ICANN POLICY UPDATE | Volume 11, Issue 6 — June 2011
PDF Version [550 KB]
Special ICANN 41 Singapore Meeting Edition
- Charter and Work Plan Adopted for Framework of Interpretation Working Group
- ccNSO Calls for Dakar Travel Funding Applications
- One-stop Web Page for ccNSO Meeting Info at ICANN's Public Meeting in Singapore
- Staff Report Published on Current State of UDRP
- Whois Studies Move Ahead; GNSO Council Forms Drafting Team
- Inter-Registrar Transfer WG Delivers Final Report
- Community Input Invited at Workshop on Registration Anti-Abuse Best Practices
- GNSO Improvements: Council Approaches Major Milestones
- Other Issues Active in the GNSO
- EURALO Amends Bylaws, Elects Officers at General Assembly
- ICANN Bylaw Amendments Regarding ALAC Now Before SIC
- At-Large Plans Cross-Community Activities During ICANN Public Meeting in Singapore
- Security & Stability Advisory Committee Comments on Orphan Glue Records in the Draft Applicant Guidebook
Read in Your Preferred Language
ICANN Policy Update is available in all six official languages of the United Nations. Policy Update is posted on ICANN's web site and available via online subscription. To receive the Update in your Inbox each month, visit the ICANN subscriptions page, enter your e-mail address, and select "Policy Update" to subscribe. This service is free.
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|
Numerous public comment periods are open on issues of interest to the ICANN community. Act now to share your views on such topics as:
- Draft FY12 Operating Plan and Budget. ICANN's annual operating plan and budget describes the planned activities and required resources for the next fiscal year. Reflecting a $67 million operating expense budget, the plan is open for community feedback. Comment by 17 June 2011.
- Draft Travel Support Guidelines for FY12. Describing the proposed process for constituent stakeholder travel to ICANN meetings beginning with the September meeting in Senegal, the guidelines are open for comment and a public session will be held at ICANN's Public Meeting in Singapore to obtain further input. Comment by 26 June 2011.
- Preliminary Issue Report on the Current State of the UDRP. ICANN staff has published a preliminary report on how well the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy has addressed cybersquatting, and recommends against commencing a PDP at this time. Comment by 15 July 2011.
- Whois Policy Review Team. Per the Affirmation of Commitments, a review team is assessing existing Whois policy. Areas of focus include clarity of existing policy, applicable laws, privacy issues and proxy/privacy, and ICANN's compliance and enforcement activities. Comment by 23 July 2011.
- New gTLD Program Applicant Support. The Joint SO/AC Working Group has published the Second Milestone Report. The objective is to develop a sustainable approach in providing support to applicants requiring assistance in apply for and operating new gTLD Registries. Comment by 29 July 2011.
For the full list of issues open for public comment, plus recently closed and archived public comment forums, visit the Public Comment Web Page.
At a Glance
The Framework of Interpretation Working Group (FoI WG) moves forward with an updated charter, and will present its work plan at ICANN Public Meeting in Singapore.
The ccNSO Council adopted the updated charter of the FoI WG to reflect the mode of participation by members from the GAC. Becky Burr, NomCom appointee to the ccNSO Council, was elected unanimously as vice chair. The working group has agreed on a work plan.
The FoI WG will be presenting its work plan to the ccTLD community and GAC at the Singapore Public Meeting and will conduct its first series of substantive discussions on topics identified by the Delegation and Redelegation Working Group (DRD WG).
The objective of the FoI WG is to develop a Framework of Interpretation for the current Policy Statements RFC 1591, GAC 2005 Principles and the Internet Domain Name System Structure and Delegation (ICP-1). The framework will help resolve the issues regarding the delegation and re-delegation of ccTLDs (including IDN ccTLDs) identified by the DRD WG. Having a framework can also foster consistent and predictable decisions while enhancing accountability and transparency for all stakeholders.
Bart Boswinkel, ccNSO Senior Policy Advisor
At a Glance
Eligible individuals interested in attending ICANN's Public Meeting in Dakar this October can apply for funding through the ccNSO Travel Funding Committee.
The ccNSO Travel Fund Committee is now accepting applications for the ICANN Public Meeting in Dakar, Senegal, 23-28 October 2011. Last day to apply is 1 July 2011, Noon UTC.
Funding is available to those who actively participate in the work of the ccNSO and make a special contribution to its projects and meetings. You do not need to be a ccNSO member to receive funding.
