Skip to main content
Resources

ICANN POLICY UPDATE | Volume 11, Issue 7 — July 2011

This page is available in:

PDF Version [836 KB]

http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/

CONTENTS:

Across ICANN

  1. ICANN Public Comment Web Page Gets a New Look
  2. Issues Currently Open for Public Comment

ccNSO

  1. New Additions Bring ccNSO Membership to 116
  2. Highlights of ccNSO Meeting in Singapore
  3. ccNSO Rules and Guidelines Now Centralized on Web
  4. YouTube Videos Spotlight ccNSO Members

GNSO

  1. Singapore Session Highlights Different Views on UDRP
  2. Carnegie Mellon Begins Whois Misuse Study; Other Studies Move Forward
  3. GNSO Council Adopts Most of IRTP Part B Recommendations
  4. GNSO Improvements: Major Milestones Reached
  5. Other Issues Active in the GNSO

ASO

  1. AfriNIC Awaits Launch of Final Call on Policy Proposal for Recovered IPv4 Address Blocks

Joint Efforts

  1. Review of ICANN Geographic Regions: Draft Final Report Nears Completion
  2. Other Issues Active as Joint Efforts

At-Large

  1. At-Large Singapore Highlights
  2. Outreach for At-Large Expands in Eastern Europe

SSAC

  1. Issues Active in the SSAC

Read in Your Preferred Language

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

ICANN Policy Update statement of purpose

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

Policy Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees

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

Across ICANN

ICANN Public Comment Page

Screenshot of the redesigned Public Comment web page.

1. ICANN Public Comment Web Page Gets a New Look

At a Glance

The first phase of improvements to the Public Comment process is underway, with the launch of the redesigned ICANN Public Comment web page on 30 June 2011.

Recent Developments

The ICANN Public Comment landing page has been redesigned and restructured to support the implementation of the Accountability and Transparency Review Team Recommendations relating to how community members provide input on ICANN matters. The Public Participation Committee of the ICANN Board reviewed and approved these changes during its meeting in Singapore.

The new design is intended to standardize and simplify navigation and the presentation of the content. The information elements have not been altered substantially (other than an addition of Upcoming Public Comments list), but the page contents have been reorganized for uniformity and consistency. In essence, the aim is to place the predominant focus on topics that are open for Public Comments while links are provided to various other categories such as Upcoming, Recently Closed, and the Archived Public Comments.
The Upcoming page is a new feature (inspired by another ATRT recommendation) intended to provide community members with a preview of potential future topics. The current list was compiled with input from ICANN community leaders and the ICANN staff. Once each year, a formal collection and publishing cycle will be launched; thereafter, the list will be updated regularly.

Next Steps

Please review the new web page design, and provide any comments, suggestions or other feedback to Public Participation staff.

More Information

Staff Contact

Filiz Yilmaz, Senior Director, Participation and Engagement

2. Issues Currently Open for Public Comment

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

  • 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 period extended by one week to 22 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. 
  • Expanding Developing Economies’ Participation in the New gTLD Program. The Joint Applicant Support Working Group has published the Second Milestone Report, which deals with a very important issue: How can ICANN assist applicants from developing economies within the New gTLD Program? The objective is to develop a sustainable approach in providing support to applicants requiring assistance in applying for and operating new gTLD Registries. Comment by 29 July 2011.
  • Report on GAC’s Role within ICANN. A Joint Working Group of ICANN Board and GAC members submitted a report to the Board at the ICANN Public Meeting in Singapore reviewing the role of the GAC within ICANN. Comment by 6 August 2011.
  • IRTP Part B PDP Recommendations. The GNSO Council adopted a number of recommendations from the IRTP Part B Working Group Final Report. These will now be submitted to the ICANN Board for consideration, along with any public comment received. Comment by 8 August 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.

ccNSO

3. New Additions Bring ccNSO Membership to 116

At a Glance

Two country code operators from the European region and one from the African region were approved as new ccNSO members in June 2011.

Recent Developments

The Council of the ccNSO have approved Island Networks and Namibian Network Information Center, the ccTLD operators of .gg (Guernsey), .je (Jersey) and .na (Namibia), as new members. Guernsey and Jersey are islands in the English Channel, and Namibia is in southern Africa, bordered on the west by the Atlantic Ocean.

Background

The ccNSO now counts 116 members. As of June 2011, there have been a total of six applications to the ccNSO this calendar year.

