olivier Crépin-Leblond, Chair of the ALAC, to Heather Dryden, Chair of the GAC. The Correspondence is in regards to the Board's New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC) Response to the ALAC Statements on Community Applications

ALAC Statement on the Thick WHOIS Policy Development Process (PDP) Recommendations for Board Consideration

  • The ALAC strongly supports the recommendation of the Final Report on the Thick WHOIS Policy Development Process for all gTLD registries to use the 'Thick' WHOIS mode.
  • It is a position that the ALAC has supported, beginning with its response to the Preliminary Report and reflected in the ALAC Statement on the Preliminary Issue Report on 'Thick' WHOIS expressing 'extreme disappointment' that Verisign was not required to use a 'Thick' WHOIS model for .COM when that ICANN registry agreement was up for renewal.
  • The ALAC notes that similar privacy issues are addressed by most existing registries and all registrars including movement of data from one jurisdiction to another.

ALAC Statement on the Policy & Implementation Working Group

  • There must be a methodology to recognize when a decision will impact the community, and such decisions must involve a bottom-up process in addressing those decisions.
  • The processes must be designed to be time-sensitive – unending debate should not be an option.
  • There must be a way to come to closure when the community is divided, and this should not simply give executive powers to ICANN staff.
  • One of the key question that must be resolved is what part should the Board play in taking action if the community is divided. This question is one of the reasons that the ALAC believes that this should have been a Board-led initiative, but the fact that it isn't does not remove the importance of the question.

ALAC Statement on the Second Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT 2) Draft Report & Recommendations

  • The ALAC appreciates the publication of the ATRT2 Draft Recommendations for Public Comment.
  • The Affirmation of Commitments' mandate for periodic organizational review and the work of the ATRT2 are crucial for enhancing, on a continuous basis, the culture and practice of accountability and transparency throughout ICANN.
  • We agree with the ATRT2's general Recommendations that, in moving forward, ICANN needs to:
    • Establish clear metrics and benchmarks against which improvements in accountability and transparency can be measured.
    • Communicate clearly and consistently about its accountability and transparency mechanisms and performance.
    • Improve and prioritize its AoC Review processes.

More Information

Staff Contact

Matt Ashtiani, Policy Specialist


16. The At-Large Community Expands to 163 At-Large Structures

At a Glance

ALAC is in the process of certifying two organizations as At-Large Structures (ALSes): FCC (Federation Comorienne des Consommateurs) and HETS (Hispanic Educational Technology Services). These two new ALSes expand the regional diversity of the At-Large community, which represents thousands of individual Internet end-users. With the addition of these two new organizations, the number of accredited ALSes will now total 163.

Recent Developments

The ALAC is voting for the certification of the FCC and HETS as At-Large Structures ALSes. The certification process included due diligence carried out by ICANN staff and regional advice provided by African Regional At-Large Organization (AFRALO) and by North American Regional At-Large Organization (NARALO).

Additional information on the new At-Large Structures:

The Federation Comorienne des Consommateurs is located in Moroni – Comoros. The mission of the FCC includes, among others, to facilitate and support the technical evolution of the Internet as a research and education infrastructure, and to stimulate the involvement of the Scientific Community, Industry, Government and other sectors of human endeavor in the evolution of the Internet to inform, train, and organize consumers so that through regular consultations with the state and socio-economic players the consumer may have: affordable quality products and services, performing utilities affordable to all segments of the population, the regular supply of consumer goods and energy, laws and rules protecting the consumer, consumers' access to justice, new information technologies available to all. This organization will be an ALS within AFRALO.

The Hispanic Educational Technology Services is located in Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico. The mission purpose of the HETS is to promote, support and increase the capabilities of member institutions to enhance Hispanic/Latino student success and opportunities by: providing training and support for faculty, staff, and student from member institutions; facilitating, promoting and nurturing strategic alliances among HETS members and the academic, government and corporate sectors; supporting the integration of new education technologies; and identifying and gathering expert support and resources for member institutions.