Gabriella Schittek, ccNSO Secretariat
At a Glance
All the information you need to know to follow the ccNSO-related activities at ICANN's Public Meeting in Singapore can be found at the ccNSO Singapore Meeting web page.
Announcements, agendas, schedules, presentations, transcripts and more for ICANN's Public Meeting in Singapore will be placed on these dedicated web pages.
Bookmark and check the page frequently, as it is updated whenever new information is available.
Gabriella Schittek, ccNSO Secretariat
Report Says the Community Views Process As Fair and Effective
At a Glance
In the ICANN Report, staff recommends against commencing a Policy development Process (PDP) on the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) at this time, cautioning that doing so might undermine its effectiveness.
The UDRP was created in 1999, with the goal of providing an alternative to costly litigation for resolving disputes concerning cybersquatting in gTLDs. Since the adoption of the UDRP, over 30,000 complaints have been filed with the dispute resolution providers authorized by ICANN. The UDRP has not been reviewed or updated by the GNSO Council since its inception.
As recommended in the Registration Abuse Policy (RAP) Final Report (issued in June 2010), the GNSO Council asked ICANN Staff to produce a preliminary issue report on the current state of the UDRP for discussion at the upcoming Singapore Public Meeting. Upon review of the final issue report to be published after a review of community comments, the GNSO Council will consider whether to commence a PDP on the UDRP.
On 10 May 2011, a webinar on the current state of the UDRP solicited opinions from a broad cross-section of stakeholders with expertise in the UDRP and its processes. The speakers shared their views on the effectiveness of the UDRP, and whether the GNSO Council should embark on a comprehensive review of the UDRP.
The UDRP is generally viewed as an effective alternative to costly litigation for cybersquatting disputes, with processes that are fair to the affected registrants. The consensus viewpoint that emerged from the UDRP Webinar is that although the UDRP is not perfect, it may not be advisable to conduct a comprehensive review of the UDRP at this time. To do so might ultimately undermine its effectiveness. The ICANN Staff's Preliminary Issue Report summarizes these opinions, and explains the staff recommendation against commencing a PDP on the UDRP at this time. A public comment forum on the Preliminary Issue Report [PDF, 2.25 MB] runs until 15 July 2011.
- RAP WG Final Report [PDF, 62 KB] (June 2010)
- Details on the Silicon Valley Meeting Session on the UDRP Issue Report
- Mailing list for the UDRP Drafting Team
- Webinar on the Current State of the UDRP (archived)
- Public comment on the Preliminary Issue Report
Margie Milam, Senior Policy Counselor
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 is considering four studies to provide current, reliable information for community discussions about Whois.
Whois Service Requirements Study. At its 19 May meeting, the GNSO Council decided to form a Drafting Team to develop a survey to estimate the level of agreement with the conclusions and assumptions in the Inventory of Whois Service Requirements – Final Report [PDF, 636 KB]). Completed last year, the report is a comprehensive list of Whois service requirements based on current policies and previous policy discussions, but does not make policy recommendations. Some of the potential technical requirements included in the report are the following: a mechanism to find authoritative Whois servers; structured queries; a standardized set of query capabilities; a well-defined schema for replies; standardized error messages; improved quality of domain registration data; internationalization; security elements; thick vs. thin Whois; and a Registrar abuse point of contact.
- GNSO Whois policy development page
- Background on Whois Studies
- Inventory of Whois Service Requirements – Final Report [PDF, 636 KB]
- 28 April Resolution on Whois Studies
Liz Gasster, Senior Policy Counselor
At a Glance
The aim of the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) is to provide a straightforward procedure for domain name holders to transfer their names from one ICANN-accredited registrar to another. The GNSO Council is reviewing and considering revisions to this policy and has established a series of Working Groups to conduct these efforts.
Recent Developments and Next Steps
Following a review of the public comments on the Initial Report [PDF, 764 KB] and the Proposed Final Report [PDF, 733 KB], the IRTP Part B PDP Working Group recently submitted its Final Report to the GNSO Council for consideration. The Report contains nine recommendations including:
- Requiring registrars to provide a Transfer Emergency Action Contact for urgent communications relating to transfers, enabling the quick establishment of a real-time conversation between registrars in case of an emergency such as hijacking. Responses are required within four hours of the initial request, although final resolution of the incident may take longer.
