<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text Char";
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.5pt;
font-family:Consolas;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.PlainTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Plain Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text";
font-family:Consolas;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page Section1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:70.85pt 70.85pt 70.85pt 70.85pt;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=FR link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>FYI<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span lang=EN-US>ICANN's July
Monthly Policy Update is included below. </span>It also will be posted
(with hyperlinks) on ICANN's website at <<a
href="http://www.icann.org/topics/policy/">http://www.icann.org/topics/policy/</a>>
and is available via online subscription. <span lang=EN-US>To receive
these updates in your inbox each month, go to <</span><a
href="http://www.icann.org/newsletter"><span lang=EN-US>http://www.icann.org/newsletter</span></a><span
lang=EN-US>> and select "Policy Update" to subscribe.<br>
<br>
</span>==============================<br>
<br>
ICANN POLICY UPDATE – July 2008 <br>
<br>
<br>
CONTENTS<br>
<br>
1. GNSO – IMPROVEMENTS<br>
2. GNSO – DOMAIN NAME TASTING<br>
3. GNSO – WHOIS<br>
4. GNSO – INTER-REGISTRAR TRANSFER POLICY REVIEW<br>
5. GNSO – FAST FLUX HOSTING<br>
6. MULTIPLE ENTITIES – DOMAIN NAME FRONT RUNNING<br>
7. MULTIPLE ENTITIES – IDN ccTLDs<br>
8. MULTIPLE ENTITIES – ICANN'S GEOGRAPHIC REGIONS<br>
9. CCNSO – INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT PLANS<br>
10. AT-LARGE – PARIS MEETING<br>
11. AT-LARGE – AT-LARGE SUMMIT<br>
12. AT-LARGE – ELECTIONS<br>
13. ASO AC – GLOBAL POLICY PROPOSALS (ASNs, IPv4)<br>
14. SSAC – DNSSEC-CAPABLE NAME SERVER SURVEY<br>
15. SSAC – ANTI-PHISHING ACTIVITIES <br>
<br>
<br>
Below are brief summaries of 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. 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>
<br>
Recent Developments<br>
On 26 June 2008, the ICANN Board approved all of the GNSO Improvement Report's
recommendations, except for the recommendation on GNSO Council
restructuring. The Board also requested that the GNSO convene a small
working group on council restructuring and provide for the Board's
consideration a consensus recommendation by 25 July 2008. <br>
<br>
Next Steps<br>
The public comment period on the Council's top-level GNO Improvements
implementation plan is scheduled to close on 17 July 2008. A small working
group on GNSO Council restructuring has convened and expects to continue with
its work. Consistent with its Resolution, Board consideration of the
future structure of the GNSO Council is expected to be resolved no later than
at its 28 August 2008 meeting. <br>
<br>
Background<br>
The ICANN Board has approved a comprehensive set of recommendations to improve
the structure and operations of the Generic Names Supporting Organization
(GNSO). This effort is part of ICANN's own ongoing commitment to evolve and
improve, and follows an independent review of the GNSO by the London School of
Economics and others, as well as extensive public consultation. <br>
<br>
A working group of the ICANN Board Governance Committee (BGC WG) developed and
presented these recommendations in a GNSO Improvements Report that includes
ways to improve the effectiveness of the GNSO's policy development activities,
structure, operations and communications. At the February 2008 Board meeting in
New Delhi, the Board accepted the Report for consideration, and directed ICANN
Staff to post it for public comment, draft a detailed implementation plan in
consultation with the GNSO, begin implementation of the non-contentious
recommendations, and then return to the Board and community for further
consideration.<br>
<br>
The GNSO Council subsequently formed a GNSO Improvement Planning Team (Planning
Team), comprised of GNSO leadership, constituency representatives, ICANN Staff
and a Board liaison participant, in order to develop a top-level implementation
plan to organize and manage the implementation effort. On 19 May 2008, the
Planning Team produced a draft version of the GNSO Improvements Top Level
Plan. The plan focuses on the creation of two standing committees, GNSO
Process and GNSO Operations, which would be responsible for ensuring that the
work of implementing BGC WG recommendations is carried out. <br>
<br>
More Information<br>
• GNSO Improvements information page <<a
href="http://www.icann.org/topics/gnso-improvements/">http://www.icann.org/topics/gnso-improvements/</a>><br>
• Full GNSO Improvements Report <<a
href="http://www.icann.org/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-report-03feb08.pdf">http://www.icann.org/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-report-03feb08.pdf</a>>
<br>
• 15 February 2008 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>
• GNSO Improvements - Top Level Plan, 21 June 2008 <<a
href="http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-improvements-top-level-plan-21jun08.pdf">http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-improvements-top-level-plan-21jun08.pdf</a>><br>
• 26 June Board resolution on GNSO Improvements <<a
href="http://www.icann.org/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm">http://www.icann.org/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm</a>
- _Toc76113182><br>
<br>
Staff Contact<br>
Rob Hoggarth, Senior Policy Director <br>
<br>
<br>
2. GNSO – DOMAIN NAME TASTING<br>
<br>
Recent Developments<br>
The ICANN Board approved the GNSO Council recommendation to curb abuse of the
"add grace period" (AGP) for domain tasting, and also approved the
draft budget for FY 2008-09, which includes language to curb domain tasting.