This organization will be an ALS within NARALO.

Background

One of the strengths of the At-Large community is that it incorporates the views of a set of globally diverse, Internet end-user organizations, or ALSes, organized within five RALOs. The views of these grassroots organizations are collected through an internal, bottom-up, consensus-driven policy development process and find representation in the official documents of the ALAC.

More Information

Staff Contact

Silvia Vivanco – Manager, At-Large Regional Affairs


GAC

17. GAC Concludes Buenos Aires Meeting

At a Glance

The GAC met in Buenos Aires to follow-up on outstanding issues from the Durban GAC Communiqué [PDF, 110 KB], including the Board's response to GAC safeguard advice. The GAC also met to discuss future work beyond providing advice on new gTLDs. For further information please see the Buenos Aires GAC Communiqué [PDF, 97 KB].

Background

ICANN receives input from governments through the GAC. The GAC's key role is to provide advice to ICANN on issues of public policy, and especially where there may be an interaction between ICANN's activities or policies and national laws or international agreements. The GAC usually meets three times a year in conjunction with ICANN Public Meetings, where it discusses issues with the ICANN Board and other ICANN Supporting Organizations, Advisory Committees and other groups. The GAC may also discuss issues between times with the Board either through face-to-face meetings or by teleconference.

More Information

Staff Contact

Olof Nordling, Senior Director, GAC Relations

Jeannie Ellers, Manager, GAC Coordination


RSSAC

18. RSSAC-Executive

The RSSAC-Exec continues to work on the reorganization of RSSAC. Among the items for review are an update on Service Expectations of Root Servers (RSSAC 001) and Recommendations on Measurements of the Root Server System (RSSAC 002); these two documents are nearing publication. The Executive also established a Membership Committee to address remaining questions around the formation of the RSSAC Caucus.


19. Buenos Aires and Beyond

The RSSAC did not formally meet in Buenos Aires. Several members of the Executive were in attendance and held planned sessions with the GAC and ATRT2. The RSSAC expects to make a decision shortly on their meeting schedule for 2014, including a full meeting at ICANN 49 in Singapore.

Staff Contact

Barbara Roseman, Policy Director and Technical Analyst

Carlos Reyes, Senior Policy Analyst


SSAC

20. SSAC Publishes Advisory Concerning the Mitigation of Name Collision Risk

At a Glance

The SSAC has published an Advisory [PDF, 382 KB] concerning the mitigation of name collision risk.

Recent Developments and Next Steps

The SSAC has published an Advisory concerning the mitigation of name collision risk. In this Advisory the SSAC provides advice to ICANN based on its assessment of the issues identified in the Interisle study on Name Collision in the DNS [PDF, 3.34 MB] and ICANN's proposal [PDF, 166 KB] to mitigate potential collision risks.

Background

In the context of top-level domains, the term "name collision" refers to the situation in which a name that is properly defined in the global DNS namespace (defined in the root zone as published by the root management partners – ICANN, U.S. Dept. of Commerce NTIA, and Verisign) may appear in a privately defined namespace (in which it is also syntactically valid), where users, software, or other functions in that domain may misinterpret it.

The SSAC provided advice to ICANN based on its assessment of the issues identified in the Interisle study and ICANN's proposal to mitigate potential collision risks. The SSAC in general supports ICANN's risk mitigation proposal and offers additional advice in the following areas:

  • The SSAC asserts the principle that strings with documented evidence of broad and significant private usage should be considered for permanent reservation for internal use to reduce security and stability issues. The SSAC recommends ICANN work with the wider Internet community to identify (1) what strings are appropriate to reserve for private namespace use and (2) what type of private namespace use is appropriate.
  • The SSAC explores different types of trial delegation, their potential benefits, and risks of each option. The SSAC recommends that ICANN answer a set of key questions should it decide to delegate any TLD on a trial basis.
  • The SSAC supports the Board's recommendation to implement root zone monitoring and believes that such a capability must be defined and deployed promptly and the capability must be sufficiently flexible to accommodate additional needs.
  • Finally, there is a possibility that significant security or stability problems may occur as a result of name collision after delegation, which could warrant taking emergency action, including the rapid reversal of the delegation of a TLD. The SSAC recommended that ICANN update its procedures to prepare for such an emergency.

