Below (and attached in Word with hyperlinks) are brief summaries of significant Internet policy
issues that are being addressed by the ICANN community's bottom-up
policy development structure, as well as other 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 in the attached 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" target="_blank">policy-staff@icann.org</a>.<br clear="all">
<br>
Regards,<br>
Denise Michel<br>
ICANN VP, Policy <br>
<br>
<br clear="all">ICANN POLICY UPDATE May 2008 <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 -- DOMAIN NAME FRONT RUNNING<br>
7. MULTIPLE ENTITIES -- IDN ccTLDs<br>
8. MULTIPLE ENTITIES -- SINGLE CHARACTER and ICANN/IANA NAMES<br>
9. MULTIPLE ENTITIES ICANN'S GEOGRAPHIC REGIONS<br>
10. CCNSO -- INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT PLANS CONTINUE<br>
11. CCNSO -- IANA WORKING GROUP<br>
12. AT-LARGE -- NEW PRACTICES EXPAND POLICY PARTICIPATION<br>
13. AT-LARGE COMMUNITY LEADERSHIP CHANGES<br>
14. AT-LARGE OUTREACH TO CONSUMER GROUPS<br>
15. ASO AC -- GLOBAL POLICY PROPOSALS (ASNs, IPv4)<br>
16. SSAC -- DNSSEC BROADBAND ROUTER TESTING REVISED<br>
17. SSAC DNSSEC-CAPABLE NAME SERVER SURVEY<br>
18. SSAC -- ANTI-PHISHING ACTIVITIES<br>
<br>
<br>
Below 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. Our goal is to maximize
transparency and broad community participation in ICANN's policy
development activities.<br>
<br>
The document is designed to accommodate ICANN issue veterans as well as
new readers. Where appropriate, most issue briefings include
Background, Recent Developments and Next Steps modules. As our work
grows, our list of issues (and in some cases the issue briefs
themselves) has expanded. Regular readers are invited to skip familiar
background materials and go directly to recent developments and next
steps.<br>
<br>
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>
<br>
<br>
1. GNSO -- IMPROVEMENTS<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 (BGC WG) 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, 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>
Recent Developments: The public comment period on the GNSO
Improvements Report ended on 25 April 2008. A total of 31 community
submissions were made to the forum. The majority of the comments relate
to the future structure and representational balance of the GNSO
Council. A number of contributors address specific aspects of other
proposals in the Report. A smaller number raised the prospect of
additional representational groups. Most of the comments related
directly to a joint proposal submitted to the forum on behalf of the
User Community for GNSO Council Structural Change (UC) which includes
the At-Large Advisory Committee; the Commercial and Business Users
Constituency; the Intellectual Property Constituency; the Internet
Service and Connection Providers Constituency; and the Non-Commercial
Users Constituency. The Joint Proposal of the UC outlines an
alternative to the GNSO structure recommended in the Report. The UC
proposal and the timing of this proceeding were discussed at the 30
April meeting of the ICANN Board. <br>
<br>
Next Steps: Board action on the Report could occur at the May or June Board meetings. <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>
Summary and Analysis of Comments on GNSO Improvements Report
<a href="http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-improvements-report-2008/msg00033.html">http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-improvements-report-2008/msg00033.html</a>
<br>
<br>
Staff Contact: Rob Hoggarth, Senior Policy Director <br>
<br>
2. GNSO -- DOMAIN NAME TASTING <br>
Background: The term "domain tasting" 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>
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 Spring 2007, ICANN's
At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC), asked the GNSO Council to review
the issue. 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>
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>
On 6 March 2008, the GNSO Council considered a motion to stop the
practice of domain tasting. The 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 could 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 motion
were solicited and incorporated into a Final Report for Council
consideration at its 17 April 2008 meeting. The comments and
constituency statements reflected 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>
Recent Developments: The GNSO Council approved the motion on 17 April
2008 by supermajority vote. The motion is now pending Board
consideration. Public comments have been invited on the Council
recommendation until 21 May 2008.<br>
<br>
Next Steps: Public comments received by 21 May will be summarized for
the Board, which will consider the GNSO motion and public input during
its May or June meetings.<br>
More Information: <br>
Public comment request (<a href="http://www.icann.org/public_comment/#dt-motion-21may08">http://www.icann.org/public_comment/#dt-motion-21may08</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>
