<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
..MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Huge kudos to ICANN Staff for this very helpful update. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Also great to see SSAC’s vigilance about anti-phishing
efforts, and to see the ccNSO starting to look at phishing issues.
Hopefully the GNSO will also help with anti-phishing efforts, by looking at
policy development wrt fast flux hosting as requested by SSAC.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Thanks,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Mike Rodenbaugh<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>
owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] <b>On Behalf
Of </b>Denise Michel<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, April 17, 2008 2:17 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Council GNSO; liaison6c<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [council] ICANN Policy Update<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>Below (and attached in Word
with hyperlinks) are brief summaries of a number of significant Internet policy
issues that are being addressed by the ICANN community's bottom-up policy
development structure, as well as other significant activities of
interest. This latest monthly update is provided by ICANN's Policy Staff
in response to community requests for periodic summaries of ICANN's policy
work. Links to additional information are included below and we encourage
you to go beyond these brief staff summaries and learn more about the ICANN
community's work. These monthly updates also will be available on our website.
Our goal is to maximize transparency and broad community participation in
ICANN's policy development activities. We continue to investigate more
effective and efficient ways to communicate the relevance, importance and
status of ongoing issues to the ICANN community. Comments and suggestions
on how we can improve these efforts are most welcome and should be sent to <a
href="mailto:policy-staff@icann.org">policy-staff@icann.org</a>.<br clear=all>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Denise Michel<br>
ICANN VP, Policy <br>
<br>
<br>
ICANN POLICY UPDATE – April 2008 <br>
<br>
<br>
CONTENTS:<br>
<br>
1. GNSO -- IMPROVEMENTS<br>
2. GNSO -- DOMAIN NAME TASTING<br>
3. GNSO -- WHOIS<br>
4. GNSO -- INTER-REGISTRAR TRANSFER POLICY REVIEW<br>
5. GNSO -- FAST FLUX HOSTING<br>
6. GNSO/CCNSO -- BOARD SEAT ELECTIONS<br>
7. MULTIPLE ENTITIES -- IDN ccTLDs<br>
8. CCNSO -- INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS CONTINUE<br>
9. CCNSO -- PHISHING SURVEY<br>
10. CCNSO -- NEW MEMBERS<br>
11. ASO AC -- GLOBAL POLICY PROPOSALS (ASNs, IPv4)<br>
12. SSAC -- DNSSEC BROADBAND ROUTER TESTING REVISED<br>
13. SSAC -- ANTI-PHISHING ACTIVITIES<br>
14. AT-LARGE -- NEW PRACTICES EXPAND POLICY PARTICIPATION<br>
15. AT-LARGE -- NEW WEBSITE/PORTAL LAUNCHED<br>
<br>
<br>
1. GNSO -- IMPROVEMENTS<br>
<br>
Background: The ICANN Board is considering a comprehensive set of
recommendations to improve the structure and operations of the Generic Names
Supporting Organization (GNSO). This is part of ICANN's ongoing commitment to
its evolution and improvement, and follows an independent review of the GNSO
and extensive public consultation. A working group appointed by ICANN's
Board has developed a comprehensive proposal (GNSO Improvements Report) to
improve the effectiveness of the GNSO, including its policy activities,
structure, operations and communications. On 15 February 2008, the Board
accepted the GNSO Improvements Report for consideration and directed ICANN
staff to open a public comment forum on the Report for 30 days, draft a
detailed implementation plan in consultation with the GNSO, begin
implementation of the non-contentious recommendations, and return to the Board
and community for further consideration of the implementation plan.<br>
<br>
Recent Developments: The period for public comments on the GNSO
Improvements Report has been extended to 25 April 2008. Although many
elements of the report seem to have broad support, the proposed stakeholder
groups/constituency structures and allocation of seats on the GNSO Council
continue to draw a significant amount of discussion from a variety of parties
including the Business, Intellectual Property, and Internet Service Provider
Constituencies who advocate a different allocation of seats than that
recommended to the Board.<br>
<br>
Next Steps: Public comment period on the GNSO Improvements Report (closes
25 April 2008) -- subsequent Board action is expected at the Paris
meeting.<br>
<br>
More Information: <br>
• GNSO Improvements information page <<a
href="http://www.icann.org/topics/gnso-improvements/">http://www.icann.org/topics/gnso-improvements/</a>><br>
• Full GNSO Improvements Report <<a
href="http://www.icann.org/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-report-03feb08.pdf">http://www.icann.org/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-report-03feb08.pdf</a>>
<br>
• Board resolution on GNSO Improvements <<a
href="http://www.icann.org/minutes/resolutions-15feb08.htm#_Toc64545918">http://www.icann.org/minutes/resolutions-15feb08.htm#_Toc64545918</a>>
<br>
<br>
Staff Contact: Denise Michel, VP Policy Development <br>
<br>
2. GNSO -- DOMAIN NAME TASTING <br>
<br>
Background: In Spring 2007, ICANN's At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC),
asked the GNSO Council to review the issue of "domain tasting." The
term refers to a case when an entity registers a domain name and then tests to
see if the name has sufficient traffic to provide more income than the annual
registration fee (usually through the addition of pay-per-click advertising).
