ICANN POLICY UPDATE | Volume 13, Issue 6 – July 2013 Issue
Special ICANN 47 Durban Meeting Edition
PDF Version [986 KB]
- Issues Currently Open for Public Comment
- Community-wide Working Group Completes Geographic Region Recommendations: Opportunity For SO-AC Reviews
- More than 5,000 Subscribe to Policy Update Newsletter
- Policy Development at ICANN
- Still Time to Tell us What You Think of Moving Policy Update to myICANN
- All ccNSO Meetings Information Posted for ICANN 47 Durban
- Volunteers Finish First Look at Country and Territory Names as Potential TLDs
- Working Group Notes Improvements in ICANN Annual Budget
- ccNSO Members to Vote Again on Internationalized Domain Names
- Apply Before 2 August for ccNSO Funding to ICANN 48
- Comment Now on Whether all gTLD Registries Should Provide Thick Whois
- Locking of a Domain Name Subject to UDRP Proceedings Policy Development Process Working Group publishes Final Report
- IGO-INGO Working Group Releases Initial Report — Seeks Community Input on Proposed Recommendation Options
- Call for Volunteers: Drafting Team to Develop Charter for a GNSO Working Group on Metrics, Reporting
- At-Large Community Members Prepare for ICANN's Durban Meeting
- AFRALO Plans Showcase, Reception in Durban
- ALAC Submits Four Policy Advice Statements in mid-May and late-June
- New ALAC Policy Advice Development Chart
- Beginner's Guide to Policy Advice in the ALAC Supports At-Large Community Outreach and Engagement
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 currently open on issues of interest to the ICANN community. Act now to share your views on such topics as:
Proposed Renewal of .BIZ gTLD Registry Agreement. The current .BIZ Registry Agreement with Neustar, Inc. expired on 30 June. Reply period closes 15 July.
Proposed Renewal of .INFO gTLD Registry Agreement. The current .INFO Registry Agreement with Afilias Limited expired on 30 June. Reply period ends 24 July.
Thick Whois Initial Report – GNSO Policy Development Process. Should all new gTLDs have to use "thick" Whois? Comment period closes 14 July; reply period closes 4 August.
Consultation on the Source of Policies & User Instructions for Internet Number Resource Requests. Help develop user instructions including technical requirements for the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority function. Comment period closes 16 July; reply period closes 7 August.
Initial Report on Protection of IGO and INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs. Should some names, like Red Cross Red Crescent Movement and International Olympic Committee, be protected in all gTLDs? Comment period closes 17 July; reply period closes 7 August.
Proposed Renewal of .ORG gTLD Registry Agreement. The current .ORG Registry Agreement with Public Internet Registry will expire on 31 August. Comment period closes 21 July; reply period closes 12 August.
Draft Final Report on Universal Acceptance of IDN TLDs. Comment now on recommendations to ensure that registration systems and services accept Internationalized Domain Names. Comment period closes 25 July; reply period closes 16 August.
Draft Final Report ccNSO Study Group on the Use of Country and Territory Names as TLDs. Is a cross community working group, with participants from ALAC, ccNSO, GAC and GNSO, a good next step for determining how to use country and territory names as TLDs? Comment period closes 1 August; reply period closes 30 August.
GNSO Structures Charter Amendment Process. How should Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies make changes to their charters? Comment period closes 28 August; reply period closes 18 September.
For the full list of issues open for public comment, plus recently closed and archived public comment forums, visit the Public Comment web page.
The staff also populates a web page to help preview potential "upcoming" public comment opportunities. The recently updated "Public Comments – Upcoming" page provides information about potential future public comment opportunities. The page is designed to be updated after every ICANN Public Meeting to help individuals and the community to set priorities and plan their future workloads.
2. Community-wide Working Group Completes Geographic Region Recommendations: Opportunity For SO-AC Reviews
At a Glance
A community-wide Working Group formed by the ICANN Board has nearly completed its work developing recommendations for the continued use of the ICANN Geographic Regions Framework. The Working Group has produced those recommendations in a Final Report document that has been shared with the community.
The Geographic Regions Review Working Group is a community-wide working group (including GNSO representatives) established by the ICANN Board to (1) identify the different purposes for which ICANN's Geographic Regions are used; (2) determine whether the uses of ICANN's Geographic Regions (as currently defined, or at all) continue to meet the requirements of the relevant stakeholders; and (3) submit proposals for community and Board consideration relating to the current and future uses and definition of the ICANN Geographic Regions.
The Working Group has nearly completed its work developing recommendations to the ICANN Board for the continued use of the ICANN Geographic Regions Framework. The Working Group has produced those recommendations in a published Final Report.
Among its recommendations, the Working Group has concluded that wholesale modifications to the original geographic regions framework are not merited, and recommends that ICANN adopt its own Geographic Regions Framework based upon the current assignment of countries to regions. The Working Group suggests that the new framework should govern the make-up of the ICANN Board. To provide flexibility to individual communities and structures within ICANN, the Working Group recommends that for the time being, individual communities and structures be permitted to (1) follow the same framework as the Board, or (2) develop their own mechanisms (with Board oversight) for ensuring geographic diversity within their own organizations. The full set of Working Group recommendations are set forth in the Final Report document.
