- ALAC-Announce - lists.icann.org

Review Period Open on Two Verisign Proposals
by At-Large Staff July 5, 2009

July 5, 2009

Dear Community: ICANN has commenced its 15-calendar day review period on two requests from VeriSign in dot-COM and dot-NET. The first is for Registry-Registrar Two-Factor Authentication, the second is for a Registry Lock Service. * Information on the Registry-Registrar Two-Factor Authentication proposal can be found at _http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/#2009004 _ * Information on the Registry Lock Service proposal can be found at http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/#2009005 Although public comments can be submitted at any time on a registry services proposal to registryservice at icann.org, this is not notification of a formal comment period. Information on the Registry Services Evaluation Process can be found at _http://www.icann.org/registries/rsep/__._ Background on Registry-Registrar Two-Factor Authentication Proposal: (taken from the Verisign Proposal) The frequency and scope of domain name modification incidents that have not been requested or authorized by the registrant are increasing. Incidents include, but are not limited to, inadvertent modifications and errors processed by registrars and domain name hijacking involving compromised account credentials. The proposed Registry-Registrar Two-Factor Authentication service is part of a comprehensive domain name security enhancement program designed, among other things, to improve domain name security, and assist registrars in protecting registrants' accounts (the "Program"). The program addresses the two primary points of transactions: o Registry-registrar - Phase I o Registrar-registrant - Phase II As part of VeriSign's proposed Registry-Registrar Two-Factor Authentication Service, the username and passwords currently used to process update, transfer and/or deletion requests will be augmented with dynamic passcodes, which will enable end-to-end transaction processing to be based on registrant requests that are validated by "what they know" (i.e., their username and password) and "what they have" (i.e., a two-factor authentication credential with a one-time-password). o Phase I - Registrars will be able to use the one-time-password when communicating directly with VeriSign's Customer Service department and through the use of the Registrar portal when making manual updates, transfers and/or deletion transactions. o Phase II - End-to-end security of the registrant's domain name is enhanced by requiring the addition of the one-time-password to the existing username and passwords for requests from a registrant to their registrar, and including the one-time-password in the EPP transaction from the registrar to the registry. Registrars would have the option to use either VeriSign credentials or any other vendor's credentials that comply with the open standard established by The Initiative for Open Authentication ("OATH") (see http://www.openauthentication.org) Both phases of thee Registry-Registrar Two-Factor Authentication Service would initially be an optional service for registrars who elect to use it. Once the service becomes widely adopted, two-factor authentication credentials will become a requirement for Registry-Registrar transactions. Background on Registry Lock Service Proposal: (Taken from the Verisign Proposal) Registrars have periodically requested that VeriSign place certain domain names on registry lock status codes to help protect against accidental or inadvertent modifications or deletions that would affect their customer's most high profile or valuable domain names. The Extensible Provisioning Protocol ("EPP") specifies both client (registrar) and server (registry) status codes that are consistent with the intent to prevent registry changes (i.e., a Delete, Transfer and/or Update) that were not intended by the registrant. Many registrars currently use the client status codes and have requested the ability to add server status codes as an additional layer of protection. The EPP server status codes that would be applicable for domain names include (i) serverUpdateProhibited, (ii) serverDeleteProhibited, and (iii) serverTransferProhibited. These statuses may be applied individually or in combination. The EPP also enables setting Host (name server) status codes to prevent deleting or renaming a host or modifying its IP addresses. Setting Host status codes at the registry would reduce the risk of inadvertent disruption of the DNS resolution for domain names associated with locked name servers.