If the address is deemed sufficiently profitable, it is kept. If not, the
current "add grace period" (AGP) - where domains can be returned
within five days without cost - is used to return the domain at no net cost to
the registrant. Among other reasons, the practice is controversial
because registrants who engage in this behavior can typically register many
hundreds of thousands of domain names under this practice, with these temporary
registrations far exceeding the number of domain names actually licensed.
<br>
<br>
Over time, there has been a significant increase in the number of domains
registered and returned prior to expiration of the AGP. A significant
number of community members feel the AGP process presents a loophole that
facilitates this conduct. In October 2007, after fact finding and
consideration, the GNSO Council launched a formal policy development process
(PDP) on domain tasting and encouraged ICANN staff to consider applying ICANN's
fee collections to names registered and subsequently de-registered during the
AGP. Subsequently, staff included in the initial draft of ICANN's next fiscal
year budget, a proposal to charge a fee for all domains added, including
domains added during the AGP. Public discussion of the budget, and
this proposal, is ongoing. <br>
<br>
As part of the formal PDP process, an Initial Report was produced for public
comment, outlining the problems caused by domain tasting, possible actions to
be taken, and the arguments put forward for and against such actions .
Public comments were incorporated into a draft Final Report posted on 8
February 2008. <br>
<br>
Recent Developments: At its 6 March 2008 meeting, the GNSO Council
considered a motion drafted and subsequently revised by a small design team to
stop the practice of domain tasting. The revised draft motion would prohibit
any gTLD operator that has implemented an AGP from offering a refund for any
domain name deleted during the AGP that exceeds 10% of its net new registrations
in that month, or fifty domain names, whichever is greater. Under the terms of
the motion, an exemption from the limitation may be sought for a particular
month, upon a showing of extraordinary circumstances detailed in the
motion. <br>
<br>
Public comments and constituency impact statements regarding the revised draft
motion have been solicited and incorporated into a Final Report for Council
consideration at its scheduled 17 April 2008 meeting. The comments and
constituency statements reflect a plurality of views on what should be done to
eliminate abuse of the AGP to facilitate domain tasting and addressed three
potential options including (1) views on the draft resolution itself; (2) views
on eliminating the AGP entirely; and (3) views on the proposed ICANN budget
changes. <br>
<br>
Next Steps: The GNSO Council will consider the Draft Motion at its
upcoming 17 April 2008 meeting<br>
<br>
More Information: <br>
• Public comment request <<a
href="http://www.icann.org/public_comment/#domain-tasting">http://www.icann.org/public_comment/#domain-tasting</a>><br>
• GNSO Domain Tasting Issues Report, June 2007 <<a
href="http://gnso.icann.org/issues/domain-tasting/gnso-domain-tasting-report-14jun07.pdf">http://gnso.icann.org/issues/domain-tasting/gnso-domain-tasting-report-14jun07.pdf</a>>
<br>
• Outcomes Report October 2007 <<a
href="http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-domain-tasting-adhoc-outcomes-report-final.pdf">http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-domain-tasting-adhoc-outcomes-report-final.pdf</a>
> <br>
• Final Report 4 April 2008 <<a
href="http://gnso.icann.org/issues/domain-tasting/gnso-final-report-domain-tasting-04apr08.pdf">http://gnso.icann.org/issues/domain-tasting/gnso-final-report-domain-tasting-04apr08.pdf</a>><br>
<br>
Staff Contact: Liz Gasster, Senior Policy Counselor<br>
<br>
3. GNSO -- WHOIS <br>
<br>
Background: WHOIS services provide public access to data on registered
domain names. That data currently includes contact information for
Registered Name Holders. The extent of registration data collected at the time
of registration of a domain name, and the ways such data can be accessed, are
specified in agreements established by ICANN for domain names registered in
generic top-level domains (gTLDs). For example, ICANN requires accredited
registrars to collect and provide free public access to (1) the name of the
registered domain name and its name servers and registrar, (2) the date the
domain was created and when its registration expires, and (3) the contact
information for the Registered Name Holder, the technical contact, and the