The Working Group's Final Report has been shared directly with the leadership of the SOs and ACs participating in the Working Group. They will have 90 days after the conclusion of the Durban meeting to discuss the recommendations with their communities and, if they choose, to submit written statements back to the Working Group. Later this year, after that exchange has taken place, the Working Group will formally submit its Final Report recommendations to the ICANN Board.
Geographic diversity is a fundamental component of the ICANN organization. The ICANN Bylaws (Article VI Section 5) currently define five geographic regions as Africa, North America, Latin America/Caribbean, Asia/Australia/Pacific and Europe. The Bylaws require the community to review the geographic regions framework at regular intervals.
In a September 2007 Report to the ICANN Board, the ccNSO highlighted a number of concerns about the current definition and use of Geographic Regions and recommended the appointment of a community-wide working group to study these issues. The Board requested the ICANN Community, including the GNSO, ccNSO, ASO, GAC, and ALAC, to provide ICANN Staff with input on the ccNSO's recommendation.
Following input and support from the GNSO, ALAC, and GAC, the ICANN Board authorized the formation of the proposed working group and approved the Working Group Charter. The Charter outlined a three-stage process to include a thorough review of the geographic regions framework, effective community collaboration between various supporting organizations and advisory committees, and production of final recommendations that had community support.
Rob Hoggarth, Senior Policy Director
At a Glance
ICANN's online monthly newsletter increased its subscribers by more than 60 percent since last year at this time. At the end of June 2013, 5,167 individuals subscribed to the email newsletter; the year prior, subscribers numbered 3,151.
Subscribers to Policy Update have steadily increased over the past year. The English language version draws the most readers, followed by Spanish and French. The newsletter is available also in Arabic, Chinese and Russian.
Each monthly issue of Policy Update provides the latest status of issues working their way through the community-based, consensus-driven policy development processes within ICANN. This newsletter accommodates ICANN Newcomers and veterans by also providing high-level explanations of a broad range of policy development activities, detailed updates on specific issues, and links to more information.
At a Glance
This month we thought we'd share an overview of the policy development process at ICANN as a refresher for our regular readers and a primer for a newcomer. Policy recommendations are formed and refined by the ICANN community through its Supporting Organizations and influenced by Advisory Committees — all comprised of volunteers in a "bottom-up," open and transparent process.
A sample of ICANN stakeholders includes companies that offer domain names to the public (registrars), companies that operate top-level domain registries (gTLD and ccTLD registries), Internet Service Providers, intellectual property interests, business users, non-commercial users (such as academics, non-governmental organizations, non-profits and consumer advocates), individual Internet users and governments.
Each Supporting Organization (SO) has its own specific process to conduct policy development.
- The GNSO Policy Development Process is defined in Annex A of the ICANN Bylaws as well as the GNSO Operating Procedures. Additional information can be found here: http://gnso.icann.org/en/basics/consensus-policy/pdp.
- The ccNSO Policy Development Process is defined in Annex B of the ICANN Bylaws.
- The ASO Policy Development Process is laid out in the Memorandum of Understanding. Additional information can be found here: http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#VIII.
Graphic "overview" depictions of each SO's processes are set forth below.
See more GNSO policy process details here — http://gnso.icann.org/en/basics/consensus-policy/pdp .
See more ccNSO policy process details here — http://ccnso.icann.org/policy/pdp-15jan13-en.pdf [PDF, 2.03 MB].
Global policies must first be ratified by the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs). Each RIR community must ratify an identical version of the proposed policy. The NRO Executive Council (NRO EC) then refers the coordinated proposal to the ASO Address Council (ASO AC), which reviews the process by which the proposal was ratified and, under the terms of the ASO Memorandum of Understanding, passes it to the ICANN Board of Directors for ratification as a global policy.
For current global policy proposals, please visit the ASO Global Policy Proposals page.
The Policy Team provides regular updates on the status of various PDP efforts within each of the SO's before every ICANN Public Meeting and, from time-to-time, at other regional meetings. The presentation for the most recent policy webinar in preparation for the ICANN Public Meeting in Durban can be found here — http://www.icann.org/en/resources/policy/presentations.
As we reported in last month's issue, we are hoping to streamline our communications with you. To ensure you get just the information you're looking for each month, we are considering migrating Policy Update to delivery through myICANN later this year.
We know you rely on Policy Update for the latest status of issues working their way through the bottom-up, consensus-based policy development process within ICANN. We are investigating ways to make that same great content available through myICANN rather than through a monthly online newsletter sent to you via email.
We'd like your thoughts on this potential change and ask you to share your thoughts with us at email@example.com. Please put "Policy Update Delivery" in the subject line of your email. Thanks to those subscribers who have already provided comments.