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 including the technical contact, and the
registrant's administrative contact. <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>
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>
Recent Developments: A report from the small group reviewing the
suggestions on further WHOIS studies is under development and will be
provided to the Council target 24 May (delayed from 24 April). In
addition, on 16 April, the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC)
offered an extensive set of recommendations for WHOIS studies. The
small group is also considering the GAC study recommendations as part
of its overall assessment. <br>
<br>
Next Steps: Once the small group has submitted its report to the GNSO
Council, the Council will consider the group's recommendations, and
provide direction to Staff regarding the studies for which rough cost
estimates should be developed. 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>
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>
4. GNSO -- INTER-REGISTRAR TRANSFER POLICY REVIEW<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 comment as part of the PDP described above. The
public comments received have been used by ICANN Staff to compile a
Final Report for the GNSO Council's consideration of further steps to
take in this PDP. <br>
<br>
At the GNSO Council meeting on 17 April 2008, a drafting group was
launched to develop suggested text modifications in the current
provisions. 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 that suggested clustering
the issues for consideration in five new PDPs. <br>
<br>
During its 8 May 2008 meeting, the GNSO Council initiated five new
inter-registrar transfers PDPs as previously defined by the drafting
group (in addition to the pending single PDP on the four reasons for
denying a transfer). The five new PDPs will be addressed in a largely
consecutive manner, with the possibility of overlap as resources
permit. <br>
<br>
Next Steps: Constituency representatives will be appointed to develop
and submit statements and ICANN Staff will prepare an Initial Report.<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>
Final Report < <a href="http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/final-report-irt-policy-09apr08.pdf">http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/final-report-irt-policy-09apr08.pdf</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>
Staff Contacts: Olof Nordling, Manager, Policy Development Coordination and Robert Hoggarth, Senior Policy Director<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 playersthe
cybercriminals and their victims, ISPs, companies that provide web
hosting services, and DNS registries and registrarsit is possible to
imagine a variety of different approaches to mitigation. Most of these
will require the cooperation of a variety of actors. <br>
<br>
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 concerning fast flux hosting. Staff also notes that it may
be appropriate for the ccNSO to participate in such an activity.<br>
<br>
At its 17 April 2008 meeting, two related motions were offered, one to
launch a policy development process, and a second to form a task force
to consider several specific questions identified in the previous
issues report. This motion was held over for further discussion by the
GNSO Council at its 8 May meeting. Subsequently, an alternative motion
was offered that would form an expert panel to answer the questions
posed in the Issues Report. Following delivery of these answers, the
Council would then decide whether to launch a PDP.<br>
<br>
Recent developments: At its 8 May 2008 meeting, the GNSO Council
formally launched a policy development process (PDP), rejected a task
force approach and called for creation of a working group on fast
flux. <br>
<br>
Next Steps: A charter for the GNSO's new fast flux working group will
be presented to the GNSO Council by 22 May for approval at the 29 May
GNSO Council meeting. The schedule for constituency statements and
public comment will be included in that charter. Staff will work with
Council on the scope of work that will be defined in the charter. <br>
More Information:<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. GNSO DOMAIN NAME FRONT RUNNING<br>
Background: Domain name front running is the practice whereby a domain
name registrar uses insider information to register domains for the
purpose of re-selling them or earning revenue via ads placed on the
domain's landing page. This practice is also sometimes referred to by
some as "domain reservation" or "cart-hold" or "cart-reserve." By
registering the domains, the registrar locks out other potential
registrars from selling the domain to a customer. The registrar
typically takes advantage of the 5-day add grace period (AGP), during
which the domain can be locked without permanent payment. Alerted to
the issue by industry input, a Security and Stability Advisory