registrant's administrative contact. <br>
<br>
WHOIS has been the subject of intense policy development debate and action over
the last few years. Information contained in WHOIS is used for a wide variety
of purposes. Some uses of WHOIS data are viewed as constructive and
beneficial. For example, sometimes WHOIS data is used to track down and
identify registrants who may be posting illegal content or engaging in phishing
scams. Other uses of WHOIS are viewed as potentially negative, such as
harvesting WHOIS contact information to send unwanted spam or fraudulent email
solicitations. Privacy advocates have also been concerned about the
privacy implications of unrestricted access to personal contact information.<br>
<br>
The GNSO Council decided in October 2007 that a comprehensive, objective and
quantifiable understanding of key factual issues regarding WHOIS will benefit
future GNSO policy development efforts, and plans to ask the ICANN staff to
conduct several studies for this purpose. Before defining the details of these
studies, the Council has solicited suggestions for specific topics of study on
WHOIS from community stakeholders. Possible areas of study might include a
study of certain aspects of gTLD registrants and registrations, a study of
certain uses and misuses of WHOIS data, a study of the use of proxy
registration services, including privacy services, or a comparative study of
gTLD and ccTLD WHOIS.<br>
<br>
Recent Developments: A forum for public comments on suggestions for
specific topics of study on WHOIS was open through 15 February 2008.
Approximately 25 suggestions were received. A summary of those comments
has been prepared. On 27 March the GNSO Council approved a motion to form a
group of volunteers to: (1) review and discuss the 'Report on Public Suggestions
on Further Studies of WHOIS; (2) develop a proposed list of recommended
studies, if any, for which ICANN staff will be asked to provide cost estimates
to the Council; and (3) produce the list of recommendations with supporting
rationale not later than 24 April 2008.<br>
<br>
Next Steps: A report from the small group reviewing the suggestions on
further WHOis studies is due to the Council by 24 April 2008. The GNSO Council
will consider the recommendations of the group. Based on direction from
the Council, ICANN staff will subsequently provide the Council with rough cost
estimates for various components of data gathering and studies. The
Council will then decide what data gathering and studies it will request, given
available resources. Staff will perform the resulting data gathering and
studies and report the results to the Council.<br>
<br>
More Information: GNSO WHOis Policy Work Web page <<a
href="http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/">http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/</a>>
<br>
<br>
Staff Contact: Liz Gasster, Senior Policy Counselor <br>
<br>
4. GNSO -- INTER-REGISTRAR TRANSFER POLICY REVIEW<br>
<br>
Background: Consistent with ICANN's obligation to promote and encourage
robust competition in the domain name space, the Inter-Registrar Transfer
Policy aims to provide a straightforward procedure for domain name holders to
transfer their names from one ICANN-accredited registrar to another should they
wish to do so. The policy also provides standardized requirements for registrar
handling of such transfer requests from domain name holders. The policy is an
existing community consensus that was implemented in late 2004 that is now
being reviewed by the GNSO. As part of that effort, the Council formed a
Transfers Working Group (TWG) to examine and recommend possible areas for
improvements in the existing transfer policy. The TWG identified a broad list
of over 20 potential areas for clarification and improvement.<br>
<br>
In an effort to get improvements on-line as soon as possible, the GNSO Council
initiated a policy development process (PDP) to immediately clarify four
specific issues regarding reasons for which a registrar of record may deny a
request to transfer a domain name to a new registrar. That PDP process in now
under way and the GNSO constituencies have submitted their initial comments.<br>
<br>
Recent Developments: ICANN staff finalized and posted an Initial
Report for public comments to immediately clarify the four specific issues
regarding reasons for which a registrar of record may deny a request to
transfer a domain name to a new registrar. A summary of those comments is now
available (see <<a
href="http://forum.icann.org/lists/transfer-policy-2008/msg00004.html">http://forum.icann.org/lists/transfer-policy-2008/msg00004.html</a>>).
