<div id="doctitle">
<p class="title">ICANN POLICY UPDATE</p>
<p class="subtitle"><strong>Volume 09, Issue 12 — December 2009</strong></p>
</div>
<a href="http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/"><strong>http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/</strong></a>
<p><strong>CONTENTS:</strong></p>
<p><strong>Across ICANN</strong></p>
<ol start="1"><li><strong><a href="http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-dec09-en.htm#1">Policy Update Experiments with Streamlined Format</a></strong></li><li><strong><a href="http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-dec09-en.htm#2">Issues Currently Open for Public Comment</a></strong></li>
<li><strong><a href="http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-dec09-en.htm#3">Transitions</a></strong></li></ol>
<p><strong>ccNSO</strong></p>
<ol start="4"><li><strong><a href="http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-dec09-en.htm#4">ccNSO Welcomes Mozambique as 100th Member</a></strong></li><li><strong><a href="http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-dec09-en.htm#5">ccNSO Adds Shared Resources Web Page</a></strong></li>
<li><strong><a href="http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-dec09-en.htm#6">Other Issues Active in the ccNSO</a></strong></li></ol>
<p><strong>GNSO</strong></p>
<ol start="7"><li><strong><a href="http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-dec09-en.htm#7">“Specific Trademark Issues” Team Reports</a></strong></li><li><strong><a href="http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-dec09-en.htm#8">Inter-Registrar Transfer Policies WG Reviews Comments from Public and Stakeholder Groups</a></strong></li>
<li><strong><a href="http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-dec09-en.htm#9">Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery WG Receives Initial Survey Findings </a></strong></li><li><strong><a href="http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-dec09-en.htm#10">Registration Abuse Policies Group Aims to Report by March 2010</a></strong></li>
<li><strong><a href="http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-dec09-en.htm#11">New GNSO Council Pushes Ahead on All Fronts</a></strong></li><li><strong><a href="http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-dec09-en.htm#12">Other Issues Active in the GNSO</a></strong></li>
</ol>
<p><strong>ASO</strong></p>
<ol start="13"><li><strong><a href="http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-dec09-en.htm#13">ARIN Shakes Up Policy Proposal for Recovered IPv4 Addresses</a></strong></li><li><strong><a href="http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-dec09-en.htm#14">Postpone Transition to 32-Bit ASN? RIPE Says Yes</a></strong></li>
</ol>
<p><strong>Joint Efforts</strong></p>
<ol start="15"><li><strong><a href="http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-dec09-en.htm#15">Issues Active in Combined Efforts</a></strong></li></ol>
<p><strong>At-Large</strong></p>
<ol start="16"><li><strong><a href="http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-dec09-en.htm#16">ALAC Responds to Board Review Report</a></strong></li><li><strong><a href="http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-dec09-en.htm#17">ALAC Advises on the Introduction of IDN ccTLDs</a></strong></li>
<li><strong><a href="http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-dec09-en.htm#18">ALAC Opposes Changes to the NomCom</a></strong></li><li><strong><a href="http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-dec09-en.htm#19">EURALO Produces Outreach Brochure</a></strong></li>
</ol>
<p><strong>SSAC</strong></p>
<ol start="20"><li><strong><a href="http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-dec09-en.htm#20">Issues Active with the SSAC</a></strong></li></ol>
<p><strong>Read <em>Policy Update</em> in Your Preferred Language</strong></p>
<p align="left"><em> </em><em>ICANN Policy Update</em>
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). <em>Policy Update</em> is posted on ICANN's <a href="http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/"> website</a> and available via online subscription. To receive the <em>Update</em> in your Inbox each month, simply go to the ICANN <a href="http://www.icann.org/en/newsletter/">subscriptions page</a>, enter your e-mail address, and select “Policy Update” to subscribe. This service is free of charge.</p>
