ICANN POLICY UPDATE | Volume 10, Issue 6 — June 2010
PDF Version [278 KB]
- ccNSO Welcomes Poland as 106th Member
- Delegation/Re-delegation WG Progresses Methodically
- Strategic & Operational Planning WG Analyzes Global Issues for ccTLDs
- Fernando Espana (.us) Appointed New ccNSO Councilor
- ccNSO Tackles Upcoming Brussels Meeting
- Registering for the Meeting? First, Check YouTube
- Other Issues Active in the ccNSO
- Council Votes to Fund WHOIS Studies… but Which?
- Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy WG Publishes Initial Report
- Registration Abuse Policies WG Final Report Defines Cyber-Woes
- Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery WG Initial Report Readies for Spotlight
- GNSO Improvements: Pre-Brussels, Work Team Reports Roll In
- Other Issues Active in the GNSO
- International Registration Data WG to Host Public Session in Brussels
- GNSO/ALAC WG Advocates Improving the Registrar Accreditation Agreement
- Geographic Regions WG Still Seeks Community Input
- Community Prepares for Whirlwind Schedule in Brussels
- ALAC Is Still Increasing Policy Input
- At-Large Structures Surveyed; Preliminary Results Pending
- All RALOs Have New Outreach Brochures: Collect Them All!
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 website 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 of charge.
Send questions, comments and suggestions to: firstname.lastname@example.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|
Margie Milam, Senior Policy Counselor, describes the Registrar Accreditation Agreement, why it affects more than just registrars, and why law enforcement agencies want to amend it.
Watch for a new episode of ICANN Start on the first of each calendar month. Each audio episode focuses on one issue and, through interviews with an expert, provides answers to foundational questions.
You’ll find the podcast on the ICANN web site, which also provides a written transcript of each episode. Many of Apple’s global iTunes stores carry the show; to check for it, search in the podcast section of iTunes for “ICANN Start.”
Numerous public comment periods are open on issues of interest to the ICANN community. Act now for the opportunity to share your views on such topics as:
- Draft FY11 Operating Plan and Budget. ICANN’s draft Operating Plan and Budget for fiscal year 2011 is ready for community consideration. Comment by 25 June 2010.
- Questions to the Community on Accountability and Transparency within ICANN. In the Affirmation of Commitments (AoC), ICANN commits to maintain and improve robust mechanisms for public input, accountability and transparency. How are we doing? Comment by 1 July.
- DNS-CERT Operational Requirements and Collaboration Analysis Workshop. ICANN solicits community input on the potential requirements for sustaining a DNS-Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT). Comment by 2 July.
- Draft Changes to String Similarity Review Amendment. If you apply to run your own Top Level Domain, you can be turned down if the string of characters you propose is “confusingly similar” to someone else’s domain. But are there circumstances where having similar names is beneficial, not harmful, to users? Comment on a proposed GNSO Council letter by 2 July.
- Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) Subsection 188.8.131.52. ICANN has observed community comment concerning the interpretation of RAA Subsection 184.108.40.206. In order to provide clarity, ICANN is posting for public comment a draft advisory. Comment by 9 July 2010.
- The New GNSO Policy Development Process: PDP Work Team Initial Report. As part of GNSO Improvements, the Policy Development Process (PDP) Work Team (WT) has developed recommendations for a new GNSO policy development process. Who has the right to introduce a new issue into the PDP? What are the possible outcomes of a PDP? Weigh in by 15 July.
- Meetings for the Next Decade, Stage One. How do you decide whether or not to attend ICANN meetings? What would make them better? A public comment process by survey, 45 days in length, has opened related to ICANN International meetings. Extended to 19 July.
- New gTLD Program Draft Applicant Guidebook, Version 4. The Guidebook describes the process of applying for new generic top-level domains (New gTLDs). Version 4 is available in its entirety as well as in six individual modules. You can either comment on the overall guidebook or comment per module, by area of interest. Comment by 21 July.
- New gTLD Program Budget. To ensure costs are appropriately managed, tracked and disclosed, the gTLD budget has been organized according to three phases; 1) development, 2) deployment, and 3) application processing. See if you think the definition, timing, and key activities of each phase are appropriate. Comment by 21 July, 2010.
For the full list of issues open for public comment, plus recently closed and archived public comment forums, visit the Public Comment page.
At a Glance
Naukowa i Akademicka Sieć Komputerowa (NASK), the operator of .pl (Poland) was approved as member 106 to the country code Name Supporting Organization (ccNSO).
The approval of Poland as a new member sustains the ccNSO’s 2010 growth rate of averaging one new member per month. Others joining in 2010 have included Papua New Guinea (.pg), Belize (.bz), Malaysia (.my), Colombia (.co), and Luxembourg (.lu).
