ICANN POLICY UPDATE | Volume 10, Issue 4 — April 2010
PDF Version [232 KB]http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/
- Call for Volunteers: Must ccNSO Change to Include Internationalized Country Codes?
- Delegation/Re-delegation WG Leads Substantive Discussion in Nairobi
- “Wildcarding” ccTLDs Present Their Case
- ccNSO Opens Dialog on Financial Contributions to ICANN
- How Would DNS-CERT and Incident Response Group Interact?
- Strategic & Operational Planning WG Publishes Analysis of ICANN’s 2011 Plan
- ccNSO Councilors: Moreno and Robles Depart; Drazek and Toledo Join
- ICANN Board Adopts Strict Restrictions on Vertical Integration
- How Much Are Facts About Whois Worth?
- Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy WG Incorporates Community Statements into Report
- Registration Abuse Policies WG Reconvenes to Consider Community Comments
- Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery WG Absorbs Results of Member Survey
- GNSO Improvements: Post-Nairobi, Work Teams Extended
- Other Issues Active in the GNSO
- ALAC Advises on ICANN’s 2011 Operating Plan and Budget
- Chair Reports At-Large Achievements in Nairobi
- New At-Large Outreach Brochure Available in Six UN Languages
Read ICANN News in Your Preferred Language
ICANN Policy Update is available in all six official languages of the United Nations. Policy Update is posted on ICANN’s website and available via online subscription. To receive the Update in your Inbox each month, visit the ICANN subscriptions page, enter your e-mail address, and select “Policy Update” to subscribe. This service is free of charge.
If you want to follow ICANN activities even more closely, try the ICANN Monthly Magazine. Each edition contains details on three policy topics; summaries of recent Board meetings, details of how to participate in ICANN's processes and an interview with a key member of the ICANN community. The Monthly Magazine is also available in six UN languages.
Send questions, comments and suggestions to: email@example.com.
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|
What Is Consensus Policy?
While “policy” is a normal dictionary word that everyone understands, at ICANN, “consensus policy” is a technical term loaded with special meaning. This month’s edition of ICANN Start features Margie Milam, Senior Policy Counselor, explaining the hidden implications of consensus policy. Along the way, she also clarifies the difference between “registrar” and “registry.” This is excellent foundational material for newcomers to ICANN’s policy development process.
Watch for a new episode of ICANN Start on the first of each calendar month. Each audio episode focuses on one issue and, through interviews with an expert, provides answers to foundational questions.
You’ll find the podcast on the ICANN web site, which also provides a written transcript of each episode. Many of Apple’s global iTunes stores carry the show; to check for it, in the podcast section of iTunes search for “ICANN Start.”
Numerous public comment periods are open on issues of interest to the ICANN community. Act now for the opportunity to share your views on such items as:
- GNSO Policy Development Process on Vertical Integration between Registries and Registrars. Should a registry be able to own and operate a registrar? Should a registrar be able to own and operate a registry ? If so, should there be any restrictions? Comments accepted through 18 April 2010.
- Draft FY11 Community Travel Support Guidelines. In addition to Board members and staff attending ICANN international meetings, about 100 members of the ICANN community receive travel support. What guidelines should govern how ICANN spends nearly $1.5 million in travel funding? Comment by 7 May.
- Report of Possible Process Options for Further Consideration of the ICM Applications for the .XXX sTLD. ICANN turned down ICM’s application for a sponsored Top Level Domain, .XXX. In February, an independent review panel ruled that ICANN did not show proper grounds for doing so. What now? Comment by 10 May 2010.
For the full list of issues open for public comment, plus recently closed and archived public comment forums, visit the Public Comment page.
At a Glance
The ccNSO has issued a call for volunteers from the community of people who operate country code Top Level Domains (ccTLDs), whether they are members of the ccNSO or not, to participate in a working group. The group will study, then recommend, any changes that might be needed to the structure and mechanisms of the ccNSO so that the organization can include internationalized domain name (IDN) ccTLD operators.
The ccNSO issued their call for volunteers just after the Nairobi meeting in early March. They seek participants from the ccTLD community to form a working group under the country code policy development process (PDP) on the introduction of IDN ccTLDs. The purpose of this working group, known as IDN PDP Working Group II, is to examine the structure and setup of the ccNSO and propose changes (if needed) so that managers of IDN ccTLDs can participate in the ccNSO as full members and on equal footing. Doing so could potentially require changes to ICANN’s Bylaws, Article IX (and related annexes).