<p><strong><a href="http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/">ICANN Policy Update statement of purpose</a></strong></p>
<p>Send questions, comments and suggestions to: <a href="mailto:policy-staff@icann.org">policy-staff@icann.org</a>.</p>
<p><strong>Policy Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees</strong></p>
<table class="convey" style="border: 1px solid rgb(216, 216, 216); width: 30em; margin-left: 5em; margin-top: 0.5em;" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
<tbody><tr>
<td style="border: 1px solid rgb(216, 216, 216); width: 25em;">Address Supporting Organization</td>
<td style="border: 1px solid rgb(216, 216, 216); width: 5em;"><a href="http://aso.icann.org/">ASO</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border: 1px solid rgb(216, 216, 216);">Country Code Names Supporting Organization</td>
<td style="border: 1px solid rgb(216, 216, 216);"><a href="http://ccnso.icann.org/">ccNSO</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border: 1px solid rgb(216, 216, 216);">Generic Names Supporting Organization</td>
<td style="border: 1px solid rgb(216, 216, 216);"><a href="http://gnso.icann.org/">GNSO</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border: 1px solid rgb(216, 216, 216);">At-Large Advisory Committee</td>
<td style="border: 1px solid rgb(216, 216, 216);"><a href="http://www.atlarge.icann.org/">ALAC</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border: 1px solid rgb(216, 216, 216);">Governmental Advisory Committee</td>
<td style="border: 1px solid rgb(216, 216, 216);"><a href="http://gac.icann.org/">GAC</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border: 1px solid rgb(216, 216, 216);">Root Server System Advisory Committee</td>
<td style="border: 1px solid rgb(216, 216, 216);"><a href="http://www.icann.org/en/committees/dns-root/">RSSAC</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border: 1px solid rgb(216, 216, 216);">Security and Stability Advisory Committee</td>
<td style="border: 1px solid rgb(216, 216, 216);"><a href="http://www.icann.org/en/committees/security/">SSAC</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<br>
<hr style="border-style: solid hidden hidden; border-color: rgb(216, 216, 216) -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color; border-width: 1px medium medium;">
<br>
<p class="title">Across ICANN</p>
<h3><a name="1" id="1"></a>1. <em>Policy Update</em> Experiments with Streamlined Format</h3>
<p>Each monthly issue of <em>Policy Update</em> 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.</p>
<p>Until now, when an issue has not progressed in newsworthy fashion, <em>Policy
Update</em> has reprinted last month’s article about that topic. That
approach makes each issue of the <em>Update</em> comprehensive and thorough.
But it also makes it difficult for the reader to quickly spot new developments.</p>
<p>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 <em>Policy Update</em>, 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.</p>
<p>We’re trying to make <em>Policy Update</em> 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 <a href="mailto:policy-staff@icann.org?subject=Policy%20Update%20Format">policy-staff@icann.org</a>.
Thanks for sharing your perspective!</p>
<br>
<hr style="border-style: solid hidden hidden; border-color: rgb(216, 216, 216) -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color; border-width: 1px medium medium;">
<br>
<h3><a name="2" id="2"></a>2. Issues Currently Open for Public Comment</h3>
<p>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:</p>
<ul><li><a href="http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201001.htm#3cv-final-report"> Final
Report on Three-Character Requirement and Variant Management</a>. 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.</li><li><a href="http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201001.htm#strat-plan-2010"> 2010
– 2013 Strategic Plan</a>. 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.</li><li><a href="http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201001.htm#sti"> Special Trademark
Issues</a>. 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.</li><li><a href="http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201001.htm#draft-eoi"> New gTLD
Program: Draft Expressions of Interest/Pre-Registration Model</a>.
