[AfrICANN-discuss] ICANN Policy Update - December 2009
Anne-Rachel Inné
annerachel at gmail.com
Sat Dec 26 13:01:37 SAST 2009
ICANN POLICY UPDATE
*Volume 09, Issue 12 — December 2009*
*http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/*<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/>
*CONTENTS:*
*Across ICANN*
1. *Policy Update Experiments with Streamlined
Format<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-dec09-en.htm#1>
*
2. *Issues Currently Open for Public
Comment<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-dec09-en.htm#2>
*
3. *Transitions<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-dec09-en.htm#3>
*
*ccNSO*
1. *ccNSO Welcomes Mozambique as 100th
Member<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-dec09-en.htm#4>
*
2. *ccNSO Adds Shared Resources Web
Page<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-dec09-en.htm#5>
*
3. *Other Issues Active in the
ccNSO<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-dec09-en.htm#6>
*
*GNSO*
1. *“Specific Trademark Issues” Team
Reports<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-dec09-en.htm#7>
*
2. *Inter-Registrar Transfer Policies WG Reviews Comments from Public and
Stakeholder Groups<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-dec09-en.htm#8>
*
3. *Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery WG Receives Initial Survey
Findings <http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-dec09-en.htm#9>*
4. *Registration Abuse Policies Group Aims to Report by March
2010<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-dec09-en.htm#10>
*
5. *New GNSO Council Pushes Ahead on All
Fronts<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-dec09-en.htm#11>
*
6. *Other Issues Active in the
GNSO<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-dec09-en.htm#12>
*
*ASO*
1. *ARIN Shakes Up Policy Proposal for Recovered IPv4
Addresses<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-dec09-en.htm#13>
*
2. *Postpone Transition to 32-Bit ASN? RIPE Says
Yes<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-dec09-en.htm#14>
*
*Joint Efforts*
1. *Issues Active in Combined
Efforts<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-dec09-en.htm#15>
*
*At-Large*
1. *ALAC Responds to Board Review
Report<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-dec09-en.htm#16>
*
2. *ALAC Advises on the Introduction of IDN
ccTLDs<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-dec09-en.htm#17>
*
3. *ALAC Opposes Changes to the
NomCom<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-dec09-en.htm#18>
*
4. *EURALO Produces Outreach
Brochure<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-dec09-en.htm#19>
*
*SSAC*
1. *Issues Active with the
SSAC<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-dec09-en.htm#20>
*
*Read Policy Update in Your Preferred Language*
* **ICANN Policy Update* is available in all six official languages of the
United Nations: English (EN), Spanish (ES), French (FR), Arabic (AR),
Chinese (Simplified -- zh-Hans), and Russian (RU). *Policy Update* is posted
on ICANN's website <http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/> and available
via online subscription. To receive the *Update* in your Inbox each month,
simply go to the ICANN subscriptions page<http://www.icann.org/en/newsletter/>,
enter your e-mail address, and select “Policy Update” to subscribe. This
service is free of charge.
*ICANN Policy Update statement of
purpose<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/>
*
Send questions, comments and suggestions to: policy-staff at icann.org.
*Policy Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees*
Address Supporting Organization ASO <http://aso.icann.org/> Country Code
Names Supporting Organization ccNSO <http://ccnso.icann.org/> Generic Names
Supporting Organization GNSO <http://gnso.icann.org/> At-Large Advisory
Committee ALAC <http://www.atlarge.icann.org/> Governmental Advisory
Committee GAC <http://gac.icann.org/> Root Server System Advisory Committee
RSSAC <http://www.icann.org/en/committees/dns-root/> Security and Stability
Advisory Committee SSAC <http://www.icann.org/en/committees/security/>
------------------------------
Across ICANN
1. *Policy Update* Experiments with Streamlined Format
Each monthly issue of *Policy Update* provides the latest information on the
status of issues working their way through the policy development process
within ICANN. However, complex policy issues require much study; and
controversial issues stimulate much discussion within ICANN’s
multi-stakeholder community. The result: not every issue passes a
significant milestone every month.
Until now, when an issue has not progressed in newsworthy fashion, *Policy
Update* has reprinted last month’s article about that topic. That approach
makes each issue of the *Update* comprehensive and thorough. But it also
makes it difficult for the reader to quickly spot new developments.
In this issue, we experiment with a fresh approach. Where there are new
developments to report, you’ll see our normal article. If an issue is still
alive and still progressing, but has not hit a newsworthy milestone since
the previous issue of *Policy Update*, we provide a link to the most recent
past article. This approach makes it much easier for you to scan new
developments, while still providing background information with one-click
convenience.
We’re trying to make *Policy Update* a shorter, quicker read that better
fits your busy schedule. Our request: scan this month’s issue, then let us
know if you prefer this new format or our traditional format. Send your
thoughts to policy-staff at icann.org<policy-staff at icann.org?subject=Policy%20Update%20Format>.