In the meantime, if you have not yet done so, please sign up today for a myICANN.org account, to make sure that you continue receiving Policy Update's high-level explanations about a broad range of ICANN policy development activities, detailed updates on specific issues and links to more information. It's easy and it's free!
At a Glance
All relevant information for the ccNSO Meetings in Durban is gathered on one web page — e.g., agendas, rooms and time information, summaries of presentations, pre-registrations, etc.
The page will be updated throughout and after the meeting and presentations, meeting reports, transcripts and the meeting evaluation survey results will be posted here as soon as possible.
Gabriella Schittek, ccNSO Secretariat
At a Glance
The ccNSO Study Group has published research on country and territory names with draft recommendations.
The ccNSO Study Group on the use of country and territory names as TLDs has just published its draft Final Report to seek public comment and feed-back. The Study Group has developed a typology for country and territory names, which was validated through a survey by UNESCO. Based on the typology and the categories of country and territory names contained therein, the Study Group identified potential issues under current and future policies and methodologies.
In summary, the Study Group made the following observations and draft recommendations:
The Study Group observed an incredible level of complexity associated with any attempt to definitively categorize country or territory names, especially when such an effort includes multiple languages or scripts.
A consistent observation was the inability of individual "lists" or resources to provide comprehensive, consistent or universal guidance regarding the various representations of country and territory names, particularly as a result of geo-political changes, the creation of new countries and the dissolution of others.
The Study Group observed that ICANN's current policies and procedures (as they may relate to ccTLDs, IDNs or current and potential new gTLDs) do not afford consistent treatment of country and territory names.
The Study Group says current IDN Fast Track and IDN ccTLD policy are restricted. The major restrictions are that an IDN ccTLD string should provide a meaningful representation in a designated language of the territory, and that only one string per designated language can be requested.
The Study Group says, if adopted, the IDN ccTLD policy should be reviewed in five years, which includes a review of these restrictions.
The Study Group will advise the ccNSO Council to set up a cross community working group, with participants from ALAC, ccNSO, GAC and GNSO to further review the current status of representations of country and territory names, and provide detailed advice on the feasibility and content of a consistent and uniform definitional framework that could be applied across the respective SO's and AC's.
The ccNSO Council will also be advised to request the ICANN Board to extend the current rule in the new gTLD Applicant Guidebook regarding the exclusion of all country and territory names in all languages, for consecutive rounds of new gTLD applications, until such a time that the ccWG has come up with the framework.
The Study Group will review comments and feedback from the community and will finalize its report. The Final Report will then be submitted to the ccNSO Council for review and further action, if any.
The ccNSO Council established by resolution the Study Group on the use of Country and Territory Names on 8 December 2010. The Study Group was tasked with developing an overview of:
- How names of countries and territories are currently used within ICANN, be it in the form of policies, guidelines and/or procedures.
- The types of strings, relating to the names of countries and territories that currently used, or proposed to be used, as TLDs.
- The issues that arise (or may arise) when current policies, guidelines and procedures are applied to these representations of country and territory names.
The Study Group is comprised of representatives from across the ICANN stakeholder community and conducted its work between May 2011 and June 2013.
Bart Boswinkel, ccNSO Senior Policy Advisor
At a Glance
ccNSO Strategic and Operational Working Group submits comments on the ICANN's Operational Plan and Budget.
The ccNSO Strategic and Operational Working Group (SOP WG) has submitted its comments on ICANN's FY2014 Draft Operational Plan and Budget. The SOP WG says the draft plan is a significant improvement from previous draft Operational Plans and Budgets. However as before, the SOP WG urges ICANN to include quantitative and/or qualitative, measurable milestones, goals and deliverables for the various activities and projects in the plan.
The plan indicates that there will be a strong increase in operating expenses for ICANN operations. Understandably, the WG says, the professionalization of ICANN will cost money, but in a situation of global economic recession and difficult domain name trading conditions, such an increase should be clearly justified. The plan also shows a large increase in staff in the course of FY 2014. In the view of the SOP WG there is a clear risk that this will lead to insufficient attention to increasing individual productivity and performance.
The SOP WG was created at the Cairo ICANN meeting in November 2008. The goal of the WG is to coordinate, facilitate, and increase the participation of ccTLD managers in ICANN's strategic, operational planning and budgetary processes.
According to its Charter [PDF, 74 KB] the WG may take a position and provide input to the public comments forum and relate to ICANN or other Supporting Organizations and Advisory WG's on its own behalf. The views expressed are therefore not necessarily those of the ccNSO (Council and membership) or the ccTLD community at large. The ccNSO Council and individual ccTLD managers, either collectively or individually, will be invited to endorse or support the position or input of the WG. Membership of the WG is open to all ccTLD managers (members and non-members of the ccNSO).
Bart Boswinkel, ccNSO Senior Policy Advisor
At a Glance
IDN ccPDP enters a second, final round of voting by the ccNSO Members.