The ccNSO Council will appoint working group volunteers, who will then start discussion to identify any issues related to including IDN ccTLDs in the ccNSO.
IDNs are domain names written in non-Western scripts, such as Arabic, Cyrillic, or Chinese. The ccNSO is currently conducting a policy development process contemplating recommendations for how IDN policy should work permanently and how IDN ccTLDs will be included in the ccNSO.
- Article IX of the ICANN Bylaws
- The charter of IDN PDP Working Group II [PDF, 84 KB]
- IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process
Bart Boswinkel, Senior Policy Advisor, ccNSO
At a Glance
Re-delegation refers to the process of changing the designated manager(s) of a country code top-level domain (ccTLD). The standards for doing so have been the same since 1999, so a ccNSO Working Group is reexamining how country codes are delegated, re-delegated, and retired.
As part of its fact-finding activities and identification of issues, the Working Group conducted workshops and sessions with the ccTLD community in Nairobi.
The working group had published its first progress report prior to the Nairobi meeting in March, and used the occasion of the meeting as an opportunity to hear responses and share experiences. (A transcript of the meeting is available from the Nairobi meeting web site.)
The group expects to continue substantive discussions on delegation practices to identify issues. The WG will present results of this discussion to the ccTLD and broader community at the next ICANN meeting, to be held during June in Brussels.
Currently, the ICANN policy and practices for delegation and re-delegation are reflected in established IANA processes. In carrying out these processes, IANA follows the list of country codes published by the ISO 3166 Maintenance Agency. For more information about establishing new ccTLDs, see IANA's Procedures for Establishing ccTLDs and IANA’s delegation reports.
Re-delegation of a ccTLD is conducted according to the principles described in ICP-1 and RFC 1591 [TXT, 20 KB]. The policy and process are also reflected in IANA reports that illustrate many of the considerations made in deciding whether or not to re-delegate. In light of the changed environment and circumstances since RFC 1591 was last revised in 1999, the ccNSO considered it time to review the current policies. The ccNSO wants a better understanding of any issues relating to the current policies, before taking possible further steps.
Bart Boswinkel, Senior Policy Advisor, ccNSO
At a Glance
The ICANN Board has asked country code top level domain (ccTLD) managers to avoid the use of “wildcarding,” also known as redirection at the top level of the DNS. However, some ccTLD operators view the practice as essential. A few of them explained their reasons to the ccNSO, in Nairobi.
While ICANN’s Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) has linked wildcarding with problems affecting several Internet protocols (see SAC041), research indicates that some ccTLDs may use wildcards for legitimate technical reasons. At the ccNSO meeting in Nairobi, some ccTLD operators who use “wildcards” gave a presentation showing why. (The presentations can be found on the ccNSO’s Nairobi Agenda page, under Tuesday 9 March.) The working group will further study these aspects.
The working group also presented its findings so far. These results are available from the working group’s home page.
The group will now summarize its findings and try to liaise with ccTLD managers who are still using wildcards, in order to understand their position. The working group hopes to be able to present its results at the Brussels meeting this coming June.
“Wildcarding,” or DNS redirection, turns up most often during web surfing. In this context, when a user makes an HTML query for a non-existent domain, “wildcarding” is the practice of responding with links to marketing web sites, when the proper response should return an error message. This is also known as DNS redirection, or a synthesized response. The Internet is more than web surfing, so redirection has negative ramifications on DNS, email, and other protocols and processes.
At ICANN’s June 2009 international meeting in Sydney, the ICANN Board passed a resolution requesting that the ccNSO propose mechanisms to avoid the use of redirection and synthesized DNS responses by a ccTLD.
At ICANN’s October 2009 meeting in Seoul, the ccTLD community discussed the use of synthesized responses and their impact on the Domain Name System (DNS). In order to create a better understanding of the negative impact, and to learn why some ccTLDs allowing “wildcarding,” the ccNSO Council initiated a study group. They appointed Young Eum Lee and Ondrej Filip, both members of the ccNSO Council, as co-chairs of the group.