Thanks for sharing your perspective!
------------------------------
2. Issues Currently Open for Public Comment
Numerous public comment periods are open on issues of interest to the ICANN
community. Act now for the opportunity to share your views on such items as:
- Final Report on Three-Character Requirement and Variant
Management<http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201001.htm#3cv-final-report>.
This report from the IDN-Implementation Working Team addresses how to manage
variants of internationalized top-level domain names, and whether there can
be exceptions to the three-character requirement for generic Top Level
Domains (gTLDs). Comment by 8 January 2010.
- 2010 – 2013 Strategic
Plan<http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201001.htm#strat-plan-2010>.
ICANN invites comments from the community on this draft of its plan for the
next few years. What should be the high-level objectives? Comment by 21
January 2010.
- Special Trademark
Issues<http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201001.htm#sti>.
The Special Trademarks Issues Working Team (STI) has published its
recommendations for creating a Trademark Clearinghouse and Uniform Rapid
Suspension Procedure to protect trademarks in the New gTLD Program. Comment
on their report by 26 January 2010.
- New gTLD Program: Draft Expressions of Interest/Pre-Registration
Model<http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201001.htm#draft-eoi>.
ICANN is soliciting comments on the Draft Expressions of
Interest/Pre-Registrations Model for new generic top-level domains (new
gTLDs). According to this draft model, entities interested in participating
in the first round of the New gTLD Program are required to submit basic
information about the participating entity and requested top-level domain,
also referred to as "string." Comment by 27 January 2010.
*More Information*
For the full list of issues open for public comment, plus recently closed
and archived public comment forums, visit the Public
Comments<http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/>page.
------------------------------
3. Transitions
Jordi Iparraguirre resigned as the representative from the Registries
Stakeholder Group to the GNSO Council, due to workload. His place is being
taken by Caroline Greer from dot-mobi (Caroline’s Statement of
Interest<http://gnso.icann.org/council/soi/greer-soi-13nov09-en.htm>
).
If you would like to thank a volunteer whose significant work in a
leadership position is done, send a brief email to
scott.pinzon at icann.organd we’ll try to work your note into the next
issue of Policy Update.
Submissions must be received by the 7 th of each month to appear in that
month’s issue.
------------------------------
ccNSO
4. ccNSO Welcomes Mozambique as 100th Member
*At a Glance*
*The country code Name Supporting Organization (ccNSO) has accepted the
membership application of Mozambique (.mz), bringing the number of ccNSO
members up to 100. *
*Background*
Any manager of a country code top-level domain can apply for membership in
the ccNSO. Membership has grown significantly during recent years, almost
doubling in the last three years. In 2009 alone, the ccNSO added 18 members,
including country code operators for .IL (Israel), .DE (Germany) and .EU
(European Union).
*More Information*
- Statistics on ccNSO membership
growth<http://ccnso.icann.org/about/ccnso-membership-august-2003-november-2009.pdf>[PDF,
41K]
- Alphabetical list of all ccNSO
members<http://ccnso.icann.org/about/members.htm>
- Status of all member
applications<http://ccnso.icann.org/applications/summary-date.shtml>
*Staff Contact*
Gabriella Schittek <gabriella.schittek at icann.org?subject=ccNSO%20FAQ%20page>,
ccNSO Secretariat
------------------------------
5. ccNSO Adds Shared Resources Web Page
*At a Glance*
* On its website, the ccNSO has launched a new page which gathers free
resources that might be of use for ccTLD registries. *
*Recent Developments*
Most of the resources were provided by ccTLDs, and also by institutions such
as NLnet Labs <http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/> and organizations such as
ENISA<http://www.enisa.europa.eu/>.
The resources are divided into three categories: Technical Resources,
Marketing Resources and Policy Resources.
*Background*
The initiative for this page came from the Participation Working Group,
which recommended that the ccNSO Secretariat launch such a page for the
benefit of all ccTLD registries around the world.
*Next Steps*
The page has only started and resources will be added continuously. The
ccNSO Secretariat invites all registries (or similar institutions) to submit
resources which they think other registries might find useful.
*More Information*
- Look for the Resources tab on ccnso.icann.org
*Staff Contact*
Gabriella Schittek<gabriella.schittek at icann.org?subject=ccNSO%20Resources%20Page>,
ccNSO Secretariat
------------------------------
6. Other Issues Active in the ccNSO
- IDN Policy
Development<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-nov09-en.htm#5>
- Redirection and Wildcarding
<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-nov09-en.htm#6>
- Delegation/Re-delegation of
ccTLDs<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-nov09-en.htm#7>
- Incident Response
Planning<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-nov09-en.htm#8>
------------------------------
GNSO
7. “Special Trademark Issues” Team Reports
*At a Glance*
*The GNSO Council is reviewing an alternative proposal to combat
cybersquatting in the New gTLD Program. Recommendations they develop will be
considered by the ICANN Board of Directors. *
*Recent Developments*
ICANN has published the third version of the Draft Applicant Guidebook,
which describes implementation details for the upcoming opening of the
domain name market to many new TLD operators. The GNSO’s new gTLD policy
recommendations were approved by the Board, but did not specify how to
protect trademarks in new gTLDs. Thus, ICANN Staff has published a series of
memoranda and proposals describing solutions for several new trademark
protection mechanisms. The Staff based their work on recommendations from
the Implementation Recommendation Team (IRT) and on public comments.
