- ALAC-Announce - lists.icann.org

Improving Institutional Confidence Consultation - Public Consultation Period Now Open (closes 20 October)
by At-Large Staff Sept. 24, 2008

Sept. 24, 2008

19 September 2008 http://www.icann.org/en/jpa/iic/ The Improving Institutional Confidence (IIC) in ICANN consultation has entered a second public comment period that will run until Monday 20 October 2008. In an effort to progress the consultation, an interactive forum has been set up that focuses comments and discussion on the individuals points and suggestions included in the revised documents. Please visit that forum at http://comment.icann.org/content/iic/. Alternatively, we have set up email addresses for each of the five main areas. Emails sent to each will appear in a specific "emailed comments" folder within this area's folder on the discussion forum (see below for more details). As part of the ongoing consultation process, and following comments received so far in the process, the IIC documents initially released in June have been revised. The latest versions of the consultation documents are: Transition Action Plan ( http://www.icann.org/en/jpa/iic/action-plan-revised.htm) Improving Institutional Confidence in ICANN ( http://www.icann.org/en/jpa/iic/improving-confidence-revised.htm) A Frequently Asked Questions document is also available. ( http://www.icann.org/en/jpa/iic/faq.htm) Changes made to the document Improving Institutional Confidence include: * The inclusion of "Suggestions" into the text at relevant points, reflecting comments and advice received so far. They include: the provision of public statements of interest; voting restrictions; Board review mechanisms; more detailed information on a no-confidence vote in the Board; and more information on the question of "legal presences" * Greater information and clarity on the issue of legal presences * Reference added to operational areas of ICANN's work (such as compliance) * The addition of a discussion of operational efficiency measures under the IANA procurement agreement with the United States Department of Commerce * Inclusion of text about greater participation within ICANN processes Other changes: A number of changes have also been to the Transition Action Plan, including: A footnote covering the phrase "private sector led", as requested by respondents An adjustment to the consultation timeline (comment period extended to 20 October) Other feedback During the course of the first comment period, a number of suggested additions were made to the IIC consultation areas. The majority of those additions concerned ongoing ICANN activities such as: review and reform of existing supporting organisations and advisory committees; policy development work on IDNs, new gTLDs, DNSSEC and others; and operational matters such as contractual compliance. Those matters will continue to be addressed through ICANN's usual policy development and public comment processes. The process from here The body charged with leading the Improving Institutional Confidence (IIC) consultation, the President's Strategy Committee (PSC), will continue to receive comment on the key areas outlined in the document at a series of regional consultative consultations. Summaries of those meetings, in additional to comment made in the first comment period, and the feedback received during this second comment period, will then be used to make changes to the documents in time for a special IIC session at ICANN's international public meeting in Cairo on 2-7 November. Full details of the regional meetings can be found at: http://www.icann.org/en/jpa/iic/regional-meetings.htm. For those seeking more information on the consultation process, including published comment summaries, and the IIC documents under discussion, please visit the IIC's dedicated webpages at http://icann.org/en/jpa/iic. If you wish to be kept informed of the latest developments, please sign up to the dedicated IIC newsletter at: http://www.icann.org/en/jpa/iic/iic-newsletter.htm. The public comment forum Full links to the different discussion areas are given below: Capture http://comment.icann.org/content/iic/capture/ Accountability http://comment.icann.org/content/iic/accountability/ Globalization http://comment.icann.org/content/iic/globalization/ Finances http://comment.icann.org/content/iic/finances/ Security and Stability http://comment.icann.org/content/iic/security/ Background: More than two years ago, the President's Strategy Committee (PSC) commenced a series of consultations on how to strengthen and complete the ICANN multi-stakeholder model. In addition, the recent Midterm Review of the Joint Project Agreement (JPA) between the United States Department of Commerce and ICANN produced useful comments about ICANN's performance and future. Most commentators in that consultation believe ICANN has made significant progress, but that some key areas need to be improved in order to complete the transition to an agreed model of multi-stakeholder coordination of the Internet's unique identifiers. The PSC has developed three papers that outline those key areas and possible responses to address them. The PSC wants to be clear - all these suggestions are for discussion. They are the work of the Committee alone. They are not fixed positions. But they are also positions that are the result of long-term work over two years by the PSC that also incorporate recent input from the community. The PSC has provided the following three documents to launch a discussion with the community PSC about how to complete the transition of the organization after the conclusion of the Joint Project Agreement. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Frederic Teboul ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

1 0

INVITATION: Briefing Session on DNS Response Modification
by At-Large Staff Sept. 16, 2008

