[council] ICANN Monthly Policy Update

[Denise Michel]

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 policy-staff at icann.org.

Regards,
Denise Michel
ICANN VP, Policy


ICANN POLICY UPDATE – May 2008

CONTENTS:

1.   GNSO -- IMPROVEMENTS
2.   GNSO -- DOMAIN NAME TASTING
3.   GNSO -- WHOIS
4.   GNSO -- INTER-REGISTRAR TRANSFER POLICY REVIEW
5.   GNSO -- FAST FLUX HOSTING
6.   GNSO -- DOMAIN NAME FRONT RUNNING
7.   MULTIPLE ENTITIES -- IDN ccTLDs
8.   MULTIPLE ENTITIES -- SINGLE CHARACTER and ICANN/IANA NAMES
9.   MULTIPLE ENTITIES – ICANN'S GEOGRAPHIC REGIONS
10.  CCNSO -- INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT PLANS CONTINUE
11.  CCNSO -- IANA WORKING GROUP
12.  AT-LARGE -- NEW PRACTICES EXPAND POLICY PARTICIPATION
13.  AT-LARGE – COMMUNITY LEADERSHIP CHANGES
14.  AT-LARGE – OUTREACH TO CONSUMER GROUPS
15.  ASO AC -- GLOBAL POLICY PROPOSALS (ASNs, IPv4)
16.  SSAC -- DNSSEC BROADBAND ROUTER TESTING REVISED
17.  SSAC – DNSSEC-CAPABLE NAME SERVER SURVEY
18.  SSAC -- ANTI-PHISHING ACTIVITIES


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.

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.

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 policy-staff at icann.org.


1.   GNSO -- IMPROVEMENTS
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.
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.

Next Steps: Board action on the Report could occur at the May or June Board
meetings.
More Information:
•    GNSO Improvements information page <
http://www.icann.org/topics/gnso-improvements/>
•    Full GNSO Improvements Report <
http://www.icann.org/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-report-03feb08.pdf>

•    Board resolution on GNSO Improvements <
http://www.icann.org/minutes/resolutions-15feb08.htm#_Toc64545918>
•    Summary and Analysis of Comments on GNSO Improvements Report
http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-improvements-report-2008/msg00033.html

Staff Contact: Rob Hoggarth, Senior Policy Director

2.    GNSO -- DOMAIN NAME TASTING
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.
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.
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.
More Information:
•    Public comment request (
http://www.icann.org/public_comment/#dt-motion-21may08)
•    GNSO Domain Tasting Issues Report, June 2007 <
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/domain-tasting/gnso-domain-tasting-report-14jun07.pdf>

•    Outcomes Report, October 2007 <
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-domain-tasting-adhoc-outcomes-report-final.pdf>
•    Final Report, 4 April 2008  <
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/domain-tasting/gnso-final-report-domain-tasting-04apr08.pdf
>

Staff Contact:  Liz Gasster, Senior Policy Counselor

3.  GNSO -- WHOIS
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.
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.
More Information: GNSO WHOIS Policy Work Web page <
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/>

Staff Contact:   Liz Gasster, Senior Policy Counselor
4.  GNSO -- INTER-REGISTRAR TRANSFER POLICY REVIEW
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Next Steps: Constituency representatives will be appointed to develop and
submit statements and ICANN Staff will prepare an Initial Report.
More Information:
•    Draft Advisory <
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/transfers/gnso-draft-transfer-advisory-14nov07.pdf
>
•    Initial Report <
http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-17mar08.htm>
•    Final Report <
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/final-report-irt-policy-09apr08.pdf>
•    PDP Recommendations <
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/transfer-wg-recommendations-pdp-groupings-19mar08.pdf>

Staff Contacts:   Olof Nordling, Manager, Policy Development Coordination
and   Robert Hoggarth, Senior Policy Director

5.   GNSO – FAST FLUX HOSTING

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.
More Information:
•    SSAC Report 025 on Fast Flux Hosting, January 2008 -
http://www.icann.org/committees/security/sac025.pdf
•    Issues Report on Fast Flux Hosting, corrected 31 March 2008 -
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/fast-flux-hosting/gnso-issues-report-fast-flux-25mar08.pdf

Staff Contact:  Liz Gasster, Senior Policy Counselor

6.  GNSO – DOMAIN NAME FRONT RUNNING
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.

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:
   - How is the problem defined?
   - How prevalent is the problem?
   - Will the measures relating to domain tasting affect front running?
   - Are there rules within the RAA that can be used to address this
activity?

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.
More Information:
•    Original ALAC Correspondence Raising Front Running Issue;
(
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org/2008q1/003290.html
)
•    (SAC 022, SSAC Advisory on Domain Name Front Running, October 2007 (
http://www.icann.org/committees/security/sac022.pdf)

Staff Contact:   Liz Gasster, Senior Policy Counselor

7.    MULTIPLE ENTITIES -- IDN ccTLDs

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.

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.

7a.  IDNC Working Group Pursues The IDN "Fast Track"

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:
•    The overarching requirement to preserve the security and stability of
the DNS;
•    Compliance with the IDNA protocols;
•    Input and advice from the technical community with respect to the
implementation of IDNs; and
•    Current practices for the delegation of ccTLDs, which include the
current IANA practices.

A public workshop was held 11 February in New Delhi, India to discuss the
DDIR and a comment period was opened on that document.

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.