The ICANN Board asked that the GNSO expedite evaluation of certain of these
proposals, to determine whether they are consistent with the GNSO’s policy
recommendations. In response, the GNSO Council convened a select group of
representatives from each Stakeholder Group and Constituency, to evaluate
the recommendations. The Work Team (commonly referred to as the STI Work
Team, because they evaluate “special trademark issues”) has published its
report containing an alternative proposal to the recommendations contained
in the Draft Applicant Guidebook.
*Next Steps*
The GNSO is expected to vote on the recommendations described in the STI
Recommendations Report at its 17 December 2009 meeting.
*Background*
The latest draft of the Applicant Guidebook describing the process to apply
for new generic top-level domains (gTLDs) was released on 4 October. ICANN
proposed a series of new solutions to enhance protections of trademark
rights in new gTLDs.
The policy recommendations previously adopted by the GNSO recommended that
new gTLD strings must not infringe the existing legal rights of others. The
ICANN Board has requested that the GNSO review these implementation
proposals and provide feedback on whether they are consistent with this
policy recommendation, or whether there is an alternative proposal to
address these concerns that is equivalent or more effective and more
implementable than the current proposal.
The GNSO convened the STI Work Team to respond to the Board request. The STI
team developed an alternative proposal to address the issue of trademark
protection in new GTLDs, as described in its Report. The STI proposal
supports:
- The creation of a Trademark Clearinghouse, envisioned as a convenient,
centralized location to store registered trademark information on behalf of
trademark holders. The Clearinghouse could support certain rights protection
mechanisms, such as sunrise or Trademark Claims processes offered by
registries.
- The creation of a Uniform Rapid Suspension procedure, which could
provide trademark holders with a cost effective, expedited process in
clear-cut instances of trademark abuse, provided that the procedure includes
appropriate safeguards to protect registrants who engage in legitimate uses
of domain names.
*More Information*
- More about trademark issues in the New gTLD
Program<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/gnso-consultations-reports-en.htm>
- The Board’s
Letter<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg07609.html>
- Email archives for the STI Work
Team<http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-sti/>
- The STI Recommendations
Report<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg08031.html>
*Staff Contact*
Margie Milam <policy-staff at icann.org>, Senior Policy Counselor
------------------------------
8. Inter-Registrar Transfer Policies WG Reviews Comments from Public and
Stakeholder Groups
*At a Glance*
*The Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) aims to provide a
straightforward procedure for domain name holders to transfer their names
from one ICANN-accredited registrar to another. The GNSO is reviewing and
considering revisions to this policy. *
*Recent Developments*
The IRTP Part B Working Group held an open Working Group
meeting<http://sel.icann.org/node/6771/>in Seoul at which it reviewed
the Transfer Dispute Resolution Policy. Their
goal was to determine whether they could devise possible modifications in
response to Question A in their charter, “whether a process for urgent
return/resolution of a domain name should be developed.”
The Working Group also solicited public comment on the issues the group
addresses. The comment period closed in October, and the group has started
reviewing the comments received (see http://forum.icann.org/lists/irtp-b/).
*Next Steps*
Following this review, the Working Group will turn its attention to the
Constituency / Stakeholder Group Statements it has received. For further
information, please consult the IRTP Part B Working Group
Workspace<https://st.icann.org/irtp-partb/index.cgi?irtp_part_b>
.
*Background*
The IRTP Part B Working Group addresses five issues relating to domain name
transfers, specified in their
Charter<https://st.icann.org/irtp-partb/index.cgi?irtp_part_b>and in
the August
issue <http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-aug09-en.htm> of *Policy
Update*. The IRTP Part B Working Group has been meeting bi-weekly.