- ICANN Start podcast: audio explanation of wildcarding [MP3, 20 MB]
- Ad-hoc Wildcard Study Working Group page
- SAC015: “Why Top Level Domains Should Not Use Wildcard Resource Records”
- SAC032, “Preliminary Report on DNS Response Modification” [PDF, 496 KB]
- Board resolution prohibiting synthesized responses by TLDs
Bart Boswinkel, Senior Policy Advisor, ccNSO
At a Glance
The ccNSO Council committed to start dialogue on the financial contributions ccTLDs provide to ICANN’s cost of operations.
At the ccNSO meeting in Nairobi, the ccNSO Council committed to entering into a dialogue with both the ccTLD community and ICANN on issues relating to ccTLD financial contributions, and ICANN expenses attributable to ccTLDs.
The ccNSO Council noted the gap between current ccTLD contributions to ICANN and the sum attributable to ccTLDs in the recent ICANN expense analysis. The Council also noted that ccTLD contributions to ICANN have risen by almost 150% over time. As a starting point, the Council reaffirmed the current ICANN ccTLD contribution guidelines, which were developed by the ccNSO in 2006.
Bart Boswinkel, Senior Policy Advisor, ccNSO
At a Glance
In February, ICANN posted a proposal for forming a Domain Name System Computer Emergency Response Team (DNS-CERT). Aspects of the proposed DNS-CERT overlap duties within the scope of the ccNSO’s Incident Response working group. The group has proposed updating its charter to include coordination with ICANN’s DNS-CERT initiative.
The ccTLD community present in Nairobi noted that ICANN’s DNS-CERT initiative relates directly to the activities of the Incident Response working group (IR WG). To coordinate the work of the IR WG in relationship with the DNS–CERT initiative, the chair of the working group was asked to include a new mandate in the group’s charter, and to propose that the Council adopt the updated charter.
The ccNSO Council will be asked to adopt the updated charter at its next meeting, and the IR WG will update its working plan according to what the Council decides.
The ccNSO Council has written to ICANN’s CEO about his public statements on the vulnerability of the DNS in the context of ICANN’s DNS-CERT initiative. According to the Council’s letter, security remains a core strategic and operational priority for the ccTLD community. The community remains strongly committed to working with ICANN, other Internet stakeholders, and governments to ensure the stable and secure operation of the DNS. As the DNS-CERT initiative is closely related to the activities of the IR WG, the working group seeks to define its role in relation to the DNS-CERT.
- Letter of ccNSO Council [PDF, 68 KB] to ICANN’s President and CEO
- Incident Response Working Group information
- DNS-CERT Business Case [PDF, 600 KB]
Bart Boswinkel, Senior Policy Advisor, ccNSO
At a Glance
The ccNSO Strategic and Operational Planning Working Group (SOP WG) published its review and analysis of ICANN’s Operational Planning Framework for fiscal year 2011.
The SOP WG reviewed ICANN’s operational plan framework and published its analysis to inform ccTLD managers who might choose to submit their individual comments to ICANN. The review focused on five areas that ccTLD managers perceived as the most relevant priorities in the Strategic Plan 2009-2012, according to a survey conducted among ccTLD managers. They perceive ICANN’s five top priorities as:
- Enhance Internet security
- Implement IDNs
- Ensure ICANN financial accountability
- Strengthen ICANN’s multi-stakeholder model
- Strive for excellence in core operations.
For further details, refer to the SOP’s report [PDF, 152 KB].
The SOP WG has been established to facilitate and increase the participation of the ccTLD community in ICANNs Strategic and Operational Planning processes.
- SOP Review and Analyses [PDF, 152 KB] of ICANN FY11 Strategic Plan
- Results of ccTLD Survey on ICANN’s Strategic Plan [PDF, 224 KB]
At a Glance
The ccNSO Council welcomed two new councillors and thanked departing councilors.
The ccNSO Council thanked Oscar Moreno and Oscar Robles, whose terms have ended, for their time on the ccNSO Council. Oscar Robles was a member of the first ccNSO Council. The ICANN Board also formally recognized and conveyed deep appreciation to both councilors for their contributions to the community.
The Council welcomed Keith Drazek, .US, representing the North American region, and Rolando Toledo, .PE, representing the Latin American and Caribbean Region, for a three-year term on the Council.
Paulos Nyirenda, .MW (African Region), Chris Disspain, .AU, (Asia/Australia/Pacific Region), and Lesley Cowley, .UK, (European Region) have been re-appointed. Their new terms commenced after the Nairobi meeting.