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.</li></ul>
<p><strong>More Information</strong></p>
<p>For the full list of issues open for public comment, plus recently
closed and archived public comment forums, visit the <a href="http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/"> Public
Comments</a> page.</p>
<br>
<hr style="border-style: solid hidden hidden; border-color: rgb(216, 216, 216) -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color; border-width: 1px medium medium;">
<br>
<h3><a name="3" id="3"></a>3. Transitions</h3>
<p>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 <a href="http://gnso.icann.org/council/soi/greer-soi-13nov09-en.htm">Statement
of Interest</a>).</p>
<p>If you would like to thank a volunteer whose significant work in a
leadership position is done, send a brief email to <a href="mailto:scott.pinzon@icann.org">scott.pinzon@icann.org</a> and
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.</p>
<br>
<hr style="border-style: solid hidden hidden; border-color: rgb(216, 216, 216) -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color; border-width: 1px medium medium;">
<br>
<p class="title">ccNSO</p>
<h3><a name="4" id="4"></a>4. ccNSO Welcomes Mozambique as 100th Member</h3>
<p><strong>At a Glance</strong></p>
<p><em>The country code Name Supporting Organization (ccNSO) has accepted
the membership application of Mozambique (.mz), bringing the number
of ccNSO members up to 100. </em></p>
<p><strong>Background</strong></p>
<p>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).</p>
<p><strong>More Information</strong></p>
<ul><li><a href="http://ccnso.icann.org/about/ccnso-membership-august-2003-november-2009.pdf">Statistics
on ccNSO membership growth</a> [PDF,
41K]</li><li><a href="http://ccnso.icann.org/about/members.htm">Alphabetical
list of all ccNSO members</a></li><li><a href="http://ccnso.icann.org/applications/summary-date.shtml">Status
of all member applications</a></li></ul>
<p><strong>Staff Contact</strong></p>
<p><a href="mailto:gabriella.schittek@icann.org?subject=ccNSO%20FAQ%20page"> Gabriella
Schittek</a>, ccNSO Secretariat</p>
<br>
<hr style="border-style: solid hidden hidden; border-color: rgb(216, 216, 216) -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color; border-width: 1px medium medium;">
<br>
<h3><a name="5" id="5"></a>5. ccNSO Adds Shared Resources Web Page</h3>
<p><strong>At a Glance</strong></p>
<p><em> On its website, the ccNSO has launched a new page which gathers
free resources that might be of use for ccTLD registries. </em></p>
<p><strong>Recent Developments</strong></p>
<p>Most of the resources were provided by ccTLDs, and also by institutions
such as <a href="http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/">NLnet Labs</a> and organizations
such as <a href="http://www.enisa.europa.eu/">ENISA</a>. The resources
are divided into three categories: Technical Resources, Marketing
Resources and Policy Resources.</p>
<p><strong>Background</strong></p>
<p>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.</p>
<p><strong>Next Steps</strong></p>
<p>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.</p>
<p><strong>More Information</strong></p>
<ul><li> Look for the Resources tab on <a href="http://ccnso.icann.org/">ccnso.icann.org</a></li></ul>
<p><strong>Staff Contact</strong></p>
<p><a href="mailto:gabriella.schittek@icann.org?subject=ccNSO%20Resources%20Page">Gabriella
Schittek</a>, ccNSO Secretariat</p>
<br>
<hr style="border-style: solid hidden hidden; border-color: rgb(216, 216, 216) -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color; border-width: 1px medium medium;">
<br>
<h3><a name="6" id="6"></a>6. Other Issues Active in the ccNSO</h3>
<ul><li><a href="http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-nov09-en.htm#5"> IDN
Policy Development</a></li><li><a href="http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-nov09-en.htm#6">Redirection
and Wildcarding </a></li><li><a href="http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-nov09-en.htm#7"> Delegation/Re-delegation
of ccTLDs</a></li><li><a href="http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-nov09-en.htm#8"> Incident
Response Planning</a>
</li></ul>
<br>
<hr style="border-style: solid hidden hidden; border-color: rgb(216, 216, 216) -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color; border-width: 1px medium medium;">
<br>
<p class="title">GNSO</p>