Committee report, and a letter from the At-large Advisory Committee to
the ICANN Board requesting emergency action, on 27 March 2008 the Chair
of the ICANN Board determined that emergency action was not required at
that time and the matter was referred to the GNSO for additional
information gathering or policy development if necessary.<br>
<br>
Recent Developments: The GNSO Council, at its 8 May 2008 meeting,
approved a motion to create a drafting team. The team will work to
develop a recommendation to the Council on whether to request an Issues
Report or whether other research on front running (including further
defining the problem) should be pursued. The drafting team will
consider questions such as: <br>
- How is the problem defined?<br>
- How prevalent is the problem?<br>
- Will the measures relating to domain tasting affect front running?<br>
- Are there rules within the RAA that can be used to address this activity? <br>
<br>
Next Steps: The goal of the drafting team will be to bring a
recommendation to the Council on whether to request an Issues Report or
a more extensive research effort that could help to define the terms of
the report. The report is expected by 7 June 2008 or sooner, if
possible, to allow time for Council deliberations in Paris. <br>
More Information:<br>
Original ALAC Correspondence Raising Front Running Issue;<br>
(<a href="http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org/2008q1/003290.html">http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org/2008q1/003290.html</a>)<br>
(SAC 022, SSAC Advisory on Domain Name Front Running, October 2007 (<a href="http://www.icann.org/committees/security/sac022.pdf">http://www.icann.org/committees/security/sac022.pdf</a>) <br>
<br>
Staff Contact: Liz Gasster, Senior Policy Counselor <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 and communities 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>
7a. 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>
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 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 were open until 25 April 2008.<br>
<br>
Next Steps: The work schedule agreed to by the IDNC Working Group includes: <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>
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>
7b. 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>
The GNSO and several other parties 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>
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. MULTIPLE ENTITIES Single Character and ICANN/IANA Names<br>
<br>
Background on Single Character Names: Currently, all 16 gTLD registry
agreements (.AERO, .ASIA, .BIZ, .CAT, .COM, .COOP, .INFO, .JOBS, .MOBI,
.MUSEUM, .NAME, .NET, .ORG, .PRO, .TEL, and .TRAVEL) provide for the
reservation of single-letter and single-digit names at the second
level. ICANN's gTLD registry agreements also contain the following
provision on single-letter and single-digit names: "the following names
shall be reserved at the second-level: All single-character labels."
(For example, see Appendix 6 of the .TEL Registry Agreement). Letters,
numbers and the hyphen symbol are allowed within second level names in
both top level and country code TLDs. Single letters and numbers also
are allowed as IDNs -- as single-character Unicode renderings of ASCII
compatible (ACE) forms of IDNA valid strings.<br>
<br>
Before the current reserved name policy was imposed in 1993, Jon Postel
(under the IANA function) took steps to reserve all available single
character letters and numbers at the second level to provide for future
expansion of the Internet (see 20 May 1994 email from Jon Postel. All
but six (<a href="http://q.com">q.com</a>, <a href="http://x.com">x.com</a>, <a href="http://z.com">z.com</a>, <a href="http://i.net">i.net</a>, <a href="http://q.net">q.net</a>, and <a href="http://x.org">x.org</a>) of the possible
144 single letters or numbers at the second-level in .COM, .EDU, .NET
and .ORG remain reserved by IANA. Those six registrations are an
exception to the reservation practice. Under current practice, these
names would be placed on reserve if the registrations were allowed to
expire.<br>
<br>
Over the years, ICANN has received many inquiries from third parties
seeking to register single-letter and single-digit domain names, and
has advised these parties that the names are reserved. Since the
contractual provisions in ICANN's registry agreements govern how these
names are managed. ICANN Staff cannot unilaterally change the registry
agreements and the schedule of reserved names. <br>
<br>
The GNSO's Reserved Names Working Group recommended in its May 2007
Final Report to the GNSO Council the release of these names in future
gTLDs and in existing registries upon the use of appropriate allocation
frameworks. The Council incorporated the recommendations relating to
future gTLDs in its final report on new gTLDs that is pending with the
ICANN Board. No further action was taken relating to existing gTLDs.