In parallel with the PDP process, the Council tasked a short term planning
group to evaluate and prioritize the remaining 19 policy issues identified by
the Transfers Working Group. In March, the group delivered a report to the GNSO
Council with suggested clustering of those issues for consideration in five new
PDPs.<br>
<br>
Next Steps: The public comments received on the Initial Report will be
used by ICANN staff to compile a Final Report for the GNSO Council's
consideration of further steps to take in this PDP. The report from the
short term planning group on other potential PDPs will next be discussed and
decided upon by the GNSO Council.<br>
<br>
More Information: <br>
• Draft Advisory <<a
href="http://gnso.icann.org/issues/transfers/gnso-draft-transfer-advisory-14nov07.pdf">http://gnso.icann.org/issues/transfers/gnso-draft-transfer-advisory-14nov07.pdf</a>><br>
• Initial Report <<a
href="http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-17mar08.htm">http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-17mar08.htm</a>><br>
• PDP Recommendations <<a
href="http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/transfer-wg-recommendations-pdp-groupings-19mar08.pdf">http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/transfer-wg-recommendations-pdp-groupings-19mar08.pdf</a>>
<br>
<br>
Staff Contact: Olof Nordling, Manager, Policy Development Coordination
<br>
<br>
5. GNSO – FAST FLUX HOSTING<br>
<br>
Background: Fast flux hosting is a term that refers to several techniques used
by cyber criminals to evade detection, in which criminals rapidly modify IP
addresses and/or name servers. The ICANN Security and Stability Advisory
Committee (SSAC) recently completed a study of fast flux hosting. The results
of the study were published in January 2008 in the SSAC Advisory on Fast Flux
Hosting and DNS (SAC 025). Because fast flux hosting involves many different
players—the cybercriminals and their victims, ISPs, companies that
provide web hosting services, and DNS registries and registrars—it is
possible to imagine a variety of different approaches to mitigation. Most
of these will require the cooperation of a variety of actors including users
and ISPs as well as registries and registrars. <br>
<br>
Recent developments: On 26 March 2008, staff posted an Issues Report on fast
flux hosting, as directed by the GNSO Council. In the Report, staff
recommends that the GNSO sponsor additional fact-finding and research to
develop best practices guidelines concerning fast flux hosting. Staff
also notes that it may be appropriate for the ccNSO also to participate in such
an activity.<br>
<br>
Next Steps: The GNSO Council is scheduled to discuss the topic at its upcoming
meeting on 17 April 2008. <br>
<br>
More Iinformation:<br>
• SSAC Report 025 on fast flux hosting, January 2008 - <a
href="http://www.icann.org/committees/security/sac025.pdf">http://www.icann.org/committees/security/sac025.pdf</a><br>
• Issues Report on Fast Flux Hosting, corrected 31
March 2008 - <a
href="http://gnso.icann.org/issues/fast-flux-hosting/gnso-issues-report-fast-flux-25mar08.pdf">http://gnso.icann.org/issues/fast-flux-hosting/gnso-issues-report-fast-flux-25mar08.pdf</a><br>
<br>
Staff Contact: Liz Gasster, Senior Policy Counselor <br>
<br>
6. CCNSO/GNSO -- BOARD SEAT ELECTIONS<br>
<br>
Background: The Country Codes Name Supporting Organization (ccNSO) and
GNSO Councils are responsible for filling two seats each on the ICANN Board of
Directors. ccNSO seats are identified as Board seat numbers 11 and
12. GNSO seats on the Board are identified as seat numbers 13 and 14.<br>
<br>
Recent Developments:<br>
<br>
CCNSO Board Seat 11<br>
<br>
Peter Dengate-Thrush was selected to fill seat 11 on the ICANN Board at the ccNSO
Council meeting on the 31 March 2008. This selection was based on the outcome
of a prior call for nominations among the ccNSO members. The only candidate who
was nominated and seconded was Mr. Dengate-Thrush and he accepted the
nomination.<br>
<br>
Next Steps: The ccNSO Council Chair will provide the Secretary of ICANN with
written notice of the decision.<br>
More Information: ccNSO ICANN Election of Director Procedures <<a
href="http://ccnso.icann.org/about/elections/election-procedure-to-elect-icann-director-03mar08.htm">http://ccnso.icann.org/about/elections/election-procedure-to-elect-icann-director-03mar08.htm</a>>
<br>
Staff Contact: Gabriella Schittek, ccNSO Secretariat<br>
<br>
GNSO Board Seat 14<br>
<br>
Rita Rodin was elected by the GNSO Council to fill seat 14 on the ICANN Board
of Directors. The election closed on 7 March 2008. The GNSO Council confirmed
