ICANN POLICY UPDATE | Issue 8 - October 2008
PDF Version [89 KB]
- YOUR COMMENTS NEEDED ON POLICY ISSUES
- DISTANCE LEARNING ... AUDIO POLICY BRIEFINGS ON MANY TOPICS NOW AVAILABLE
- MULTILINGUAL MAILING LISTS -- AUTOMAGICALLY!
- ICANN BOARD RESOLVES MANY GNSO COUNCIL RESTRUCTURING DECISIONS
- IS IT TIME TO RE-CONSIDER ICANN'S GEOGRAPHIC REGIONS?
- WHOIS STUDY GROUP COMPLETES WORK; COUNCIL SEEKS CONSTITUENCY COMMENT
- GNSO COUNCIL CALLS FOR ISSUES REPORT ON REGISTRATION ABUSE POLICIES
- MAKING IT EASIER TO TRANSFER DOMAINS BETWEEN REGISTRARS
- HOW DO WE DEAL WITH FAST FLUXING CYBERCRIMINALS?
- ccNSO COUNCIL NOMINATIONS PERIOD EXTENDED
- ccNSO and GNSO PURSUE PROCESSES FOR TRAVEL FUND ALLOCATIONS
- CAIRO MEETING PREPARATION CONTINUES
- ICANN SEEKS TO DETERMINE INTEREST IN IDN ccTLDs
- GLOBAL IPV4 POLICY APPROACHING ADOPTION IN ALL REGIONS
- AT-LARGE TACKLES WIDE RANGING POLICY AGENDA, ACCOUNTABILITY TOOLS
- AT-LARGE ELECTION RESULTS
The ICANN Policy Update contains brief summaries of issues being addressed by the ICANN community's bottom-up policy development structure, as well as information on related policy development activities. ICANN's Policy Staff publishes these monthly updates to maximize transparency and encourage broad community participation in ICANN's policy development activities.
Links to additional information are included and readers are encouraged to go beyond these brief summaries to learn more about the ICANN community's work. As always, the Policy Staff welcomes comments and suggestions on how to improve its policy communications efforts. Please send these comments to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Subscribe to the Policy Update in English, French and Spanish
The ICANN Policy Update is posted on ICANN's website and available via online subscription. If you would like us to send these updates directly to your inbox each month, simply go to the ICANN subscriptions page, enter your e-mail address, and select "Policy Update" to subscribe. This service is free of charge to subscribers.
Starting in August, these updates also are available in French and Spanish. Like the English version, you can subscribe to the French and Spanish versions from the ICANN subscriptions page. In the near future, and on a trial basis to determine utility, we will make the Policy Update available to the community in all six official languages of the United Nations: English (EN), Spanish (ES), French (FR), Arabic (AR), Chinese (Simplified -- siZH), and Russian (RU). More information is available at:
- ICANN Policy Updates: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/
- Subscribe to Policy Updates: http://www.icann.org/en/newsletter/
- ICANN Policy Area: http://www.icann.org/en/policy/
What's on the Calendar for today?
Keep up-to-date on what's happening in ICANN policy development by visiting the online calendars of ICANN's policy development bodies. Three of the most active calendars include:
- At-Large Calendar at http://www.atlarge.icann.org/
- Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO) Master Calendar, including links to agendas and MP3 recordings of meetings at http://ccnso.icann.org/calendar/
- Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Master Calendar, including links to agendas and MP3 recordings of meetings, at http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/index.html
1. YOUR COMMENTS NEEDED ON POLICY ISSUES
Act now for the opportunity to share your views on:
- Proposed Bylaws Revision -- Diversity is a critical to the make up of the ICANN Board, but counting more than one country of citizenship for diversity purposes has proven to be problematic. Should the bylaws by changed to factor in domicile, not just citizenship in the diversity calculation? Comments close 23 October 2008.
- Improving Institutional Confidence -- Following the Midterm Review of the Joint Project Agreement (JPA) between ICANN and the US Department of Commerce in February 2008, ICANN's public consultation on possible changes to the ICANN organization continues. To this end, the ICANN President's Strategy Committee (PSC) prepared an Improving Institutional Confidence in ICANN document and a Transition Action Plan -- and continues to seek input from the community. Second public comment period closes 20 October 2008.
Look for public comment to open soon on:
- IDN ccTLDs -- A draft Issue Report on the ccNSO's IDN ccTLD policy development process is expected to post later this month. For more information, please see the ccNSO'S previous announcement on the PDP.
More InformationThis is not an exhaustive list of items open for public comment or items coming soon. Please go to ICANN's public comment page, where you will find information on how to submit your comments on numerous decisions being made by the ICANN community. You can also automatically receive notices on public comment periods by subscribing to an RSS feed of ICANN Announcements. To have these notices fed to your computer's desktop, simply visit http://www.icann.org/en/rss/news.rss, and click on "Subscribe Now."
2. DISTANCE LEARNING ... AUDIO POLICY BRIEFINGS ON MANY TOPICS NOW AVAILABLE
At a Glance
ICANN's Policy Department offers a series of multilingual webcasts specifically designed as a fast, efficient introduction for stakeholders across the ICANN community to a range of important policy issues.
Each month, ICANN Staff organizes audio briefings on topical policy issues. These briefings focus on issues of interest to both the individual Internet user as well as the ICANN stakeholder communities.
Initiated for ICANN's At-Large community, these calls are made available to the general public. Each webcast features a briefing on the issue conducted via telephone and can be accessed on ICANN's website by anyone interested in learning about the topic. During the actual briefings, an Adobe Connect session allows participants to follow along with presentations and to chat with one another and the presenter during the session. Each presentation is followed by a question and answer session with the participants.
Briefings generally feature simultaneous interpretation so users may participate in English, Spanish or French, and recordings are available in all three languages, along with any presentation materials from the briefings.