At the Beijing meeting the ccNSO Council adopted a set of proposals relating to the selection of IDN ccTLD strings and on the inclusion of IDN ccTLD's in the ccNSO as the Council Recommendation. The ccNSO members were given the opportunity to vote upon the Council Recommendation. Unfortunately the required 50% quorum was not met (65 ccTLD managers cast their votes — 3 short of the 68 ccTLD voters required by the process). As a result a second, final round of voting will now be conducted.
The second, final round of voting on the ccNSO Council Recommendation, which includes proposals for the overall policy for the selection of IDN ccTLD strings and on the inclusion of IDN ccTLD in the ccNSO, is now scheduled to start at 24 July 2013 and close on 17 August 23.59 UTC.If the Council Recommendation is adopted by the membership of the ccNSO it will be submitted to the ICANN Board as the ccNSO Recommendation to replace the IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process and will end a six-year process.
During the ccNSO meeting in Durban, an analysis of the first round of voting will be presented for discussion.
- The Council Recommendation is documented in the ccPDP Members report [PDF, 380 KB]
Bart Boswinkel, ccNSO Senior Policy Advisor
At a Glance
ccNSO Opens for Travel Funding Applications to Buenos Aires
The ccNSO travel funding committee is now accepting applications for support to attend the ICANN meeting in Buenos Aires, Argentina 17 — 21 November 2013.
Applications are welcome until 12.00 noon UTC on 2 August 2013. The ccNSO Travel Fund Committee will evaluate the applications received.
Funding is made available for those who actively participate in the work of the ccNSO and make a special contribution to its projects and meetings. However, one does not need to be a ccNSO member to receive funding.
Gabriella Schittek, ccNSO Secretariat
At a Glance
The Thick Whois Working Group (WG) has published its Initial Report. Members of the public may comment now on the recommendations regarding the use of thick Whois by all gTLD registries On balance the Working Group concludes that there are more benefits than disadvantages to requiring thick Whois for all gTLD registries. As a result, the Working Group recommends that the provision of thick Whois services should become a requirement for all gTLD registries, both existing and future.
Recent Developments and Next Steps
In its seven months of deliberations, the Thick Whois Working Group (WG) analyzed the relevant issues laid out in its Charter, including: response consistency; stability; access to Whois data; impact on privacy and data protection; cost implications; synchronization / migration; authoritativeness; competition in registry services; existing Whois applications; data escrow, and registrar Port 43 Whois requirements (see section 5 of the Initial Report).
The WG published its Initial Report [PDF, 1.21 MB] on 21 June for public comment. Comments may be submitted until 4 August. In its Report, the Working Group concluded that the provisions of thick Whois services should become a requirement for all gTLD registries — both existing and future. Once all community comments and replies have been received the Group will review these contributions and — where appropriate — amend the Report and submit final version to the GNSO Council. The Working Group is hosting a public session at the ICANN Public Meeting in Durban to present its work and engage in community discussions.
In its Final Report on 30 May 2011 the IRTP B Working Group recommended to the GNSO to seek an Issue Report on the requirement of thick Whois for all incumbent gTLDs, which the GNSO Council then requested at its meeting on 22 September 2011. The PDP was subsequently initiated on 4 March 2012 and the Working Group had its inaugural session in November 2012.
The issue of significant importance because ICANN specifies Whois service requirements for all generic top-level domain (gTLD) registries through the registry and registrar agreements. However, registries and registrars satisfy their Whois obligations using two different service models. These models are often characterized as "thin" and "thick" Whois registries as they manage relevant datasets differently. One set of data is associated with the domain name, and a second set of data is associated with the registrant of the domain name. A thin registry only stores and manages the information associated with the domain name. This set includes data sufficient to identify the sponsoring registrar, status of the registration, creation and expiration dates for each registration, name server data, the last time the record was updated in its Whois data store, and the URL for the registrar's Whois service. With thin registries, registrars manage the second set of data associated with the registrant of the domain and provide it via their own Whois services, as required by Section 3.3 of the RAA for those domains they sponsor .COM and .NET are examples of thin registries. Thick registries maintain and provide both sets of data (domain name and registrant) via Whois .INFO and .BIZ are examples of thick registries.
In the thin model, registrars set their own conventions and standards for submission and display, archival/restoration and security registrant information. As a result the different Whois regimes that exist within the thin model are criticized for the variability among Whois services within the same top-level domain, which can be problematic for legitimate forms of automation. It is this problem that prompted the IRTP B Working Group to recommend requiring thick Whois across incumbent registries — in order to improve security, stability and reliability of the domain transfer process. Indeed, a thick Whois model offers attractive archival and restoration properties. If a registrar were to go out of business or experience long-term technical failures rendering them unable to provide service, registries maintaining thick Whois have all the registrant information at hand and could transfer the registrations to a different (or temporary) registrar so that registrants could continue to manage their domain names.
Marika Konings, Senior Policy Director
12. Locking of a Domain Name Subject to UDRP Proceedings Policy Development Process Working Group Publishes Final Report
At a Glance
A GNSO Working Group has now submitted its Final Report to the GNSO Council, including 17 full consensus recommendations, which are intended to clarify and standardize the process for locking of a domain name subject to UDRP Proceedings.