Sept. 16, 2008

Dear all, We would like to invite you to a briefing session attended by Dave Piscitello from the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) on DNS Response Modification. The briefing will be on Wednesday September 17th from 1300 to 1400 UTC and will be simultaneously interpreted into French and Spanish. Please find the SSAC Advisory on DNS Response Modification and participation instructions on the meeting page. You will shortly be able to find a link to follow the presentation using Adobe Connect on the same page. https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?dns_response_modification What is DNS Response Modification? In their preliminary report number 32, the SSAC describes the practise of DNS response modification by entrusted agents or third parties. In the first case, an entrusted agent receives a DNS query for a name. The entrusted agent determines that the name in the query does not exist in the zone file it hosts for the domain registrant but rather than returning a DNS response indicating a non-existent name, the entrusted agent returns a response indicating the name exists and containing an IP address mapping for the queried name of the agent¹s choosing. In the second case, a third party operating an iterative resolver receives NXDomain responses generated by an authoritative name server and silently alters the contents, changing the non-existent name response to one that signals name exists and inserting an IP address mapping for the queried name of the third party¹s choosing. This behaviour is known by various labels: subdomain redirection, NXDomain redirection, NXDomain rewriting, NXDomain hijacking, subdomain hijacking, error resolution, and error marketing. These labels illustrate that the practice has commercial significance and is controversial. The aim of this presentation is to describe the effects of DNS response modification on domain name registrants, DNS operators and Internet users, and to explore possible exploitation of the practice by bad actors. The focus will be on explaining the effects of and unintended consequences to users, domain registrants, and those who rely on non-existent domain responses for error reporting and administrative purposes. Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Frederic Teboul ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

1 2

INVITATION: Réunion d'information sur la modification de réponse DNS
by At-Large Staff Sept. 16, 2008

Sept. 16, 2008

Chers membres, Nous aimerions vous inviter à une réunion d'information organisé par Dave Piscitello de la division Sécurité et Stabilité du Comité Consultatif (Security and Stability Advisory Committe (SSAC)) d'ICANN sur la modification de réponse DNS. La réunion sera mercredi 17 Septembre de 1300 UTC à 1400 UTC et il y aura une interprétation simultanée en français et en espagnol. Veuillez s¹il vous plait trouver ci-dessous la page de cette réunion avec les instructions de participation et le Rapport préliminaire no. 32 du SSAC sur ce sujet en français. Vous y trouverez bientôt un lien pour suivre la présentation sur Adobe Connect. https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?dns_response_modification Qu¹est-ce que c¹est la modification de réponse DNS? Le rapport préliminaire numéro 32 du SSAC aborde la pratique de modification de réponse DNS employée par les agents de confiance ou les tiers. Dans le premier cas, un agent de confiance reçoit une requête DNS de nom. L¹agent de confiance détermine que le nom mentionné dans la requête n¹existe pas dans le fichier de zone qu¹il héberge pour le registrant du domaine, mais, au lieu de retourner une réponse DNS indiquant un nom non existant, l¹agent de confiance retourne une réponse indiquant que le nom existe et contenant un mappage d¹adresse IP pour le nom demandé, au choix de l¹agent. Dans le deuxième cas, un tiers gérant un solveur itératif reçoit des réponses NXDomain générées par un serveur de noms faisant autorité et en modifie discrètement le contenu, transformant la réponse de nom non existant en une réponse indiquant que le nom existe et contenant un mappage d¹adresse IP pour le nom demandé, au choix du tiers. Ce comportement est désigné par différents termes : redirection de sous-domaine, redirection/réécriture/détournement de domaine non existant (NXDomain), détournement de sous-domaine, résolution d¹erreur ou encore marketing d¹erreur. Ces appellations soulignent la dimension commerciale et controversée de cette pratique. L¹objectif de cette présentation est de décrire les conséquences d¹une modification de réponse DNS pour les registrants de nom de domaine, les opérateurs DNS et les utilisateurs d¹Internet, tout en explorant le détournement possible de cette pratique par des personnes malveillantes. Elle sera consacré à l¹explication des conséquences prévisibles et imprévisibles sur les utilisateurs et les registrants de domaine, ainsi que sur les personnes qui s¹appuient sur les réponses de domaine non existant à des fins de rapport d¹erreur ou administratives. Cordialment, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Frederic Teboul ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

1 2

INVITACIÓN : Reunión de información sobre la Modificación de respuestas de DNS
by At-Large Staff Sept. 16, 2008