- Promoting proactive measures to prevent hijacking such as outlined in the recent report of the Security and Stability Advisory Committee on "A Registrant's Guide to Protecting Domain Name Registration Accounts (SAC 044)."
- Requesting an Issue Report on the requirement of "thick" Whois for all incumbent gTLDs
- Requesting an Issue Report to examine the change of control function as well as a review of locking procedures as described in IRTP Reasons for Denial #8 and #9.
- Modifying section three of the IRTP to require that the Losing Registrar notifies the Registrant of the transfer out.
- Clarifying IRTP Reason for Denial #6 to make it clear that the registrant must give some sort of informed opt-in express consent of having registrar-specific locks applied, and the registrant must be able to have the lock removed upon reasonable notice and authentication.
- If a review of the UDRP is conducted in the near future, the issue of requiring the locking of a domain name subject to UDRP proceedings is taken into consideration.
- Standardizing and clarifying Whois status messages regarding Registrar Lock status.
- Deleting IRTP Reason for Denial #7 and instead replace it by adding a new provision in a different section of the IRTP on when and how domains may be locked or unlocked.
The GNSO Council will now consider the Final Report and its recommendations.
For further information, please consult the IRTP Part B Working Group Workspace.
The aim of the IRTP is to provide a straightforward procedure for domain name holders to transfer their names from one ICANN-accredited registrar to another. The GNSO Council established a series of five Working Groups (Parts A through E) to review and consider various revisions to this policy.
The IRTP Part B PDP is the second in a series of five scheduled PDPs addressing areas for improvements in the existing policy. The Part B Working Group has addressed five issues focusing on 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 Proposed Final Report [PDF, 733 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 lack uniformity when dealing with domain name registration abuse, and questions persist about what activities constitute "registration abuse." The GNSO Council launched the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group (RAP WG) to examine registration abuse policies. After reviewing the RAP WG's proposed approach, the GNSO Council is moving ahead with several RAP recommendations.
Recent Developments and Next Steps
ICANN staff has begun writing the discussion paper on the creation of non-binding best practices to help registrars and registries address the abusive registration of domain names, and expects it will raise a number of issues, identify existing best practices and recommend next steps for consideration. Community input will be solicited at a workshop at ICANN's Public Meeting in Singapore, and then analyzed and incorporated into a final discussion paper by ICANN staff for submission to the GNSO Council.
The GNSO Council will consider potential next steps on other RAP recommendations at its upcoming Public Meeting in Singapore.
The RAP WG presented its final report [PDF, 1.7 MB] and recommendations to the GNSO Council in June 2010. The Council then formed a group of volunteers, the Registration Abuse Policies Implementation Drafting Team (RAP DT), to draft a proposed approach to implementing the report's recommendations. The RAP DT developed a matrix categorizing the RAP WG final report [PDF, 1.7 MB] recommendations in order of priority, expected complexity and required resources and submitted a letter [PDF, 184 KB] to the GNSO Council outlining a recommended approach for its consideration. See the web site for further information.
A short history of the RAP WG is available on ICANN's web site.
- Registration Abuse Policies WG Final Report [PDF, 1.7 MB]
- Registration Abuse Policies Issues Report, 29 October 2008 [PDF, 400 KB] and translation of summary
- Registration Abuse Policies WG Charter
- Registration Abuse Policies WG Workspace (wiki)
- Registration Abuse Policies Implementation Drafting Team Workspace (wiki)
- RAP Implementation Drafting Team Letter to the GNSO Council [PDF, 184 KB]
PDP Final Report Complete; Council Approves Outreach Task Force and Forms Charter Drafting Team
At a Glance
Members of the GNSO community are working to implement a comprehensive series of structural and operational changes designed to improve the effectiveness and accessibility of the organization. The materials in this section relate to only the most recent developments regarding implementation of the GNSO Improvements.
Comment Forum Closes for Permanent Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group Charter
On 6 May, ICANN staff opened a Public Comment Forum seeking community comments on the permanent Charter of the GNSO's Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG).
Two community comments were submitted to the forum and can be found in the Staff Summary.
Review of the NCSG Charter, along with the permanent charter of the Commercial Stakeholders Group, is likely to be on the agenda for the 24 June Board Meeting.