ICANN Staff will discuss treatment of single-letter and single-digit
domain names in existing registries at the next GNSO Council meeting. <br>
<br>
Background on ICANN IANA Names: This related issue concerns names
reserved by ICANN including aso, gnso, icann, internic, and ccNSO
and by IANA afrinic, apnic, arin, example, gtld-servers, iab, iana,
iana-servers, iesg, ietf, irtf, istf, lacnic, latnic, rfc-editor, ripe,
and root-servers. These names were reserved in the 2001 registry
agreements, and questions have been raised about releasing them. ICANN
Staff is examining the matter as part of the development of a base
agreement for new gTLDs.<br>
<br>
Recent Developments: ICANN Staff prepared a further synthesis of the
comments received on the GNSO Reserved Names Working Group report, and
provided that document to the GNSO Council on 27 February 2008. The
GNSO Council has not yet commented on this document. To inform decision
making involving the potential use of auctions in a number of areas
(not just as a potential model for single-character names), ICANN has
established a process for selecting an auction design consultant and
posted a call for expressions of interest on 18 January 2008.<br>
<br>
Next Steps<br>
ICANN/IANA names are being addressed as part of the development of
the base agreement for the new gTLD process (schedule of reserved names
work), and Staff is reviewing this matter.<br>
ICANN Staff is working on the development of an allocation model for community consideration. <br>
More Information:<br>
Staff Implementation Notes on the GNSO RN WG recommendations, see
<a href="http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/icann-implementation-doc-gnso-rswg-04sep07.pdf">http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/icann-implementation-doc-gnso-rswg-04sep07.pdf</a>
<br>
ICANN Staff further synthesis of the comments provided to the GNSO
Council on 27 February 2008 (see
<a href="http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/icann-synthesis-on-sldns-27feb08.pdf">http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/icann-synthesis-on-sldns-27feb08.pdf</a> )<br>
<br>
Staff Contact: Liz Gasster, Senior Policy Counselor, and Patrick Jones, Registry Liaison Manger.<br>
<br>
9. MULTIPLE ENTITIES ICANN'S GEOGRAPHIC REGIONS<br>
<br>
Background: An ICANN Board resolution in 2000 directed Staff to
assign countries to geographic regions on the basis of the United
Nations Statistics Division's current classifications, and introduced
the concept of "citizenship" in relation to the definition of ICANN
Geographic Regions. The ICANN Geographical Regions were originally
created to ensure regional diversity in the composition of the ICANN
Board and were subsequently expanded in various ways to apply to the
GNSO, ALAC and ccNSO.<br>
<br>
The ICANN Bylaws define five geographic regions as Africa, North
America, Latin America/Caribbean, Asia/Australia/Pacific and Europe --
and also expand the concept that "persons from an area that is not a
country should be grouped together with the country of citizenship for
that area" so that the area or territory itself was similarly allocated
to the region of the "mother country."<br>
<br>
Over time, the ccNSO has developed concerns about the Geographic
Regions and related representational issues. The ccNSO Council passed
a resolution recommending that the ICANN Board appoint a community-wide
working group to further study and review the issues related to the
definition of the ICANN Geographic Regions, to consult with all
stakeholders and submit proposals to the Board to resolve the issues
relating to the current definition of the ICANN Geographic Regions.<br>
<br>
Recent Developments: The ICANN Board determined that because any
change to ICANN Geographic Regions could have wide-spread effect in
ICANN, the views of other Supporting Organizations and Advisory
Committees should be sought by the Board. At its 2 November 2007
meeting in Los Angeles, the Board asked the ICANN community, including
the GNSO, ccNSO, ASO, GAC, and ALAC, to provide the ICANN Staff with
input on the ccNSO Council's resolution relating to ICANN's Geographic
Regions. The Board directed ICANN Staff to summarize and analyze this
input and prepare a report for consideration by the Board.<br>
<br>
Next Steps: ICANN Staff is soliciting input from all Supporting
Organizations and Advisory Committees. The results will be summarized
and reported to the Board for consideration.<br>
More Information:<br>
ccNSO Working Group Report and Recommendations
(<a href="http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/ccnso-final-report-regions-wg-240907.pdf">http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/ccnso-final-report-regions-wg-240907.pdf</a>)<br>