the election results at its meeting scheduled on 27 March 2008, and pursuant to
the bylaws, Avri Doria, GNSO Chair, informed ICANN's General Counsel of the
outcome.<br>
<br>
Next Steps: The next GNSO election process will commence at the end of
this year for the GNSO Chair. The current Chair's term ends 31 January
2009. <br>
<br>
More Information: GNSO Elections Procedures <<a
href="http://gnso.icann.org/elections/election-procedures-2008.shtml">http://gnso.icann.org/elections/election-procedures-2008.shtml</a>>
<br>
<br>
Staff Contact: Glen De Saint Géry, GNSO Secretariat<br>
<br>
7. MULTIPLE ENTITIES -- IDN ccTLDs<br>
<br>
Background: The potential introduction of Internationalized Domain Names
(IDNs) represents the beginning of an exciting new chapter in the history of
the Internet. IDNs offer the potential for many new opportunities and benefits
for Internet users of all languages around the world by allowing them to
establish domains in their native languages and alphabets.<br>
<br>
An IDN ccTLD (internationalized domain name country code top level domain) is a
country code top-level domain (corresponding to a country, territory, or other
geographic location as associated with the ISO 3166-1 two-letter codes) with a
label that contains at least one character that is not a standard Latin letter
(A through Z), a hyphen, or one of the standard numerical digits (0 through 9).
The technical potential for ICANN to now make these domain names available for
assignment is prompting significant discussion, study and demand within the
ICANN community – particularly for territories who want to make use of
non-Latin characters. Current efforts are taking place on two fronts; (1)
efforts to identify a "fast track" process to provide new domain
opportunities to territories with immediate justifiable needs; and (2) efforts
to develop a comprehensive long term plan that ensures a stable process for all
interested stakeholders.<br>
<br>
IDNC Working Group Pursues The IDN "Fast Track"<br>
<br>
A joint IDNC Working Group (IDNC WG) was chartered by ICANN's Board to develop
and report on feasible methods, if any, that would enable the introduction of a
limited number of non-contentious IDN ccTLDs, in a timely manner that ensures
the continued security and stability of the Internet while a comprehensive
long-term IDN ccTLD policy is being developed. On 1 February 2008, the IDNC WG
posted a "Discussion Draft of the Initial Report" (DDIR) for public
comment and input from the ICANN community. The DDIR clarified the relationship
between the "fast track" process and the broader long-term process
IDNccPDP (the ccNSO Policy Development Process on IDN ccTLDs) and also
identified the mechanisms for the selection of an IDN ccTLD and an IDN ccTLD
manager. The ccNSO Council determined that those mechanisms were to be
developed within the parameters of:<br>
<br>
• The overarching requirement to preserve the security
and stability of the DNS;<br>
• Compliance with the IDNA protocols;<br>
• Input and advice from the technical community with
respect to the implementation of IDNs; and<br>
• Current practices for the delegation of ccTLDs, which
include the current IANA practices.<br>
<br>
A public workshop was held 11 February in New Delhi, India to discuss the DDIR
and a comment period was opened on that document. <br>
<br>
Recent Developments: The IDNC WG has now produced a first draft of the
IDNC WG Methodology in the form of an Interim Report that has also been made
available for public comment. Discussions on the methodology were held at the
ICANN Regional Meeting in Dubai, UAE (1-3 April 2008) and public comments on
the methodology can be submitted until 25 April 2008.<br>
<br>
Next Steps: The work schedule agreed to by the IDNC Working Group is as
follows: <br>
• An Initial Report, which will solidify the topics and
their relation to the IDNccPDP.<br>
• A final Interim Report, which will contain potential
implementation mechanisms is scheduled to be released 16 May 2008).<br>
• The Final Report, which will contain the actual
recommendations of the IDNC WG is due to be published 13 June 2008)<br>
<br>
More Information: <br>
• Public Comments Requested on Initial Draft Fast-Track
Mechanism <<a href="http://icann.org/announcements/announcement-01feb08.htm">http://icann.org/announcements/announcement-01feb08.htm</a>><br>
• Draft Methodology for Fast Track <<a
href="http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/idnc-proposed-methodology-31mar08.pdf">http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/idnc-proposed-methodology-31mar08.pdf</a>>