2 1

LIVE RESULTS: Vote on Statement on the Draft Travel Procedure for FY2010
by ICANN AtLarge Staff July 4, 2009

July 4, 2009

Dear All, Below you find a list of ALAC members having already voted in the current poll on the ALAC Statement on the Draft Travel Procedure for FY2010. The vote remains open until Sunday, July 5th at 2359 UTC. The voting credentials have been re-sent to those not having voted so far. * Jose Ovidio Salgueiro, Adam Peake, Hawa Diakite, Patrick Vande Walle, Sébastien Bachollet, Vanda Scartezini, Cheryl Landon-Orr, VC Vivekanadan, Gareth Shearman, Thu Hue Nguyen The interim result as of Saturday, 04 July 2009 21:58 UTC is as follows: Do you support the ratification of the Statement on the Draft Travel Procedure for FY2010 for communication to the relevant Public Comment process? Number of voters: 10 · Electorate size: 15 · Percentage voted: 66.67 Options Votes % Yes 10 100.00 No 0 0.00 Abstain 0 0.00 You can verify the result under: https://www.bigpulse.com/pollresults?code=a23pQxLsuAVUQWVw9F24 Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Gisella Gruber-White ICANN At-Large Staff

1 0

LIVE RESULTS: Vote on Statement of the ALAC on the IRT's Final Report
by ICANN AtLarge Staff July 4, 2009

July 4, 2009

Dear All, Please find below a list of ALAC members having already voted in the current poll on the ALAC Statement of the ALAC on the IRT's Final Report: * Jose Ovidio Salgueiro, Adam Peake, Hawa Diakite, Mohamed El Bashir, Patrick Vande Walle, Cheryl Landon-Orr, Gareth Shearman The voting credentials have been re-sent to those not having voted so far. The vote remains open until Tuesday, 07 July 2009 12:00 UTC Interim Results: Report date: Saturday 04 July 2009 21:54 UTC Statement of the ALAC on the IRT's Final Report Do you support the ratification of the Statement of the ALAC on the IRT's Final Report for communication to the relevant Public Comment process? Number of voters: 7 · Electorate size: 15 · Percentage voted: 46.67 Options Votes % Voters Yes 7 100.00 No 0 0.00 Abstain 0 0.00 You can verify the result under: https://www.bigpulse.com/pollresults?code=z6iCk8xriDPW8aSFfVvs Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Gisella Gruber-White, Marie-Helene Bouchoms ICANN At-Large Staff

1 0

LIVE RESULTS: Vote on Statement of the ALAC on the IRT's Final Report
by ICANN AtLarge Staff July 3, 2009

July 3, 2009

Dear All, Under the following URL you can watch the results of the vote on the Statement of the ALAC on the IRT's Final Report live as they come in: https://www.bigpulse.com/pollresults?code=z6iCk8xriDPW8aSFfVvs Please note that the above URL will not give you the names of the people having voted so far. This feature should be activated shortly, however. In the meantime, we will send you manual updates who has voted so far. Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Gisella Gruber-White, Marie-Helene Bouchoms ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

1 0

NOW OPEN: Vote on ALAC Statement on the IRT's Final Report
by ICANN AtLarge Staff July 3, 2009

July 3, 2009

Dear All, In accordance with the adopted At-Large Policy Advice Development Schedule ( http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=rJKtp8gl3W5-ZcY_xMpPg5w) the vote on the Statement on the Draft Travel Procedure for FY2010 is now open. Members of the ALAC can cast their vote online until Tuesday, 07 July at 12:00 (noon) UTC. We apologize for the delay in getting this vote started. Due to travel arrangements of various At-Large Staff members we were unable to get the updated Statement ready in time. The question to be put will be the following: Do you support the ratification of the Statement of the ALAC on the IRT's Final Report for communication to the relevant Public Comment process? With possible answers: Yes No Abstain The statement text is available at: https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?statement_of_the_alac_on_the_irt_s… Members of the ALAC will recently received an email with their voting credentials. Please get in contact with us if you have not received it yet. Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Gisella Gruber-White, Marie-Helene Bouchoms ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

1 0

LIVE RESULTS: Vote on Statement on the Draft Travel Procedure for FY2010:
by ICANN AtLarge Staff July 2, 2009