As part of the comprehensive Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Improvements effort, last July the ICANN Board approved (see ICANN Board Resolution 2009.30.07.09) the Charters of four new GNSO Stakeholder Groups (SGs). These SG structures represented a new concept for the GNSO that was originally envisioned by ICANN Board members in 2008 (see the BGC WG's February 2008 Report here [PDF, 193 KB]).
The original Charter [PDF, 60 KB] approved for the NCSG was to be transitional through the ICANN annual meeting in 2011. The Board expected the NCSG to develop a permanent charter that would take effect upon the expiration of the transition period. Over the past several months, NCSG members have been working with the Board's Structural Improvements Committee and have developed a permanent NCSG Charter for review by the full Board.
PDP Final Report Complete
The GNSO's PDP-WT has reached a significant milestone - submitting its Final Report [PDF, 1.4 MB] to the GNSO Council for consideration. The Final Report contains 47 recommendations, an outline of the proposed new Annex A to the ICANN Bylaws and a supporting document that is envisioned for inclusion in the GNSO Council Operating Procedures as well as the PDP Manual.
The most substantial of the recommendations include:
- Using a standardized "Request for an Issue Report Template"
- Introducing a "Preliminary Issues Report" which shall be published for public comment prior to the creation of a Final Issues Report to be acted upon by the GNSO Council
- Requiring that each PDP Working Group operate under a Charter
- Dialogue between the GNSO Council and an Advisory Committee in the event that the GNSO Council decides not to initiate a PDP following an Issues Report requested by such Advisory Committee
- Changing the existing Bylaws requiring a mandatory public comment period upon initiation of a PDP, to making the public comment period optional at the discretion of the PDP Working Group
- Clarification of "in scope of ICANN policy process or the GNSO"
- Changing the timeframes of public comment periods including (i) a required public comment period of no less than 30 days on a PDP Working Group's Initial Report and (ii) a minimum of 21 days for any non-required public comment periods the PDP WG might choose to initiate at its discretion
- Maintaining the existing requirement of PDP Working Groups producing both an Initial Report and Final Report, but giving PDP Working Groups the discretion to produce additional outputs
- Allowing for termination of a PDP prior to delivery of the Final Report
- Guidance to the GNSO Council on the treatment of PDP WG recommendations
- New procedures on the delivery of recommendations to the Board including a requirement that all reports presented to the Board are reviewed by either the PDP Working Group or the GNSO Council and made publicly available
- Using Implementation Review Teams
Further details and background on the different recommendations, the proposed Annex A and PDP manual can be found in the PDP-WT Final Report [PDF, 1.4 MB]. The GNSO Council will likely now authorize a final public comment period for community review of the new rules. Before any new rules can become official, the GNSO Council and then the ICANN Board will need to express their approval.
Council Forms Global Outreach Task Force
At its 19 May meeting, the GNSO Council achieved another significant milestone in the GNSO Review/Improvements effort. The Council authorized staff to proceed with the recommendation of its Operations Steering Committee to form an Outreach Task Force (OTF). The first step of that effort is the creation of a Charter Drafting Team.
According to the OSC's specific recommendation, "The GNSO Council should manage the development of the OTF [Outreach Task Force] through the creation of a Drafting Team to develop the OTF's Charter. The Charter shall include procedures for member recruitment, application, selection, terms and term limits. The Charter should also set goals for the completion of the membership selection process, establishment of a meeting schedule, and participation guidelines. The Charter should establish an initial term for the OTF of two years. After this period a review should be conducted to review the success of the OTF's initiatives and, if deemed successful, the OTF's charter could be extended annually."
If you are interested in participating in the draft team effort, please contact your GNSO Council representative or email the GNSO Secretariat.
More Information about the GNSO Improvements
- GNSO Improvements Information Web Page
- GNSO Home Page
- PDP Work Team wiki
- Working Group Work Team wiki
- Constituency Operations Work Team wiki
- Public Forum For Proposed Permanent NCSG Charter
- Public Forum For GNSO Outreach Recommendations
Robert Hoggarth, Senior Policy Director
The Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery Final Report, incorporating public comments, will be presented to the GNSO Council at ICANN's Public Meeting in Singapore. The report addresses whether or not current registrar policies regarding the renewal, transfer and deletion of expired domain names.
At a Glance
Now that the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) has allocated all the addresses in IPv4, Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) have discussed a number of proposed global policies for handling IPv4 address space returned from the RIRs to IANA. The RIRs have yet to agree on a new policy.