*More Information*
- IRTP Part B Public comment
period<http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-200910.html#irtp-b>(closed
5 October 2009)
- IRTP Part B Issues
Report<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/transfers/irtp-report-b-15may09.pdf>[PDF,
256K]
- Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy <http://www.icann.org/en/transfers/>
- PDP Recommendations<http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/transfer-wg-recommendations-pdp-groupings-19mar08.pdf>[PDF,
124K]
*Staff Contact*
Marika Konings <policy-staff at icann.org>, Policy Director
------------------------------
9. Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery WG Receives Initial Survey Findings
*At a Glance*
*To what extent should registrants be able to reclaim their domain names
after they expire? At issue is whether the current policies of registrars on
the renewal, transfer and deletion of expired domain names are adequate.***
*Recent Developments*
Following the ICANN meeting in Seoul, ICANN Staff continued to gather
information for the registrar survey which is intended to help inform the
deliberations of the Working Group. The survey reviews current registrar
practices regarding domain name expiration, renewal, and post-expiration
recovery. The preliminary results of this
survey<https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/post-expiration-dn-recovery-wg/attachments/post_expiration_domain_name_recovery_wg:20091203091011-0-3475/original/Registrar%20Survey%20-%20Preliminary%20Findings%20-%2024%20Nov%202009.ppt.pdf>have
now been presented to the Working Group.
*Next Steps*
The Working Group will continue meeting weekly to discuss the questions
outlined in its
charter<https://st.icann.org/post-expiration-dn-recovery-wg/index.cgi>.
Following the finalization of the registrar survey, the Working Group will
need to review the results in further detail to determine how these may
potentially influence its response to the charter questions.
*Background*
During the ICANN meeting in Cairo, the ALAC voted to request an Issues
Report on the subject of registrants being able to recover domain names
after their formal expiration date. The ALAC request was submitted to the
GNSO Council on 20 November 2008. ICANN Staff prepared the Issues Report on
post-expiration domain name recovery and submitted it to the GNSO Council on
5 December 2008. ICANN Staff provided the GNSO Council with clarifications
on the questions raised in a motion that was adopted at its 18 December
meeting. The GNSO Council reviewed these clarifications during its meeting
on 29 January and agreed to create a Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery
drafting team to eventually propose a charter and to provide recommendations
answering certain
questions<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/background/domain-name-recovery-en.htm>
.
The GNSO Council adopted a charter for a Post-Expiration Domain Name
Recovery Working Group (PEDNR WG) at its meeting on 24 June in Sydney.
Following the adoption of the charter, a call for volunteers was launched (
PDF<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/post-expiration-recovery/call-pdp-pednr-06jul09.pdf>).
In addition, a PEDNR workshop was held at the ICANN meeting in Sydney,
enabling a first exchange of views with the broader ICANN community on the
issues outlined in the charter above. A transcript and audio recording of
the workshop is available online <http://syd.icann.org/node/3869>.
The Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery Working Group (PEDNR-WG) has been
meeting weekly. The Group developed a registrar survey, intended to provide
additional information that can inform the deliberations of the Working
Group. In addition, the Working Group has started the review of the comments
received during the public comment
period<http://forum.icann.org/lists/pednr-wg-questions/>,
which was launched to solicit views on the questions outlined in the PEDNR
WG Charter <https://st.icann.org/post-expiration-dn-recovery-wg/index.cgi>.
The Working Group held a workshop at the ICANN meeting in
Seoul<http://sel.icann.org/node/6753/>,
at which it provided an overview of the discussions to date. The group also
presented its findings in relation to contractual provisions, as well as
registrar practices in relation to post-expiration. Furthermore, ICANN Staff
provided an overview of the initial results of the registrar survey.
*More Information*
- GNSO Issues Report on Post-Expiration Domain Name
Recovery<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/post-expiration-recovery/report-05dec08.pdf>[PDF,
416K]
- Translations <http://gnso.icann.org/policies/> of the GNSO Issues
Report on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery
- ICANN Staff
response<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg06162.html>to
GNSO request for clarifications
- PEDNR Public Comment
Period<http://forum.icann.org/lists/pednr-wg-questions/>
*Staff Contact*
Marika Konings <policy-staff at icann.org>, Policy Director
------------------------------
10. Registration Abuse Policies Group Aims to Report by March 2010
*At a Glance*
*Registries and registrars seem to lack uniform approaches for dealing with
domain name registration abuse, and questions persist as to what actions
"registration abuse" refers to. The GNSO Council has launched a Registration
Abuse Policies (RAP) Working Group to examine registration abuse policies. *
*Recent Developments*
The Working Group has started meeting weekly, with the objective of
delivering an Initial Report for review at the ICANN meeting to be held in
March 2010 in Nairobi, Kenya. The Working Group has continued reviewing the
list of abuses it defined, including domain tasting, fake renewal notices,
pay-per-click and cybersquatting. In addition, a number of sub-teams are
reviewing issues such as uniformity of contracts; spam, phishing and
malware; and, Whois availability. **
*Background*
The RAP Working Group addresses issues outlined in its charter, such as:
defining the difference between registration abuse and domain name abuse;
the effectiveness of existing registration abuse policies; and which areas,
if any, would be suitable for GNSO policy development to address. They have
generated (and are reviewing) a document that provides working definitions
of types and categories of abuse, and cites the primary target for each
abuse type.