<br>
• Public Comments on the Discussion Draft of the
Initial Report <<a
href="http://www.icann.org/public_comment/#dd-idn-cctld-ft">http://www.icann.org/public_comment/#dd-idn-cctld-ft</a>><br>
<br>
Staff Contact: Bart Boswinkel, Senior Policy Advisor<br>
<br>
CCNSO Also Focuses On Comprehensive IDNccTLD Policy Development<br>
<br>
Background: In parallel to considerations of a "fast track"
approach, the ccNSO Council has initiated a comprehensive long term policy
development process for IDNccTLDs (referred to as the IDNccPDP). At its meeting
in October 2007, the ccNSO Council resolved to call for an Issues Report
to examine the need for an IDNccPDP to consider:<br>
<br>
• Whether Article IX of the ICANN bylaws applies to IDN
ccTLDs associated with the ISO 3166-1 two letter codes, and if it does not then
to establish if Article IX should apply.<br>
• Whether the ccNSO should launch a PDP to develop the
policy for the selection and delegation of IDN ccTLDs associated with the ISO
3166-1 two-letter codes.<br>
<br>
The Council formally requested that Issues Report on 19 December 2007 and
directed ICANN staff to identify policies, procedures, and/or by-laws that
should be reviewed and, as necessary revised, in connection with the
development and implementation of any IDN ccTLD policy – including
efforts designed to address the proposed fast-track concept. <br>
<br>
Recent Developments: The GNSO and several other parties have submitted
comments regarding the proposal to set a comprehensive long term policy
development process for IDNccTLDs (referred to above as the IDNccPDP). An
Issues Report will be submitted to the ccNSO Council and will form the basis
for the Council's decision on whether or not to formally initiate the IDNccPDP.
<br>
<br>
Next Steps: Comments regarding the preparation of an Issues Report on the
IDNccPDP and are now being evaluated.<br>
<br>
More Information: IDNccPDP Announcement: <<a
href="http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-19dec07.htm">http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-19dec07.htm</a>>
<br>
<br>
Staff Contact: Bart Boswinkel, Senior Policy Advisor<br>
<br>
8. CCNSO -- INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS CONTINUE<br>
<br>
Background: The ccNSO Council has recently been taking steps to improve
its work plans, administrative procedures and communications tools. As a result
of a ccNSO Council workshop held at the ICANN New Delhi meeting, a working
group of the Council was established to propose administrative procedures for
the ccNSO. The ccNSO Council also approved creation of a new
"authoritative" ccNSO email list. The organization has also
been conducting a participation survey in an effort to understand better why
ccTLDs do or do not participate in ccNSO meetings.<br>
<br>
Recent Developments: In preparation for making recommendations on new
structures, the new "Working Group on ccNSO Administrative
Procedures" has had two conference calls on the structuring processes
within the ccNSO. All ccTLD managers have been invited to subscribe to a new
global ccTLD email list and a first draft of the results of the ccNSO
participation survey recently was shared with the community at the African Top
Level Domain meeting in Johannesburg.<br>
<br>
Next Steps: The Working Group will continue to develop new procedures for
the ccNSO.<br>
<br>
More Information: <br>
• ccNSO <<a href="http://www.ccnso.icann.org/">http://www.ccnso.icann.org/</a>>
<br>
• ccTLD Community Email List < <a
href="http://www.ccnso.icann.org/about/charter-cctld-community-list.pdf">http://www.ccnso.icann.org/about/charter-cctld-community-list.pdf</a>><br>
<br>
Staff Contacts: Bart Boswinkel, Senior Policy Advisor and Gabriella
Schittek, ccNSO Secretariat<br>
<br>
9. CCNSO -- PHISHING SURVEY<br>
<br>
Background: The term "phishing" has been used to describe
criminal and fraudulent attempts by cybercriminals to acquire sensitive private
information (such as usernames, passwords and credit card details) by
masquerading as trustworthy entities in an electronic communication. Phishing
remains a major problem among ccTLDs and as a result ccNSO members are being
called upon to identify countermeasures that can be undertaken to fight back. A
draft survey seeking to identify those types of measures was presented to and
approved by the ccNSO Council during its meeting in New Delhi in February
2008. The survey was launched and sent to all available email
lists. ICANN regional liaisons were also asked to help distribute the
survey.<br>
<br>
Recent Developments: Originally, survey results of the anti-phishing