The ccNSO Council consists of 18 members and observers and liaisons. Three members of the Council are appointed by ICANN’s Nominating Committee process. Members of the ccNSO appoint the remaining fifteen councilors.
Gabriella Schittek, ccNSO Secretariat
GNSO seeks input on cross-ownership between Registrars and Registries
At a Glance
Public Comment will guide the GNSO work team exploring whether policies should be adopted that allow or restrict vertical integration and cross-ownership between registrars and registries.
In Nairobi, the ICANN Board adopted a series of resolutions to guide the implementation of the New gTLD Program. One of these resolutions established a baseline approach on the topic of vertical integration. W ithin the context of the new gTLD process, ICANN will require strict separation of entities offering registry services and those acting as registrars. No co-ownership will be allowed. However, the Board acknowledged the GNSO’s active policy development process (PDP) underway on the topic of Vertical Integration. It said that if a policy becomes available from the GNSO in a timely manner, it will be considered by the Board for adoption as part of the New gTLD Program instead of the baseline approach established by the Board.
The GNSO has convened a working group to consider the policy implications of vertical separation rules for the New gTLD Program, and for existing gTLDs. The Vertical Integration Working Group is conducting this work in an expedited process to be concluded by the end of June, 2010. Meeting that deadline could enable the policy recommendations to be incorporated into the Applicant Guidebook to be adopted by ICANN for the first round of new gTLD applications.
As part of this process, the Vertical Integration Working Group is seeking input from the public, and also seeks Constituency and Stakeholder Group position statements. This public comment forum offers an opportunity for you to comment on any aspect related to the topic of vertical integration between registries and registrars that you think the Working Group should take into account as part of its deliberations. For example, comments may be submitted on: (i) recommended models for the New gTLD Program, (ii) the analysis conducted by economists retained by ICANN, including the CRA Report [PDF, 512 KB] as well as the one recently submitted by Salop and Wright [PDF, 42 KB], (iii) the Board approved model proposed at the ICANN Meeting in Nairobi on 12 March 2010, or (iv) whether the restrictions currently applicable to existing gTLD registries should be changed, or (v) additional work that should be performed by the Working Group to recommend models for the New gTLD Program. The public comment forum closes on April 18 th.
- New gTLD Program home page
- Draft Applicant Guidebook version 3 [PDF, 1.6 MB]
- Issues Report on Vertical Integration [PDF, 244 KB]
- The Public Comment Forum on Vertical Integration
- Board approved model on Vertical Integration in the New gTLD Program
Margie Milam, Senior Policy Counselor
GNSO Council discusses whether to fund Whois studies
At a Glance
Whois is the data repository containing registered domain names, registrant contacts and other critical information. Because of the global scale and critical importance of Whois, adjustments to it must be handled with great care. Questions persist concerning the use and misuse of this important public resource. The GNSO Council continues its inquiries into the suitability of Whois as the Internet evolves, and is considering whether to conduct targeted studies that will provide current, reliable information to inform community discussions about Whois. Evaluating Whois will take years, but the process has begun.
The first areas of possible Whois study have been grouped into three broad categories:
- Whois Misuse. Potential Misuse studies focus on discovering to what extent public Whois information is used for harmful purposes. ICANN issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) in September 2009, asking any knowledgeable and qualified researchers to estimate the costs and feasibility of conducting these studies. Three responses were received and Staff has presented an analysis for GNSO Council and community consideration. The GNSO Council will be discussing whether to recommend funding for this study at its meeting on 21 April.
- Whois Registrant Identification. This effort could examine the extent to which domain names registered by legal persons or for commercial purposes are not clearly represented in Whois data. An RFP has been issued, and vendors have responded. Staff also prepared an analysis of those responses for GNSO Council and community consideration. The GNSO Council will be discussing whether to recommend funding for this study at its meeting on 21 April.
- Whois Proxy and Privacy Services. These studies could examine the extent to which privacy and proxy registration services are abused to: 1) obscure the source of illegal or harmful communication; and 2) delay source identification. Staff is defining the Terms of Reference (TOR) for this area of study and is now targeting release of at least one more RFP later this month or in May.
Two more important categories of study are following behind these first three.