- Statistics on ccNSO membership growth [PDF, 41 KB]
- Alphabetical list of all ccNSO members
- Status of all member applications
Gabriella Schittek, ccNSO Secretariat
At a Glance
Re-delegation refers to the process of changing the designated manager(s) of a country code top-level domain (ccTLD). The standards for doing so have been the same since 1999, so a ccNSO Working Group is examining whether any issues regarding how country codes are delegated, re-delegated, and retired should be addressed with new policies.
As part of its fact-finding activities and identification of issues, the Working Group has developed a methodology to classify issues from a policy perspective. Based on the methodology, the group has identified and classified policy issues with regard to RFC 1591 [TXT, 20 KB], ICP-1, the GAC Principles and related ICANN Board decisions.
The working group will publish its second progress report just prior to the Brussels meeting, and welcomes public comment on its report. As soon as the Working Group publishes the report, it will be available on the Delegation and re-delegation Working Group web page. Their first progress report (which was published prior to the Nairobi meeting) can be found there as well. The WG will present their results so far to the ccTLD and broader community at the ccNSO session in Brussels on Tuesday, 22 June, 16:30 local time.
Currently, the ICANN policy and practices for delegation and re-delegation are reflected in established IANA processes. For more information about establishing new ccTLDs, see IANA's Procedures for Establishing ccTLDs and IANA’s delegation reports. In light of the changed environment since RFC 1591 was published in the 1990s, the ccNSO felt it was time to review their policies. The ccNSO wants a better understanding of any issues relating to the current policies, before taking possible further steps.
Bart Boswinkel, Senior Policy Advisor, ccNSO
At a Glance
The ccNSO Strategic and Operational Planning Working Group (SOP WG) will host a workshop at the Brussels meeting to identify strategic issues relevant to ccTLDs.
The SOP WG reviewed ICANN’s operational plan framework and published its analysis to inform ccTLD managers. (The Working Group does not officially speak for ccTLD managers; those managers may, in turn, choose to submit their own individual comments to ICANN.) The SOP WG review focused on five areas that ccTLD managers perceived as the most relevant priorities in the ICANN Strategic Plan 2009-2012. Those priorities were identified at a strategic planning session at ICANN Meeting No. 35 in Sydney and confirmed by a subsequent survey conducted among ccTLD managers.
At the Brussels meeting the SOP WG will again conduct a facilitated discussion to identify strategic issues and topics relevant to ccTLDs from a global perspective. The outcomes from that session may be used to identify relevant activities for the ccNSO and inform the discussions on ICANN’s upcoming strategic planning cycle.
The SOP WG has been established to facilitate and increase the participation of the ccTLD community in ICANN’s Strategic and Operational Planning processes.
- Strategic and Operational Planning Working Group web page
- SOP Review and Analyses [PDF, 152 KB] of ICANN FY11 Strategic Plan
- Results of ccTLD Survey on ICANN’s Strategic Plan [PDF, 224 KB]
At a Glance
The ccNSO has a new Councilor representing the North American region.
Fernando Espana (.us) has been appointed as the new ccNSO Councilor for the North American Region, replacing Keith Drazek (.us).
Mr. Espana will take up his work as a Councilor on the ccNSO Council, with his term extending until March 2013.
Keith Drazek, one of the ccNSO Councilors from the North American Region, resigned from his position at Neustar, thus rendering his seat on the ccNSO Council vacant. An “extraordinary nomination” period was launched. Because Fernando Espana was the only candidate nominated, no election was needed.
The ccNSO Council thanks Keith Drazek for his commitment to the Council, and wishes him well in his next endeavors.
Gabriella Schittek, ccNSO Secretariat
At a Glance
The ccNSO community is working diligently to support a full agenda of workshops, discussions, and presentations at their meeting in Brussels, 20 – 25 June, 2010.
The meetings page, posting all relevant meetings information, is updated regularly in order to contain as much recent information as possible.
The meetings page contains information such as agenda, room & time information, summaries of presentations that will be held, pre-registration lists.
Gabriella Schittek, ccNSO Secretariat
At a Glance
The ccNSO Secretariat has published a new YouTube clip that makes preparing for the Brussels meeting easier.
The ccNSO Secretariat recently posted a video on the ccNSO’s YouTube channel, showing easy ways to prepare on line for the Brussels meetings. The clip also shows handy instructions for remote participants.
The ccNSO Secretariat plans to continue publishing video clips on topical issues. All ccTLDs are invited to produce clips for the ccNSO channel, too. Several ccTLDs have taken advantage of this new platform to introduce themselves to the ccTLD community.
The ccNSO YouTube channel launched in February 2010. By definition, country code domain managers are geographically dispersed. The video channel gives ccTLD operators a chance to see one another and to get a more personal information channel to the country code community.