2 November 2007 ICANN Board Resolution (<a href="http://www.icann.org/minutes/resolutions-02nov07.htm#_Toc55609368">http://www.icann.org/minutes/resolutions-02nov07.htm#_Toc55609368</a>)<br>
<br>
Staff Contact: Robert Hoggarth, Senior Policy Director<br>
<br>
<br>
10. CCNSO -- INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT PLANS CONTINUE<br>
<br>
Background: The ccNSO Council is taking steps to improve its work
plans, administrative procedures and communications tools. As a result
of a 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 Council also approved creation of a new
"authoritative" ccNSO email list. In addition, the ccNSO has been
conducting a participation survey to understand better why ccTLDs do or
do not participate in ccNSO meetings, and has developed a leaflet on
participation both in the ccNSO and Regional Organisations.<br>
<br>
Recent Developments: All ccTLD managers have now been invited to
subscribe to the new global ccTLD email list. A first draft of the
results of the ccNSO participation survey was shared with the community
at the African Top Level Domain meeting in Johannesburg. An initial
evaluation of 45 surveys revealed that 50 percent of survey respondents
have never visited an ICANN meeting. Several respondents indicated they
would prefer having more regional meetings.<br>
<br>
The ccNSO Council is discussing the possibility of conducting
administrative workshops during ICANN meetings. The discussions are
still in their early stages and the Participation Working Group has
been given the task of making suggestions for how the sessions should
be hosted. <br>
<br>
Next Steps: The final participation survey results will be presented at
the Paris meeting. The leaflet will be translated and distributed at
the meeting, and a version also will be posted on the ccNSO website. A
discussion on how future workshops will be conducted will occur in
Paris.<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>
ccNSO Participation Working Group<br>
<<a href="http://www.ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/participationwg.htm">www.ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/participationwg.htm</a>><br>
<br>
Staff Contacts: Bart Boswinkel, Senior Policy Advisor and Gabriella Schittek, ccNSO Secretariat<br>
<br>
11. CCNSO IANA WORKING GROUP<br>
<br>
Background: The ccNSO IANA Working Group was set up with the goal to
improve the service that IANA provides to ccTLDs. It is comprised of
two members per geographic region and IANA Staff. <br>
<br>
Recent Developments: The Working Group is developing a DNSSEC paper to
advise the ccNSO Council if a position should be taken on who should
sign the root zone. Relevant stakeholders from outside the Working
Group also have been involved in delivering input to the paper. The
Working Group also has been testing the new IANA interface for
administrative changes in the IANA database, and drafting a work plan
for the coming year. <br>
Next Steps: The Working Group will continue drafting the DNSSEC
advisory paper, as well as testing the IANA interface. Their work plan
is expected to be discussed at the Paris meeting.<br>
More Information: <br>
ccNSO: (<a href="http://www.ccnso.icann.org">www.ccnso.icann.org</a>) <br>
ccNSO IANA Working Group:<br>
(<a href="http://www.ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/ianawg.htm">http://www.ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/ianawg.htm</a>)<br>
<br>
Staff Contacts: Bart Boswinkel, Senior Policy Advisor and Gabriella Schittek, ccNSO Secretariat.<br>
<br>
12. AT-LARGE NEW PRACTICES EXPAND POLICY PARTICIPATION<br>
<br>
Recent Developments: The At-Large community recently has provided final statements to the ICANN Board on:<br>
GNSO Improvements: At-Large joined with several GNSO
constituencies in a joint submission to the Board, and also provided
additional views on the subject. <br>
Operating Plan and Budget Framework for 2008/2009: Initial views
of the At-Large community were provided, including identification of
priorities that At-Large feels should be a part of the new fiscal
year's activities. <br>
Travel Policy for ICANN Volunteers: Detailed comments were
submitted, including input on the experiences of the community with
existing travel support. <br>
Next Steps: The ALAC is developing a comprehensive view on the
introduction of new gTLDs for submission to the Board before the Paris
meeting. There are expected to be further community comments on other
subjects in advance of the Paris meeting, including the draft budget
and operating plan framework. <br>
<br>