After failing to reach consensus on two preceding proposals, a third proposal on allocation of recovered IPv4 address space has been launched and introduced in all RIRs. This new proposal has passed the final call stage in APNIC and has been adopted in that RIR, where it originated. According to this proposal, IANA would establish and administer a pool of returned address space. Because the free pool of IANA IPv4 address space is depleted, IANA would subsequently allocate IPv4 address space from this pool to the RIRs in smaller blocks than previously allocated. The main difference compared to the previously abandoned second proposal is that allocations would be made in equal size blocks to all RIRs simultaneously and occur every six months, if the size of the pool so permits.
The third proposal has been adopted by APNIC and is in the final call stage in LACNIC, while being in the discussion stage in all other RIRs. If and when this policy proposal is adopted by all RIRs, the Number Resource Organization Executive Committee (NRO EC) and the Address Supporting Organization Address Council (ASO AC) will review the proposal and forward the policy to the ICANN Board for ratification and implementation by IANA.
IPv4 is the Internet Protocol addressing system used to allocate unique IP address numbers in 32-bit format. With the massive growth of the Internet user population, the pool of unique numbers (approximately 4.3 billion) has been depleted and a 128-bit numbering system (IPv6) is taking its place.
- A Background Report for the new, third proposal is posted on the ICANN web site and includes a comparison between the proposals so far on this theme.
- Background Report for the second proposal.
Olof Nordling, Director, Service Relations
At a Glance
Both the GNSO and ccNSO councils have adopted the Final Report from the Joint ccNSO-GNSO Internationalized Domain Name (IDN) Working Group (JIG-WG).
Both the GNSO and ccNSO councils have now adopted the recommendations made by the joint ccNSO-GNSO IDN Working Group in its final report. Among the recommendations are that Single Character IDN TLDs should be acceptable under the IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process and as part of the recommendations for overall policy in IDN ccPDP.
The Final Report and the recommendations contained therein will be forwarded to the ICANN Board for adoption.
The purpose of the ccNSO/GNSO Joint IDN Working Group is to deal with issues related to the introduction of IDN ccTLDs and IDN gTLDs that are of common interest to both the GNSO and ccNSO. The WG focuses on introduction of single character IDN TLDs and variant management.
Bart Boswinkel, ccNSO Policy Advisor
At a Glance
EURALO members revised bylaws, selected new officers and discussed important topics at the recent EURALO General Assembly in Belgrade.
On 29 May, the European Regional At-Large Organization held a successful General Assembly in Belgrade, Serbia, attended by ICANN Board member Sébastien Bachollet, ALAC Chair Olivier Crépin-Leblond, EURALO Chair Wolf Ludwig, and a dozen additional EURALO members.
EURALO members amended the bylaws to create a new ALS for unaffiliated members, extend the terms of EURALO's officers and Board members for up to four more years, and align the selection schedule for EURALO board members with that of ALAC members.
Members selected the EURALO Chair, Secretariat, EURALO Board members, and representatives to the ALAC. Wolf Ludwig (of Switzerland) unanimously won a third term as EURALO chair, and Oksana Prykhodko (of Ukraine) was elected the new Secretariat. In addition, EURALO's ALAC representatives will remain Olivier Crépin-Leblond, Sandra Hoferichter, and Jean-Jacques Subrenat (selected by the Nominating Committee).
Members approved the EURALO FY12 budget and discussed the urgent need for more outreach and representation in Central and Eastern Europe.
- EURALO May 2011 General Assembly wiki page.
Gisella Gruber, At-Large Administrative Support
At a Glance
One recommendation from the 2008 review of the ALAC focused on the need to amend ICANN's Bylaws to reflect the committee's continuing role within ICANN. The resulting amendments are now before the Structural Improvements Committee (SIC), awaiting Board consideration at ICANN's Public Meeting in Singapore.
ALAC submitted its recommended ICANN Bylaw amendments to SIC on 3 June, after the public comment period on these amendments revealed no opposition.
If things go as the ALAC would like, the SIC will pass the amendments onto the Board, which will approve them during ICANN's Public Meeting in Singapore.
The ALAC/At-Large Improvements Project grew out of the ALAC's 2008 independent review, mandated by the ICANN Bylaws. Based on the findings, the Review Working Group on ALAC Improvements developed 13 recommendations for the ALAC and At-Large, published in the WG's Final Report [PDF, 270 KB].