Gabriella Schittek, ccNSO Secretariat
- Wildcarding and DNS Redirection
- Financial Contributions to ICANN
- ccNSO Incident Response and a proposed DNS-CERT
Staff continues to scope remaining study options; Council to discuss WHOIS Service Requirements Report
At a Glance
WHOIS is the data repository containing registered domain names, registrant contacts and other critical information. Because of the global scale and critical importance of WHOIS, adjustments to it must be handled with great care. Questions persist concerning the use and misuse of this important public resource. The GNSO Council continues its inquiries into the suitability of WHOIS as the Internet evolves, and is considering what targeted studies could provide current, reliable information to inform community discussions about WHOIS.
The first areas of possible WHOIS studies have been grouped into four broad categories:
- WHOIS Misuse. Potential Misuse studies focus on discovering to what extent public WHOIS information is used for harmful purposes. ICANN issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) in September 2009, asking any qualified researchers to estimate the costs and feasibility of conducting these studies. The RFP drew three responses, and Staff has presented an analysis of them for GNSO Council and community consideration.
- WHOIS Registrant Identification. This effort would examine the extent to which domain names registered by legal persons or for commercial purposes are not clearly represented in WHOIS data. An RFP has been issued, and vendors have responded. Staff also prepared an analysis of those responses for GNSO Council and community consideration.
- WHOIS Proxy and Privacy Services “Abuse” Study. This study would focus on the extent to which domain names used to conduct illegal or harmful Internet activities are registered via privacy or proxy services to obscure the perpetrator’s identity. Seeking to engage independent research organizations to undertake this study, ICANN Staff posted an RFP for this study on 20 May 2010. Responses are due by 20 July 2010. Staff will then prepare an analysis, and the GNSO Council and Staff will consider next steps.
- WHOIS Proxy and Privacy Services “Reveal” Study. This study would measure Proxy and Privacy service responsiveness to registrant identity reveal requests. Staff is scoping this study now and an RFP will be released later.
At its meeting on 21 April, theGNSO Council passed a resolution recommending $400,000 USD to fund WHOIS studies in ICANN’s fiscal 2011 budget. The draft Budget framework posted on 17 May includes this funding.
The GNSO Council will discuss further which studies to conduct.
Two more important categories of potential study are following behind the first four.
- International display specifications. WHOIS data has been primarily in English and other Western languages, but with internationalized domain names in Arabic, Chinese, and Russian coming into greater use, more and more WHOIS entries will be entered in non-Roman character sets. Without standards, WHOIS could turn into an unreadable polyglot mess. In June 2009 at ICANN’s Sydney meeting, the ICANN Board passed a resolution asking the GNSO and the SSAC to form a joint Working Group to look at the feasibility of introducing display specifications so that the increasing prevalence of non-ASCII registration data does not compromise the accuracy of WHOIS. The Working Group is in the early stages of considering “What do we require from internationalized registration data?” The group will also address technical questions regarding how data elements might be “extensible” to accommodate users who would benefit from registration information displaying in familiar characters from local languages and scripts.
- WHOIS service requirements. Another important study area, separately requested by the GNSO in May 2009, would compile a comprehensive list of WHOIS service requirements, based on current policies and previous policy discussions. On 26 March, ICANN Staff released an initial report on this matter. Staff conducted two webinars to discuss this report with the community, one on 20 April and one on 4 May. Staff has since prepared a draft final report that reflects input from the SOs and ACs, and will be conducting a consultation on the report in Brussels.
- GNSO WHOIS policy development page
- Background on WHOIS Studies
- WHOIS misuse RFP announcement
- WHOIS registrant identification RFP announcement
- SSAC037: Display and Usage of Internationalized Registration Data
- ICANN Board Resolution regarding display and usage of internationalized registration data, approved in Sydney, 26 June 2009
- Internationalized Data Registration Working Group Charter [PDF, 112 KB]
- Staff analysis of WHOIS Misuse and Registrant Identification Reports [PDF, 488 KB]
- Audio Briefing: Introduction to the WHOIS Service Requirements Inventory [MP3, 15 MB]
- Draft Final Inventory of WHOIS Service Requirements [PDF, 861 KB]
Liz Gasster, Senior Policy Counselor
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 and has established Working Groups to conduct these efforts.
Recent Developments and Next Steps
The Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part B PDP Working Group published its Initial Report on 29 May. The Initial Report presents a number of preliminary conclusions and recommendations for community input, including a proposed Expedited Transfer Reverse Policy. The WG will organize an information and consultation session at the ICANN Meeting in Brussels, following which a 21-day public comment forum will open on 5 July.
All those interested are encouraged to provide their input on the report and its preliminary conclusions / recommendations so that the WG can take these into account as it continues its work. For further information, please consult the IRTP Part B Working Group Workspace.
The IRTP Part B Policy Development Process (PDP) is the second in a series of five PDPs that are slated to address areas for improvements in the existing Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy. The Part B Working Group was tasked to address five issues focusing on issues related to domain hijacking, the urgent return of an inappropriately transferred name, and “lock status.” For further details, refer to the group’s Charter.