The latest briefing featured IANA, providing a very useful introduction to what IANA is and what it does, and discussing the relationship between the US Government and IANA functions.
- Information on briefings: http://www.atlarge.icann.org/en/audio-briefings
- Available briefings:
- Fast Flux Hosting
- The New gTLD Program
- Draft Amendments to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA)
- Registrar Impersonation in Phishing Attacks
- DNS Response Modification
- IANA Introduction
- Email questions or suggestions for future briefing topics to Matthias Langenegger, At-Large Secretariat.
3. MULTILINGUAL MAILING LISTS -- AUTOMAGICALLY!
At a Glance
A new mailing list translator will better enable people all over the world to take part in ICANN policy discussions.
With the support of many ICANN community members, ICANN Staff has created an email list translation interface that is now entering production use. The first communities to benefit will be the At-Large Regional At-Large Organizations ("RALOs") in Africa ("AFRALO") and Latin America and the Caribbean ("LACRALO").
The interface can be used one of two ways:
- One-way translation output to a mailing list archive from an English-only list, allowing non-English readers to follow ICANN organizations' public discussions in several languages, or;
- As a two-way interface, allowing non-English postings to be read as English, and vice-versa.
Since machine translation is imperfect, the results vary -- but testing has found that the translation is generally sufficient to allow the reader to at least understand the general idea the poster in the other language is trying to convey. The interface also provides a URL link to the original posting, so those who can partially read the language of the original posting may always review it; this is especially helpful in dealing with imprecise translations.
Not every language is available -- but more are regularly being added by SYSTRAN, the provider of the machine translation. The list of languages is as follows:
|English <> Arabic||French <> Dutch|
|English <> Chinese||French <> German|
|English <> Dutch||French <> Italian|
|English <> French||French <> Portuguese|
|English <> German||French <> Spanish|
|English <> Italian||English <> Korean|
|English <> Japanese||English <> Portuguese|
|English <> Russian||English <> Spanish|
|English <> Greek|
More InformationContact Nick Ashton-Hart, Director for At-Large, if you are interested in enabling either style of multilingual interface.
4. ICANN BOARD RESOLVES MANY GNSO COUNCIL RESTRUCTURING DECISIONS
At a Glance
As part of its ongoing commitment to improve the effectiveness of the GNSO's policy development activities, the ICANN Board took a series of steps toward restructuring the GNSO and taking a standard approach to creating new constituencies and Stakeholder Groups.
During its 30 September meeting the ICANN Board adopted most of the Report of the Working Group on GNSO Council Restructuring (the WG-GCR Report), including its recommendations on Nominating Committee appointees, election of Council leadership, voting thresholds for various Council decisions, as well as t he timing for the implementation of these elements and other related matters.
Specifically, the Board:
- Authorized a third Council-level non-voting Nominating Committee Appointee (NCA);
- Authorized the GNSO Council to elect a Chair by a vote of 60% in each voting house and gave each house the flexibility to create a process for selecting its own Vice Chair; the Board also asked the Council to develop a process for subsequent balloting, if needed, until a Council Chair is duly elected;
- Adopted all of the new voting thresholds proposed in the WG-GCR Report; the Board also asked the GNSO to develop (for Board approval) any additional voting thresholds or categories that may be needed;
- Acknowledged development by ICANN Staff of a new "Notice of Intent" document for potential new constituencies and directed Staff to develop a formal petition and charter template to assist applicants in satisfying the formative criteria (consistent with the ICANN Bylaws) and to facilitate the Board's evaluation of new constituency petitions;
- Directed Staff to work with the existing GNSO constituencies to design and develop a streamlined process (along with appropriate mechanisms) to assist with the Board's timely recognition and approval of existing constituencies.
The Board also reinforced its support for the following principles pertaining to the formation of the new Stakeholder Groups and requested that all constituency members, as well as other relevant parties, comply with the principles included in the BGC Working Group's GNSO Improvements Report when establishing these newly formed structures, including:
- The need to represent more broadly the wide variety of groups and individuals that comprise the global ICANN community in a structure that can adapt easily and fluidly to the new gTLD environment and its stakeholders;
- The inclusion of new actors/participants and the expansion of constituencies within Stakeholder Groups, where applicable.
The Board directed ICANN Staff to work with existing constituencies to develop a set of streamlined processes (including appropriate templates, tools, or other mechanisms) that will assist in the formation of these new Stakeholder Groups and facilitate the Board's subsequent review and approval of those structures.
The Board directed the four new Stakeholder Groups (approved during the 28 August Board meeting) to submit their plans, consistent with the above principles, to the Board for consideration at the March 2009 ICANN Mexico City Board meeting. The Board said those plans of the Registry, Registrar, Commercial and Non-commercial Stakeholder Groups must be reviewed and approved by the Board before a newly structured GNSO Council is seated in June 2009. The Board said it will consider the need for interim action to fill Council seats in the event that it finds any Stakeholder Group plan to be deficient or delayed.
The Board did not reach final decisions on two significant issues that will be dealt with after further deliberations. Board members requested additional community dialogue and input on the appropriate GNSO representation of individual commercial and non-commercial Internet users. The Board said it would be particularly helpful to have feedback from the GNSO and At-Large communities along with any relevant applicants for new constituencies.
The Board and General Counsel also have outstanding questions about the WG-GCR recommendation regarding Board seat elections and the Board directed ICANN Staff to share these issues with and seek additional community input.