The ALAC established four working teams (WTs) assigned to propose implementation plans for these recommendations.
The Improvements Project has truly been a bottom-up endeavor. Each WT includes members from all five of At-Large's Regional At-Large Organizations (RALOs), and the majority of WT co-chairs are, in fact, At-Large members who do not serve on the ALAC.
One recommendation in the Review WG's Final Report [PDF, 270 KB] focuses on the need to amend ICANN's Bylaws to reflect the ALAC's continuing purpose within ICANN in four ways:
- In providing advice on policy;
- In providing input into ICANN's operations and structure;
- As part of ICANN's accountability mechanisms; and
- As an organizing mechanism for some of ICANN's outreach.
Furthermore, the Final Report [PDF, 270 KB] acknowledges that the ALAC, as the representative body of At-Large, is ICANN's primary organizational home for individual Internet users.
To comply with these aspects of the Final Report [PDF, 270 KB], the ICANN Office of the General Counsel, the ALAC, and At-Large staff drafted a series of amendments to the ICANN Bylaws. Here is the primary new language:
The At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) is the primary organizational home within ICANN for individual Internet users. The role of the ALAC shall be to consider and provide advice on the activities of ICANN, insofar as they relate to the interests of individual Internet users. This includes policies created through ICANN's Supporting Organizations, as well as the many other issues for which community input and advice is appropriate. The ALAC, which plays an important role in ICANN's accountability mechanisms, also coordinates some of ICANN's outreach to individual Internet users.
- Main wiki page of Improvements WT A on ALAC's continuing purpose
Seth Greene, Interim At-Large Manager
At a Glance
The ALAC has planned a number of cross-community activities for the ICANN Public Meeting in Singapore – in particular, a multi-stakeholder meeting with the JAS WG and the ALAC's meeting with the GNSO's Business Constituency.
Like all ICANN communities, At-Large is now in full "Singapore swing." On its schedule for the public meeting are a number of notable cross-community activities.
ALAC has organized a multi-stakeholder meeting for members of the Board, the GAC, the GNSO, and At-Large with the SO/AC New gTLD Joint Applicant Support Work Group (JAS WG). The goal is to discuss both the JAS WG's recently completed Second Milestone Report [PDF, 282 KB] and its overall direction. A preparatory call among the participants was scheduled for the week of 13 June.
ALAC will also meet with the GAC in Singapore, as it did during ICANN's Silicon Valley Public Meeting in San Francisco. In addition, the ALAC has planned its first-ever meeting with the GNSO Business Constituency.
Another highlight on the At-Large schedule in Singapore will be the At-Large Structure (ALS) Showcase hosted by the Asian, Australasian and Pacific Islands Regional At-Large Organization (APRALO). The Showcase will feature presentations by various APRALO ALSs, as well as a keynote speech by Professor Peng Hwa Ang, Director of the Singapore Internet Research Centre.
The multi-stakeholder JAS WG meeting arose from a suggestion by Board member Katim Touray, made to the chairs of the WG's chartering organizations, the ALAC and GNSO. The idea had initially been presented at the recent Bo ard retreat in Istanbul.
Seth Greene, Interim At-Large Manager
16. Security & Stability Advisory Committee Comments on Orphan Glue Records in the Draft Applicant Guidebook
At a Glance
The SSAC proposes changes to registry management of orphan glue records in the draft New gTLD Applicant Guidebook, as well as a definition of the term for possible inclusion.
On 12 May 2011, the SSAC published its comment on how orphan glue records are defined and when they can be removed, in a document called "SAC048: SSAC Comment on the ICANN New gTLD Applicant Guidebook" [PDF, 200 KB].
Among the evaluation questions included as an attachment to the latest New gTLD Applicant Guidebook is one asking applicants to describe proposed policies and procedures to minimize abusive registrations and other activities that have a negative impact on Internet users, such as those governing the management and removal of orphan glue records. The SSAC notes that though orphaned glue records can be used for abusive purposes, it is primarily used to support the correct and ordinary operation of the DNS.
- SAC048: SSAC Comment on the Orphan Glue Records in the Draft New gTLD Applicant Guidebook [PDF, 200 KB]
- SSAC 2011 Work Plan [PDF, 111 KB]
- Other SSAC documents
Julie Hedlund, Director, SSAC Support
update-jun11-en.pdf [549 KB]