- IRTP Part B PDP Initial Report [PDF, 764 KB]
- Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy web page
- IRTP Part B Status Report of Ongoing Progress page
- IRTP Part B Issues Report [PDF, 256 KB]
- PDP Recommendations [PDF, 124 KB]
- ICANN Start podcast: audio explanation of IRTP Part B [MP3, 18 MB]
Marika Konings, Policy Director
At a Glance
Registries and registrars seem to lack uniform approaches for dealing with domain name registration abuse, and questions persist about what actions "registration abuse" refers to. The GNSO Council has launched a Registration Abuse Policies (RAP) Working Group to examine registration abuse policies.
Following a public comment period on its Initial Report, the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group reviewed the comments received and published its Final Report on 29 May. The Report includes concrete recommendations to address domain name registration abuse in gTLDs, for consideration by the GNSO Council. It includes recommendations addressing fake renewal notices, domain kiting, and deceptive or offensive domain names. The Report also addresses:
- Cybersquatting, recommending the initiation of a Policy Development Process to investigate the current state of the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy.
- WHOIS access problems, seeking ways to ensure that WHOIS data is accessible in an appropriately reliable, enforceable, and consistent fashion; and requesting that the ICANN Compliance Department publish data about WHOIS accessibility.
- Malicious use of domain names, recommending the creation of best practices to help registrars and registries address the illicit use of domain names.
- Front-running, recommending possible enforcement actions by ICANN Compliance.
- Cross-TLD registration scams, recommending that monitoring and research be coordinated with the community
- Uniformity of contracts, recommending the creation of an Issues Report to evaluate whether a minimum baseline of registration abuse provisions should be created for all in-scope ICANN agreements.
- GNSO-wide practices for the collection and dissemination of best practices, and for uniformity of reporting.
The GNSO Council will now consider the report and its recommendations.
The RAP Working Group addresses issues outlined in its charter, such as: defining the difference between registration abuse and domain name abuse; the effectiveness of existing registration abuse policies; and which areas, if any, would be suitable for GNSO policy development to address. The group has generated a document that provides working definitions of types and categories of abuse, and cites the primary target for each abuse type.
In addition, a Uniformity of Contracts sub-team formed, and meets regularly to review existing abuse provisions in registrar and registry agreements and to discuss questions related to the uniformity of contracts. The sub-team examines issues such as, “Would there be benefits to having more uniformity in contracts?” and “How effective are existing provisions in dealing with registration abuse?”
Click here for further background.
- Registration Abuse Policies Working Group Final Report [PDF, 1.7 MB]
- Registration Abuse Policies Working Group Draft Initial Report [PDF, 1.8 MB]
- Registration Abuse Policies Issues Report, 29 October 2008 [PDF, 400 KB] and translation of summary
- Registration Abuse Policies Mexico City Workshop Transcript [TXT, 76 KB]
- Registration Abuse Policies WG Charter
- Registration Abuse Policies Working Group Workspace (Wiki)
At a Glance
To what extent should registrants be able to reclaim their domain names after they expire? At issue is whether the current policies of registrars on the renewal, transfer and deletion of expired domain names are adequate.
The GNSO Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery (PEDNR) Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group published its Initial Report on 31 May.
In addressing the issues listed in its Charter, the WG has reviewed current registrar and ICANN practices regarding domain name expiration, renewal, and post-expiration recovery. Furthermore, in order to assess the views of the WG members and determine where there might be agreement or consensus on a possible approach forward, a survey was conducted amongst the WG membership (detailed in the Initial Report).
The WG is encouraging the ICANN Community to provide input on the different questions and options outlined in the Initial Report. Further details on how to provide input will be provided as part of the public comment period that will launch following the ICANN meeting in Brussels. This will allow the widest possible input to be taken into account during the second phase of the PDP, during which the WG hopes to reach consensus on a proposed way forward for each of the charter questions. The PEDNR WG will also be organizing a public information and consultation session at the ICANN meeting in Brussels.
For a history of the ICANN community’s policy development activities related to Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery, please refer to the PEDNR Background page.
- PEDNR PDP Initial Report [PDF, 1 MB]
- Details on PEDNR Public Consultation Session in Brussels
- GNSO Issues Report on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery [PDF, 416 KB]
- Translations of the GNSO Issues Report on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery
- ICANN Staff response to GNSO request for clarifications
- PEDNR Public Comment Period
- Working Group presentation: Registrar Survey Final Results [PDF, 948 KB]
Marika Konings, Policy Director
Council, Steering Committees, Community have plenty to discuss
At a Glance
Members of the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) community are working to implement a comprehensive series of organizational changes designed to improve the effectiveness and accessibility of the organization. The GNSO Improvements fall into five main areas;
- Restructuring the GNSO Council;
- Revising the GNSO Policy Development Process (PDP);
- Adopting a New Working Group Model for Policy Development;
- Enhancing Constituencies; and
- Improving Communication and Coordination with ICANN structures.