Recent Developments and Next Steps
The "locking" of a domain name registration associated with UDRP proceedings are not something that is currently required by the UDRP as written, but is a common practice that has developed around it. Since there is no uniform approach, the GNSO Council initiated a PDP and formed a Working Group to address and unify the issues surrounding the locking of a domain that is subject to a UDRP proceeding.
Following review of the public comments received on its Initial Report, the Working Group has now submitted its Final Report to the GNSO Council. The document includes 17 full consensus recommendations, which are intended to clarify and standardize the process for locking of a domain name subject to UDRP Proceedings, including:
- Definition of 'locking'
- Requiring registrar to apply lock within 2 business days following request for verification
- Removing obligation for complainant to notify the respondent at the time of filing, but add automatic extension of 4 days to response time upon request
- Step by step clarification of requirements of parties
- Development of educational and informational materials to assist in informing affected parties of new requirements and recommended best practices
Following the submission of the Working Group's Final Report, the GNSO Council will now consider the report and its recommendations for adoption.
The "locking" of a domain name that is subject to UDRP proceedings is not something that is literally required by the UDRP as written, but is a practice that has developed around it. As a result, there is no uniform approach, which has resulted in confusion and misunderstandings. The GNSO Council initiated a PDP on this specific topic in December 2011 and tasked the WG to make recommendations to the GNSO Council to address the issues identified with the locking of a domain name subject to UDRP Proceedings. As part of its deliberations, the WG was required to consider the following questions:
Whether the creation of an outline of a proposed procedure, which a complainant must follow in order for a registrar to place a domain name on registrar lock, would be desirable.
Whether the creation of an outline of the steps of the process that a registrar can reasonably expect to take place during a UDRP dispute would be desirable.
- Whether the time frame by which a registrar must lock a domain after a UDRP has been filed should be standardized.
Whether additional safeguards should be created for the protection of registrants in cases where the domain name is locked subject to a UDRP proceeding.
4a. Whether what constitutes a "locked" domain name should be defined.
4b. Whether, once a domain name is 'locked' pursuant to a UDRP proceeding, the registrant information for that domain name may be changed or modified.
- Locking of a Domain Name Subject to UDRP Proceedings — Final Report [PDF, 1 MB]
- Locking of a Domain Name Subject to UDRP Proceedings — Initial Report [PDF, 840 KB]
- Public Comments received on Initial Report
- Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy
- Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy
- Working Group Workspace
Marika Konings, Senior Policy Director
13. IGO-INGO Working Group Releases Initial Report — Seeks Community Input on Proposed Recommendation Options
At a Glance
The GNSO Council has initiated a Policy Development Process (PDP) on the protection of names and acronyms of certain international organizations in the top and second levels of all gTLDs including, International Government Organizations and International Non-Governmental Organizations such as the Red Cross/Red Crescent (RCRC) and the International Olympic Committee (IOC).
- The GAC in its Beijing Communiqué advised that the IOC/RCRC names be permanently protected at both the top and second levels in all new gTLDs. The New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC) accepted the GAC advice and current protections for RCRC/IOC names adopted by the NGPC for the top and second levels are indefinite until the GNSO provides policy recommendations that would require further and/or additional action.
- The PDP Working Group published its Initial Report on 14 June 2013 for public comment which includes policy recommendation options that are currently being considered by the WG, but do not represent a consensus position. The Initial Report public comment forum is directly soliciting community feedback on the policy recommendation options.
- In its Beijing Communiqué the GAC reiterated its advice that "appropriate preventative initial protection for the IGO names and acronyms on the provided list be in place before any new gTLDs would launch," while noting the outstanding implementation concerns particularly related to acronyms. In response to this GAC advice, the NGPC adopted a motion on 2 July providing temporary protections for the names and acronyms of 192 IGOs listed by the GAC at the second level, pending further dialogue between the NGPC and the GAC; also subject to any GNSO policy recommendations that would require further and/or additional action.
- WG session at the ICANN Public Meeting in Durban on Monday 15 July from 15:00 — 17:00 (local time)
- Panel Discussion on special protections for IGO and INGO names in Durban on Wednesday, 17 July from 11:00 — 12:30 (local time)
- WG to review input received in view of reaching consensus on a set of policy recommendations
- Publication of draft Final Report for public comment
The ICANN Board requested the GNSO Council to provide policy advice on whether to protect IGO, Red Cross, IOC and other INGO names at the top and second levels for new gTLDs; the GNSO Council initiated a PDP in October 2012. A PDP Working Group has been meeting on a regular basis since that time, but has been unable to reach consensus on developing policy recommendations on either the need to provide permanent protections for these organizations' names or, what types of protections should be provided. The WG just released an Initial Report outlining proposed recommendations options if protections were to be granted.