More Information

Staff Contact

Gabriella Schittek, ccNSO Secretariat

4. Highlights of ccNSO Meeting in Singapore

At a Glance

The ccNSO has posted summaries of its numerous sessions held at the ICANN public meeting in Singapore in June.

Recent Developments

Audio files, transcripts, meeting summaries and evaluation surveys are available online from two full days of ccNSO sessions held during the ICANN Public Meeting in Singapore. More than 130 members attended from more than 50 ccTLDs.

More Information

Staff Contact

Gabriella Schittek, ccNSO Secretariat

5. ccNSO Rules and Guidelines Now Centralized on Web

At a Glance

The complete ccNSO Rules and Guidelines have been posted online for easy reference.

Recent Developments

On 22 June, the ccNSO Council adopted new guidelines pertaining to how Work Plans are maintained, updated and reviewed as well as how Council responses and statements are prepared and released. These were posted, along with a copy of the rules and additional guidelines, on the ccNSO web page.

Next Steps

Please bookmark and check the page frequently, as it is updated whenever new information is available.

More Information

Staff Contact

Gabriella Schittek, ccNSO Secretariat

6. YouTube Videos Spotlight ccNSO Members

At a Glance

Four new videos were posted on the ccNSO YouTube channel, each highlighting different aspects of the Council, its members, and the work they do.

Recent Developments

EURid, Registro .it and NIC Chile uploaded videos in June to the ccNSO channel on YouTube, adding to a collection of nearly 20 videos put on the site since its creation last year. The ccNSO Secretariat contributed a highlight video from the ICANN Public Meeting in Singapore.
EURid’s submission offers a humorous look at the ICANN Public Meeting in Brussels. The video uploaded by Registro .it reviews the process the registry underwent to obtain ISO quality certification. NIC Chile’s three-minute video highlights its 24-year history.

Next Steps

Subscribe to the ccNSO YouTube channel to be notified whenever new videos are posted. Contributions from all registries are welcome.

Background

The ccNSO YouTube channel was established in February 2010 in order to provide a platform for ccTLDs to learn more about each other in an informal way.

More Information

Staff Contact

Gabriella Schittek, ccNSO Secretariat

GNSO

7. Singapore Session Highlights Different Views on UDRP

Debate continues on whether the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy should be reviewed and updated

At a Glance

Reactions to the ICANN Staff recommendation to not commence a Policy Development Process on the UDRP at this time highlight the disparate views among the community on this issue.

Background

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, Staff published a Preliminary Issue Report [PDF, 2.25 MB] on the current state of the UDRP for discussion.  Upon review of the final issue report to be published after Singapore, the GNSO Council will consider whether to commence a policy development process (PDP) on the UDRP.

Recent Developments

In Singapore, a session on the current state of the UDRP elicited the opinions of 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 Singapore panelists also reacted to the staff recommendations regarding a possible review of the UDRP as described in the Preliminary Issue Report [PDF, 2.25 MB]. The Report describes staff’s view that the UDRP is an effective alternative to costly litigation for cybersquatting disputes, and that the processes associated with the UDRP are generally fair to the affected registrants. Several panelists concurred with the staff perspective that although the UDRP is not perfect, it may not be advisable to conduct a comprehensive review of the UDRP at this time. Others disagreed with ICANN staff’s recommendation against commencing a PDP on the UDRP, and suggested that a limited process that focuses specifically on the procedures, rather than the policy itself, may be warranted.

More Information

Staff Contact

Margie Milam, Senior Policy Counselor

8. Carnegie Mellon Begins Whois Misuse Study; Other Studies Move Forward

At a Glance

Whois is the data repository containing registered domain names, registrant contacts and other critical information. The GNSO Council is proceeding with four studies to provide current, reliable information for community discussions about Whois.

Recent Developments

Whois Misuse Study. The Carnegie Mellon University Cylab in Pittsburgh, PA, USA expects to have initial results in late 2012 from this study intended to discover to what extent public Whois information is used maliciously.
Whois Registrant Identification Study. The GNSO Council authorized staff to proceed in contracting with an RFP respondent to examine the extent to which domain names registered by legal persons or for commercial purposes are not clearly represented in Whois data.
Whois Proxy and Privacy Services Abuse Study. Staff is finalizing details of this study, slated to begin later this year. It will 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.
Whois Proxy and Privacy Services Reveal Study. A feasibility study is underway as of July 2011 to determine whether enough willing participants could be found to conduct a larger study measuring proxy and privacy service responsiveness to registrant "identity reveal" requests. Expect to see initial findings later this year.
Whois Service Requirements Study. The Drafting Team formed by the GNSO Council will survey community members to estimate the level of agreement with the conclusions and assumptions in the Inventory of Whois Service Requirements – Final Report [PDF, 636 KB]).