survey were expected to be ready for posting by early April 2008, but the
response period has been extended to allow for the receipt of more survey
responses. To date 21 responses have been received and Staff is working
to inspire more.<br>
<br>
Next Steps: Survey response and evaluation time extended to encourage
more responses.<br>
<br>
More information: Survey <<a
href="http://ccnso.icann.org/surveys/anti-phishing-survey-27feb08.pdf">http://ccnso.icann.org/surveys/anti-phishing-survey-27feb08.pdf</a>><br>
<br>
Staff Contact: Gabriella Schittek, ccNSO Secretariat<br>
<br>
10. CCNSO -- NEW MEMBERS<br>
<br>
Russia (.ru) and Georgia (.ge) recently were approved as new ccNSO members. The
ccNSO now has 77 members.<br>
<br>
More Information: ccNSO Applications Archive <<a
href="http://www.ccnso.icann.org/applications/summary-date.shtml">http://www.ccnso.icann.org/applications/summary-date.shtml</a>><br>
<br>
Staff Contact: Gabriella Schittek, ccNSO Secretariat<br>
<br>
<br>
11. ASO AC - GLOBAL POLICY PROPOSALS (ASNs, IPv4)<br>
<br>
Background: Two significant global policy proposals on addressing
matters continue to be actively studied and discussed within the addressing
community. If they are (1) adopted by all Regional Internet Registries
(RIRs), (2) verified by the Address Supporting Organization (ASO) and (3)
subsequently ratified by the ICANN Board, the policies will govern the
allocation of Internet addresses from the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
(IANA) to the RIRs. The two current proposals are described below.<br>
<br>
Recent Developments: <br>
<br>
Autonomous System Numbers (ASNs)<br>
<br>
Autonomous System Numbers (ASNs) are addresses used in addition to IP addresses
for Internet routing. A new global policy proposal for ASNs would formalize the
current procedure for allocation of ASNs and provides a policy basis for the
transition from 2-byte (16 bits) to 4-byte (32 bits) ASNs. The final transition
step is now foreseen for 31 December 2009, after which date the distinction
between 2- and 4-byte ASNs will cease and all ASNs will be regarded as of
4-byte length, by appending initial zeroes to those of 2-byte original length.<br>
<br>
Next Steps: This new 4-byte proposal has been adopted in all RIRs.
It will be forwarded to the ICANN Board for ratification by the ASO Address
Council after the Council has verified that each RIR's procedural steps have
been duly followed.<br>
<br>
More information: Background Report <<a
href="http://www.icann.org/announcements/proposal-asn-report-29nov07.htm">http://www.icann.org/announcements/proposal-asn-report-29nov07.htm</a>><br>
<br>
Staff Contact: Olof Nordling, Manager Policy Development Coordination<br>
<br>
Remaining IPv4 address space<br>
<br>
The IANA pool of unallocated IPv4 address blocks is continuing to be
depleted. As announced last month, a new global policy has been proposed
to allocate the remaining address blocks once a given threshold is triggered.
The text of the proposed policy essentially recommends that when there are five
/8 blocks remaining in the IANA pool, one remaining block will be allocated to
each RIR.<br>
<br>
Next Steps: This proposal was discussed at the APNIC 25 meeting in
February 2008 and at the ARIN (American Registry for Internet Numbers) in
Denver earlier this month. It will be discussed in upcoming meetings of the
other RIRs, next in RIPE (Resaux IP Europeens Network Coordination Centre) -
Berlin 5-6 May 2008, LACNIC (Latin American and Caribbean Internet Addresses
Registry) – Salvador/Bahia, Brazil 26-30 May 2008 and AfriNIC (African
Region Internet Registry) – 24 May-6 June, Rabat, Morocco.<br>
<br>
More information: Background Report <a
href="http://www.icann.org/announcements/proposal-ipv4-report-29nov07.htm">http://www.icann.org/announcements/proposal-ipv4-report-29nov07.htm</a>
<br>
<br>
Staff Contact: Olof Nordling, Manager Policy Development Coordination<br>
<br>
12. SSAC -- DNSSEC BROADBAND ROUTER TESTING REVISED<br>
<br>
Background: When Sweden and other ccTLDs began more extensive deployment
of the Domain Name System Security Extension (DNSSEC), it was discovered that
several broadband routers failed when they received DNS response messages
containing DNSSEC resource records and other DNSSEC related protocol
parameters. Study of these routers revealed that many have embedded DNS
servers. The DNSSEC deployment community and SSAC have been collaborating to
create a testing program for broadband routers to gauge the ability of these
devices to correctly process DNS messages that contain DNSSEC resource records.