Brian Peck, Berry Cobb, ICANN
14. Call for Volunteers: Drafting Team to Develop Charter for a GNSO Working Group on Metrics, Reporting
At a Glance
ICANN seeks volunteers to develop a charter for a future working group that will explore opportunities regarding reporting and metrics recommendations that could better assist the policy development process by enhancing fact-based decision-making.
The Drafting Team is expected to develop a Charter on the basis of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines [PDF, 350 KB] taking into account the Final Issue Report on Uniformity of Reporting [PDF, 1.5 MB]. The Report recommends that the Working Group:
- Review how the community can collaborate with contracted parties and other service providers to share complaint and abuse data that may help to further educate Registrants and Internet users when submitting complaints to relevant parties.
- Investigate more formal processes for requests of data, metrics and other reporting needs from the GNSO that in turn may aid GNSO policy development processes.
On 9 May 2013, the GNSO Council approved the report's recommendations to await further action from the ICANN Contractual Compliance Team regarding metrics and reporting until the conclusion of the team's three-year plan towards the end of 2013. In the meantime, the GNSO Council also adopted the recommendation to form a non-PDP Working Group tasked with exploring opportunities of reporting and metrics recommendations that might better inform policy development via fact-based decision making, where applicable. An availability review of both ICANN internal and external data sources is expected to help inform the deliberations of the WG.
The GNSO Council invites interested parties to provide names of volunteer participants who can be added to the drafting team mailing list. Anyone is welcome to join. Community members who wish to be invited to join the group should contact the GNSO Secretariat and will be expected to provide a Statement of Interest.
In 2010, the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group (RAPWG) identified the "need for more uniformity in the mechanisms to initiate, track, and analyze policy-violation reports" and recommended "the GNSO and the larger ICANN community in general, create and support uniform reporting processes." The GNSO, in collaboration with the community and ICANN Contractual Compliance, deliberated the issues through due diligence analysis, a review of current state compliance reporting systems, and future state implementation plans within ICANN. Based on the information gathered, the GNSO Council recommended the creation of an Issue Report [PDF, 1.5 MB]. The report created by ICANN staff further outlined accomplishments regarding reporting and metrics for the Contractual Compliance function and it also reviewed other reporting sources that may be of relevance.
Berry Cobb, ICANN
In June, ICANN's Address Supporting Organization (ASO) announced the re-election of Mr. Kuo Wei Wu ICANN Board seat 10 for a three-year term. This will be his second term.
He is the CEO of NIIEPA, a non-profit organization in Taipei working on research and consultant services in Internet policy and Information security for government, research institutions, universities, and industry.
Barbara Roseman, Policy Director and Technical Analyst
At a Glance
Representatives from the At-Large community will hold many meetings during the 47th ICANN Meeting scheduled to take place in Durban, South Africa 14-18 July 2013. These meetings include their traditional policy meetings, At-Large Working Group Meetings, and meetings with the ICANN Board of Directors.
In addition, the At-Large community members will also participate actively in many of the public meetings taking place during the ICANN Public Meeting in Durban either in-person or using remote participation tools.
The ALAC will be busy in policy development activities in 26 At-Large meetings, which include:
- ALAC and Regional Leadership Meeting
- At-Large Regulatory Issues Group
- Academy Working Group Session
- At-Large Multistakeholder Policy Roundtable
- AFRALO Showcase and Reception
- ALAC Meeting with the ICANN Board
- ALAC Meeting with the ATRT2
- Two ALAC Policy Discussion Sessions — Part 1 and Part 2
- ALAC Executive Meeting and Regional Leaders Meeting with the ASO Leadership
- NARALO Monthly Meeting
- APRALO Monthly Meeting
- GAC Meeting with ALAC
- ATLAS II Organizing Committee
- At-Large New gTLD Working Group
- At-Large Regional Leadership Meeting
- AFRALO / AFRICANN Joint Meeting
- At-Large IDN Working Group
- ALAC & Regional Leadership Wrap-Up Meeting
- At-Large Capacity Building Working Group
- ALAC Executive Committee
- Agendas in English, French and Spanish and remote participation instructions are available for At-Large Meetings scheduled to take place during ICANN's 47th Public Meeting in Durban on the Durban At-Large Durban Meeting Agendas Workspace
At a Glance
Representatives from the African Regional At-Large Organization (AFRALO) will hold a Showcase and Reception with the theme "AFRALO: Getting closer to the local African End User Community" in Durban, South Africa, on Monday, 15 July 2013 between 18:00-19:30 in the ICC Hall 2AB.
The event will feature addresses by Fadi Chehadé, ICANN President and Chief Executive Officer; Steve Crocker, Chairman of the ICANN Board; Sebastien Bachollet, Member of the ICANN Board selected by At-Large; Tarek Kamel, Sr. Advisor to President — Governmental Engagement; Pierre Dandjinou, VP, Stakeholder, Engagement, Africa; Chair of the ALAC, Olivier Crépin-LeBlond, and AFRALO leaders, Fatimata Seye Sylla, Chair of the AFRALO; Tijani Ben Jemaa, Vice-Chair of AFRALO and ALAC representative; and Aziz Hilali, Secretariat of AFRALO.