<h3><a name="7" id="7"></a>7. “Special Trademark Issues” Team Reports</h3>
<p><strong>At a Glance</strong></p>
<p><em>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. </em></p>
<p><strong>Recent Developments</strong></p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p><strong>Next Steps</strong></p>
<p>The GNSO is expected to vote on the recommendations described in
the STI Recommendations Report at its 17 December 2009 meeting.</p>
<p><strong>Background</strong></p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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:</p>
<ul><li>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.</li><li>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.</li></ul>
<p><strong>More Information</strong></p>
<ul><li><a href="http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/gnso-consultations-reports-en.htm">More
about trademark issues in the New gTLD Program</a></li><li><a href="http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg07609.html">The
Board’s Letter</a></li><li><a href="http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-sti/">Email archives
for the STI Work Team</a></li><li><a href="http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg08031.html">The
STI Recommendations Report</a></li></ul>
<p><strong>Staff Contact</strong></p>
<p><a href="mailto:policy-staff@icann.org">Margie Milam</a>, Senior Policy
Counselor</p>
<br>
<hr style="border-style: solid hidden hidden; border-color: rgb(216, 216, 216) -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color; border-width: 1px medium medium;">
<br>
<h3><a name="8" id="8"></a>8. Inter-Registrar Transfer Policies WG
Reviews Comments from Public and Stakeholder Groups</h3>
<p><strong>At a Glance</strong></p>
<p><em>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. </em></p>
<p><strong>Recent Developments</strong></p>
<p>The IRTP Part B Working Group held an open <a href="http://sel.icann.org/node/6771/">Working
Group meeting</a> 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.”</p>
<p>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 <a href="http://forum.icann.org/lists/irtp-b/"> http://forum.icann.org/lists/irtp-b/</a>).</p>
<p><strong>Next Steps</strong></p>
<p>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 <a href="https://st.icann.org/irtp-partb/index.cgi?irtp_part_b">IRTP
Part B Working Group Workspace</a>.</p>
<p><strong>Background</strong></p>
<p>The IRTP Part B Working Group addresses five issues relating to
domain name transfers, specified in their <a href="https://st.icann.org/irtp-partb/index.cgi?irtp_part_b">Charter</a> and
in the <a href="http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-aug09-en.htm">August
issue</a> of <em>Policy Update</em>. The IRTP Part B Working Group
has been meeting bi-weekly.</p>
<p><strong>More Information</strong></p>
<ul><li><a href="http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-200910.html#irtp-b">IRTP Part
B Public comment period</a> (closed 5 October 2009)</li><li><a href="http://gnso.icann.org/issues/transfers/irtp-report-b-15may09.pdf">IRTP
Part B Issues Report</a> [PDF,
256K]</li><li><a href="http://www.icann.org/en/transfers/">Inter-Registrar Transfer
Policy</a></li><li><a href="http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/transfer-wg-recommendations-pdp-groupings-19mar08.pdf">PDP
Recommendations</a> [PDF,
124K]</li></ul>
<p><strong>Staff Contact</strong></p>
<p><a href="mailto:policy-staff@icann.org">Marika Konings</a>, Policy
Director</p>
<br>
<hr style="border-style: solid hidden hidden; border-color: rgb(216, 216, 216) -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color; border-width: 1px medium medium;">
<br>
<h3><a name="9" id="9"></a>9. Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery
WG Receives Initial Survey Findings</h3>
<p><strong>At a Glance</strong></p>
<p><em>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.</em><strong></strong></p>
<p><strong>Recent Developments</strong></p>
<p>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 <a href="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"> preliminary
results of this survey</a> have now been presented to the Working
Group.</p>
<p><strong>Next Steps</strong></p>
<p>The Working Group will continue meeting weekly to discuss the questions
outlined in its <a href="https://st.icann.org/post-expiration-dn-recovery-wg/index.cgi">charter</a>.