More Information

Staff Contact

Liz Gasster, Senior Policy Counselor

9. GNSO Council Adopts Most of IRTP Part B Recommendations

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 submission of the IRTP Part B Final Report to the GNSO Council, the GNSO Council considered the report and its recommendations at its public meeting in Singapore. The GNSO Council decided as follows.
It adopted the following recommendations:

  • Requiring Registrars to provide a Transfer Emergency Action Contact. To this end proposed language to modify section four (Registrar Coordination) and section six (Registry Requirements) of the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy has been provided (see GNSO resolution for further details).
  • Modifying section three of the IRTP to require that the Registrar of Record/Losing Registrar be required to notify the Registered Name Holder/Registrant of the transfer out. The Registrar of Record has access to the contact information for the Registrant and could modify their systems to automatically send out the Standardized Form for Losing Registrars to the Registrant.
  • Modifying Reason for Denial #6 as follows: Express objection to the transfer by the authorized Transfer Contact. Objection could take the form of specific request (either by paper or electronic means) by the authorized Transfer Contact to deny a particular transfer request, or a general objection to all transfer requests received by the Registrar, either temporarily or indefinitely. In all cases, the objection must be provided with the express and informed consent of the authorized Transfer Contact on an opt-in basis and upon request by the authorized Transfer Contact, the Registrar must remove the lock or provide a reasonably accessible method for the authorized Transfer Contact to remove the lock within five calendar days.
  • Deleting denial reason #7 as a valid reason for denial under section three of the IRTP as it is technically not possible to initiate a transfer for a domain name that is locked, and hence cannot be denied, making this denial reason obsolete.

Subsequent to this approval by the GNSO Council, a public comment forum was opened to obtain input prior to ICANN Board consideration. Comments may be submitted until 8 August 2011 at 11.00 UTC.
In addition, the GNSO Council took the following actions:

  • Recommended the promotion by ALAC and other ICANN structures of the measures outlined in the SSAC’s recent report on A Registrant's Guide to Protecting Domain Name Registration Accounts (SAC 044) [PDF, 377 KB];
  • Requested an Issue Report on IRTP Part C; deferred consideration of two of the IRTP Part B recommendations (#3 and #7), and;
  • Requested staff proposals on the standardizing and clarifying Whois status messages regarding Registrar Lock status as well as a new provision in a different section of the IRTP on when and how domains may be locked or unlocked.

For further information, please consult the IRTP Part B Working Group Workspace.

Background

The GNSO Council established a series of five Working Groups (Parts A through E) to review and consider various revisions to IRTP 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.

More Information

Staff Contact

Marika Konings, Policy Director

10. GNSO Improvements: Major Milestones Reached

ICANN Board and GNSO Council Take Significant Actions in Singapore

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 effort is reaching an end and below is information on the most recent developments.

Board Approves New Process for Recognition of New GNSO Constituencies

At its 24 June 2011 meeting, the ICANN Board approved a new "Process for Recognition of New GNSO Constituencies" and directed staff to begin implementation effective immediately (see Resolution 2011.06.24.09).

According to the Board, the promotion of new GNSO Constituencies was one of the fundamental recommendations of the GNSO Review effort and an important strategy to expand participation in GNSO policy development efforts. The Board’s Structural Improvements Committee (SIC) found that the original process for evaluating new GNSO Constituency proposals was not effective because of a lack of objective and measurable criteria by which prospective new GNSO Constituencies were formally evaluated and recognized. It also found that weaknesses in general process presented potential new Constituency prospects with considerable preparation work, indefinite time frames for Board review and lack of guidance on their prospects for Board approval.
This new process will accomplish four goals:

  • Optimize the considerable time and effort required to form, organize, and propose a new GNSO Constituency by providing a streamlined sequence of steps and associated evaluation criteria that are objective, fair, and transparent - with ample opportunity for community input;
  • Delegate more authority to each GNSO Stakeholder Group for evaluating new Constituency proposals while maintaining the Board's oversight role;
  • Manage the entire process to a flexible, but specific and limited timeframe; and
  • Provide a partial set of criteria for use during the periodic review of the GNSO.