The following update relates only the most recent developments regarding implementation of the GNSO Improvements. To understand the GNSO's new structure and organization, please see the discussion and diagrams on the GNSO Improvements Information webpage. For the reasons and history motivating the improvements, see the Background page.
Several Work Teams have made significant progress and have submitted their recommendations for implementing GNSO Improvements to the GNSO’s Operations Steering Committee (OSC) for review. Additionally, two process-focused work teams are continuing their discussions and have shared their latest work product with the community for further consideration at the Brussels meeting.
1. Restructuring the GNSO Council. The OSC is still considering further modifications to the Council’s new operational rules and procedures (including matters regarding voting abstentions and Councilor Statements of Interest). OSC members will likely be discussing the recommendations during their committee meeting in Brussels.
2. Revising the PDP. The Policy Development Process (PDP) Work Team (WT) is tasked to develop recommendations for a new GNSO policy development process. The WT has considered questions such as: who has the right to introduce a new issue into the PDP? How much background data should participants have before deciding policy? And, what are the possible outcomes of a PDP? On 31 May, the PDP-WT presented its Initial Report [PDF, 2.36 MB] for community input. The report includes 45 draft recommendations and a flow chart intended to serve as the basis for the new Annex A of the ICANN By-laws.
The PDP-WT will host a public information and consultation session at the ICANN meeting in Brussels. At the same time, a public comment forum has been opened for a period of 45 days, ending 15 July. After the public comment period closes, the PDP-WT will analyze the comments received and continue its deliberations. The goal is to finalize the report and submit it to the GNSO’s Policy Process Steering Committee for review. Ultimately, WT recommendations will go to the GNSO Council for approval.
3. Adopting a New Working Group Model. The Working Group Work Team (WG WT) was tasked with developing a new Working Group Model for policy development within the GNSO. The ICANN Board wants the new Working Group Model to become the focal point for GNSO policy development and enhance the policy development process by making it more inclusive and representative, and – ultimately – more effective and efficient. To this end, the WG WT has developed a document, entitled “GNSO Working Group Guidelines,” which brings together two different elements of the Working Group process. On one hand, it addresses the chartering process: what should be considered in creating, purposing, funding, staffing, and instructing/guiding a WG to accomplish the desired outcome? Secondly, it addresses the working group process itself: what guidance should be provided to a working group on elements such as structuring, norms, tasking, reporting, and delivering the outcome(s) as chartered? Following review of public comments on an earlier version of the proposed Guidelines (see the 2010 March Working Group Guidelines Public Forum), the WG WT has finalized its recommendations and submitted the proposed GNSO Working Group Guidelines [PDF, 681 KB] to the Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC) for its review.
4. Improving Communications and Coordination with ICANN Structures. The GNSO Council accepted the recommendations of the Communications Work Team (as forwarded by the Operations Steering Committee on 21 April) and the report was put out for public comment from 23 April through 16 May. ICANN Staff prepared a summary of the comments, which was reviewed by the OSC and Work Team members. The Council discussed the recommendations at its 10 June meeting, but deferred a decision on them until its Brussels meeting.
5. Enhancing Constituencies. The effort to create a level playing field for all the GNSO community’s formal Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies continues in three substantial areas: development of consistent operational guidelines and best practices; re-confirmation of existing constituency bodies; and support for proposals for potential new constituencies.
Status of Pending Constituency Proposals. The formal proposal for a new Consumers Constituency, submitted in April 2009, remains pending. An informal proposal (Notice Of Intent to Form) to create a new Public Internet Access/CyberCafe Ecosystem Constituency remains unchanged. The new constituency process is still available for any other parties who might be interested in proposing new GNSO Constituencies.
Existing GNSO Constituency “Reconfirmation” Efforts to Resume. Due to the need for existing constituencies to address other substantive policy priorities and the opportunity to combine the reconfirmation work with GNSO Work Team efforts designed to develop consistent operational practices among all GNSO Constituencies and Stakeholder Groups, the Board has now twice extended the reconfirmation timetable for existing GNSO Constituencies. Given the status of efforts by the GNSO’s Constituency and Stakeholder Group Operations Work Team (CSGO-WT) (see Participation Rules below) and after consultation with several constituency community leaders, the Staff has recommended that the Board again extend the timetable for this important effort to the Cartagena ICANN meeting, December 2010.
Staff Developing Community Toolkit Roll-out. At its 17 December meeting, the GNSO Council accepted the recommendations [PDF, 108 KB] of the CSGO Work Team for ICANN Staff to develop a toolkit of primarily administrative services to be made available to all GNSO Constituencies and Stakeholder Groups. The Staff had hoped to have a draft plan developed by the Brussels meeting, but now will make the plan available for community review after June.