The Board also amended its previous implementation timetable for seating the new Council and directed that the transition to a new bicameral GNSO Council voting structure take place over a phased implementation schedule that begins immediately and ends in June 2009 with the seating of the new Council. The implementation phases will be as follows:
Phase 1 -- GNSO Council restructuring implementation plan submitted in advance of the December 2008 Board Meeting;
Phase 2 -- Existing Constituencies submit confirmation documents to the Board for review in advance of the February 2009 Board Meeting;
Phase 3 -- Stakeholder Groups submit formal plans for Board approval for consideration at the March 2009 ICANN Mexico City Board meeting; and
Phase 4 -- Stakeholder Groups with plans approved by the Board select Council representatives, and the newly structured GNSO Council is seated by the June 2009 Asia-Pacific ICANN Meeting.
In view of the Board's efforts to complete its review and approval of the various improvements recommendations, the GNSO Council's Implementation Planning Team also reconvened over the last month to review its proposed top-level implementation plan. The Planning Team made a number of modifications to that plan and submitted a new version of the plan (see "GNSO Improvements Implementation Plan") to the GNSO Council on 25 September 2008.
The GNSO Council will review and decide whether to accept the new GNSO Improvements Implementation Plan developed by the Planning Team at its upcoming 16 October meeting. If the plan is approved, efforts will begin immediately to form the appropriate committees and work teams necessary to begin the implementation efforts directed by the Board. Some of those first groups are expected to meet at the ICANN meeting in Cairo next month.
The community will also be engaged in additional dialogue on the outstanding issues noted above, as requested by the Board.
The ICANN Board has approved a comprehensive set of recommendations to improve the structure and operations of the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO). This effort is part of ICANN's own ongoing commitment to evolve and improve, and follows an independent review of the GNSO by the London School of Economics and others, as well as extensive public consultation.
A working group of the ICANN Board Governance Committee (BGC WG) developed and presented these recommendations in a GNSO Improvements Report that includes ways to improve the effectiveness of the GNSO's policy development activities, structure, operations and communications. At the February 2008 Board meeting in New Delhi, the Board accepted the Report for consideration, and directed ICANN Staff to post it for public comment, draft a detailed implementation plan in consultation with the GNSO, begin implementation of the non-contentious recommendations, and then return to the Board and community for further consideration.
The GNSO Council subsequently formed a GNSO Improvement Planning Team (Planning Team), comprised of GNSO leadership, constituency representatives, ICANN Staff and a Board liaison participant, in order to develop a top-level implementation plan to organize and manage the implementation effort. On 19 May 2008, the Planning Team produced a draft version of the GNSO Improvements Top Level Plan. The plan focused on the creation of two standing committees, GNSO Process and GNSO Operations, which would be responsible for ensuring that the work of implementing BGC WG recommendations is carried out.
On 26 June 2008 the ICANN Board of Directors endorsed the recommendations of the BGC WG, with the exception of their recommendation regarding GNSO Council restructuring. The Board asked the GNSO to convene a special working group on Council restructuring to provide a consensus recommendation on Council restructuring in 30 days (see ICANN Board Resolution 2008.06.26.13). The working group (WG-GCR) convened on 4 July 2008 and deliberated exhaustively through 25 July in an effort to develop consensus recommendations for Board consideration. The Board formally accepted the WG-GCR Report at its 31 July 2008 meeting.
The Board devoted significant time to reviewing and discussing the WG-GCR recommendations during its 28 August 2008 meetingand its 1 October 2008 meeting. At the August meeting the Board made several important decisions regarding the new GNSO Council's structure, composition, and implementation timing. Those decisions included the formation of four new Stakeholder Groups that comprise a new bicameral (two-house) voting structure as recommended by the WG-GCR. The 1 October decisions are highlighted in the Recent Developments section above. In the WG-GCR Report itself and prior to each recent Board meeting, the ICANN Staff solicited additional input on various restructuring matters from the GNSO constituencies and relevant ICANN advisory committees.
The Board has now approved the bulk of the WG-GCR consensus recommendations with few modifications, and has been highly appreciative of the working group's efforts.
- Staff request for input on GNSO Council Restructuring http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg05441.html
- 28 August Board resolution on GNSO Council Restructuring http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/prelim-report-28aug08.htm
- Working Group On GNSO Council Restructuring Report, 25 July 2008 http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg05245.html
- 26 June Board resolution on GNSO Improvements http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm
- GNSO Improvements - Top Level Plan, 21 June 2008 http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-improvements-top-level-plan-21jun08.pdf
- 15 February 2008 Board resolution on GNSO Improvements http://www.icann.org/minutes/resolutions-15feb08.htm - _Toc64545918
- Summary and Analysis of Comments on GNSO Improvements Report http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-improvements-report-2008/msg00033.html
- BGC WG GNSO Improvements Report http://www.icann.org/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-report-03feb08.pdf
- GNSO Improvements information page http://www.icann.org/topics/gnso-improvements/
Staff ContactRob Hoggarth, Senior Policy Director
5. IS IT TIME TO RE-CONSIDER ICANN'S GEOGRAPHIC REGIONS?
At a Glance
ICANN uses a UN-based system of geographic regions to help ensure international diversity in ICANN's structures. The ccNSO has suggested that this approach should be reviewed and potentially revised.
A number of ICANN communities are finalizing their views on a proposal to form a special ICANN working group to review the ICANN Geographic Regions structure. The structure is an important component of the ICANN system and a review is timely.
Staff will collect and summarize community input on the working group concept and report that information to the Board at the Cairo ICANN meeting.
An ICANN Board resolution in 2000 directed Staff to establish a system of geographical regions to ensure regional diversity in the composition of the ICANN Board by assigning countries to geographic regions on the basis of the United Nations Statistics Division's current classifications. The system was subsequently expanded in various ways to apply to various ICANN community structures including the GNSO, ALAC and ccNSO.
The ICANN Bylaws currently define five geographic regions as Africa, North America, Latin America/Caribbean, Asia/Australia/Pacific and Europe -- and also expand the concept that "persons from an area that is not a country should be grouped together with the country of citizenship for that area" so that the area or territory itself was similarly allocated to the region of the "mother country."