Prior to Board approval, Staff prepared an initial "Implementation
Advisory" on modifications to the AGP, which examined each component of
the GNSO Council recommendation and identified particular implementation steps
that should be considered to put the recommendation and the FY 09 Budget Plan
in place.<br>
<br>
Next Steps<br>
Staff will be developing a detailed implementation plan for community review. <br>
<br>
Background<br>
The term "domain name tasting" refers to a situation where an entity
registers a domain name and then tests to see if the name has sufficient
traffic to generate 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), that allows domains to be returned within five days without
cost, is used to return the domain at no net cost to the registrant and no
ICANN charge levied on the registrar. The practice is controversial because
registrants who engage in it are able to temporarily register hundreds of
thousands of domain names, with these temporary registrations far exceeding the
number of domain names actually licensed. <br>
<br>
Over time, there has been a significant increase in the number of domains
registered and returned prior to expiration of the AGP. A significant
number of community members feel the AGP process presents a loophole that
facilitates this conduct. On 17 April 2008, the GNSO Council by
supermajority vote approved a recommendation that 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>
In addition, the provision that had been included previously in the ICANN draft
budget for FY 2009 (applying the ICANN USD .20 annual fee to all new
registrations) was modified to reflect the same threshold included in the GNSO
Council recommendation. This new language would apply the annual ICANN
fee only to those registrations that exceed the maximum of (i) 10% of that
registrar's net new registrations in that month (defined as total new
registrations less domains deleted during AGP), or (ii) fifty (50) domain
names, whichever is greater. <br>
<br>
More Information<br>
• Public comment request on Domain Tasting motion with
summary of comments <<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>
• ICANN Board resolution on Domain Tasting <<a
href="http://www.icann.org/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm#_Toc76113173">http://www.icann.org/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm#_Toc76113173</a>><br>
• Reference to relevant language in FY 09 Budget, see p.
20 <<a
href="http://www.icann.org/en/financials/proposed-opplan-budget-v3-fy09-25jun08-en.pdf">http://www.icann.org/en/financials/proposed-opplan-budget-v3-fy09-25jun08-en.pdf</a>><br>
• 16 June Staff Implementation Advisory on Domain Tasting
<<a
href="http://gnso.icann.org/issues/domain-tasting/gnso-domain-tasting-implementation-advisory-16jun08.pdf">http://gnso.icann.org/issues/domain-tasting/gnso-domain-tasting-implementation-advisory-16jun08.pdf</a>><br>
<br>
Staff Contact<br>
Liz Gasster, Senior Policy Counselor<br>
<br>
<br>
3. GNSO – WHOIS <br>
<br>
Recent Developments<br>
During the June 2008 Paris meeting, the GNSO Council voted to reconvene a group
to review the study recommendations offered through the public comment period
and the studies requested by the GAC and, based on those recommendations and
the GAC request, prepare a concise list of hypotheses. The group has six (6)
weeks to deliver this to the Council for consideration.<br>
<br>
Next Steps<br>
Following submission of the list of hypotheses to the Council, the Council will
then decide whether any potential studies should be further considered, and if
so, identify hypotheses that it would like the Staff to determine cost,
feasibility, potential methodology, and estimated time frames for testing.<br>
<br>
Background<br>
WHOIS services provide public access to data on registered domain names, data
that currently includes contact information for Registered Name Holders. The
extent of registration data collected at the time a domain name is registered,
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>
<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 would 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 solicited suggestions for specific topics of study on
WHOIS from community stakeholders, with possible areas of study including 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, and a comparative study of
gTLD and ccTLD WHOIS. A public comment forum was opened through 15
February 2008, in order to solicit suggestions for specific topics of study on
WHOIS. Approximately 25 suggestions were received, and a summary of comments
was prepared. <br>
<br>
On 27 March 2008, the GNSO Council convened a group of volunteers to do the
following: (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 would be asked to provide cost estimates to the Council;
and (3) produce the list of recommendations with supporting rationale.<br>
<br>