Participation Rules in Focus . On 31 May the CSGO-WT sent to the OSC combined recommendations on a framework for participation in any ICANN Constituency or Stakeholder Group and for creating a database of all Constituency and Stakeholder Group members. The Work Team’s report includes recommendations on three primary subjects:
- Common Operating Principles for GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies;
- Participation Guidelines for GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies; and
- A GNSO Database of Community Members
A substantial minority report advocating a more fundamental approach accompanies the recommendations. The OSC may discuss the report at its meeting in Brussels.
The CSGO-WT has also begun discussing development of a global outreach program. A sub-team has been established to formulate ideas.
Permanent Stakeholder Group Charter Efforts. The GNSO’s non-contract party communities continue their development of permanent Stakeholder Group charters. Current community activities and discussions indicate that those efforts are on track to conclude by the end of 2010.
The GNSO’s various implementation Work Teams will continue to develop recommendations for implementing the GNSO restructuring goals approved by the Board. The Operations Steering Committee (OSC) has several substantive recommendations from work teams on its agenda for the month of June. Existing GNSO Constituencies will continue their reconfirmation discussions. It has become important that recommendations from the GNSO Constituency Operations Work team (currently before the OSC) combine with that process.
- GNSO Improvements Information Web Page
- New Bylaws relevant to the New GNSO Council [PDF, 160 KB]
- New GNSO Council Operating Procedures [PDF, 108 KB]
- PDP Team wiki
- Working Group Team wiki
- Constituency Operations Team wiki
Robert Hoggarth, Senior Policy Director
At a Glance
Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) are discussing a proposed global policy for Autonomous System Numbers (ASNs). The proposal would change the date for a full transition from 16-bit to 32-bit ASNs from the beginning of 2010 to the beginning of 2011, in order to allow more time for necessary upgrades of the systems involved.
The proposal has passed final call in all five RIRs. It has been formally adopted in APNIC, ARIN, LACNIC, RIPE and, at the end of May, also in AfriNIC.
As all RIRs have now adopted the proposal, the Number Resource Organization Executive Committee and the Address Supporting Organization Address Council (ASO AC) will review the proposal and then forward it to the ICANN Board for ratification and implementation by IANA.
Autonomous System Numbers (ASNs) are identifiers used for transit of IP traffic. ASNs were originally 16 bits in length, but a transition to 32-bit ASNs is under way to meet increasing demand. In line with the adopted Global Policy currently in force for ASNs, 16-bit and 32-bit ASNs exist in parallel, but all would have been regarded as 32 bits long beginning in 2010. The proposal defers that date to the beginning of 2011.
- Background Report (updated 3 June 2010)
Olof Nordling, Director Services Relations
At a Glance
Registration data is the information that domain name registrants enter into WHOIS, primarily so that appropriate parties can find who operates a web site. Increasingly, registration data is being entered in more of the world’s languages and scripts. The GNSO and SSAC created the Internationalized Registration Data Working Group (IRD-WG) to study the feasibility and suitability of introducing submission and display specifications to deal with the internationalization of Registration Data.
The working group has continued its bi-monthly meetings. Members are preparing a draft of a preliminary approach to IRD, for discussion at its public session planned for the ICANN meeting in Brussels, Belgium on Thursday, 24 June.
The public session will address two important issues: the internationalization of registration data, and an Inventory of WHOIS Service Requirements. With respect to the first issue, support for characters from local languages in domain name registration submission and display is an issue that affects many ICANN stakeholders, including the GNSO, ccNSO, ALAC and GAC. Defining a suitable, scalable solution vitally requires collaboration across this large, diverse community. The IRD-WG has been considering several questions relating to the internationalization of registration data and will present a draft of a preliminary approach for discussion. With respect to the second issue, on 26 March ICANN staff submitted a WHOIS Service Requirements Initial Report to the ICANN community for consideration. At this public session, staff and members of the ICANN community will present comments on the Report received from the GNSO, the SSAC, the ccNSO, and others.
While standard formats are defined for internationalized domain labels, no standard format is required for elements of a domain name registration record (Registration Data) such as contact information, host names, sponsoring registrar and domain name status. SSAC report SAC037 called attention to this matter. At the request of the ICANN Board, the GNSO and SSAC created an Internationalized Registration Data Working Group (IRD-WG).
The Working Group is chaired by Edmon Chung (.ASIA) and Jeremy Hitchcock (DYN-Inc). It is composed of 17 participants from 4 countries, 3 ccTLDs and 3 ICANN Supporting Organizations or Advisory Committees (SO/ACs).
To ensure broad community input, the working group is looking forward to engaging participation from all ICANN SOs and ACs as well as Country Code Top Level Domain (ccTLD) operators. If you wish to join the working group, please email Julie Hedlund, Director of SSAC Support.