The Board said that approval of new GNSO Constituencies will impact the ICANN budget by increasing the overall resources and administrative support necessary to conduct the additional Constituency activities. No substantial additional budget resources, however, will be triggered by the approval of this new recognition process. If anything, this new process will make the evaluation of new GNSO Constituency proposals more efficient budget-wise. The new criteria may also make future independent review efforts of the GNSO more efficient.

The recognition of new GNSO Constituencies has a new process.

Board Formally Recognizes New Not-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency in the GNSO

The Board approved the proposed charter of a new Not-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency and formally recognized the organization as an official Constituency within the GNSO's Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) eligible for formal GNSO administrative support and subject to the NCSG Charter previously approved by the Board (see - Resolution 2011.06.24.05). The Board specifically thanked Debra Y. Hughes, appointed by the Board to the GNSO Council, for her leadership in helping to establish the new Constituency.

The Board stated that the promotion of new GNSO Constituencies was one of the fundamental recommendations of the GNSO Review effort and a key strategy to expand participation in GNSO policy development efforts. According to the Board, the approval of the first new GNSO Constituency in a decade will impact the ICANN budget by increasing administrative support of community activities during ICANN Public meetings and throughout the year, but that this increase is within the parameters of the proposed FY12 budget.

Board Approves Permanent Charters of Commercial and Non-Commercial Stakeholder Groups

The Commercial and Non-Commercial Stakeholder Groups now have permanent charters following the Board’s approval at its 24 June 2011 meeting. (See Resolution 2011.06.24.04 for the CSG and Resolution 2011.06.24.07 for the NCSG.)

Regarding both new charters, the Board noted that its decision "provides a degree of certainty and finality regarding the community debate over the relationship between Constituencies and Stakeholder Groups in the GNSO in that it affirms the ability of individual communities to establish and manage processes and procedures – consistent with existing ICANN Bylaws principles -- that allows them to govern and expand their participation in GNSO policy development efforts in a manner best suited to their individual communities." 
The Board indicated that it intends to re-examine the charters, structure and operations of the GNSO’s various stakeholder groups "consistent with the timetable for the next independent review of the GNSO."

Staff Summary of PDP Final Report Comments Published

The Public Comment Forum for the New GNSO Policy Development Process closed on 9 July 2011. Staff produced a Report of Public Comments [PDF, 473 KB] received in the proceeding on 11 July 2011.

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 to be included in the GNSO Council Operating Procedures as the PDP Manual.
The most substantial of the recommendations include:

  • Recommending the use of a standardized "Request for an Issue Report Template"
  • The introduction of 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
  • A Requirement that each PDP Working Group operate under a Charter
  • Changing the existing Bylaws so that upon initiation of a PDP, public comment periods are optional rather than mandatory, at the discretion of the PDP Working Group
  • 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 WG producing both an Initial Report and Final Report, but giving the WG discretion to produce additional outputs
  • A recommendation allowing for the termination of a PDP prior to delivery of the Final Report
  • 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
  • The use of Implementation Review Teams

Further details and background on the different recommendations, the proposed Annex A and PDP Manual can be found in the PDP Work Team (PDP-WT) Final Report.

The GNSO Council will now likely consider this Final Report for adoption at its upcoming teleconference meeting on 21 July 2011. The Council is likely to direct its PDP-WT to review the Staff Report as well as the submitted comments and make any "final" changes to the Final Report as it deems appropriate.

More Information about the GNSO Improvements

Staff Contact

Robert Hoggarth, Senior Policy Director

11. Other Issues Active in the GNSO

ASO

12. AfriNIC Awaits Launch of Final Call on Policy Proposal for Recovered IPv4 Address Blocks

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.

Recent Developments

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 the five RIRs. APNIC, the registry that originated the proposal, has adopted it, and LACNINC is in the final call stage. AfriNIC now awaits the launch of the final call phase. The proposal is in the discussion stage with the remaining two RIRs.
According to this proposal, IANA would establish and administer a pool of returned address space that would be allocated to all RIRs simultaneously in reduced but equal blocks. Pool size permitting, the allocations would occur every six months.

Next Steps

If and when this policy proposal is adopted by all five RIRs, the Number Resource Organization Executive Committee and the Address Supporting Organization Address Council will review the proposal and forward the policy to the ICANN Board for ratification and implementation by IANA.

Background

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.

More Information

  • 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.

Staff Contact

Olof Nordling, Director, Service Relations

Joint Efforts

13. Review of ICANN Geographic Regions: Draft Final Report Nears Completion

Working Group Conducts Singapore Workshop

At a Glance

The Geographic Regions Review Working Group is identifying the different purposes for which ICANN’s Geographic Regions are used, to determine whether the framework continues to meet the requirements of community members and to consider making recommendations relating to the current and future uses and definition of the ICANN Geographic Regions.