AFRALO has also invited University teachers and students as well as representatives of non-governmental organizations to discuss their experiences and roles in the internet governance eco-system as well as the major challenges faced by the African internet end users, their vision for the future of internet governance in Africa and expectations of ICANN in this regard. These local African end users will be presenting their perspectives of the future of the Internet.
The event will include a slide show and conclude with entertainment and light refreshments.
Silvia Vivanco, Manager, At-Large Regional Affairs
At a Glance
The ALAC continues its high rate of preparing statements in response to ICANN Public Comment periods, as well as comments and communications. Between mid-May and late-June, the ALAC submitted four statements. The ALAC is currently developing several additional policy advice statements.
The four ALAC policy advice Statements submitted between mid-May and late-June are summarized below.
- The ALAC recognizes the efforts to forge a stronger clause on conditions for changing the relationship midstream, including termination of the agreement. This development has our full endorsement, although it would have been helpful if some examples of 'material breach' were enumerated.
- Some have argued the intent in this clause undermines the bottom-up multi-stakeholder model on which ICANN is built. We disagree and take a different and more benign view of the role reserved for ICANN as a public benefit corporation. Indeed, there might be exceptional circumstances in which ICANN would have to take unilateral action – part of being prepared for unknown unknowns.
- The ALAC was among those who condemned the severe restrictions placed on some stakeholder parties from the negotiating sessions and even at this stage, we remain convinced it was unwise to exclude the community from even an active 'watching brief' of the negotiations especially for a contract intended to convey consensus policies and around which so many stakeholder interests converge. We deplore the flagrant lack of transparency in this process.
- The ALAC applauds the contractual obligation imposed on Registrars to support future development in Whois specifications, inclusive of an ability to develop centralized Whois service across all Registrars.
- The ALAC very much appreciates the effort made by the ICANN Finance department to improve the budget development process, consequently allowing more interaction with the community and more time for the development process. Unfortunately, for FY14, the improved process wasn't followed due to changes in ICANN management and the subsequent new visions and new working methods.
- The New gTLD applicant support contribution ($138,000) is an expense for ICANN, not an income. The ALAC would appreciate an explanation as to why it is put on Slide 42 in the application fees to be received rather than in the expenses.
- Regarding the New gTLD program, Slide 42 shows that the staff allocation cost doubled in the full program current estimation compared to the prior estimation of June 2012. The ALAC would like to know the reason for this huge increase.
- The ALAC is concerned by the very low allocation for the ATRT2 professional service set in the spreadsheet to only $37,800. This amount is insignificant compared to ATRT1 spent professional services.
- The ALAC supports the intent of what is requested in the New gTLD safeguards outlined within the GAC Communiqué issued during the ICANN 46th meeting in Beijing.
- The ALAC finds it regrettable that these safeguards were not introduced by the GAC during the design of the New gTLD program or much earlier in the implementation process.
- The ALAC feels that it is important for the ICANN Board to note that different stakeholder groups in the ICANN ecosystem have different consultation requirements to come to an agreed position. Some (like the GAC and the ALAC) may require more time to provide meaningful, representative and consultative feedback.
- The GAC advice carries tremendous value in terms of consumer protection, which the ALAC fully appreciates.
- The ALAC makes the following recommendations in regards to the implementation of IDN Variant Top-level Domains:
- Introduce IDN Variant TLDs carefully and implement complementary IDN policies concurrently to nurture the growth of the IDN market;
- Bundle the delegation of TLDs and variant TLDs appropriately to ensure consumer trust among the implicated user communities;
- Prepare user communities (both IDN users and non-IDN users) via dedicated outreach well in advance of IDN Variant TLD delegation;
- Demonstrate a strong commitment to multilingualism and facilitate the process of finding common ground between the technical and linguistic communities towards introducing IDN Variant TLDs without undermining the security and stability of the Domain Name System;
- Expedite the implementation of the Root Zone Label Generation Rules (LGR) process in general and accelerate the delivery of the Han script rule-set given that its variants are well defined and understood; and
- Strengthen the Root Zone Label Generation Rules (LGR) process by involving the ICANN community in the governance oversight of the process as well as in the implementation planning and delivery of IDN Variant TLDs. In addition: a) ensure that the Root Zone LGR process is accountable and transparent; b) address the weaknesses of the process that have been identified by the community; and c) improve the ICANN Public Comments process, which is a core feedback mechanism for the Root Zone LGR process.
Matt Ashtiani, Policy Specialist
At a Glance
The ALAC has redeveloped its Policy Advice Development Process Chart in order to make the ALAC's policy development process more understandable to all members of the At-Large community as well as to all members of the broader ICANN community.
The ALAC has professionally redeveloped its Policy Advice Development Process Chart to make its procedures for giving advice more open, transparent, and accessible to all.
The chart is designed to help those interested in the ALAC's policy advice development process better understand the steps taken when new Public Comments are opened. Specifically, the chart outlines the procedures for drafting, ratifying, and submitting Statements containing policy advice.