- SAC037, "Display and usage of Internationalized Registration Data" (21 April 2009) [PDF, 900 KB]
- Webinar, “Display and Usage of Internationalized Registration Data” (16 September 2009) [PDF, 1 MB]
- Internationalized Registration Data Working Group work space (Wiki)
Initial Report recommends a Registrant Rights Charter and identifies topics for future RAA amendments
At a Glance
ICANN’s Registrar Accreditation Agreement is a contract that ICANN signs with all companies that want to be registrars, laying out the various rights and obligations ICANN-accredited registrars have. A Working Group, assessing the RAA for possible improvements, has published its Initial Report. Public Comments on the Initial Report will guide the GNSO in its evaluation of whether to recommend a new form of Registrar Accreditation Agreement.
In 2009, the GNSO Council embarked on a collaborative process with the At Large Advisory Committee regarding the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA). As part of this process, a joint GNSO/ALAC drafting team was formed (known as the RAA Drafting Team) to conduct further work related to proposals for improvements to the RAA. The RAA Drafting Team reviewed proposals from the law enforcement community, the Intellectual Property Constituency, and other stakeholders, seeking to enhance the RAA.
The RAA Drafting Team has concluded its first phase of work by publishing its Initial Report to the GNSO Council. The Report proposes a form of a Registrant Rights and Responsibilities Charter, to assist registrants in understanding their rights and obligations pertaining to their domain name registrations. The Report also identifies potential topics for additional amendments to the RAA, as well as a proposal for next steps that the GNSO Council can consider in determining whether to recommend a new form of RAA.
A public comment forum has been opened on the Initial Report, giving you the opportunity to voice your opinion on any of the proposals for improvements to the RAA described in the Initial Report. The public comment period closes on 9 July 2010.
At the Brussels ICANN meeting, the public will have the opportunity to participate in a session with law enforcement representatives and other stakeholders interested in modifying the RAA to further protect registrants and the public from malicious conduct and cybercrime involving domain names.
- Initial Report on Proposals for Improvements to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement [PDF, 3.2 MB]
- Public Comment Forum for commenting on the Initial Report
- How to attend the RAA Session in Brussels (whether in person, or remotely)
- Non-Lawyers Guide to the RAA
- ICANN Start podcast, Episode 6: RAA [MP3, 13.6 MB]
Margie Milam, Senior Policy Counselor
Survey Available for Community Feedback
At a Glance
The Geographic Regions Review Working Group is working to evaluate whether participation and representation in ICANN remains fair and geographically diverse. The Working Group published its Initial Report for community review and comment, and is developing its Interim Report.
As they develop their Interim Report, Working Group members are continuing to gather community input on how the ICANN Geographic Regions Framework may be affecting the work of the various communities in ICANN.
In preparation for community discussions at the next ICANN International Meeting in Brussels, Belgium, the Working Group has made the latest working draft of its Interim Report available to the community. The draft document can be found on the group’s Socialtext Wiki page as the latest entry under Working Documents.
The Working Group developed a brief survey to help develop a better picture of the level of community understanding and awareness of the Geographic Regions Framework and the impact it has on operations and policy work in various ICANN organizations and regions. The survey is still available for review in the six official UN languages plus Portuguese (see https://www.bigpulse.com/31174/setlang?l=en&url=register). The survey will help inform and direct the preparation of the Interim Report and will remain open for responses through the Brussels ICANN meeting.
The Interim Report will build on the Working Group’s Initial Report and focus on some of the critical issues that it will ultimately address in its Final Report. The Interim Report will focus on three specific areas: (1) Confirm the foundation elements set forth in the Initial Report; (2) Review the underlying objectives of ICANN’s geographic regions framework; and (3) Identify specific matters to be addressed in the Final Report.
As part of its efforts in Brussels, the Working Group plans to conduct a public session on Thursday morning (24 June) to discuss the geographic regions framework and collect community ideas about future options for the framework. After Brussels the Working Group will finish developing its Interim Report for community review. The ultimate Final Report that will include the working group’s recommendations (if any) is now expected late this year.
The Working Group completed its Initial Report in late July 2009 and published the document in all six UN languages for community review and comment. The 35-day public comment period closed in early September 2009, but community participation in the comment forum was minimal. The group is now looking to develop its Interim Report with increased community input.
Click here for further background.
- ICANN Board Resolution authorizing the Working Group
- Geographic Regions WG Charter
- Community Survey (no longer accepting responses)
- Announcement of Interim Report Draft availability
Robert Hoggarth, Senior Policy Director
At a Glance
The At-Large community has been working in a bottom-up process for several months on developing the structure, format, and content of the At-Large Meetings to take place during ICANN’s 38 th Meeting in Brussels.
At-Large Meetings scheduled include:
- An all day ALAC and Regional Leadership Working Session
- An APRALO Meeting
- Two Policy Discussion Sessions
- ALAC Meeting with the GAC
- ALAC and Regional Leadership Workshop on ALAC Improvements
- AFRALO/AfrICANN Joint Meeting
- A EURALO Meeting
- A EURALO Showcase
- An At-Large Regional Secretariats Meeting
- An ALAC Meeting with members of the ICANN Board
- An At-Large Meeting with Registrars
- An ALAC and Regional Leadership Wrap-Up Meeting
- An ALAC Executive Committee Meeting
These meetings are open to all ICANN meeting attendees. In addition, the At-Large community members will also participate actively in many of the other sessions taking place during the ICANN Meeting in Brussels, either in person or using remote participation tools.