Over time, various community members have developed concerns about the ICANN Geographic Regions and related representational issues. Late last year, the ccNSO Council passed a resolution recommending that the ICANN Board appoint a community-wide working group to further study and review the issues related to the definition of the ICANN Geographic Regions, to consult with all stakeholders and submit proposals to the Board to resolve the issues relating to the current definition of the ICANN Geographic Regions.
The ICANN Board determined at its 2 November 2007 meeting in Los Angeles that because any change to ICANN Geographic Regions could have widespread effect in ICANN, the views of other Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees should be sought by the Board. The Board asked the ICANN community, including the GNSO, ccNSO, ASO, GAC, and ALAC, to provide the ICANN Staff with input on the ccNSO Council's resolution relating to ICANN's Geographic Regions.
- ccNSO Working Group Report and Recommendations http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/ccnso-final-report-regions-wg-240907.pdf
- 2 November 2007 ICANN Board Resolution http://www.icann.org/minutes/resolutions-02nov07.htm - _Toc55609368
Staff ContactRobert Hoggarth, Senior Policy Director
6. WHOIS STUDY GROUP COMPLETES WORK; COUNCIL SEEKS CONSTITUENCY COMMENT
At a Glance
WHOIS is the data repository containing registered domain names, registrant contacts and other critical information. Questions persist concerning the use and misuse of this important resource. A GNSO Council study group completes a report exploring what questions deserve further examination.
During the June 2008 Paris meeting, the GNSO Council voted to reconvene a group to review the WHOIS study recommendations offered through the public comment period and the studies requested by the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) and, based on those recommendations and the GAC request, prepare a concise list of hypotheses that could be the subject of research. The group completed its work and sent a WHOIS Study Hypothesis Report to the GNSO Council on 26 August 2008.
On 4 September 2008, the GNSO Council voted to ask Council representatives to forward the WHOIS Study Hypothesis Report to their respective constituencies for discussion and comment as applicable. Additionally, the Council asked that the constituencies be prepared on 25 September 2008 to have a preliminary discussion, and, in the upcoming meeting on 16 October, to begin to develop a proposed list, if any, of recommended studies that demonstrate balance in views and sufficient policy relevance. The ICANN Staff will be asked in the Council meeting in Cairo to prepare the pertinent cost estimates.
WHOIS services provide public access to data on registered domain names, data that currently includes contact information for Registered Name Holders. The extent of registration data collected at the time a domain name is registered, and the ways such data can be accessed, are specified in agreements established by ICANN for domain names registered in generic top-level domains (gTLDs). For example, ICANN requires accredited registrars to collect and provide free public access to: (1) the name of the registered domain name and its name servers and registrar; (2) the date the domain was created and when its registration expires; and (3) the contact information for the Registered Name Holder, including the technical contact, and the registrant's administrative contact.
WHOIS has been the subject of intense policy development debate and action over the last few years. Information contained in WHOIS is used for a wide variety of purposes. Some uses of WHOIS data are viewed as constructive and beneficial. For example, sometimes WHOIS data is used to track down and identify registrants who may be posting illegal content or engaging in phishing scams. Other uses of WHOIS are viewed as potentially negative, such as harvesting WHOIS contact information to send unwanted spam or fraudulent email solicitations. Privacy advocates have also been concerned about the privacy implications of unrestricted access to personal contact information.
The GNSO Council decided in October 2007 that a comprehensive, objective and quantifiable understanding of key factual issues regarding WHOIS would benefit future GNSO policy development efforts, and plans to ask the ICANN Staff to conduct several studies for this purpose. Before defining the details of these studies, the Council solicited suggestions for specific topics of study on WHOIS from community stakeholders, with possible areas of study including: a study of certain aspects of gTLD registrants and registrations; a study of certain uses and misuses of WHOIS data; a study of the use of proxy registration services, including privacy services; and a comparative study of gTLD and ccTLD WHOIS. The Council opened a public comment forum through 15 February 2008, in order to solicit suggestions for specific topics of study on WHOIS. The Council received approximately 25 suggestions and a summary of comments was prepared.
On 27 March 2008, the GNSO Council convened a group of volunteers to do the following : (1) review and discuss the Report on Public Suggestions on Further Studies of WHOIS; (2) develop a proposed list of recommended studies, if any, for which ICANN Staff would be asked to provide cost estimates to the Council; and (3) produce the list of recommendations with supporting rationale.
On 22 May 2008, the WHOIS study group delivered its report to the Council. In addition to considering the recommendations solicited from the public, the group also considered recommendations offered by the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) for WHOIS studies. The report reflected two opposing viewpoints among participants. A significant number of participants believe that no further studies should be conducted because further study (and the resulting information) would be unlikely to persuade any stakeholders to modify existing strongly held positions. The second group of participants believe further studies would be useful in informing the debate, and their comments include specific recommendations for further study in three primary areas: 1) the availability of privacy services; 2) the demand for and motivation behind the use of privacy services; and 3) certain studies of WHOIS misuse, detailed further in the report.
- GNSO WHOIS policy development page http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/
- The suggestions for further studies of WHOIS offered by the Government Advisory Committee on 16 April 2008 can be found at: http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karlins-to-thrush-16apr08.pdf
- WHOIS Study Hypothesis Report, 26 August 2008 http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-study-hypothesis-group-report-to-council-26aug08.pdf
Staff ContactLiz Gasster, Senior Policy Counselor
7. GNSO COUNCIL CALLS FOR ISSUES REPORT ON REGISTRATION ABUSE POLICIES
On 25 September 2008, the GNSO Council adopted a motion requesting an issues report on registration abuse policies. The objective of the issues report will be to identify existing provisions in registry-registrar agreements relating to abuse as well as to i dentify and describe potential options for further Council consideration.