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.</p>
<p><strong>Background</strong></p>
<p>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 <a href="http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/background/domain-name-recovery-en.htm"> questions</a>.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>Following the adoption of the charter, a call for volunteers was
launched (<a href="http://gnso.icann.org/issues/post-expiration-recovery/call-pdp-pednr-06jul09.pdf">PDF</a>).
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 <a href="http://syd.icann.org/node/3869">online</a>.</p>
<p>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 <a href="http://forum.icann.org/lists/pednr-wg-questions/">public
comment period</a>, which was launched to solicit views on the questions
outlined in the <a href="https://st.icann.org/post-expiration-dn-recovery-wg/index.cgi">PEDNR
WG Charter</a>.</p>
<p>The Working Group held a <a href="http://sel.icann.org/node/6753/">workshop
at the ICANN meeting in Seoul</a>, 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.</p>
<p><strong>More Information</strong></p>
<ul><li><a href="http://gnso.icann.org/issues/post-expiration-recovery/report-05dec08.pdf">GNSO
Issues Report on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery</a> [PDF,
416K] </li><li><a href="http://gnso.icann.org/policies/">Translations</a> of
the GNSO Issues Report on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery </li><li>ICANN <a href="http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg06162.html">Staff
response</a> to GNSO request for clarifications </li><li><a href="http://forum.icann.org/lists/pednr-wg-questions/">PEDNR
Public Comment Period</a></li></ul>
<p><strong>Staff Contact</strong></p>
<p><a href="mailto:policy-staff@icann.org"> Marika Konings</a>, Policy
Director</p>
<br>
<hr style="border-style: solid hidden hidden; border-color: rgb(216, 216, 216) -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color; border-width: 1px medium medium;">
<br>
<h3><a name="10" id="10"></a>10. Registration Abuse Policies Group
Aims to Report by March 2010</h3>
<p><strong>At a Glance</strong></p>
<p><em>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. </em></p>
<p><strong>Recent Developments</strong></p>
<p>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. <strong></strong></p>
<p><strong>Background</strong></p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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?</p>
<p>The <a href="http://mex.icann.org/files/meetings/mexico2009/transcript-gnso-registration-abuse-policies-workshop-03mar09-en.txt">RAP
Working Group held an open meeting</a> 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.</p>
<p>Click <a href="http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/background/rap-en.htm">here</a> for
further background.</p>
<p><strong>More Information</strong></p>
<ul><li><a href="http://gnso.icann.org/issues/registration-abuse/gnso-issues-report-registration-abuse-policies-29oct08.pdf">Registration
Abuse Policies Issues Report, 29 October 2008</a> [PDF,
400K]<br>
and <a href="http://gnso.icann.org/policies/">translation</a> of summary </li><li><a href="https://st.icann.org/reg-abuse-wg/index.cgi?action=display_html;page_name=registration_abuse_policies_working_group">Registration
Abuse Policies WG Charter</a></li><li><a href="http://mex.icann.org/files/meetings/mexico2009/transcript-gnso-registration-abuse-policies-workshop-03mar09-en.txt">Registration
Abuse Policies Mexico City Workshop Transcript</a></li><li><a href="https://st.icann.org/reg-abuse-wg/index.cgi?registration_abuse_policies_working_group">Registration
Abuse Policies Working Group Workspace</a> (Wiki)</li></ul>
<p><strong>Staff Contacts</strong></p>
<p><a href="mailto:policy-staff@icann.org">Marika Konings</a>, Policy
Director, and <a href="mailto:policy-staff@icann.org">Margie Milam</a>,
Senior Policy Counselor</p>
<br>
<hr style="border-style: solid hidden hidden; border-color: rgb(216, 216, 216) -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color; border-width: 1px medium medium;">
<br>
<h3><a name="11" id="11"></a>11. New GNSO Council Pushes Ahead on All
Fronts</h3>
<p><strong>At a Glance</strong></p>
<p><em>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 <a href="http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/"> GNSO
Improvements webpage</a>.</em></p>
<p><strong>Recent Developments</strong></p>
<p>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.</p>
<p><em>Council and Work Team Implementation Efforts. </em>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:</p>