- International display specifications. In June 2009 at Sydney, the ICANN Board passed a resolution asking the GNSO and the SSAC to form a joint Working Group to look at the feasibility of introducing display specifications so that the increasing prevalence of non-ASCII registration data does not compromise the accuracy of Whois. (Editor’s Note: In other words, Whois data has been primarily in English and other Western languages, but with internationalized domain names in Arabic, Chinese, and Russian expected later this year, more and more Whois entries will be entered in other character sets. Without standards, Whois could turn into an unreadable polyglot mess.) The Working Group is in the early stages of considering “What do we require from internationalized registration data?” The group will also address technical questions regarding how data elements might be “extensible” to accommodate users who would benefit from registration information displaying in familiar characters from local languages and scripts.
- Whois service requirements. A fifth important study area, separately requested by the GNSO in May 2009, would compile a comprehensive list of Whois service requirements, based on current policies and previous policy discussions. On 26 March, ICANN Staff released an initial report on this matter. Staff will be conducting two webinars to discuss this report with the community, one on 20 April and one on 4 May. Staff is also seeking input on this report from the SOs and ACs and will be incorporating these consultations into a final report before Brussels.
- GNSO Whois policy development page
- Background on Whois Studies
- Whois misuse RFP announcement
- Whois registrant identification RFP announcement
- SSAC037: Display and Usage of Internationalized Registration Data
- ICANN Board Resolution regarding display and usage of internationalized registration data, approved in Sydney, 26 June 2009
- Internationalized Data Registration Working Group Charter [PDF, 112 KB]
- Staff analysis of Whois Misuse and Registrant Identification Reports [PDF, 488 KB]
- Audio Briefing: Introduction to the Whois Service Requirements Inventory [MP3, 15 MB]
- Inventory of Whois Service Requirements [PDF, 672 KB]
Liz Gasster, Senior Policy Counselor
At a Glance
The Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) aims to provide a straightforward procedure for domain name holders to transfer their names from one ICANN-accredited registrar to another. The GNSO is reviewing and considering revisions to this policy.
Recent Developments and Next Steps
The Working Group finished reviewing the official statements it received from Constituencies and Stakeholder Groups. The WG will continue revising its draft Initial Report and will work on developing recommendations on the questions its charter tells it to address. For further information, please consult the IRTP Part B Working Group Workspace.
The IRTP Part B Working Group addresses five issues relating to domain name transfers, specified in their Charter. The IRTP Part B Working Group has been meeting bi-weekly.
- 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]
Marika Konings, Policy Director
At a Glance
Registries and registrars seem to lack uniform approaches for dealing with domain name registration abuse, and questions persist as to what actions "registration abuse" refers. The GNSO Council has launched a Registration Abuse Policies (RAP) Working Group to examine registration abuse policies.
The Working Group published its Initial Report in February. They held an information session at the ICANN meeting in Nairobi in conjunction with a public comment period, which drew eleven community submissions. ICANN staff summarized and analyzed the comments received. The Working Group will now reconvene to review the comments received and discuss what modifications need to be made, if any, in order to finalize its report and submit it to the GNSO Council for its consideration.
The Initial Report makes recommendations related to cybersquatting, Whois access problems, malicious use of domain names, deceptive and/or offensive domain names, and numerous related issues. You can download the paper from ICANN’s web site [PDF, 1.8 MB].
The RAP Working Group addresses issues outlined in its charter, such as: defining the difference between registration abuse and domain name abuse; the effectiveness of existing registration abuse policies; and which areas, if any, would be suitable for GNSO policy development to address. The group has generated a document that provides working definitions of types and categories of abuse, and cites the primary target for each abuse type.
In addition, a Uniformity of Contracts sub-team formed, and meets regularly to review existing abuse provisions in registrar and registry agreements and to discuss questions related to the uniformity of contracts. The sub-team examines issues such as, would there be benefits to having more uniformity in contracts? How effective are existing provisions in dealing with registration abuse?
The RAP Working Group held an open meeting [TXT, 76 KB] in Seoul, South Korea last October. There, it briefed the community on its activities and discussions to date, including updates from the different sub-teams on Uniformity of Contracts and Spam, Phishing, Malware.
Click here for further background.