Recent Developments

The Working Group held a community workshop at the ICANN Public Meeting in Singapore to discuss potential recommendations to be included in the Final Report to the Board. 

Next Steps

The Working Group has continued its recent Final Report drafting effort and plans to release a draft Final Report for community review and comment in the coming weeks. 

More Information

Staff Contact

Robert Hoggarth, Senior Policy Director

14. Other Issues Active as Joint Efforts

At-Large

15. At-Large Singapore Highlights

At a Glance

At-Large experienced many firsts and successes at the ICANN Public Meeting in Singapore. These included new collaborative efforts with other ICANN communities, significant progress on support for new gTLD applicants from developing economies, and a high-energy APRALO Showcase.  

Recent Developments

The ALAC held 17 major meetings in Singapore. The community was strongly represented by 25 members from all five At-Large regions. In addition to community members, officers of the Regional At-Large Organizations and members of numerous At-Large Structures attended.

Among the highlights:

  • ALAC’s meeting with ICANN’s Board. The Board again strongly confirmed At-Large’s vital role in the new gTLD program – both in helping to resolve outstanding applicant support issues and in outreach to end users.
  • ALAC’s meeting with ICANN’s CEO. The ALAC explained the purpose of its new Future Challenges Working Group to the CEO. This WG, launched in June, will focus on policy issues that the ALAC would like to proactively introduce to the ICANN community and Board. In addition, the CEO expressed appreciation for the statement submitted by the ALAC on the Notice of Inquiry from the US National Telecommunications and Information Administration regarding the renewal of the IANA contract.
  • High-energy APRALO Showcase. This Showcase highlighted the diversity of the ALSs that make up the Asian, Australasian and Pacific Islands Regional At-Large Organization. The region’s newest ALS, Netmission.ASIA [PDF, 152 KB], with members as young as 14 years, was represented in full force. Five ALSs gave presentations, as did Rajnesh Singh, APRALO’s first chair, and Dr. Ang Peng Hwa, director of the Singapore Internet Research Centre. 
  • Progress on applicant support in the new gTLD program. The ALAC and GAC conducted promising discussions regarding the Second Milestone Report [PDF, 282 KB] of the Joint Applicant Support Working Group (JAS WG) in Singapore. Follow-up work is already in progress. 
  • ALAC collaboration with the GNSO’s CSG, NCUC, and NCSG, as well as with registrars. The ALAC held productive cross-community meetings with these groups in Singapore, during which work on a number of collaborative projects moved forward. These include the creation of end-user educational materials by the ALAC and registrars. The ALAC meeting with CSG was the first of its kind.

More information

Staff Contact

Seth Greene, Interim At-Large Manager

16. Outreach for At-Large Expands in Eastern Europe

At a Glance

EURALO has begun publishing its monthly Secretariat’s Report in Russian as well as English – a significant step toward increased outreach in Eastern Europe.

Recent Developments

In May, the European Regional At-Large Organization held a successful General Assembly in Belgrade, Serbia. Two highlights were the election of new EURALO officers and the discussion of efforts to conduct even more outreach in Eastern Europe.

Oksana Prykhodko, a member of the Ukraine’s European Media Platform, was elected Secretariat in July, and began a new monthly practice of publishing EURALO’s monthly Secretariat’s Report in Russian as well as English. This is a first for EURALO.

Bilingual reports are expected to significantly increase the interest shown by Eastern European organizations in EURALO’s work. Already they have increased the accessibility that Internet end users in that region have to EURALO, At-Large, and ICANN.

As a small taste of this accomplishment, here is an excerpt of Oksana’s just-published June Secretariat’s Report – for those who read either Russian or English: 

Oдним из основных результатов Генеральной Ассамблеи EURALO в Белграде стало создание ALS для индивидуальных членов.

One of the main results of EURALO’s Belgrade General Assembly was a plan to create an ALS for individual members.

More information

  • EURALO Secretariat’s June Report, Russian [PDF, 97 KB] and English.

Staff Contact

Seth Greene, Interim At-Large Manager

SSAC

17. Issues Active in the SSAC

 

update-jul11-en.pdf  [1.23 MB]

A note about our terms of service:

We have updated our electronic terms of service to provide greater transparency and align with laws applicable to us. Learn more.

This site uses cookies to deliver an efficient user experience and to help us see how the site is used. Learn more.OK

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