ICANN staff will prepare an issues report within the 30 days timeframe set down by the GNSO Council.
GNSO Council Meeting Agenda, 25 September 2008: http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-25sep08.shtml
GNSO Council Meeting Mp3 Recording, 25 September 2008: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-20080925.mp3
Liz Gasster, Senior Policy Counselor
8. MAKING IT EASIER TO TRANSFER DOMAINS BETWEEN REGISTRARS
At a Glance
The Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) aims to provide a straightforward procedure for domain name holders to transfer their names from one ICANN-accredited registrar to another. The GNSO is reviewing and considering revisions to this policy.
As part of a broader review of this policy, two Policy Development Processes (PDPs) are currently ongoing: one on transfer denial reasons and one on new IRTP issues, which include questions relating to the exchange of registrant e-mail information, the potential for including new forms of electronic authentication and potential provisions for "partial bulk transfers."
Transfer Denial Reasons PDP
At its 4 September meeting, the GNSO Council adopted a motion on the IRTP Denial Definitions Policy Development Process (PDP). The motion resolves that the text for denial reason #8 (the domain name was in the first 60 days of an initial registration period) and #9 (a domain name is within 60 days of being transferred) be amended as proposed by the GNSO drafting group addressing transfer denial reasons. Following the adoption of the motion, the GNSO Council opened a public comment period prior to ICANN Board consideration of the issue.
New IRTP Issues -- Set A
The Part A PDP Working Group responsible for this effort opened a public comment period from 8 September to 25 September to receive community input on three significant issue areas:
Issue I - Is there a way for registrars to make Registrant E-mail Address data available to one another? Currently there is no way of automating approval from the Registrant, as the Registrant Email Address is not a required field in the registrar WHOIS.
Issue II - Whether there is need for other options for electronic authentication (e.g., security token in the Form of Authorization (FOA)) due to security concerns on use of email addresses (potential for hacking or spoofing) .
Issue III - Whether the policy should incorporate provisions for handling "partial bulk transfers" between registrars - that is, transfers involving a number of names but not the entire group of names held by the losing registrar.
Responses to those questions have been summarized by the Staff (see Summary and Analysis of Comments for the Inter-Registrar Transfer policy - Part A).
Transfer Denial Reasons PDP
The ICANN Board is expected to discuss the issue at its next meeting.
New IRTP Issues -- Set A
As part of the PDP process, the Staff is preparing an Initial Report that is expected to be completed later this month.
Consistent with ICANN's obligation to promote and encourage robust competition in the domain name space, the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) aims to provide a straightforward procedure for domain name holders to transfer their names from one ICANN-accredited registrar to another should they wish to do so. The policy also provides standardized requirements for registrar handling of such transfer requests from domain name holders. The policy is an existing community consensus that was implemented in late 2004 and is now being reviewed by the GNSO. As part of that effort, the GNSO Council formed a Transfers Working Group (TWG) to examine and recommend possible areas for improvements in the existing transfer policy. The TWG identified a broad list of over 20 potential areas for clarification and improvement.
The IRTP performs a critical function but the specific terms of the policy can be arcane and the work to clarify them complex. In an effort to deal with that complexity while moving to get clarifications and improvements on-line as soon as possible, the Council initiated a policy development process (Transfer PDP 1) to immediately examine four specific issues from the broader list that addressed reasons for which a registrar of record may deny a request to transfer a domain name to a new registrar. The IRTP currently enumerates nine (9) specific reasons why a registrar can deny a transfer. Those issues identified as needing clarification included the following:
- No payment for previous registration period (Denial Reason #5);
- A domain was already in "lock" status (Denial Reason #7);
- The domain was in the first 60 days of an initial registration period (Denial Reason #8); and
- A domain name is within 60 days of being transferred (Denial Reason #9)
ICANN Staff finalized and posted an Initial Report for public comment as part of this PDP and used public comments received to compile a Final Report for the Council's consideration on further steps to take. At the GNSO Council meeting on 17 April 2008, a drafting group was launched to develop suggested text modifications for the four transfer denial reasons. The drafting group reported on its findings to the GNSO Council. The Council resolved on 25 June 2008 to post the proposals for transfer denial reasons #8 and #9 for public comments, while deferring denial reasons #5 and #7 to be handled in a future transfer policy development process (PDP C). The GNSO drafting group posted its proposals addressing transfer denial reasons #8 and #9 for public comments on 26 June 2008. One comment was received and sent to the GNSO Council for consideration. Following the GNSO Council call on 7 August, the Council members were invited to bring the outcome of the drafting group regarding the IRTP PDP on Clarification of Reasons for Denial to the attention of their Constituencies for any position preparations needed.
Parallel to the above PDP process, the Council tasked a short term planning group to evaluate and prioritize the remaining 19 policy issues identified by the Transfers Working Group. In March 2008, the group delivered a report to the Council that suggested combining the consideration of related issues into five new PDPs. On 8 May 2008, the Council adopted the structuring of five additional inter-registrar transfers PDPs as suggested by the planning group (in addition to the ongoing Transfer PDP 1 on the four reasons for denying a transfer). The five new PDPs will be addressed in a largely consecutive manner, with the possibility of overlap as resources permit.
The Council requested and received an Issues Report from Staff on the first of the new PDP issue sets (Set A -- New IRTP Issues). The three "new" issues in Set A address: (1) the potential exchange of registrant email information between registrars; (2) the potential for including new forms of electronic authentication to verify transfer requests and avoid "spoofing"; and (3) to consider whether the IRTP should include provisions for "partial bulk transfers" between registrars. The GNSO Council resolved on 25 June 2008 to launch a PDP ("PDP June-08") on these issues and adopted a charter for a Working Group on 17 July 2008. The Working Group started its deliberations on 5 August 2008.