<p><strong> Policy Process Efforts:</strong></p>
<ul><li>The <a href="https://st.icann.org/icann-ppsc/index.cgi?pdp_team">PDP
Work Team</a> is developing recommendations for a new policy development
process (PDP). The team continues its drafting work, meeting
weekly . </li><li>The <a href="https://st.icann.org/icann-ppsc/index.cgi?working_group_team">Working
Group Model Work Team</a> is still reviewing drafts of its two new
guidebooks, "Working Group Implementation and Charter Drafting
Guidelines" and "Working Group Operating Model Guidebook."</li></ul>
<p><strong> Operations Efforts:</strong></p>
<ul><li>The <a href="https://st.icann.org/icann-osc/index.cgi?gnso_operations_team"> GNSO
Operations Work Team</a> 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. </li><li>The GNSO <a href="https://st.icann.org/icann-osc/index.cgi?constituency_operations_team"> Constituency & Stakeholder
Group Operations Work Team</a> 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. </li><li>The GNSO <a href="https://st.icann.org/icann-osc/index.cgi?osc_communications_team"> Communications
Coordination Work Team</a> (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 <a href="http://gnso.icann.org">gnso.icann.org</a> more 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. </li></ul>
<p><strong>Next Steps</strong></p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>The Board is expected to continue its deliberations on the pending
new Constituency petitions.</p>
<p><strong>Background</strong></p>
<p>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 <a href="http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/">GNSO Improvements
webpage</a>.</p>
<p><strong>More Information</strong></p>
<ul><li><a href="http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/">GNSO Improvements
Information Web Page</a></li><li><a href="http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/newco-process-en.htm">Latest
public documents on proposals for new constituencies</a></li><li><a href="http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws-amendments-27aug09.pdf">New
Bylaws relevant to the New GNSO Council</a> [PDF,
160K] </li><li><a href="http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/public-comment-draft-17sep09-en.pdf">New
GNSO Council Operating Procedures</a> [PDF,
108K] </li></ul>
<p><strong>Staff Contact</strong></p>
<p><a href="mailto:policy-staff@icann.org">Robert Hoggarth</a>, Senior
Policy Director</p>
<br>
<hr style="border-style: solid hidden hidden; border-color: rgb(216, 216, 216) -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color; border-width: 1px medium medium;">
<br>
<h3><a name="12" id="12"></a>12. Other Issues Active in the GNSO</h3>
<ul><li><a href="http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-oct09-en.htm#8"> Vertical
Separation between Registries and Registrars</a></li><li><a href="http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-nov09-en.htm#11"> Whois
Studies</a></li><li><a href="http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-sep09-en.htm#12"> Fast
Flux Hosting</a></li></ul>
<br>
<hr style="border-style: solid hidden hidden; border-color: rgb(216, 216, 216) -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color; border-width: 1px medium medium;">
<br>
<p class="title">ASO</p>
<h3><a name="13" id="13"></a>13. ARIN Shakes Up Policy Proposal for Recovered
IPv4 Addresses</h3>
<p><strong>At a Glance</strong></p>
<p><em>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. </em></p>
<p><strong>Recent Developments</strong></p>
<p>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.</p>
<p><strong>Next Steps</strong></p>
<p>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.</p>
<p><strong>Background</strong></p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p><strong>More Information</strong></p>
<ul><li><a href="http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-12may09-en.htm">Background
Report</a> (updated 4 September 2009) </li><li><a href="http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/background/ipv4-en.htm"> Global
Policy Proposal for Handling Recovered IPv4</a></li></ul>
<p><strong>Staff Contact</strong></p>
<p><a href="mailto:mailto:policy-staff@icann.org?subject=Global%20Policies%20for%20IPv4">Olof
Nordling</a>, Director Services Relations</p>
<br>
<hr style="border-style: solid hidden hidden; border-color: rgb(216, 216, 216) -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color; border-width: 1px medium medium;">
<br>
<h3><a name="14" id="14"></a>14. Postpone Transition to 32-Bit ASN?