In addition, a Uniformity of Contracts sub-team formed, and meets regularly
to review existing abuse provisions in registrar and registry agreements and
to discuss questions related to the uniformity of contracts. The sub-team
ponders issues such as, would there be benefits to having more uniformity in
contracts? How effective are existing provisions in dealing with
registration abuse?
The RAP Working Group held an open
meeting<http://mex.icann.org/files/meetings/mexico2009/transcript-gnso-registration-abuse-policies-workshop-03mar09-en.txt>in
Seoul. There, it briefed the community on its activities and
discussions
to date, including updates from the different sub-teams on Uniformity of
Contracts and Spam, Phishing, Malware.
Click here <http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/background/rap-en.htm> for
further background.
*More Information*
- Registration Abuse Policies Issues Report, 29 October
2008<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/registration-abuse/gnso-issues-report-registration-abuse-policies-29oct08.pdf>[PDF,
400K]
and translation <http://gnso.icann.org/policies/> of summary
- Registration Abuse Policies WG
Charter<https://st.icann.org/reg-abuse-wg/index.cgi?action=display_html;page_name=registration_abuse_policies_working_group>
- Registration Abuse Policies Mexico City Workshop
Transcript<http://mex.icann.org/files/meetings/mexico2009/transcript-gnso-registration-abuse-policies-workshop-03mar09-en.txt>
- Registration Abuse Policies Working Group
Workspace<https://st.icann.org/reg-abuse-wg/index.cgi?registration_abuse_policies_working_group>(Wiki)
*Staff Contacts*
Marika Konings <policy-staff at icann.org>, Policy Director, and Margie
Milam<policy-staff at icann.org>,
Senior Policy Counselor
------------------------------
11. New GNSO Council Pushes Ahead on All Fronts
*At a Glance*
*The Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) is implementing a
comprehensive series of organizational and structural changes to improve the
efficiency, effectiveness and accessibility of the organization. To become
familiar with the GNSO's new structure, visit the GNSO Improvements
webpage<http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/>
.*
*Recent Developments*
Having seated a new GNSO Council at the meeting in Seoul, Councilors are now
working diligently to understand all issues presently in the policy
development process, and to progress appropriately on those issues. A number
of procedural, structural, and housekeeping issues remain under discussion.
*Council and Work Team Implementation Efforts. *The GNSO’s Operations
Steering Committee (OSC) and Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC)
oversee five Work Teams staffed by volunteers from the GNSO and ALAC
communities. The Work Teams develop specific proposals and mechanisms for
implementing the GNSO Improvement Recommendations adopted by the Board.
These five Work Teams pursue the following activities:
* Policy Process Efforts:*
- The PDP Work Team
<https://st.icann.org/icann-ppsc/index.cgi?pdp_team>is developing
recommendations for a new policy development process (PDP).
The team continues its drafting work, meeting weekly .
- The Working Group Model Work
Team<https://st.icann.org/icann-ppsc/index.cgi?working_group_team>is
still reviewing drafts of its two new guidebooks, "Working Group
Implementation and Charter Drafting Guidelines" and "Working Group Operating
Model Guidebook."
* Operations Efforts:*
- The GNSO Operations Work
Team<https://st.icann.org/icann-osc/index.cgi?gnso_operations_team>continues
meeting bi-weekly to address additional provisions to the GNSO
Operating Procedures now that the new Council is seated. One issue under
discussion is how to address Council member abstentions, conflicts of
interest, and any impacts on voting procedures.
- The GNSO Constituency & Stakeholder Group Operations Work
Team<https://st.icann.org/icann-osc/index.cgi?constituency_operations_team>developed
recommendations for a “tool kit” of basic administrative,
operational and technical services that could be made available to all
Constituencies. There recommendations were approved by the Operations
Steering Committee (OSC), and a motion to approve the recommendations will
be considered by the GNSO Council at its 17 December meeting. The Work Team
is finalizing recommendations on its remaining tasks.
- The GNSO Communications Coordination Work
Team<https://st.icann.org/icann-osc/index.cgi?osc_communications_team>(CCT)
submitted to the OSC its final recommendations to (a) enhance the
GNSO’s ability to solicit meaningful community feedback, (b) improve GNSO’s
coordination with other ICANN structures, and (c) make
gnso.icann.orgmore usable. At the OSC’s request, ICANN Staff gathered
OSC member comments
concerning the report and drafted a letter (currently circulating for
approval) to the CCT containing suggestions for the Work Team to consider.
One specific recommendation is to split the final CCT report into two
sections: (1) Technology and (2) Communications and Coordination -- to take
advantage of the Technology aspect being closer to completion. Staff
developed drafts for both of these reports, which are currently being
reviewed pending final approval by the CCT.
*Next Steps*
The community implementation Work Teams will continue developing
recommendations for implementing the GNSO restructuring goals approved by
the Board. Existing GNSO Constituencies will be expected to continue their
re-confirmation discussions and it is hoped that recommendations from the
GNSO Constituency Operations Work Team will combine neatly with that
process. Dialogue on permanent CSG and NCSG charters will also likely begin
soon.