- More information on At-Large Meetings scheduled during ICANN’s 38 th Meeting in Brussels, Belgium, including agendas in English, French and Spanish and remote participation instructions, is available at: http://brussels38.icann.org/full-schedule
At a Glance
The At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) has continued its increasingly active role in providing input regarding a diverse range of issues, on behalf of the community of individual Internet users.
The ALAC provided input into public consultations, or Advisories to the Board of ICANN, on the following subjects in the second-half of May:
- ALAC Statement on ICANN Volunteer Travel Support Guidelines
- ALAC Statement on Reconsideration Request 10-1 Recommendation
- ALAC Statement on New GNSO Prioritization Recommendations
- ALAC Statement on the GNSO Communications
- ALAC Support of Consumer Constituency
The list represents a mere sampling of the 17 statements that the ALAC submitted to the Board between January and May 2010 – a 70 percent increase over the same period in 2009.
All official At-Large statements, including those above, may be found at http://www.atlarge.icann.org/correspondence
At a Glance
In May, the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) and At-Large Staff surveyed the 123 At-Large Structures (ALSes) around the world,trying to learn more about the groups in order to improve support to them and increase participation in the At-Large Community. The 2010 survey has just closed, and results are being analyzed.
A Working Group consisting of At-Large Structure (ALS) representatives from each of the five Regional At-Large Organizations (RALOs) is preparing the preliminary analysis of the results of the 2010 At-Large Structure Survey, conducted from 7 – 24 May 2010.
The Working Group’s preliminary analysis is expected to produce invaluable information to the ALAC and At-Large Staff. Additionally, the survey will reveal more about the types of At-Large engagement the ALSes are interested in. The survey asked each ALS about their preferred working group format, whether their membership is interested in representing the At-Large community at local and regional meetings; whether members wanted to help implement the At-Large Improvements project; and more.
The survey contained three sections: 1) ALS Survey 2010, 2) ccNSO-ALS Survey, and 3) Survey on ICANN’s Geographic Regions.
The questions of the ccNSO-ALS survey were prepared by Ron Sherwood, ccNSO liaison to the ALAC, and Rudi Vansnick, ALAC liaison to the ccNSO. This portion of the survey is expected to help identify the relationship between ccTLDs and ALSes, in part by indicating which ALSes are at present involved in local ccTLD activities.
The purpose of the third section, the community survey from the Review of ICANN Geographic Regions cross-community work group, is designed to assess the perceived benefits and disadvantages of ICANN's Geographic Regions framework.
The Working Group preparing the preliminary results will present their findings to the At-Large community during the 38 th ICANN Meeting in Brussels.
Heidi Ullrich, At-Large Secretariat
At a Glance
Members of the Asia-Pacific Regional At-Large Organization (APRALO) and the North American Regional At-Large Organization (NARALO) worked with their respective At-Large Structure representatives to create regional brochures, which they will use for outreach activities and information dissemination. Over the past nine months, all five At-Large RALOs have produced regional brochures.
The latest brochures provide information on the membership of APRALO and NARALO and the key Internet-related policy issues on which each RALO focuses. The brochures will be distributed at the ICANN meeting in Brussels, 20 – 25 June, as well as at regional meetings.
Members of both the APRALO and NARALO worked collaboratively within their respective regions to create brochures for the purpose of increasing awareness of their RALO. These brochures cite the key issues their members are working on, including internationalized domain names (IDNs), the introduction of new generic top level domains (gTLDs) and WHOIS policy.
APRALO and NARALO members will use their brochures for outreach to potential new At-Large Structures. APRALO will use their brochure at the regional IGF in Hong Kong in June. NARALO representatives will distribute their brochure at regional events in Canada, the United States and Puerto Rico.
Matthias Langenegger, At-Large Secretariat
The following SSAC meetings are scheduled for the ICANN meeting in Brussels, Belgium, and can be attended in person or remotely. Clicking on the name of the meeting links you to venue and remote participation details.
- SSAC Open Meeting, Tuesday, 22 June 2010, 1100 to 1230 local time.
- DNSSEC Workshop, Wednesday, 23 June 2010, 0900 to 1330 local time.
- Internationalized Registration Data and Inventory of WHOIS Service Requirements, Thursday, 24 June, 0930 to 1100 local time.
- Forum on Domain Name System (DNS) Abuse, Thursday, 24 June 2010, 1100 to 1230 local time.
For reports on other activities for 2010, refer to the SSAC Work Plan.
Julie Hedlund, Director, SSAC Support
update-jun10-en.pdf [277 KB]