On 22 May 2008, the WHOIS study group delivered its report to the Council. In
addition to considering the recommendations solicited from the public, the
group also considered recommendations offered by the Governmental Advisory
Committee (GAC) for WHOIS studies. The report reflected two opposing viewpoints
among participants. A significant number of participants believe that no
further studies should be conducted because further study (and the resulting
information) would be unlikely to persuade any stakeholders to modify existing
strongly held positions. The second group of participants believe further
studies would be useful in informing the debate, and their comments include
specific recommendations for further study in three primary areas: 1) the
availability of privacy services; 2) the demand and motivation for the use of
privacy services; and 3) certain studies of WHOIS misuse, detailed further in
the report. <br>
<br>
More Information<br>
• GNSO WHOIS Policy Work Web Page <<a
href="http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/">http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/</a>><br>
• GAC Recommendations of 16 April 2008 <<a
href="http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karlins-to-thrush-16apr08.pdf">http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karlins-to-thrush-16apr08.pdf</a>><br>
• Summary of Public Suggestions on Further Studies of WHOIS
(updated 10 May 2008 with GAC recommendations of 16 April) <<a
href="http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-study-suggestion-report-10may08.pdf">http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-study-suggestion-report-10may08.pdf</a>><br>
• 25 June GNSO Council resolution on WHOIS <<a
href="http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/">http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/</a>><br>
<br>
Staff Contact<br>
Liz Gasster, Senior Policy Counselor <br>
<br>
<br>
4. GNSO – INTER-REGISTRAR TRANSFER POLICY REVIEW<br>
<br>
Recent Developments<br>
A GNSO drafting group addressing the first set of transfer denial reasons
(called "Transfer PDP 1") reported on its findings to the GNSO
Council. The Council resolved on 25 June 2008 to post the proposals for
transfer denial reasons #8 and #9 for public comments, while deferring denial
reasons #5 and #7 to be handled in a future transfer policy development process
(PDP) (see explanations below). The Council also decided to launch the new PDP
on "New IRTP Issues" (aka "Set A" described below).<br>
<br>
Next Steps<br>
Following the public comment period regarding Transfer PDP 1, the Council will
decide on whether to forward the two proposed texts as a Council Recommendation
to the ICANN Board for modification of the IRTP provisions. Regarding the New
IRTP Issues - Set A, a charter for a new working group is being developed and
will be considered at the next GNSO Council meeting on 17 July 2008.<br>
<br>
Background<br>
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 and is now being reviewed by the GNSO. As
part of that effort, the GNSO 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>
The IRTP performs a critical function but the specific terms of the policy can
be arcane and the work to clarify them complex. In an effort to deal with
that complexity while moving to get clarifications and improvements on-line as
soon as possible, the Council initiated a policy development process (Transfer
PDP 1) to immediately examine four specific issues from the broader list that
addressed reasons for which a registrar of record may deny a request to
transfer a domain name to a new registrar. The IRTP currently enumerates nine
(9) specific reasons why a registrar can deny a transfer. Those issues
identified as needing clarification included the following:<br>
• "No payment for previous registration period"
(Denial Reason #5);<br>
• "A domain was already in "lock" status"
(Denial Reason #7);<br>
• The domain was in the first 60 days of an initial
registration period (Denial Reason #8); and<br>
• A domain name is within 60 days of being transferred
(Denial Reason #9)<br>
ICANN Staff finalized and posted an Initial Report for public comment as part
of this PDP and used public comments received to compile a Final Report for the
Council's consideration on further steps to take. At the GNSO Council meeting
on 17 April 2008, a drafting group was launched to develop suggested text
modifications for the four transfer denial reasons. <br>
<br>
Parallel to 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 2008, the group delivered a report to the
Council that suggested combining the consideration of related issues into five
new PDPs. On 8 May 2008, the Council adopted the structuring of five
additional inter-registrar transfers PDPs as suggested by the planning group
(in addition to the ongoing Transfer PDP 1 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>
The Council requested an Issues Report from Staff on the first of the new PDP