The Board is expected to continue its deliberations on the pending new
Constituency petitions.
*Background*
Through a series of decisions at its February, June, August and October 2008
meetings, the ICANN Board has endorsed a series of goals for improving
several aspects of the GNSO’s structure and operations. These decisions
culminate from a two-year effort of independent review, community input and
Board deliberations. To learn about the GNSO's new structure and
organization, please see the discussion and diagrams on the GNSO
Improvements webpage <http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/>.
*More Information*
- GNSO Improvements Information Web
Page<http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/>
- Latest public documents on proposals for new
constituencies<http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/newco-process-en.htm>
- New Bylaws relevant to the New GNSO
Council<http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws-amendments-27aug09.pdf>[PDF,
160K]
- New GNSO Council Operating
Procedures<http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/public-comment-draft-17sep09-en.pdf>[PDF,
108K]
*Staff Contact*
Robert Hoggarth <policy-staff at icann.org>, Senior Policy Director
------------------------------
12. Other Issues Active in the GNSO
- Vertical Separation between Registries and
Registrars<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-oct09-en.htm#8>
- Whois Studies<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-nov09-en.htm#11>
- Fast Flux Hosting<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-sep09-en.htm#12>
------------------------------
ASO
13. ARIN Shakes Up Policy Proposal for Recovered IPv4 Addresses
*At a Glance*
*Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) are discussing a proposed global policy
for handling IPv4 address space returned from the RIRs to IANA. According to
the proposal, IANA should act as a repository of returned address space and,
once the free pool of IANA IPv4 address space has been depleted, allocate
such space to the RIRs in smaller blocks than it currently does. *
*Recent Developments*
The RIRs discussed the proposal at their most recent meetings. APNIC has
adopted the proposal, which has passed final call in AfriNIC and LACNIC. In
ARIN, the proposal has been modified and the modified version has recently
passed final call. RIPE was awaiting the outcome in ARIN before acting on
the proposal. The main question now is whether the different versions
adopted lend themselves to reconciliation as a single global policy.
*Next Steps*
If adopted by all RIRs, the Number Resource Organization Executive Committee
and the Address Supporting Organization Address Council (ASO AC) will review
the proposal and then forward it to the ICANN Board for ratification and
implementation by IANA.
*Background*
IPv4 is the Internet Protocol addressing system used to allocate unique IP
address numbers in 32-bit format. With the massive growth of the Internet
user population, the pool of such unique numbers (approximately 4.3 billion)
is being depleted and a 128-bit numbering system (IPv6) will need to take
its place.
The proposed global policy has two distinct phases; 1) IANA only receives
returned IPv4 address space from the RIRs and 2) IANA continues to receive
returned IPv4 address space and also reallocates such space to the RIRs.
This proposal is connected to a recently adopted global policy for
allocating the remaining IPv4 address space. When that global policy takes
effect, it also triggers phase two in the proposal.
*More Information*
- Background
Report<http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-12may09-en.htm>(updated
4 September 2009)
- Global Policy Proposal for Handling Recovered
IPv4<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/background/ipv4-en.htm>
*Staff Contact*
Olof Nordling<mailto:policy-staff at icann.org?subject=Global%20Policies%20for%20IPv4>,
Director Services Relations
------------------------------
14. Postpone Transition to 32-Bit ASN? RIPE Says Yes
*At a Glance*
*Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) are discussing a proposed global policy
for Autonomous System Numbers (ASNs). The proposal would change the date for
a full transition from 16-bit to 32-bit ASNs from the beginning of 2010 to
the beginning of 2011, in order to allow more time for necessary upgrades of
the systems involved. *
*Recent Developments*
The proposal has been introduced in all RIRs (AfriNIC, APNIC, ARIN, LACNIC
and RIPE). It is under discussion in AfriNIC, has passed final call in ARIN,
LACNIC and APNIC, and has been adopted in RIPE.
*Next Steps*
If all RIRs adopt the proposal, the Number Resource Organization Executive
Committee and the Address Supporting Organization Address Council (ASO AC)
will review the proposal and then forward it to the ICANN Board for
ratification and implementation by IANA.
*Background*
Autonomous System Numbers (ASNs) are identifiers used for transit of IP
traffic. ASNs were originally 16 bits in length, but a transition to 32-bit
ASNs is under way to meet increasing demand. In line with the adopted Global
Policy currently in force for ASNs, 16-bit and 32-bit ASNs exist in
parallel, but all will be regarded as 32 bits long beginning in 2010. The
proposal defers that date to the beginning of 2011.