Next Steps:  The work schedule agreed to by the IDNC Working Group includes:

•    A final Interim Report, which will contain potential implementation
mechanisms, is scheduled to be released 16 May 2008.
•    The Final Report, which will contain the actual recommendations of the
IDNC WG, is due to be published 13 June 2008.
More Information:
•    Public Comments Requested on Initial Draft Fast-Track Mechanism <
http://icann.org/announcements/announcement-01feb08.htm>
•    Draft Methodology for Fast Track <
http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/idnc-proposed-methodology-31mar08.pdf>
•    Public Comments on the Discussion Draft of the Initial Report <
http://www.icann.org/public_comment/#dd-idn-cctld-ft>

Staff Contact:   Bart Boswinkel, Senior Policy Advisor

7b.   ccNSO Also Focuses On Comprehensive IDNccTLD Policy Development

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:

•    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.
•    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.

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.

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.

Next Steps:  Comments regarding the preparation of an Issues Report on the
IDNccPDP and are now being evaluated.
More Information: IDNccPDP Announcement:  <
http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-19dec07.htm>

Staff Contact: Bart Boswinkel, Senior Policy Advisor

8.   MULTIPLE ENTITIES – Single Character and ICANN/IANA Names

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.

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 (q.com, x.com, z.com, i.net, q.net, and x.org) 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Next Steps
•    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.
•    ICANN Staff is working on the development of an allocation model for
community consideration.
More Information:
•    Staff Implementation Notes on the GNSO RN WG recommendations, see
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/icann-implementation-doc-gnso-rswg-04sep07.pdf
•    ICANN Staff further synthesis of the comments provided to the GNSO
Council on 27 February 2008 (see
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/icann-synthesis-on-sldns-27feb08.pdf )

Staff Contact:   Liz Gasster, Senior Policy Counselor, and Patrick Jones,
Registry Liaison Manger.

9.    MULTIPLE ENTITIES – ICANN'S GEOGRAPHIC REGIONS

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.
More Information:
•    ccNSO Working Group Report and Recommendations (
http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/ccnso-final-report-regions-wg-240907.pdf
)
•    2 November 2007 ICANN Board Resolution (
http://www.icann.org/minutes/resolutions-02nov07.htm#_Toc55609368)

Staff Contact:  Robert Hoggarth, Senior Policy Director


10.  CCNSO -- INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT PLANS CONTINUE

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.

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.

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.

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.
More Information:
•    ccNSO <http://www.ccnso.icann.org/>
•    ccTLD Community Email List <
http://www.ccnso.icann.org/about/charter-cctld-community-list.pdf>
•    ccNSO Participation Working Group
<www.ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/participationwg.htm>

Staff Contacts: Bart Boswinkel, Senior Policy Advisor and Gabriella
Schittek, ccNSO Secretariat

11.      CCNSO IANA WORKING GROUP

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.

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.
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.
More Information:
•    ccNSO: (www.ccnso.icann.org)
•    ccNSO IANA Working Group:
(http://www.ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/ianawg.htm)

Staff Contacts:  Bart Boswinkel, Senior Policy Advisor and Gabriella
Schittek, ccNSO Secretariat.

12.   AT-LARGE – NEW PRACTICES EXPAND POLICY PARTICIPATION

Recent Developments: The At-Large community recently has provided final
statements to the ICANN Board on:
•    GNSO Improvements: At-Large joined with several GNSO constituencies in
a joint submission to the Board, and also provided additional views on the
subject.
•    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.
•    Travel Policy for ICANN Volunteers: Detailed comments were submitted,
including input on the experiences of the community with existing travel
support.
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.

Staff Contact:  Nick Ashton-Hart, Director for At-Large

13.     AT-LARGE: COMMUNITY LEADERSHIP CHANGES

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.

Staff Contact:  Nick Ashton-Hart, Director for At-Large

14. AT-LARGE: OUTREACH TO CONSUMER GROUPS

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.

15.   ASO AC - GLOBAL POLICY PROPOSALS (ASNs, IPv4)

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.

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.

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.
More information:  Background Report <
http://www.icann.org/announcements/proposal-asn-report-29nov07.htm>

Staff Contact:  Olof Nordling, Manager Policy Development Coordination

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.

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.
More information:  Background Report
http://www.icann.org/announcements/proposal-ipv4-report-29nov07.htm

Staff Contact:  Olof Nordling, Manager Policy Development Coordination

16.   SSAC -- DNSSEC BROADBAND ROUTER TESTING REVISED

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.

Recent Developments: SSAC is evaluating proposals from independent bodies to

test 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.

Next Steps: The parties are reviewing a proposed common test suite with a
goal
to have this new testing begin during May 2008.
More Information:  SSAC <http://www.icann.org/committees/security/>

Staff Contact: Dave Piscitello, Senior Security Technologist

17. SSAC -- DNSSEC-CAPABLE NAME SERVER SURVEY

SSAC has begun a survey to determine the availability of DNSSEC features
among commercial, open source, and publicly available name server software.
A public notice web page (SAC030) announcing the survey has been published,
http://www.icann.org/committees/security/sac030.htm.  The set of
survey questions will be sent to approximately 40 software vendors and
developers and the responses will be published on the web page.
    Next Steps:  A survey summary will be presented at the ICANN Paris
meeting (pending sufficient responses).
More Information:  SSAC <http://www.icann.org/committees/security/>

Staff Contact: Dave Piscitello, Senior Security Technologist


18.   SSAC – ANTI-PHISHING ACTIVITIES

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.

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.

Staff Contact: Dave Piscitello, Senior Security Technologist

#  #  #
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20080515/453484ec/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: POLICY DEPT May 08 Update.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 203264 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20080515/453484ec/POLICYDEPTMay08Update.doc>