issue sets (Set A – New IRTP Issues), which has since been delivered to the
Council. The three "new" issues in Set A address (1) the potential
exchange of registrant email information between registrars, (2) the potential
for including new forms of electronic authentication to verify transfer
requests and avoid "spoofing", and (3) to consider whether the IRTP
should include provisions for "partial bulk transfers" between
registrars.<br>
<br>
More Information<br>
• Draft Advisory <<a
href="http://gnso.icann.org/issues/transfers/gnso-draft-transfer-advisory-14nov07.pdf">http://gnso.icann.org/issues/transfers/gnso-draft-transfer-advisory-14nov07.pdf</a>><br>
• Initial Report <<a
href="http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-17mar08.htm">http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-17mar08.htm</a>><br>
• 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>
• Drafting group outcome < <a
href="http://gnso.icann.org/issues/transfers/gnso-final-draft-denial-reasons-04jun08.pdf">http://gnso.icann.org/issues/transfers/gnso-final-draft-denial-reasons-04jun08.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>
• Issues Report, Set A (<a
href="http://gnso.icann.org/issues/transfers/transfer-issues-report-set-a-23may08.pdf">http://gnso.icann.org/issues/transfers/transfer-issues-report-set-a-23may08.pdf</a>
<br>
<br>
<br>
5. GNSO – FAST FLUX HOSTING<br>
<br>
Recent Developments<br>
At its 25 June 2008 meeting, the GNSO Council initiated a fast flux policy
development process and appointed a fast flux working group chair and Council
liaison. <br>
<br>
Next Steps<br>
With assistance from Staff, a template for constituency statements is due 40
days after the Working Group is initiated (5 August 2008), and constituency
statements are then due 30 days after the template is released (no later than 4
September 2008). A Final Report will be submitted to the GNSO Council and
posted for public comment at 90 days (target – 25 September 2008). <br>
<br>
The Working Group's Final Report will discuss these questions and the range of
possible answers developed by its members. The Report also will outline
potential next steps for Council deliberation. These next steps may include
further work items for the Working Group or policy recommendation for
constituency and community review and comment, and for Council deliberation.<br>
<br>
Background<br>
Fast flux hosting is a term that refers to several techniques used by
cybercriminals to evade detection in which the 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, and some will be
outside of ICANN's scope. <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 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. Subsequently, at its 29 May 2008
meeting, the GNSO Council approved a working group charter to consider the
following questions:<br>
<br>
• Who benefits from fast flux, and who is harmed?<br>
• Who would benefit from cessation of the practice and who
would be harmed?<br>
• Are registry operators involved, or could they be, in fast
flux hosting activities? If so, how?<br>
• Are registrars involved in fast flux hosting activities? If
so, how?<br>
• How are registrants affected by fast flux hosting?<br>
• How are Internet users affected by fast flux hosting?<br>
• What technical (e.g. changes to the way in which DNS
updates operate) and policy (e.g. changes to registry/registrar agreements or
rules governing permissible registrant behavior) measures could be implemented
by registries and registrars to mitigate the negative effects of fast flux?<br>
• What would be the impact (positive or negative) of
establishing limitations, guidelines, or restrictions on registrants,
registrars and/or registries with respect to practices that enable or facilitate
fast flux hosting?<br>
• What would be the impact of these limitations, guidelines,
or restrictions to product and service innovation?<br>
• What are some of the best practices available with regard
to protection from fast flux?<br>
<br>
The group also will obtain expert opinion, as appropriate, on which areas of
fast flux are in scope and out of scope for GNSO policy making.<br>
<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>
• 25 June GNSO Council resolution on Fast Flux Hosting <<a
href="http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/">http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/</a>><br>
<br>
Staff Contact<br>
Liz Gasster, Senior Policy Counselor <br>
<br>
<br>
6. MULTIPLE ENTITIES – DOMAIN NAME FRONT RUNNING<br>
<br>
Recent Developments<br>
At its 8 May 2008 meeting, the GNSO Council approved a motion to create a
drafting team to consider questions such as the following:<br>
<br>
• How is the [domain name front running] 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>
The goal of the drafting team was 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 reference for further work.