- Registration Abuse Policies Working Group Draft Initial Report [PDF, 1.8 MB]
- Registration Abuse Policies Issues Report, 29 October 2008 [PDF, 400 KB] and translation of summary
- Registration Abuse Policies Mexico City Workshop Transcript [TXT, 76 KB]
- Registration Abuse Policies WG Charter
- Registration Abuse Policies Working Group Workspace (Wiki)
At a Glance
To what extent should registrants be able to reclaim their domain names after they expire? At issue is whether the current policies of registrars on the renewal, transfer and deletion of expired domain names are adequate.
Recent Developments & Next Steps
The Working Group continues meeting weekly to discuss the questions outlined in its charter. In order to facilitate forward motion in this process, a survey was conducted among the members of the Working Group to assess their views on the various charter questions and determine where there is common ground and where there is further work to be done. The Working Group is now reviewing the survey results, and will start revising the draft Initial Report and discussing potential recommendations in response to the charter questions.
For a history of the ICANN community’s policy development activities related to Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery, please refer to the PEDNR Background page.
- GNSO Issues Report on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery [PDF, 416 KB]
- Translations of the GNSO Issues Report on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery
- ICANN Staff response to GNSO request for clarifications
- PEDNR Public Comment Period
- Working Group presentation: Registrar Survey Final Results [PDF, 948 KB]
Marika Konings, Policy Director
Implementation efforts continue in five major areas
Public Internet Access Constituency proposed
At a Glance
Members of the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) community are working to implement a comprehensive series of organizational changes designed to improve the effectiveness and accessibility of the organization. The GNSO Improvements fall into five main areas;
- Restructuring the GNSO Council;
- Revising the GNSO Policy Development Process (PDP);
- Adopting a New Working Group Model for Policy Development;
- Enhancing Constituencies; and
- Improving Communication and Coordination with ICANN structures.
The following update relates only the most recent developments regarding implementation of the GNSO Improvements. To understand the GNSO's new structure and organization, please see the discussion and diagrams on the GNSO Improvements webpage. For the reasons and history motivating the improvements, see the Background page.
At the March meeting in Nairobi, the GNSO Council recognized the need to continue GNSO Improvement work efforts, and thus agreed to extend the charters of the GNSO Improvements Implementation Steering Committees and their work teams until the Latin America ICANN meeting to be held in December 2010. (For details, see the minutes of the meeting.)
1. Restructuring the GNSO Council. Further modifications to the Council’s new operational rules and procedures are still under consideration (including matters regarding voting abstentions and Councilor Statements of Interest).
2. Revising the PDP . This work team has now discussed all five stages of the potential new PDP framework, and prepared a draft report for review. The team will now focus its attention on a number of other issues such as translation, timing, voting thresholds, decision-making methodology and transition. In addition, the team will start discussion about which changes to Annex A of the ICANN By-laws it will recommend in order to implement the new PDP.
3. Adopting a New Working Group Model. The work team responsible for this effort has published its “Working Group Guidelines” and has run a public comment period, which drew five community submissions. In addition, the work team held a public information and consultation session in Nairobi. The WT will now review the comments received and discuss how to update the “Working Group Guidelines” accordingly. Once they finalize their guidelines, they will submit them to the GNSO’s Policy Process Steering Committee for review.
4. Improving Communications and Coordination with ICANN Structures. The Communications work team has completed its recommendations, which have been approved by the Operations Steering Committee of the GNSO Council. The recommendations go next to the GNSO Council for review and approval. ICANN Staff is laying the technical groundwork for implementing a variety of Council-approved enhancements to the GNSO website.
5. Enhancing Constituencies. The effort to create a level playing field for all the GNSO community’s formal Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies continues in three substantial areas: development of consistent operational guidelines and best practices; re-confirmation of existing constituency bodies; and support for proposals for potential new constituencies.
Status of Pending Constituency Proposals. In early March, the Cyber Cafe Association of India submitted a Notice of Intent to Form (NOIF) a new Public Internet Access/CyberCafe Ecosystem Constituency. Under the two-part application process for new constituency formation, the submission is an informal expression of interest that may be followed by a more formal petition and charter.
The formal proposal for a new Consumers Constituency, submitted last April, remains pending. The new constituency process continues to be available for any other parties who might be interested in developing proposals for new GNSO Constituencies.