RIPE Says Yes</h3>
<p><strong>At a Glance</strong></p>
<p><em>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. </em></p>
<p><strong>Recent Developments</strong></p>
<p>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.</p>
<p><strong>Next Steps</strong></p>
<p>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.</p>
<p><strong>Background</strong></p>
<p>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.</p>
<p><strong>More Information</strong></p>
<ul><li><a href="http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-04sep09-en.htm">Background
Report</a> (posted 4 September 2009)</li></ul>
<p><strong>Staff Contact</strong></p>
<p><a href="mailto:policy-staff@icann.org">Olof Nordling</a>, Director Services
Relations</p>
<br>
<hr style="border-style: solid hidden hidden; border-color: rgb(216, 216, 216) -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color; border-width: 1px medium medium;">
<br>
<p class="title">Joint Efforts</p>
<h3><a name="15" id="15"></a>15. Issues Active in Combined Efforts</h3>
<ul><li><a href="http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-nov09-en.htm#17"> ICANN
definition of Geographic Regions</a></li><li><a href="http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-nov09-en.htm#18"> Registrar
Accreditation Agreement (RAA) amendments and registrant rights</a></li><li><a href="http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-nov09-en.htm#19">Internationalized
Domain Names (IDNs)</a><br>
</li></ul>
<hr style="border-style: solid hidden hidden; border-color: rgb(216, 216, 216) -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color; border-width: 1px medium medium;">
<br>
<p class="title">At-Large</p>
<h3><a name="16" id="16"></a>16. ALAC Responds to Board Review Report</h3>
<p><strong>At a Glance</strong></p>
<p><em>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.</em></p>
<p><strong>Recent Developments</strong></p>
<p>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</p>
<p>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. </p>
<p>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 <a href="https://st.icann.org/working-groups/index.cgi?27_november_2009">27
November 2009</a>.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>The ALAC ratified the Statement with a 13 - 0 vote on 9 December
2009.</p>
<p><strong>Next Steps</strong></p>
<p>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.</p>
<p><strong>More Information</strong></p>
<ul><li><a href="https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?alac_statement_on_the_board_review_wg_report_al_alac_st_1109_1_rev3">ALAC
Statement on the Board Review WG Report</a></li><li> <a href="http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/board/board-review-wg-draft-final-report-19sep09-en.pdf">ICANN
Board Review Working Group Draft Final Report</a> [PDF,
228K]</li><li><a href="https://www.bigpulse.com/pollresults?code=UfjMs62S7dymGQULQFhn">ALAC
vote to ratify the statement</a>:</li></ul>
<p><strong>Staff Contact</strong></p>
<p><a href="mailto:policy-staff@icann.org">Heidi Ullrich</a>, At-Large
Secretariat</p>
<br>
<hr style="border-style: solid hidden hidden; border-color: rgb(216, 216, 216) -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color; border-width: 1px medium medium;">
<br>
<h3><a name="17" id="17"></a>17. ALAC Advises on the Introduction of
IDN ccTLDs</h3>
<p><strong> At a Glance</strong></p>
<p><em> 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. </em></p>
<p><strong>Recent Developments</strong></p>
<p>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:</p>
<ul><li> Who can be an IDN ccTLD operator? </li><li> What is the selection process for IDN ccTLD operators for a territory? </li><li> Who decides which group has the “rights” to an IDN ccTLD in a
given script? </li></ul>
<p>The paper also poses suggestions for additional topics to be addressed
by the Working Group, mostly related to IDN ccTLD strings.</p>
<p>The ALAC ratified the Statement with a 14 - 0 vote on 9 December
2009.</p>
<p><strong>Next Steps</strong></p>
<p>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).</p>