Subsequently, on 29 May 2008, ICANN Staff recommended that more information be
obtained about other research activities that may be contemplated or underway
(such as possible research by the SSAC and by ICANN) before proceeding with
work by this drafting team. At the GNSO Council meeting on 25 June 2008, the
Council accepted this recommendation and voted to put the drafting team effort
on hold until current research efforts are completed.<br>
<br>
At its June 2008 meeting in Paris, the ccNSO Council asked the ccNSO
Secretariat to produce a high–level overview on front-running to allow further
ccNSO discussion. <br>
<br>
Next Steps<br>
The GNSO Council may consider further work once current research efforts are
completed, and the ccNSO Council will consider the Staff overview and related
material.<br>
<br>
Background<br>
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 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 uses the 5-day
add grace period (AGP), during which the domain can be locked without permanent
payment. <br>
<br>
On 27 March 2008, after being alerted to the issue by (1) industry input, (2) a
Security and Stability Advisory Committee report, and (3) a letter from the
At-Large Advisory Committee to the ICANN Board requesting emergency action, the
Chair of the ICANN Board referred the matter to the GNSO Council for additional
information gathering and policy development, if necessary. <br>
<br>
More Information<br>
• Original ALAC Correspondence Raising Front Running Issue
<<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>
• 29 May 2008 Staff response to GNSO Council questions on
Front Running <<a
href="http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/front-running-staff-response-to-gnso-council-08may-request-29may08.pdf">http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/front-running-staff-response-to-gnso-council-08may-request-29may08.pdf</a>>
<br>
• 25 June GNSO Council resolution on Front Running drafting
team <<a href="http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/">http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/</a>><br>
<br>
Staff Contact<br>
Liz Gasster, Senior Policy Counselor, GNSO, and Gabriella Schittek, ccNSO
Secretariat<br>
<br>
<br>
7. MULTIPLE ENTITIES – IDN CCTLDs<br>
<br>
Recent Developments<br>
The working group on IDN country code top level domains (IDNC WG) concluded its
work and submitted to the ICANN Board a final report on feasible methods for
timely (fast-track) introduction of a limited number of IDN ccTLDs associated
with ISO 3166-1 two-letter codes while an overall, long-term IDN ccTLD policy
is under development by the ccNSO. At the June 2008 Paris meeting, the Board
directed Staff to: (1) post the IDNC WG final report for public comments; (2)
commence work on implementation issues in consultation with relevant
stakeholders; and (3) submit a detailed implementation report, including a list
of any outstanding issues, to the Board in advance of the November 2008 ICANN
Cairo meeting. <br>
<br>
Next Steps<br>
The IDNC WG Final Report has been posted for public comments. Staff will begin
work on implementation issues in consultation with relevant stakeholders. <br>
<br>
Background<br>
The potential introduction of Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) represents
the beginning of an exciting new chapter in the history of the Internet. IDNs
offer many potential 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>
The joint 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 ccNSO Policy
Development Process on IDN ccTLDs (IDNccPDP), 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
following parameters:<br>
<br>
• The overarching requirement to preserve the security and
stability of the DNS 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>
On 13 June 2008, the IDNC WG published a draft Final Report for discussion by
the IDNC WG and the broader community. At the June 2008 Paris ICANN meeting,
several workshops and meetings were conducted to discuss the draft Final
Report, resulting in several revisions and the work necessary to enable the WG
to submit its final report to the ICANN Board. <br>
<br>
In parallel to considerations of a "fast track" approach, the ccNSO
Council initiated a comprehensive long-term policy development process for
IDNccTLDs (referred to as the IDNcc PDP). The ccNSO Council formally
requested an 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. According to the ICANN bylaws, the creation of the
Issue Report is the second step in launching the IDN ccPDP. The final step is
the decision of the ccNSO Council to initiate the ccPDP<br>