Staff Contact: Nick Ashton-Hart, Director for At-Large<br>
<br>
13. AT-LARGE: COMMUNITY LEADERSHIP CHANGES<br>
<br>
The community welcomed Sebastien Bachollet of France as incoming
co-Vice Chair of the At-Large Advisory Committee, replacing outgoing
Vice-Chair Robert Guerra of Canada. Also, ALAC Member Veronica Cretu of
Moldova is stepping down due to her increasing professional
obligations. The European RALO ("EURALO") is expected to elect her
replacement by or during their General Assembly at the Paris ICANN
meeting.<br>
<br>
Staff Contact: Nick Ashton-Hart, Director for At-Large<br>
<br>
14. AT-LARGE: OUTREACH TO CONSUMER GROUPS<br>
<br>
As part of the long-term effort to involve consumer organisations in
the At-Large community, a briefing was held on 7 April in Washington,
D.C. for members of the Transatlantic Consumers Dialogue, which
includes the largest North American and European consumer
organizations. Representatives from 13 organizations received an
overview of ICANN and a consumer-centric introduction to the DNS, and
discussed the issues currently before ICANN that are relevant to
consumers. <br>
<br>
15. 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 Autonomous System Numbers (ASNs): 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 and the final text has been
submitted from the NRO EC to the ASO AC.<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>
Recent Developments Remaining IPv4 address space: The IANA pool of
unallocated IPv4 address blocks continues to be depleted. As
previously announced, 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, at the ARIN (American Registry for Internet Numbers) in
Denver in March, and at the RIPE (Resaux IP Europeens Network
Coordination Centre) in Berlin earlier this month. It will be
discussed in upcoming meetings of the remaining RIRs later this month
at 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>
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>
16. 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: SSAC is evaluating proposals from independent bodies to <br>
test broadband routers and SOHO firewalls -- one for U.S. domestic products, <br>
one for Europe products, one for U.K. products, and one for Asia Pacific <br>
products. <br>
<br>
Next Steps: The parties are reviewing a proposed common test suite with a goal <br>
to have this new testing begin during May 2008. <br>
More Information: SSAC <<a href="http://www.icann.org/committees/security/">http://www.icann.org/committees/security/</a>> <br>
<br>
Staff Contact: Dave Piscitello, Senior Security Technologist<br>
<br>
17. SSAC -- DNSSEC-CAPABLE NAME SERVER SURVEY<br>
<br>
SSAC has begun a survey to determine the availability of DNSSEC features <br>
among commercial, open source, and publicly available name server software. <br>
A public notice web page (SAC030) announcing the survey has been
published, <a href="http://www.icann.org/committees/security/sac030.htm">http://www.icann.org/committees/security/sac030.htm</a>. The
set of <br>
survey questions will be sent to approximately 40 software vendors and <br>
developers and the responses will be published on the web page. <br>
Next Steps: A survey summary will be presented at the ICANN Paris meeting (pending sufficient responses). <br>
More Information: SSAC <<a href="http://www.icann.org/committees/security/">http://www.icann.org/committees/security/</a>> <br>
<br>
Staff Contact: Dave Piscitello, Senior Security Technologist<br>
<br>
<br>
18. SSAC ANTI-PHISHING ACTIVITIES<br>
<br>
Recent Developments: The SSAC Advisory entitled "Registrar
Impersonation in Phishing Attacks" has been circulated to registrars so
that they can review and consider the nature and priority of the
threat. Initial responses to the advisory are positive and SSAC
anticipates publishing the report to the general public at or prior to
the ICANN Paris meeting. <br>
<br>
ICANN Staff continues to assist with anti-phishing investigations of
registrars who are alleged to be shielding phishing activities. After
being contacted by the Director of Contractual Compliance, one
registrar has restored WHOIS/port 43 service and has removed 37 domain
registrations containing inaccurate WHOIS data by setting to
client-hold status. Staff continues to collect domains registered via
this registrar that are alleged to host phishing sites from
anti-phishing investigators. The majority of these registrations have
inaccurate WHOIS data and ICANN will submit these to the registrar to
investigate and to correct the inaccuracies or to suspend name
resolution for those domains. <br>
<br>
Staff Contact: Dave Piscitello, Senior Security Technologist<br>
<br>
# # #<br>
<br>