- Draft Advisory http://gnso.icann.org/issues/transfers/gnso-draft-transfer-advisory-14nov07.pdf
- Initial Report http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-17mar08.htm
- Final Report http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/final-report-irt-policy-09apr08.pdf
- Drafting group outcome http://gnso.icann.org/issues/transfers/gnso-final-draft-denial-reasons-04jun08.pdf
- PDP Recommendations http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/transfer-wg-recommendations-pdp-groupings-19mar08.pdf
- Issues Report, Set A http://gnso.icann.org/issues/transfers/transfer-issues-report-set-a-23may08.pdf
- Charter Inter Registrar Transfer Policy -- Part A PDP Working Group https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?irtp_pdp_a_wg_charter
Staff ContactMarika Konings, Policy Director
9. HOW DO WE DEAL WITH FAST FLUXING CYBERCRIMINALS?
At a Glance
Fast flux hosting refers to techniques used by cybercriminals to evade detection in which the criminals rapidly modify IP addresses and/or name servers. The GNSO is exploring appropriate action.
At its 25 June 2008 meeting, the GNSO Council initiated a fast flux policy development process and created a Working Group on this issue. The Working Group approved a template to solicit constituency statements and has been meeting weekly to consider the questions on fast flux raised by the Council (see bullets below). The deadline for constituency statements was extended to 20 August 2008. Staff has prepared a draft Initial Report that was transmitted to the Working Group for further consideration on 2 September. The Working Group is currently working on finalizing the Initial Report in time for the ICANN meeting in Cairo.
Following publication of the Initial Report, public comments and a second round of constituency statements will be solicited (target completion by 25 September). These comments will be considered in the development of a Final Report.
The Working Group's Final Report will discuss the questions outlined below and the range of possible answers developed by its members. The Report also will outline potential next steps for Council deliberation. These next steps may include further work items for the Working Group or policy recommendation for constituency and community review and comment, and for Council deliberation.
The ICANN Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) recently completed a study of fast flux hosting. Because fast flux hosting involves many different players — the cybercriminals and their victims, Internet service providers, companies that provide web hosting services, and DNS registries and registrars — there are many potential approaches to mitigation. Most of these will require the cooperation of a variety of actors, and some will be outside of ICANN's scope.
On 26 March 2008, Staff posted an Issues Report on fast flux hosting, as directed by the GNSO Council. In the Report, Staff recommends that the GNSO sponsor additional fact-finding and research to develop best practices concerning fast flux hosting. Staff also notes that it may be appropriate for the ccNSO to participate in such an activity.
At its 8 May 2008 meeting, the GNSO Council formally launched a policy development process (PDP), rejected a task force approach and called for creation of a Working Group on fast flux. Subsequently, at its 29 May 2008 meeting, the GNSO Council approved a Working Group charter to consider the following questions:
- Who benefits from fast flux, and who is harmed?
- Who would benefit from cessation of the practice and who would be harmed?
- Are registry operators involved, or could they be, in fast flux hosting activities? If so, how?
- Are registrars involved in fast flux hosting activities? If so, how?
- How are registrants affected by fast flux hosting?
- How are Internet users affected by fast flux hosting?
- What technical (e.g. changes to the way in which DNS updates operate) and policy (e.g. changes to registry/registrar agreements or rules governing permissible registrant behavior) measures could registries and registrars implement to mitigate the negative effects of fast flux?
- What would be the impact (positive or negative) of establishing limitations, guidelines, or restrictions on registrants, registrars and/or registries with respect to practices that enable or facilitate fast flux hosting?
- What would be the impact of these limitations, guidelines, or restrictions to product and service innovation?
- What are some of the best practices available with regard to protection from fast flux?
- The group also will obtain expert opinion, as appropriate, on which areas of fast flux are in scope and out of scope for GNSO policy making.
- SSAC Report 025 on Fast Flux Hosting, January 2008
- English: http://www.icann.org/committees/security/sac025.pdf
- French: http://www.icann.org/committees/security/sac025-fr.pdf
- Spanish: http://www.icann.org/committees/security/sac025-es.pdf
- Issues Report on Fast Flux Hosting, corrected 31 March 2008 http://gnso.icann.org/issues/fast-flux-hosting/gnso-issues-report-fast-flux-25mar08.pdf
- Limited translations of the Issues Report on Fast Flux Hosting available at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/, under "Fast Flux"
- 25 June GNSO Council resolution on Fast Flux Hosting http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/
Staff ContactLiz Gasster, Senior Policy Counselor and Marika Konings, Policy Director
10. ccNSO COUNCIL NOMINATIONS PERIOD EXTENDED
The ccNSO has extended its call for Council nominations. The open period ran from 8 to 29 September. However, as there was no nomination for the European Region, the Council extended its call for nominations for all regions to 6 October.
As there is more than one candidate (at least) for the Asia-Pacific and North American region, voting will be necessary.
One ccNSO Councilor from each region steps down each year, and council members elect a replacement.
- ccNSO bylaws: http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm - IX
- ccNSO Council elections: http://ccnso.icann.org/about/councilelections.htm
Staff ContactGabriella Schittek, ccNSO Secretariat
11. ccNSO and GNSO PURSUE PROCESSES FOR TRAVEL FUND ALLOCATIONS
Based on ICANN's recent initiative to support travel funding for the supporting organizations (SO's), the ccNSO Council asked the ccNSO Processes Working Group to come up with a suggested process on how to allocate the funding. Similarly, the GNSO is forming a drafting team to develop a proposal on funding travel expenses for GNSO Council review.
The ccNSO Working Group will conduct a telephone conference to draft a set of questions for soliciting ccNSO Council guidance on the matter. The GNSO Travel Drafting Team is currently accepting volunteer members.