*More Information*
- Background
Report<http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-04sep09-en.htm>(posted
4 September 2009)
*Staff Contact*
Olof Nordling <policy-staff at icann.org>, Director Services Relations
------------------------------
Joint Efforts
15. Issues Active in Combined Efforts
- ICANN definition of Geographic
Regions<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-nov09-en.htm#17>
- Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) amendments and registrant
rights <http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-nov09-en.htm#18>
- Internationalized Domain Names
(IDNs)<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-nov09-en.htm#19>
------------------------------
At-Large
16. ALAC Responds to Board Review Report
*At a Glance*
*In response to a requirement in ICANN’s Bylaws, Boston Consulting Group/
Colin Carter & Associates conducted an external review of the effectiveness
of ICANN’s Board of Directors. The Board Review Working Group took the
consultant’s findings and issued a draft report with eight recommendations
for improving the Board. ALAC has issued a statement responding to the
recommendations.*
*Recent Developments*
On 19 September 2009, the ICANN Board Review Working Group issued its Draft
Final Report. In response to a call for public comment announced on 5
October 2009, the ALAC prepared a statement containing the views and
suggestions of the At-Large community as relayed to the ALAC in a bottom-up
process pertaining to the eight recommendations made by the Board Review
Working Group
In broad terms, ALAC supports the Board Review Working Group recommendations
that are contained within the Draft Final Report; but has a number of
concerns on several of the specific recommendations. For example, regarding
the WG’s recommendation to reduce the size of the Board, ALAC stated that
having two Board members elected by the At-Large community, rather than only
one as resolved by the Board on 27 August 2009, would allow for greater
balance and diversity of the Board. The ALAC statement also disagrees with
the suggestion of the WG that the At-Large Director should replace the
current position of the ALAC liaison to the Board. Rather, the ALAC
recommends that when the At-Large Board Member is seated, the position of
ALAC liaison to the Board continue at least until a second At-Large Board
member is put in place.
The proposed comments from At-Large / ALAC were initially composed by
Sebastien Bachollet, Chair of the At-Large working group on the Future
Structure and Governance of ICANN. The original text was made available for
At-Large community comment and was discussed during a teleconference of the
At-Large Working Group on the Future Structure and Governance of ICANN on 27
November 2009<https://st.icann.org/working-groups/index.cgi?27_november_2009>
.
Rev2 of the text, prepared by Sebastien Bachollet with assistance from Adam
Peake, incorporated comments received from the At-Large community and the
members of the At-Large Working Group on the Future Structure and Governance
of ICANN. Rev3 of the text (the present document) includes grammatical
clarifications.
The ALAC ratified the Statement with a 13 - 0 vote on 9 December 2009.
*Next Steps*
The ALAC Statement will be transmitted to the ICANN Board of Directors. The
At-Large community will continue to be involved in the discussions related
to the Board Review Working Group process.
*More Information*
- ALAC Statement on the Board Review WG
Report<https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?alac_statement_on_the_board_review_wg_report_al_alac_st_1109_1_rev3>
- ICANN Board Review Working Group Draft Final
Report<http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/board/board-review-wg-draft-final-report-19sep09-en.pdf>[PDF,
228K]
- ALAC vote to ratify the
statement<https://www.bigpulse.com/pollresults?code=UfjMs62S7dymGQULQFhn>
:
*Staff Contact*
Heidi Ullrich <policy-staff at icann.org>, At-Large Secretariat
------------------------------
17. ALAC Advises on the Introduction of IDN ccTLDs
* At a Glance*
* The IDN Policy Development Process Working Group is developing policies
they’ll recommend for managing internationalized domain names (IDNs). The
group issued a draft of a policy paper on the introduction of IDN country
code top-level domains (ccTLDs). ALAC has issued a statement responding to
the paper. *
*Recent Developments*
The ALAC Statement on the “Draft Topic Paper for Policy on the Introduction
of IDN ccTLDs” provided input to the IDN Policy Development Process WG 1 in
the form of seven questions. The questions included requests for
clarifications on issues such as:
- Who can be an IDN ccTLD operator?
- What is the selection process for IDN ccTLD operators for a territory?
- Who decides which group has the “rights” to an IDN ccTLD in a given
script?
The paper also poses suggestions for additional topics to be addressed by
the Working Group, mostly related to IDN ccTLD strings.
The ALAC ratified the Statement with a 14 - 0 vote on 9 December 2009.
*Next Steps*
The ALAC Statement will be transmitted to the ICANN Board of Directors. The
At-Large Working Group on IDN Policy will continue following the output of
the Working Group on the Selection and Delegation of IDN ccTLDs (IDNccPDP WG
1).
*Background*
The ALAC statement was first drafted by James Seng, Chair of the At-Large
Working Group on IDN Policy. The original text was made available for
At-Large community feedback on 25 November 2009.
This text was further discussed during a teleconference of the At-Large
Working Group on IDN Policy on 3 December
2009<https://st.icann.org/idn-policy/index.cgi?03_december_2009>
.