July 2, 2009

Dear All, As previously announced, please find below a list of ALAC members having already voted in the current poll on the ALAC Statement on the Draft Travel Procedure for FY2010: * Jose Ovidio Salgueiro, Adam Peake, Patrick Vande Walle, Sébastien Bachollet, Cheryl Landon-Orr, Thu Hue Nguyen The voting credentials have been re-sent to those not having voted so far. The vote remains open until Sunday, July 5th at 2359 UTC. The interim result as of July 2nd, 22:15 UTC is as follows: Do you support the ratification of the Statement on the Draft Travel Procedure for FY2010 for communication to the relevant Public Comment process? Number of voters: 6 · Electorate size: 15 · Percentage voted: 40.00 Options Votes % Yes 6 100.00 No 0 0.00 Abstain 0 0.00 You can verify the result under: https://www.bigpulse.com/pollresults?code=a23pQxLsuAVUQWVw9F24 Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Gisella Gruber-White, Marie-Helene Bouchoms ICANN At-Large Staff

1 0

Community Comment Invited on Proposed Bylaw Amendments Related to Restructuring of the GNSO Council
by At-Large Staff July 2, 2009

July 2, 2009

Dear Community, please be advised of the following open public comment period Community Comment Invited on Proposed Bylaw Amendments Related to Restructuring of the GNSO Council http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-200907.html#gnso-rest… 30 June 2009 Explanation: Implementation of the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Review/Improvements process requires the amendment of a substantial number of the ICANN Bylaws to reflect new GNSO structures, processes and mechanisms. In particular, a specific package of draft Bylaws and additional Staff recommendations has been developed for Public review and comment so that the ICANN Board can move forward with Bylaw amendments to seat the new GNSO Council by the annual ICANN meeting in Seoul, Korea. Approving the Bylaws amendments is a key step toward seating a newly structured Council consistent with the recommendations of the ICANN Board Governance Committee. The draft Bylaw amendments included in the package being posted for public comment are the work product of a GNSO Council Restructure Drafting Team (consisting of the entire GNSO Council and additional GNSO community members) which has been working on a set of Bylaws Amendments for the last several months. The additional draft Staff recommendations included with the package are designed to address specific areas that are impacted by community discussions during the ICANN meeting in Sydney, Australia. The package consists of three documents. The first document is a comparison document [PDF, 122K] http://www.icann.org/en/general/proposed-gnso-council-bylaws-amendment-redl… showing the existing Bylaws and comparing them to the amendments proposed by the GNSO Council deliberations so far. The second document is a clean version [PDF, 67K] http://www.icann.org/en/general/proposed-gnso-council-bylaws-amendment-clea… of what the Bylaws would look like if those amendments were approved. The third document is a Staff list of additional amendment components [PDF, 17K] http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/draft-staff-recommendations-30jun09-e… that have been necessitated by community discussion at the ICANN Sydney meeting and suggestions from the Board's Structural Improvements Committee. Staff Responsible: Robert Hoggarth Deadline and How to Submit Comments: The Staff is opening a 30-day public consultation forum, from 30 June 2009 through 29 July 2009, and invites community comments on this topic. To submit comments: Comments on the document are welcome via email at: gnso-council-draft(a)icann.org. This public forum will be open through 29 July 2009. To view comments: An archive of all comments received will be publicly posted at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-council-draft/. For a copy of the public Announcement of this forum please see http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-30jun09-en.htm. That Announcement provides inks to a number of documents that give some useful context and background regarding the issues in this forum. Staff Responsible: Robert Hoggarth

1 0

Call for Volunteers: Post Expiration Domain Name Recovery Working Group
by At-Large Staff July 1, 2009