A set of web pages was developed by ICANN staff to provide a series of tests
that Internet users could use to determine if their router succeeds or fails
when DNNSEC is present in DNS response messages.<br>
<br>
Recent Developments: After reviewing the new testing suite for broadband
routers running DNSSEC, Staff determined that the test suite was too complicated
and required too much data collection and analysis for voluntary community
participation. <br>
<br>
Next Steps: Staff is now investigating an alternative testing approach
that may involve several independent bodies testing broadband routers and SOHO
firewalls -- one for U.S. domestic products, one for Europe products, one for
U.K. products, and one for Asia Pacific products. The testing criteria are
being re-evaluated to determine a new common test suite with a goal to have
this new testing begin before 1 May 2008.<br>
More Information: SSAC <<a
href="http://www.icann.org/committees/security/">http://www.icann.org/committees/security/</a>>
<br>
Staff Contact: Dave Piscitello, Senior Security Technologist<br>
<br>
13. SSAC – ANTI-PHISHING ACTIVITIES<br>
<br>
Recent Developments: ICANN staff has been helping to update/revise a work
in progress for the Anti Phishing Working Group entitled, "What To Do If
Your Web Site Is Hacked." The document describes preparation and incident
response with respect to web site phishing attacks. The report was approved by
the Internet Policy Forum (formerly the DNS Policy Working Group) and is
currently being edited and prepared for publication.<br>
<br>
A new SSAC Advisory entitled "Registrar Impersonation in Phishing
Attacks" has been distributed for review and approval by SSAC and ICANN's
general counsel. Several external experts have reviewed the Advisory and
provided some valuable additional insights. The document may be distributed in
two phases - the first to registrars, so that they are advised of the threat,
and the second (at or prior to the ICANN Paris meeting) to the general public.<br>
<br>
ICANN staff is also assisting with anti-phishing investigations of two
registrars who are alleged to be shielding phishing activities. In one case the
registrar's WHOIS/43 service is not responding; in another case, staff is
studying a service that allegedly hampers anti-phishing investigations by
creating barriers on WHOIS information access. <br>
<br>
Staff Contact: Dave Piscitello, Senior Security Technologist<br>
<br>
14. AT-LARGE – NEW PRACTICES EXPAND POLICY PARTICIPATION<br>
<br>
Recent Developments: New policy development processes and simultaneous
translation improvements are significantly expanding policy participation in
the At-Large community.<br>
<br>
As a result of additional staff capacity and other developments within the
At-Large community, the process by which the At-Large community develops policy
statements has been completely overhauled. At the direction of the
At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC), ICANN Staff has now begun producing initial
draft statements on policy (synthesis statements of written and verbal
comments) for review by working groups and subcommittees. These drafts are put
through several steps of community review before being voted on by the
ALAC. Approved comments are transmitted, as appropriate, to the public
comment process or to the Board of ICANN.<br>
<br>
The first three products of this new process effort are already making their
way through the process. They are:<br>
• ALAC Statement on the Proposed Travel Policy for
Volunteers<br>
• ALAC Statement on the Operating Plan and Budget
Framework for FY 2008/2009<br>
• ALAC Statement on GNSO Improvements <br>
<br>
Additionally, the worldwide At-Large Calendar has been improved to include a
community comments window to make it easier for the public to keep track of
comments. <br>
<br>
Also, thanks to new simultaneous interpretation capabilities and a new
teleconference service the African Regional At-Large Organisation (AFRALO) and
the Latin America and the Caribbean Islands Regional At-Large Organisation
(LACRALO) are now holding monthly teleconference meetings.<br>
<br>
Staff Contact: Nick Ashton-Hart, Director for At-Large<br>
<br>
15. AT-LARGE – NEW WEBSITE/PORTAL LAUNCHED<br>
<br>
Recent Developments: At-Large's new website went live in March. The
new site is built upon a state-of-the-art, open-source content management
system – Drupal. The result is a framework which can be duplicated
and used by other parts of ICANN. The new site provides an array of new
features which the static html-based old site could not, including:<br>
• Two-way links between forums on the site and the
community's mailing lists – with new postings soon to be automatically
visible;<br>
• Dynamically updated content; <br>
• Standardised multilingual support built into the
site's architecture<br>
• Multilingual calendaring and events, including
support for multilingual documents and time zone support.<br>
<br>
More Information: At-Large < <a href="http://atlarge.icann.org">http://atlarge.icann.org</a>><br>
<br>
Staff Contact: Nick Ashton-Hart, Director for At-Large<br>
<br>
<br>
# # #<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>