<p><strong>Background</strong></p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>This text was further discussed during a teleconference of the
At-Large Working Group on IDN Policy on <a href="https://st.icann.org/idn-policy/index.cgi?03_december_2009">3
December 2009</a>.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p><strong>More Information</strong></p>
<ul><li> <a href="http://www.ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/idn-topic-paper-16oct09-en.pdf">Draft
Topic Paper for Policy on the Introduction of IDN ccTLDs</a> [PDF,
116K] </li><li><a href="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
Statement on Draft Topic Paper for Policy on the Introduction of
IDN ccTLD</a></li><li><a href="https://www.bigpulse.com/pollresults?code=UfjMs62S7dymGQULQFhn">ALAC
Vote to ratify the Statement</a></li></ul>
<p><strong>Staff Contact</strong></p>
<p>Matthias Langenegger, <a href="mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org">At-Large
Secretariat</a></p>
<br>
<hr style="border-style: solid hidden hidden; border-color: rgb(216, 216, 216) -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color; border-width: 1px medium medium;">
<br>
<h3><a name="18" id="18"></a>18. ALAC Opposes Changes to the NomCom</h3>
<p><strong>At a Glance</strong></p>
<p><em> 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. </em></p>
<p><strong>Recent Developments</strong></p>
<p>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.</p>
<p><strong>Background</strong></p>
<p>The <a href="https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?naralo_statement_on_the_nomcom_review">original
version</a> 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.</p>
<p>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 <a href="https://st.icann.org/working-groups/index.cgi?27_november_2009">teleconference
on November 27th</a> to discuss the Statement.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>The ALAC ratified the Statement with a 14 - 0 vote on 9 December
2009.</p>
<p><strong>Next Steps</strong></p>
<p>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.</p>
<p><strong>More Information</strong></p>
<ul><li><a href="https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?alac_statement_on_the_nomcom_review_al_alac_st_1109_2">ALAC
Statement on the NomCom Review</a></li><li><a href="http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/nomcom/nomcom-review-finalization-wg-draft-report-23sep09-en.pdf">Review
of the ICANN Nominating Committee – Draft Final Report</a> [PDF,
396K]</li><li><a href="https://www.bigpulse.com/pollresults?code=UfjMs62S7dymGQULQFhn"> ALAC
Vote to ratify the Statement</a></li></ul>
<p><strong>Staff Contact</strong></p>
<p><a href="mailto:policy-staff@icann.org">Matthias Langenegger</a>,
At-Large Secretariat</p>
<br>
<hr style="border-style: solid hidden hidden; border-color: rgb(216, 216, 216) -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color; border-width: 1px medium medium;">
<br>
<h3><a name="19" id="19"></a>19. EURALO Produces Outreach Brochure</h3>
<p><strong>At a Glance</strong></p>
<p><em>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.</em></p>
<p><strong>Recent Developments</strong></p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p><strong>Next Steps</strong></p>
<p>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.</p>
<p><strong>More Information</strong></p>
<ul><li><a href="http://www.atlarge.icann.org/euralo/ic-euralo-brochure-10nov09-en.pdf">EURALO
brochure</a> [PDF,
176K] </li></ul>
<p><strong>Staff Contact</strong></p>
<p><a href="mailto:policy-staff@icann.org">Matthias Langenegger</a>,
At-Large Secretariat</p>
<br>
<hr style="border-style: solid hidden hidden; border-color: rgb(216, 216, 216) -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color; border-width: 1px medium medium;">
<br>
<p class="title">SSAC</p>
<h3><a name="20" id="20"></a>20. Issues Active with the SSAC</h3>
<p>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.</p>
<p><strong>Staff Contact</strong></p>
<p><a href="mailto:policy-staff@icann.org?subject=SSAC%20Retreat"> Julie
Hedlund</a>, Director, SSAC Support</p>