July 1, 2009

Dear All, The GNSO Council at its meeting on 24 June 2009 passed a resolution on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery - PDP Working Group Charter http://gnso.icann.org/issues/post-expiration-recovery/pednr-wg-charter-24ju… Each constituency, and the liaisons, are invited to provide names of expected participants who can then be added to the WG mailing list. Other stakeholders and experts may be invited to join the WG by the GNSO Council. Community members who wish to be invited to join the group should contact the GNSO secretariat <gnso.secretariat[at]icann.org> and the invitations will be reviewed by the GNSO council. The GNSO Council RESOLVES To form a Working Group composed of Constituency representatives as well as interested stakeholders in order to develop potential policy and/or best practices to address the issues covered, while seeking additional information as appropriate to inform the work. The WG will also be open to invited experts and to members or representatives of the ICANN Advisory Committees, whether acting in their own right or as representatives of their AC. The policy development process that this working group is a part of began when the ALAC asked for an Issues Report on the subject. The Working Group initially shall: 1. Pursue the availability of further information from ICANN compliance staff to understand how current RAA provisions and consensus policies regarding deletion, auto-renewal, and recovery of domain names following expiration are enforced; 2. Review and understand the current domain name life cycle; 3. Review current registrar practices regarding domain name expiration, renewal, and post-expiration recovery. The Working Group shall then consider the following questions: 1. Whether adequate opportunity exists for registrants to redeem their expired domain names; 2. Whether expiration-related provisions in typical registration agreements are clear and conspicuous enough; 3. Whether adequate notice exists to alert registrants of upcoming expirations; 4. Whether additional measures need to be implemented to indicate that once a domain name enters the Auto-Renew Grace Period, it has expired (e.g., hold status, a notice on the site with a link to information on how to renew, or other options to be determined); 5. Whether to allow the transfer of a domain name during the RGP. The Working Group is expected to organize an issue update / workshop at the Seoul meeting, in addition to an update to the GNSO Council. The Working Group should consider recommendations for best practices as well as or instead of recommendations for Consensus Policy. Working Group processes: All WG meetings will be recorded and all recordings will be available to the public. A PEDNR WG mailing list has been created (gnso-pednr-dt(a)icann.org) with public archives at:http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-pednr-dt/. A SocialText wiki has been provided for WG usage and can be found at https://st.icann.org/post-expiration-dn-recovery-wg/index.cgi?post_expirati…

1 0

Facebook At-Large Page - become a fan
by At-Large Staff July 1, 2009

July 1, 2009

Dear Community members: For those of you who are avid Facebook users, we've created a Page for the community. We'll keep adding links and information there; if you are listed as a fan these updates will then show on your wall when you are logged in. You can become a fan at http://www.facebook.com/pages/ICANN-At-Large-Community/108562012168?ref=nf

1 0

At-Large Public Comments Requested: Draft ALAC Statement on the IRT Final Report
by At-Large Staff June 30, 2009

June 30, 2009

Dear Community Members, We are pleased to notify you that the Draft ALAC Statement on the IRT Final Report is now open for comments by the At-Large community. Comments will be taken until 26th June; these will then be reviewed for incorporation in the final text by the At-Large IRT Working Group members. The statement may be found at: https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?statement_of_the_alac_on_the_irt_s… Amongst the points introduced in this statement which were not a part of the ALAC Statement on the Draft IRT Report are the following, as provided by ALAC Member Patrick Vande Walle: - We believe the IRT's proposals are beyond the scope of ICANN and trademark law: If such an IP clearinghouse needs to be created, it should be by institutions external to ICANN. - There is no way dictionary words can be reserved by IP holders on the basis thay they use such words as brands. - "Post Delegation Dispute" is Inappropriate, in that it would extend the registries contractual compliance to include treatement of trademarks, with rather vague and subjective criteria on how well they would perform on that aspect. - The Whois section adds a sentence mentioning that no reach out to, and requests comments from, national and regional Data Protection Offices, and that it should be part of the process. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Gisella Gruber-White, Marie-Helene Bouchoms ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

2 1