Existing GNSO Constituency “Reconfirmation” Efforts to Resume. Last year, the ICANN Board approved the concept of reconfirming the charters and operational mechanisms of each Constituency every three years. It set a timetable of March 2010 for formal resubmission of revised reconfirmation proposals by the existing GNSO Constituencies. Due to the need for existing constituencies to address other substantive policy priorities and the opportunity to combine the reconfirmation work with GNSO work team efforts designed to develop consistent operational guidelines among all constituencies, the Board has extended the reconfirmation timetable until the ICANN Brussels meeting.
Council Approves Community Toolkit Recommendations. At its 17 December meeting, the GNSO Council accepted the recommendations [PDF, 108 KB] of the GNSO’s Constituency and Stakeholder Group Operations Work Team for ICANN Staff to develop a toolkit of primarily administrative services to be made available to all GNSO Constituencies and Stakeholder Groups. The Council directed the Staff to conduct the appropriate development work to make those services a reality as soon as feasible. The Staff hopes to have a plan for GNSO Council review and approval by the Brussels meeting this June, to coincide with the start of the new ICANN fiscal year. Meanwhile, the Constituency and Stakeholder Group Work Team is finalizing recommendations regarding a set of participation rules and operating procedures by which all constituencies and stakeholder groups should abide. When completed, those recommendations will be shared with the GNSO’s Operations Steering Committee and eventually passed to the GNSO Council for review.
Permanent Stakeholder Group Charters to Regain Focus. The development of permanent Stakeholder Group charters for the GNSO’s non-contract party communities should see increased activity in the coming months. When the Board approved the four new GNSO Stakeholder Group structures in 2009, it acknowledged that the charters were transitional and that the community should develop permanent charters over the coming year.
The GNSO’s various implementation Work Teams will continue to develop recommendations for implementing the GNSO restructuring goals approved by the Board. Each work team expected to have reported its work timetable and significant benchmarks to the GNSO Council by 15 April. Existing GNSO Constituencies will continue their reconfirmation discussions, and it is hoped that recommendations from the GNSO Constituency Operations Work team will combine with that process. Formal dialogue on permanent CSG and NCSG charters will also continue and start, respectively.
ICANN Staff continues to field queries about potential new GNSO Constituencies, and is available to work with all interested parties on developing proposals.
- GNSO Improvements Information Web Page
- New Bylaws relevant to the New GNSO Council [PDF, 160 KB]
- New GNSO Council Operating Procedures [PDF, 108 KB]
- PDP Team wiki
- Working Group Team wiki
- Communications Team wiki
- Constituency Operations Team wiki
Robert Hoggarth, Senior Policy Director
- Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) amendments and Registrant Rights
- Internationalized Registration Data (IRD)
- Geographic Regions Review
At a Glance
Following two months of substantial discussion within all levels of the At-Large community, the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) submitted its comments to the Framework ICANN Fiscal Year 2011 (FY11) Operating Plan and Budget public consultation.
The submission, endorsed by the ALAC with a 14 – 0 vote, consists of three main sections:
- Macro budget issues
- Key ALAC and At-Large priorities, and
- Regional priorities.
Additionally, due to the need to synchronize with the priorities and objectives stated in ICANN's Strategic Plan for 2010-2013 as well as the Affirmation of Commitments, considerable attention was given to highlight the linkages to these two key documents.
Macro-budget requests. Citing a need to increase its capacity to understand the ICANN budget, the ALAC requested that ICANN be more specific in its reporting. In particular, the ALAC wished to have increased clarity on cost allocations and comparisons of previous years’ budget allocations, as well as greater detail on employee and consultant time allocation. The ALAC also noted an interest in receiving more specific information on the cost related to developing better remote participation and Policy Development Support activities.
Key At-Large priorities. As outlined by the ALAC, the three key FY 11 priorities for the At-Large community are 1) implementation of the At-Large Improvements, consisting of 13 recommendations; 2) provision of sufficient staff support; and 3) holding one Regional At-Large Organization (RALO) General Assembly in each of the five regions, in conjunction with an ICANN Meeting (or other key Internet stakeholder meetings within the region), during the 2010-2013 Strategic Planning period as well as an At-Large Summit in the 2013-2016 Strategic Planning period.
Regional priorities highlighted in the comments included capacity building and continuing education of RALOs and At-Large Structures (ALSes); and outreach and in-reach activities.