The work to create a community travel support procedure began with a specific call for travel support in late 2007 by some in the community (though this issue has been discussed for some time). There was extensive consultation on community travel support. It began as a workshop in New Delhi, with comments received and an analysis posted. A subsequent draft proposal was posted in June, discussed during budget meetings in Paris, and again subject to fairly extensive comment in person, via email and on the web. These second round of comments were summarized and analyzed (see http://forum.icann.org/lists/travel-support-draft/msg00013.html). A "Revised Community Travel Support Procedure for FY09" was issued in August.
ICANN Staff will collect feedback on issues that arise in the implementation of this procedure, and will make clarifications, as needed. Additionally, Staff will conduct a complete review of the travel procedure at year-end with a public consultation at the June 2009 ICANN meeting
- ccNSO Working group: http://www.ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/processeswg.htm
- New Revised Travel Support Procedure, 11 August 2008: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/travel-support/revised-procedure-11aug08-en.htm
12. CAIRO MEETING PREPARATION CONTINUES
The GNSO Council Chairs are solidifying the policy program agenda for the 1-7 November ICANN meeting in Cairo, Egypt. The day one program (1 November) will focus on plans for GNSO improvement and restructuring. Other topics on the first day agenda are new gTLD policy implementation, WHOIS and an ICANN Board Working Group on the At-Large Advisory Committees review. On 2 November, attention turns to a discussion of fast flux and other security and stability topics. Other day two activities will include the Inter Registrar Transfer Policy Part A Steering Committee and GAC-GNSO joint meetings. On 3 November, the ccNSO/GNSO Joint Council Meeting takes place, along with "joint session" meeting with the ccNSO, ALAC and GAC to discuss new gTLDs, IDNs and ICANN's Joint Partnership Agreement. November 5 features an Open Meeting for a discussion of GNSO restructuring and improvements, WHOIS study group recommendations and open mike topics.
Planners have also published a first draft agenda for the ccNSO meetings in Cairo. The members meeting will focus on IDNs and Security issues, including DNS vulnerability, DNSSEC and Anti-phishing. In addition to the members' meeting, a session for new and returning ccTLDs is planned, as well as a cross-constituency meeting, which will focus on IDNs.
Meanwhile, the At-Large Regional leaders and ALAC members are also meeting to develop their Cairo meeting agendas. ALAC's Cairo activities will include creating a draft plan for the At-Large Summit in Mexico City and devoting time to evaluating the initial report of the Board Governance Committee's At-Large Review Working Group. Much attention will be focused on this working group's report and preparation of a draft text for wider community review. The ALAC will also address: its accountability and transparency rules; improving policy working group output and participation; and reviewing participation mechanisms. At-Large community members also expect to be actively engaged in workshops related to the New gTLD RFP once it is released.
Draft meeting agendas will be finalized for the respective organizations and posted/linked to ICANN's Cairo meeting schedule.
- ccNSO: http://www.ccnso.icann.org/meetings/
- GNSO: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/
- ALAC: https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?at_large_advisory_committee
Staff ContactGlen de St. Gery, GNSO Secretariat; Gabriella Schittek, ccNSO Secretariat ; Nick Ashton-Hart, Director for At-Large
13. ICANN SEEKS TO DETERMINE INTEREST IN IDN ccTLDs
At a Glance
Input from ccTLD managers and government authorities, along with the ccNSO's policy development efforts, will help shape the course of the Internet's internationalized domain naming conventions.
The Internationalized Domain Name Council Working Group (IDNC WG) recommended issuing a request for information (RFI) to help facilitate the implementation planning process for IDN ccTLDs. In response to that recommendation, RFI letters have been issued to ccTLD managers seeking their input on what interest, if any, there is in their countries or territories for new IDN ccTLDs. The results of all responses are expected to be published prior to the Cairo meeting. Similar letters have also been sent to the relevant public authorities for respective countries and territories.
The public comment forum for the Final Report of the IDNC Working Group on ccTLD Fast Track Mechanisms closed in August. The consolidated overview of the comments received in that forum has now been published.
Publication of the draft Issue Report for the IDN ccPDP is expected to be available before the Cairo ICANN meeting. A status report on the IDN ccTLD " Fast Track" implementation plan also will be posted in advance of the Cairo meeting.
The potential introduction of Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) represents the beginning of an exciting new chapter in the history of the Internet. IDNs offer many potential new opportunities and benefits for Internet users of all languages around the world by allowing them to establish domains in their native languages and alphabets.
An IDN ccTLD (internationalized domain name country code top level domain) is a country code top-level domain (corresponding to a country, territory, or other geographic location as associated with the ISO 3166-1 two-letter codes) with a label that contains at least one character that is not a standard Latin letter (A through Z), a hyphen, or one of the standard numerical digits (0 through 9).
The technical potential for ICANN to now make these domain names available for assignment is prompting significant discussion, study and demand within the ICANN community - particularly by territories and communities who want to make use of non-Latin characters. Current efforts are taking place on two fronts: (1) efforts to identify a "fast track" process to provide new domain opportunities to territories with immediate justifiable needs; and (2) efforts to develop a comprehensive long term plan that ensures a stable process for all interested stakeholders.
The ICANN Board chartered the joint IDNC WG to develop and report on feasible methods, if any, that would enable the introduction of a limited number of non-contentious IDN ccTLDs. Such an introduction would need to be made in a timely manner, ensuring the continued security and stability of the Internet while a comprehensive long-term IDN ccTLD policy is being developed.
On 1 February 2008, the IDNC WG posted a Discussion Draft of the Initial Report (DDIR) for public comment and input from the ICANN community. The DDIR clarified the relationship between the "fast track" process and the broader, long-term ccNSO Policy Development Process on IDN ccTLDs (IDNccPDP), and also identified the mechanisms for the selection of an IDN ccTLD and an IDN ccTLD manager. The ccNSO Council determined that those mechanisms were to be developed within the following parameters:
The overarching requirement to preserve the security and stability of the DNS Compliance with the IDNA protocols; Input and advice from the technical community with respect to the implementation of IDNs; and current practices for the delegation of ccTLDs, which include the current IANA practices.