More Information

Staff Contact

Steve Sheng, Senior Technical Analyst

21. SSAC Published Advisory on DNSSEC Key Rollover in the Root Zone

At a Glance

The SSAC has published an Advisory [PDF, 480 KB] on Domain Name System Security Extensions (DNSSEC) key rollover in the root zone.

Recent Developments and Next Steps

The SSAC has published an Advisory on DNSSEC key rollover in the root zone. This Advisory explores the range of possible root zone KSK rollover scenarios and articulates many of the complications and complexities unique to the handling of root zone keys. The Advisory is intended to facilitate discussion that will more fully examine the costs, risks, and benefits for the various root zone KSK rollover scenarios.

Background

There is consensus in the security and DNS communities that the root zone DNSSEC system poses unique challenges for standard DNSSEC practices. While there is agreement that an eventual root zone Key-Signing Key (KSK) rollover is inevitable regardless of whether that rollover is caused by a key compromise or other factors, there is no solid consensus in the technical community regarding the frequency of routine, scheduled KSK rollovers.

The goals of this Advisory are to describe the DNSSEC root zone KSK rollover problem space at a high level, identify issues that constrain possible solutions, and where appropriate, make recommendations to the ICANN Board of Directors related to root zone KSK rollover. The Advisory provides context and background to allow readers to understand solutions being explored among the DNS technical community. In the Advisory the SSAC proposes five recommendations for consideration and discussion. See the Advisory for details.

The intended audience of this Advisory is the ICANN Board of Directors and others who have a basic familiarity with concepts related to the DNS in general and DNSSEC in particular and who are interested in understanding the issues related to transitioning an old root zone KSK to a new KSK (root key rollover).

More Information

Staff Contact

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

update-dec13-en.pdf  [462 KB]

Domain Name System
Internationalized Domain Name ,IDN,"IDNs are domain names that include characters used in the local representation of languages that are not written with the twenty-six letters of the basic Latin alphabet ""a-z"". An IDN can contain Latin letters with diacritical marks, as required by many European languages, or may consist of characters from non-Latin scripts such as Arabic or Chinese. Many languages also use other types of digits than the European ""0-9"". The basic Latin alphabet together with the European-Arabic digits are, for the purpose of domain names, termed ""ASCII characters"" (ASCII = American Standard Code for Information Interchange). These are also included in the broader range of ""Unicode characters"" that provides the basis for IDNs. The ""hostname rule"" requires that all domain names of the type under consideration here are stored in the DNS using only the ASCII characters listed above, with the one further addition of the hyphen ""-"". The Unicode form of an IDN therefore requires special encoding before it is entered into the DNS. The following terminology is used when distinguishing between these forms: A domain name consists of a series of ""labels"" (separated by ""dots""). The ASCII form of an IDN label is termed an ""A-label"". All operations defined in the DNS protocol use A-labels exclusively. The Unicode form, which a user expects to be displayed, is termed a ""U-label"". The difference may be illustrated with the Hindi word for ""test"" — परीका — appearing here as a U-label would (in the Devanagari script). A special form of ""ASCII compatible encoding"" (abbreviated ACE) is applied to this to produce the corresponding A-label: xn--11b5bs1di. A domain name that only includes ASCII letters, digits, and hyphens is termed an ""LDH label"". Although the definitions of A-labels and LDH-labels overlap, a name consisting exclusively of LDH labels, such as""icann.org"" is not an IDN."