The process for developing these comments was part of the implementation of the At-Large Improvements, specifically the recommendation that the ALAC should develop strategic and operational plans as part of ICANN's planning process.
Heidi Ullrich, Director for At-Large
At a Glance
During the 12 March SO/AC Chair Reports session of the 37 th ICANN Meeting, ALAC Chair Cheryl Langdon-Orr outlined the activities and achievements of the At-Large representatives that took place during the Meeting held in Nairobi, Kenya 7-12 March 2010.
Langdon-Orr reported that At-Large representatives were extremely active during the ICANN Meeting in Nairobi:
- At-Large held 11 formal and 4 informal and Working Group meetings
- At-Large was represented by a total of 25 members from all five regions
- At-large community members produced a number of reports on non At-Large events
- The ALAC endorsed the members of the At-Large Board Selection Committee
- The ALAC submitted a list of ALAC-endorsed candidates for the AOC Review Team on Transparency and Accountability to the Chairs of the Review Team
The ALAC Chair’s Report also described At-Large activities since the 36th Meeting of ICANN in Seoul, Korea in 24-31 October 2010 and provided both an update and outline of next steps in the implementation of the At-Large Improvements.
Heidi Ullrich, Director for At-Large
At a Glance
A new, updated At-Large outreach brochure is now available in six UN languages. The brochure will be used for outreach and raising awareness of At-Large activities.
The brochure, available in Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian, and Spanish, provides information about the At-Large community, the At-Large Advisory Committee, and the key Internet-related policy issues on which they focus. The brochure was distributed at ICANN ’s 37 th Meeting held in Nairobi, Kenya, March 7-12, and will be used for outreach at global and regional meetings by members of the At-Large community and by ICANN’s Global Partnership regional liaisons.
The new At-Large brochure lists the key issues At-Large members are working on, such as how to ensure that changes to the Internet’s addressing system can help the Internet become a more trusted and secure place; how internationalized domain names (IDNs) are implemented; and how additional new top level domains are introduced.
The brochure is available in hardcopy and also for downloading in high and low resolution PDFs. Members of the At-Large community may use the brochure for their outreach and information raising activities. The brochure has been designed to complement the various Regional At-Large Organization brochures.
- [PDF, 380 KB] العربية
- 中文 [PDF, 312 KB]
- English [PDF, 952 KB]
- Français [PDF, 1 MB]
- Русский [PDF, 436 KB]
- Español [PDF, 416 KB]
Matthias Langenegger, At-Large Regional Affairs Manager
The Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) held a series of sessions at the ICANN meeting in Nairobi between 9 -11 March. These included the SSAC open meeting, which incorporated presentations on activities of the Internationalized Registration Data Working Group, Stability of the Root Level of the Domain Name System (DNS), and Orphaned DNS Records. You can download a transcript of the meeting.
Julie Hedlund, Director, SSAC Support
The Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) continues to study issues related to scaling the root level of the Domain Name System, and is studying aspects of the Terms of Reference developed for the Root Scaling Study, to determine which questions have been addressed and which may require additional work. (For additional details, see the SSAC Activities Report.)
As noted in the Activity Report, members of the committee are actively engaged in cross-Supporting Organization/Advisory Committee working groups studying SSAC recommendations from 2009 reports. In particular, members are:
- Working with the Internationalized Registration Data Working Group (IRD-WG)
- Studying ways to mitigate malicious conduct (High Security TLD Advisory Group, and Zone File Access Advisory Group)
- Studying security-related, possible RAA amendments with GNSO working groups (Registration Abuse Policies WG and Joint ALAC/GNSO RAA Drafting Team ).
Also, an SSAC Work Party continues studying the prevalence of orphaned records in TLDs. Orphaned records are resource records that remain even though their parent domain name no longer exists.
In addition, the SSAC is finalizing a 2010 SSAC survey of IPv6 capabilities in commercial firewalls that began on 01 March 2010. The SSAC is working with ICSA Laboratories to reach appropriate contacts among ICSA's members. If you are a business user of commercial firewalls, we encourage you to participate in the survey.
These and other topics may be addressed in future SSAC Reports or Advisories. See the SSAC web site for more information about SSAC activities.
Julie Hedlund, Director, SSAC Support; Dave Piscitello, Senior Security Technologist; Steve Sheng, Senior Technical Analyst
update-apr10-en.pdf [231 KB]