Matt Ashtiani, Policy Specialist
20. Beginner's Guide to Policy Advice in the ALAC Supports At-Large Community Outreach and Engagement
At a Glance
At the request of the At-Large community, a Beginner's Guide to Policy Advice in the ALAC will be rolled out during the 47th ICANN Meeting in Durban. This Beginner's Guide is the fifth in a series of ICANN Beginner's Guides intended to provide information on ICANN policies and procedures in a clear and concise manner for people new to the ICANN community.
The Beginner's Guide to Policy Advice in the ALAC provides information on how the ALAC is organized, its policy advice development process, major policy issues and how they affect end users. The guide discusses how individuals and organizations can become involved in At-Large, and provides a list of available resources for additional information and participation.
ICANN Beginner's Guides are booklets intended to help newcomers to a topic quickly grasp the basics. Created at the request of the At-Large community (the voice of the individual Internet user within ICANN), these Guides help de-mystify some of the complexity within ICANN's technical coordination and policy-making mission.
The Beginner's Guide to Policy Advice in the ALAC will be introduced during the Durban Meeting and will be available for download in English on the At-Large Durban Meeting Workspace.
The At-Large community has played a key part in the creation of the Beginner's Guide series of documents, including the first four Beginner's Guides.
- Beginner's Guide to Participating in ICANN
- Created to introduce newcomers to ICANN, the Beginner's Guide to Participating in ICANN is designed to provide you with the tools and resources you need to be an effective participant in ICANN's community-based policy-making process. Published in October 2012.
- Beginner's Guide to Participating in At-Large
- ICANN's community of individual Internet users is known as the At-Large community, or just At-Large. The Beginner's Guide to Participating in At-Large provides information on ICANN's multistakeholder model and the role of the At-Large community, its working procedures, policy issues it has focused on, as well as how individuals and organizations can become involved. Published in March 2012.
- Beginner's Guide to Internet Protocol (IP) Addresses
- Internet Protocol (IP) addresses are the unique identifying numbers that all computers and devices connected to the Internet depend on to communicate with each other. When the pool of available unallocated addresses for IPv4, the original IP addressing system, completely depleted this year, the Internet began a transition to IPv6, a newer Internet Protocol system. This highly readable guide, created in cooperation with ICANN's At-Large community, helps the individual user understand IP addresses and the transition from IPv4 to IPv6.
- Beginner's Guide to Domain Names
- A domain name can become where other people find you online, and adds to your online identity. Although domain names are a big part of the Internet, understanding how these names work (and the ins and outs of obtaining them) can be mystifying at first. This highly readable guide, created in cooperation with ICANN's At-Large community, helps the individual user understand and use domain names.
The goal is to produce a Beginner's Guide for publication at each ICANN Public Meeting.
Matt Ashtiani, Policy Specialist
At a Glance
During ICANN 47, the GAC will continue its discussions on the remaining issues related to the New gTLD Program as outlined in the Beijing GAC Communiqué [PDF, 159KB].
ICANN receives input from governments through the GAC. The GAC's key role is to provide advice to ICANN on issues of public policy, and especially where there may be an interaction between ICANN's activities or policies and national laws or international agreements. The GAC usually meets three times a year in conjunction with ICANN meetings, where it discusses issues with the ICANN Board and other ICANN Supporting Organizations, Advisory Committees and other groups. The GAC may also discuss issues between times with the Board either through face-to-face meetings or by teleconference.
Jeannie Ellers, ICANN staff
ICANN's Root Server System Advisory Committee is implementing their transition plan and preparing procedures for their operational processes.
The RSSAC is also defining metrics for assessing the health of the root server system and creating a baseline of data to be used when the new gTLDs begin entering the root zone. This will allow the root server operators to assess changes, if any, that accompany an expanded root zone.
Barbara Roseman, Policy Director and Technical Analyst
The Security and Stability Advisory Committee advises the ICANN community and Board on matters relating to the security and integrity of the Internet's naming and address allocation systems. This includes operational matters (e.g., matters pertaining to the correct and reliable operation of the root name system), administrative matters (e.g., matters pertaining to address allocation and Internet number assignment), and registration matters (e.g., matters pertaining to registry and registrar services such as Whois). SSAC engages in ongoing threat assessment and risk analysis of the Internet naming and address allocation services to assess where the principal threats to stability and security lie, and advises the ICANN community accordingly.
The SSAC produces Reports, Advisories, and Comments on a range of topics. Reports are longer, substantive documents, which usually take a few or several months to develop. Advisories are shorter documents produced more quickly to provide timely advice to the community. Comments are responses to reports or other documents prepared by others, i.e. ICANN staff, SOs, other ACs, or, perhaps, by other groups outside of ICANN. The SSAC considers matters pertaining to the correct and reliable operation of the root name system, to address allocation and Internet number assignment, and to registry and registrar services such as Whois. The SSAC also tracks and assesses threats and risks to the Internet naming and address allocation services.
Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
update-jul13-en.pdf [985 KB]