<br>
The GNSO and several other parties submitted comments regarding a proposed
IDNcc PDP. The Issues Report was submitted to the ccNSO Council and is the
basis for the Council's ongoing IDNcc PDP discussions.<br>
<br>
More Information<br>
• Board Proposal IDNC WG, the Final Report IDNC WG on Fast
Track Process for IDN ccTLDs <<a
href="http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-26jun08-en.htm">http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-26jun08-en.htm</a>><br>
• 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<br>
Bart Boswinkel, Senior Policy Advisor, ccNSO<br>
<br>
<br>
8. MULTIPLE ENTITIES – ICANN'S GEOGRAPHIC REGIONS
<br>
<br>
Recent Developments <br>
ICANN Staff is soliciting input from Supporting Organizations and Advisory
Committees. <br>
<br>
Next Steps<br>
Input will be summarized and reported to the Board for consideration.<br>
<br>
Background<br>
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>
The ICANN Board determined that because any change to ICANN Geographic Regions
could have widespread effect in ICANN, the views of other Supporting
Organizations and Advisory Committees should be sought by the Board. 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. <br>
<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<br>
Robert Hoggarth, Senior Policy Director<br>
<br>
<br>
9. CCNSO – INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT PLANS <br>
<br>
Recent Developments<br>
At its June 2008 meeting in Paris, the ccNSO Council adopted new administrative
procedures that include:<br>
<br>
• Guidelines for ccNSO Council meetings;<br>
• Guidelines for ccNSO general meetings;<br>
• Setting-up Working Groups and templates to assist drafting
of charters;<br>
• Guidelines for Selection of Board seats 11 and 12, and
election of ccNSO Council members by the ccNSO; and<br>
• Guidelines for liaisons and observers from other ICANN
related entities. <br>
<br>
Next Steps<br>
The Processes WG will continue its work on a few more guidelines, including one
to improve the participation of ccTLDs in ICANN's yearly strategic and
operational planning processes. <br>
<br>
Background<br>
The ccNSO Council has initiated efforts to improve its work plans,
administrative procedures and communications tools. As a result of a Council
workshop held at the ICANN New Delhi meeting earlier this year, a working group
of the Council was established to propose administrative procedures for the
ccNSO. The Council also approved the creation of a new
"authoritative" ccTLD managers email list. At the time of the Paris
meeting, 95 ccTLD managers had subscribed. Subscription is open to ccTLD
managers and any persons they designate to be on the list. <br>
<br>
In addition, the ccNSO has been conducting a participation survey to understand
better why ccTLDs do or do not participate in ccNSO meetings. The results of
the survey were presented at the ccNSO meeting and will be published on the
ICANN website. The Participation WG, in close cooperation with ICANN's Regional
Liaisons, developed a leaflet on participation in both the ccNSO and Regional
organizations. The leaflet was presented at the ICANN meeting in Paris last
month.<br>
<br>
More Information<br>
• Guidelines and ccNSO information <<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 <<a
href="http://www.ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/participationwg.htm">www.ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/participationwg.htm</a>><br>
• ccNSO Administrative Processes Working Group <<a
href="http://www.ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/processeswg.htm">http://www.ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/processeswg.htm</a>><br>
<br>
Staff Contacts<br>
Bart Boswinkel, Senior Policy Advisor, ccNSO and Gabriella Schittek, ccNSO
Secretariat<br>
<br>
<br>
10. AT-LARGE – PARIS MEETING <br>
<br>
Recent Developments<br>
Last month in Paris, At-Large concluded a highly productive series of
meetings. Highlights include:<br>
<br>
• Discussions on IDNs and new GTLDs at the ALAC's first
meeting with the GAC; <br>
• Discussions on IDNs, New GTLDs, GNSO Improvements and
future cooperative efforts at the ALAC's first meeting with the GNSO Council; <br>
• Discussions on Fast Track IDNs and Geographic Regions with
the ccNSO Council;<br>
• The first meeting of the General Assembly of the European
Regional At-Large Organisation (EURALO) (Regional At-Large Organizations –
RALOs -- are the federations of At-Large user groups at the regional level);<br>
• Finalization of a statement to the ICANN Board on elements