On 25 June 2008, the IDNC WG published its Final Report for submission to the Board. At the June 2008 Paris meeting, the Board directed Staff to: (1) post the IDNC WG final report for public comments; (2) commence work on implementation issues in consultation with relevant stakeholders; and (3) submit a detailed implementation report, including a list of any outstanding issues, to the Board in advance of the November 2008 ICANN Cairo meeting.
In parallel with considerations of a "fast track" approach, the ccNSO Council initiated a comprehensive long-term policy development process for IDNccTLDs (referred to as the IDNcc PDP). The ccNSO Council formally requested an Issues Report on 19 December 2007 and directed ICANN Staff to identify policies, procedures, and/or by-laws that should be reviewed and, as necessary revised, in connection with the development and implementation of any IDN ccTLD policy - including efforts designed to address the proposed fast-track concept. According to the ICANN bylaws, the creation of the Issue Report is the second step in launching the IDN ccPDP. The final step is the decision of the ccNSO Council to initiate the ccPDP.
The GNSO and several other parties submitted comments regarding a proposed IDNcc PDP. The Issues Report will submitted to the ccNSO Council before the Cairo meeting and is the basis for the Council's ongoing IDNcc PDP discussions.
- Board Proposal IDNC WG, the Final Report IDNC WG on
Fast Track Process for IDN ccTLDs
- IDNccPDP Announcement
- IDNC WG Final Report and public comment announcement
Staff ContactBart Boswinkel, Senior Policy Advisor, ccNSO
14. GLOBAL IPV4 POLICY APPROACHING ADOPTION IN ALL REGIONS
A proposed policy to allocate the remaining IPv4 address blocks was discussed at the most recent meetings of all Regional Internet Registries (RIRs), including APNIC, ARIN, RIPE, LACNIC and AfriNIC. The proposal has been adopted by ARIN, LACNIC, AfriNIC and RIPE, and is in the final call for comments stage in APNIC.
Provided there are no objections during the final call in APNIC (which closes later this month), and following adoption by the APNIC Board, the proposal will be ready for consideration by the Number Resource Organization and the Address Supporting Organization and will subsequently be forwarded to the ICANN Board for ratification.
IPv4 unallocated address blocks in IANA's pool continues to be depleted. A global policy has been proposed to allocate the remaining address blocks once a given threshold is triggered. The text of the proposed policy essentially recommends that when there are five /8 blocks remaining in the IANA pool, one remaining block will be allocated to each RIR. The proposal has been discussed at the most recent meetings of all RIRs (APNIC, ARIN, RIPE, LACNIC and AfriNIC). and has been adopted by all RIRs except APNIC, where the proposal has reached consensus and is in final call for comments.
Background Report IPV4, updated 8 September 2008 http://www.icann.org/announcements/proposal-ipv4-report-29nov07.htm
Staff ContactOlof Nordling, Director Services Relations
15. AT-LARGE TACKLES WIDE RANGING POLICY AGENDA, ACCOUNTABILITY TOOLS
The At-Large community has maintained a busy fall agenda, providing input on the GNSO Restructuring, adopting a statement of principles on Stakeholder Group Openness, and ratifying a statement on the RAA Amendments. An ALAC Overview Report synthesizing the views of the At-Large community in relation to the Final Report of the Independent Review of the At-Large Advisory Committee was also prepared.
At-Large was the first ICANN community to create transparent obligations for participation of leaders and, this August, they became the first community to publish statistics related to those obligations. The ALAC Executive Committee ("ExCom") also asked Staff to publish updated versions of the report at the end of each month.
In September, the ALAC ExCom also asked Staff to report on the activities of ALAC-appointed liaisons to help inform the upcoming nominations period for the liaisons. The community will be reviewing the obligations of both ALAC members and ALAC liaisons in Cairo.
In Autumn 2007, the ALAC adopted Rules of Procedure for members and liaisons that included both qualitative and quantitative performance obligations. The rules were intended to help ensure that the At-Large community had a means of measuring the performance of their leaders, improving their accountability and improving the transparency of the community as a whole.
- ALAC Transparency Reports: http://www.atlarge.icann.org/en/alac/performance.htm
- ALAC Rules of Procedure: https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?rules_of_procedure.
Staff ContactNick Ashton-Hart, Director for At-Large
16. AT-LARGE ELECTION RESULTS
At a Glance
NARAO re-elects Beau Brendler to ALAC Committee; Wendy Seltzer re-elected ALAC Board Liaison.
This month the North American Regional At-Large Organization ("NARALO") re-elected Beau Brendler (USA) for a second term on the At-Large Advisory Committee. Beau's new term will conclude at the end of the ICANN AGM in 2010. Elections in the Asia-Australia and the Pacific Islands, African, and Latin America and the Caribbean Geographic Regions respectively are also underway as this issue of the Policy Update goes to press.
The At-Large Advisory Committee ("ALAC") elected Wendy Seltzer as ALAC Board Liaison for another term (ending at the close of the 2009 AGM). Other ALAC Liaison nominations will begin shortly and the elections for these positions will take place immediately after the close of the Cairo meeting to allow the newly seated members of the ALAC to participate in the voting on the liaisons who will work with them in the coming year.
Each Regional At-Large Organization ("RALO") elects one member of the At-Large Advisory Committee each year. Since the RALOs formed in 2006/2007, this is the first regular election cycle of all RALOs simultaneously -- another milestone in the development of the At-Large community.
At-Large website: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
Nick Ashton-Hart, Director for At-Large
update-oct08-en.pdf [85.7 KB]