The first revision of this document (the present version) was prepared by
James Seng and incorporates comments received from the At-Large community on
the original version.
*More Information*
- Draft Topic Paper for Policy on the Introduction of IDN
ccTLDs<http://www.ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/idn-topic-paper-16oct09-en.pdf>[PDF,
116K]
- ALAC Statement on Draft Topic Paper for Policy on the Introduction of
IDN ccTLD<https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?alac_statement_on_the_draft_topic_paper_for_policy_on_the_introduction_of_idn_cctld_al_alac_st_1209_1_rev1>
- ALAC Vote to ratify the
Statement<https://www.bigpulse.com/pollresults?code=UfjMs62S7dymGQULQFhn>
*Staff Contact*
Matthias Langenegger, At-Large Secretariat <staff at atlarge.icann.org>
------------------------------
18. ALAC Opposes Changes to the NomCom
*At a Glance*
* In response to a call for public comment on the Review of the Nominating
Committee (NomCom) Draft Report, the ALAC issued a strong statement that
neither the size of the NomCom nor means of representation should be
significantly changed, other than to reflect any changes in the structure of
the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees. *
*Recent Developments*
The “Review of the NomCom” Draft Final Report recommended reducing the size
of the NomCom, including decreasing the number of ALAC representatives from
their present five (one from each Regional At-Large Organization, or RALO),
to three (rotating among the regions). The ALAC statement argues that any
reduction in ALAC representation is unwise from the standpoints of
geographic diversity, the broad range of ICANN issues beyond generic names
addressed by the At-Large community, and representation of the
Internet-using public.
*Background*
The original version<https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?naralo_statement_on_the_nomcom_review>of
the ALAC Statement on the NomCom Review was composed by Wendy Seltzer
on
behalf of the North-American Regional At-Large Organization and published on
17 November 2009.
The At-Large Working Group on the Future Structure and Governance of ICANN
decided to use the North American Statement as a basis for their Draft ALAC
Statement on the NomCom review and held a teleconference on November
27th<https://st.icann.org/working-groups/index.cgi?27_november_2009>to
discuss the Statement.
Adam Peake subsequently incorporated the suggestions made during that
discussion and published the final draft version of the ALAC Statement (the
present version) on 1 December 2009.
The ALAC ratified the Statement with a 14 - 0 vote on 9 December 2009.
*Next Steps*
The ALAC Statement will be transmitted to the ICANN Board of Directors. The
At-Large community will continue to monitor discussions related to the
review of the NomCom.
*More Information*
- ALAC Statement on the NomCom
Review<https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?alac_statement_on_the_nomcom_review_al_alac_st_1109_2>
- Review of the ICANN Nominating Committee – Draft Final
Report<http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/nomcom/nomcom-review-finalization-wg-draft-report-23sep09-en.pdf>[PDF,
396K]
- ALAC Vote to ratify the
Statement<https://www.bigpulse.com/pollresults?code=UfjMs62S7dymGQULQFhn>
*Staff Contact*
Matthias Langenegger <policy-staff at icann.org>, At-Large Secretariat
------------------------------
19. EURALO Produces Outreach Brochure
*At a Glance*
*Members of the At-Large European Regional Organization (EURALO) worked
intensively to create a brochure, which they will use for information
dissemination and outreach activities.*
*Recent Developments*
Members of the European Regional At-Large Organization (EURALO) created a
brochure for increasing awareness of EURALO within Europe. Included in the
EURALO brochure are the key issues members are working on, including the
introduction of new generic Top-Level Domains (gTLDs), trademark issues,
internationalized domain names (IDNs), and the transition from IPv4 to IPv6.
The brochure will be used to facilitate outreach activities.
The brochure also provides information on the membership of EURALO. The
brochure has already been distributed at such key events as the Internet
Governance Forum held in Sharm el Sheikh, Egypt 15 – 18 November, 2009.
*Next Steps*
EURALO members will use the new brochure for outreach to potential new
At-Large Structures at upcoming regional events. Regional organizations in
the four other At-Large regions will be developing their brochures in the
near future.
*More Information*
- EURALO brochure<http://www.atlarge.icann.org/euralo/ic-euralo-brochure-10nov09-en.pdf>[PDF,
176K]
*Staff Contact*
Matthias Langenegger <policy-staff at icann.org>, At-Large Secretariat
------------------------------
SSAC
20. Issues Active with the SSAC
The Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) is considering several
security related issues, including the Report of the Root Scaling Study
Team, display and usage of Internationalized registration data (Whois data),
orphaned domain names, and domain name history. These and other topics may
be the addressed in future SSAC Reports or Advisories.
*Staff Contact*
Julie Hedlund <policy-staff at icann.org?subject=SSAC%20Retreat>, Director,
SSAC Support
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/africann/attachments/20091226/c57d8319/attachment-0001.htm
More information about the AfrICANN
mailing list