of the GNSO's New gTLD Policy Report; <br>
• Discussions in the At-Large community on how to create a
structured, repeatable, bottom-up process for the development of ALAC policy
statements to the Board; <br>
• Continued preparatory work on the At-Large Summit;<br>
• A well-attended and received workshop on the migration from
IPv4 to IPv6; <br>
• Concentrated work and initial comments on the draft
At-Large Review at two public sessions.<br>
<br>
More Information<br>
• The European Regional At-Large Organisation (EURALO) <<a
href="http://www.euralo.org">http://www.euralo.org</a>><br>
• ALAC Statement to the Board of ICANN on the GNSO New gTLD
Policy's Objections Provisions <<a
href="https://st.icann.org/gnso-liaison/index.cgi/AL-ALAC-MT-32-6-2%20ALAC%20Statement%20on%20New%20GTLD%20Policy%20Objections%20-%20EN.pdf?action=attachments_download;page_name=new_gtlds_documents;id=20080703094502-0-1736">https://st.icann.org/gnso-liaison/index.cgi/AL-ALAC-MT-32-6-2%20ALAC%20Statement%20on%20New%20GTLD%20Policy%20Objections%20-%20EN.pdf?action=attachments_download;page_name=new_gtlds_documents;id=20080703094502-0-1736</a>><br>
<br>
Staff Contact<br>
Nick Ashton-Hart, Director for At-Large<br>
<br>
<br>
11. AT-LARGE – AT-LARGE SUMMIT<br>
<br>
Recent Developments<br>
The ICANN Board approved funding for the At-Large Summit at its meeting in
Paris last month. The Summit proposed by the At-Large community will bring
together one representative from each of the worldwide community of Internet
end-user groups participating in ICANN At-Large. The Summit is
tentatively scheduled to be held in conjunction with the 2009 ICANN meeting in
Mexico City.<br>
<br>
More Information<br>
• At-Large Summit proposal <<a
href="https://st.icann.org/summit-wg">https://st.icann.org/summit-wg</a>><br>
<br>
Staff Contact<br>
Nick Ashton-Hart, Director for At-Large<br>
<br>
<br>
12. AT-LARGE – ELECTIONS <br>
<br>
Recent Developments<br>
The At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) Chair, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, opened the
nominations for ALAC's ICANN Board Liaison position for the term that will
commence at the close of the Cairo ICANN Meeting, in November 2008. The
candidates include the incumbent, Wendy Seltzer, and Beau Brendler of Consumer
Reports. Members of the At-Large community will have a teleconference
with the candidates prior to the vote.<br>
<br>
An election also will be held in July 2008 for a vacant European seat on the
ALAC. <br>
<br>
A third of the members of ALAC will be up for election in advance of the Cairo
ICANN meeting as part of the staggered election cycles adopted by the RALOs in
2006 and 2007. <br>
<br>
Staff Contact<br>
Nick Ashton-Hart, Director for At-Large<br>
<br>
<br>
13. ASO AC - GLOBAL POLICY PROPOSALS (ASNs, IPv4)<br>
<br>
Recent Developments - Autonomous System Numbers (ASNs) <br>
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. The policy proposal has been
adopted by all RIRs and the final text submitted from the NRO Executive
Committee to the ASO Address Council (ASO AC). The proposal was forwarded
to the ICANN Board for ratification on 13 June 2008. <br>
<br>
Next Steps<br>
The global policy proposal for ASNs has been posted for public comments on the
ICANN website. Following the outcome of the public comments, the ICANN Board
will decide on ratification of the policy within a 60-day period from the date
of submission. <br>
<br>
Recent Developments - Remaining IPv4 Address Space <br>
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. The proposal has been discussed at all the RIR meetings (APNIC, ARIN,
RIPE, LACNIC and AfriNIC) during the last four (4) months. The proposal has
been adopted within ARIN and is in discussion within the other RIRs, where it
has reached consensus within AfriNIC and LACNIC. <br>
<br>
Next Steps<br>
Discussions within RIPE and APNIC are not conclusive regarding the level of
support for the proposal at this stage and may not be so until the next RIPE
and APNIC meetings later in 2008.<br>
<br>
More information:<br>
• Background Report ASN <<a
href="http://www.icann.org/announcements/proposal-asn-report-29nov07.htm">http://www.icann.org/announcements/proposal-asn-report-29nov07.htm</a>><br>
• Background Report IPV4 <<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<br>
Olof Nordling, Director Services Relations<br>
<br>
<br>
14. SSAC – DNSSEC-CAPABLE NAME SERVER SURVEY<br>
<br>
Recent Developments<br>
SSAC continues to survey the availability of DNSSEC features amongst
commercial, open source, and publicly available name server software releases.
A public notice web page (SAC030) announcing the survey has been
published. The set of survey questions were sent to approximately 40
software vendors and developers. SSAC has received survey responses from about
40% of the vendors and products surveyed. The majority of responses come from
commercial vendors. Soliciting survey responses from the Open Source community
has been more difficult. The initial set of responses is now published and
contains responses from most major commercial DNS vendors. The initial results
are encouraging –60% of products support DNSSEC core standards and have
conducted interoperability testing. Tabularized results are online at <a
href="http://www.icann.org/committees/security/sac030.htm">http://www.icann.org/committees/security/sac030.htm</a>.<br>
<br>
Next Steps<br>
SSAC will continue to collect information related to DNSSEC deployment status
and intends to provide a more comprehensive report at the Cairo ICANN meeting.<br>
<br>
More Information<br>
• SSAC <<a href="http://www.icann.org/committees/security/">http://www.icann.org/committees/security/</a>>
<br>
<br>
Staff Contact<br>
Dave Piscitello, Senior Security Technologist<br>
<br>
<br>
15. SSAC – ANTI PHISHING ACTIVITIES<br>
<br>
Recent Developments<br>
The term phishing has been used to describe criminal and fraudulent attempts by
bad actors to acquire sensitive private information, such as usernames,
passwords and credit card details, by masquerading as trustworthy entities in
an electronic communication. SSAC has been addressing this matter through
several activities. <br>
<br>
Following a one-month opportunity offered to the Registrar community to review
and comment, SAC028, Registrar Impersonation in Phishing Attacks, was published
on 26 May 2008. The document was well received by the Internet Policy
Committee's Anti Phishing Working Group (APWG), which hopes to factor some of
SAC028's findings into the fast flux issues identification work being done for
the GNSO.<br>
<br>
ICANN Staff has also reviewed a new APWG report, Global Phishing Survey: Domain
Name Use and Trends in 2007, that surveys and analyzes data related to phishing
attacks during 2007. Of particular interest is the report's analysis of
phishing distribution across ccTLDs and a rise in the use of subdomains for
phishing attacks. This report and a second report presented at the High
Technology Crime Investigation Association (HTCIA) provide valuable insight
into the spam and phishing "hot spots." Using spam data collected
since 2005 the HTCIA report concludes that 90% of illegal web sites are hosted
at domains registered through just 20 registrars.<br>
<br>
SSAC has concluded an initial study of a practice wherein a DNS operator may
return a different DNS response message in response to a non-existent domain
name error from the one that would reflect content the domain registrant
intended to publish in its zone file. Two variants of this practice are
described in SAC032, Preliminary Advisory on DNS Response Modification (June
2008). <br>
<br>
Parties to whom the registrant entrusts to host its zone file use the first
variant, where the entrusted party creates a wild card resource record that
resolves any name the registrant did not explicitly include in his zone file to
an IP address of the entrusted party's choosing (typically a revenue generating
or advertising page). The second variant is implemented by any operator of an
iterative name server that processes a client's DNS query of a name in a
domain. The operator intercepts and rewrites "name error" DNS
responses so that the response signals "name exists" rather than the
error the domain registrant intended to return. The DNS response from such an
operator also redirects the client to an IP address of the DNS operator's
choosing. Both variants create several troubling security and operational
stability issues for domain registrants, and also create opportunities for
phishing attacks.<br>
<br>
More Information<br>
• SAC028, Registrar Impersonation in Phishing Attacks, 26 May
2008 <<a href="http://icann.org/committees/security/ssac-documents.htm">http://icann.org/committees/security/ssac-documents.htm</a>><br>
• Global Phishing Survey 2007 <<a
href="http://www.apwg.org/reports/APWG_GlobalPhishingSurvey2007.pdf">http://www.apwg.org/reports/APWG_GlobalPhishingSurvey2007.pdf</a>><br>
• SAC 032, Preliminary Advisory on DNS Response Modification,
June 2008 <<a href="http://www.icann.org/committees/security/sac032.pdf">http://www.icann.org/committees/security/sac032.pdf</a>><br>
<br>
Staff Contact<br>
Dave Piscitello, Senior Security Technologist<br>
<br>
<br>
# # #<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>Glen de Saint Géry<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>GNSO Secretariat<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>http://gnso.icann.org<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>