Sept. 16, 2008

Estimados, Les queremos invitar a una reunión de información organizada por Dave Piscitello del comité de asesores de seguridad y estabilidad de ICANN (Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC)) sobre la Modificación de respuestas de DNS. La reunión será el miércoles 17 de Septiembre de las 1300 UTC a las 1400 UTC y será interpretada simultáneamente en lengua española y francés. Véase la página web de éste reunión telefónica para saber como participar y para descargar el Informe preliminar 32 del SSAC sobre la modificación de respuestas de DNS en español. También encontrará un enlace para asistir a la presentación en Adobe Connect. https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?dns_response_modification ¿Que es la Modificación de respuestas de DNS? En su informe preliminar número 32, el SSAC describe la práctica de modificación de respuestas de DNS que realizan agentes de confianza o terceros. En el primer caso, un agente de confianza recibe una consulta de un nombre de DNS. El agente de confianza determina que el nombre de la consulta no existe en el archivo de zona que aloja para el registrante del dominio, pero en lugar de devolver una respuesta de DNS que indique que es un nombre inexistente, el agente devuelve una respuesta que indica que el nombre existe, e incluye la asignación de una dirección IP del nombre consultado, a su elección. En el segundo caso, un tercero que opera un operador de resoluciones iterativas recibe respuestas de NXDomain generadas por un servidor de nombres acreditado y silenciosamente altera el contenido: convierte la respuesta nombre inexistente en una que indica que el nombre existe e inserta la asignación de una dirección IP del nombre consultado, a su elección. Este comportamiento se conoce con diversos nombres: redirección de subdominios, redirección de NXDomain, reescritura de NXDomain, secuestro de NXDomain, secuestro de subdominios, resolución de errores y comercialización de errores. Estos nombres indican que esta práctica es significativa y controvertida en el aspecto comercial. El objetivo de esta presentación es describir los efectos de la modificación de respuestas de DNS en los registrantes de nombres de dominio, operadores de DNS y usuarios de Internet, e investigar la posible explotación de esta práctica por parte de usuarios malintencionados. El foco estará en la explicación de los efectos y las consecuencias derivadas para usuarios, registrantes de dominios y aquellos que confían en respuestas de dominio inexistente para fines administrativos y de elaboración de informes. Cordialmente, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Frederic Teboul ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

1 2

Public Comment Period Open for Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Denials Definitions
by Nick Ashton-Hart Sept. 16, 2008

Sept. 16, 2008

Public Comment Period Now Open for Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Denials Definitions PDP Public Comments open until 6 October 2008 http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-15sep08-en.htm 15 September 2008 The GNSO Council approved on 4 September 2008 a motion on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Denial Definitions Public Development Process (PDP). The motion, which is pending for Board action, proposes new texts for two of the nine denial reasons (#8 and #9) while recommending that work on denial reasons #5 and #7 be suspended until such time as a Policy Development Process is initiated on PDP C on IRTP operational rule enhancement as outlined in the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Issues PDP Recommendations of 19 March 2008. The public is invited to submit comments until 6 October 2008 before final consideration by the Board. Deadline and how to submit comments Comments are welcome via e-mail to <irtp-denials(a)icann.org> until 6 October 2008. Access to the public comment forum from which comments can be posted can be found at: http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-200810.html#irtp-deni…. An archive of all comments received will be publicly posted at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/irtp-denials/. Background 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. As part of a broader review of this policy, the GNSO Council initiated a PDP to 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: * "No payment for previous registration period" (Denial Reason #5); * "A domain was already in "lock" status" (Denial Reason #7); * The domain was in the first 60 days of an initial registration period (Denial Reason #8); and * A domain name is within 60 days of being transferred (Denial Reason #9) 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. The drafting group addressing this first set of transfer denial reasons 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 C). The proposals of the GNSO drafting group addressing transfer denial reasons #8 and #9 were posted for public comments on 26 June 2008. One comment was received and sent to the GNSO Council for consideration. On 4 September 2008, the GNSO Council adopted the motion on the IRTP Denial Definitions PDP. Background documents Motion on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Denial Definitions Public Development Process: http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#200809 Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Issues PDP Recommendations: http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/transfer-wg-recommendations-pdp-groupings-19ma… Initial Report: http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-17mar08.htm Final Report: http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/final-report-irt-policy-09apr08.pdf Drafting group outcome: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/transfers/gnso-final-draft-denial-reasons-04ju… -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA DD: +1 (310) 578-8637 Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: +41 (79) 595 54-68 email: nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

1 0

Summary Minutes ALAC teleconference 09 September 2008
by At-Large Staff Sept. 10, 2008

Sept. 10, 2008

Dear all, The summary minutes, action items and audio recording (in English, French and Spanish) of yesterday¹s ALAC teleconference have been uploaded to the meeting page: https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?09_september_2008 The summary minutes are also attached below and can be edited by the ALAC members on the meeting page. The full transcription of the audio file of this meeting will follow in about 2 3 weeks. Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Frederic Teboul ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org Summary Minutes ALAC Meeting 9 September 2008 The meeting was preceded by a discussion with At-Large representatives on the ALAC review and the travel procedures. Travel Procedures: There was some discussion on the new ICANN travel procedures, mostly with regards on travel arrangements for the Cairo meeting. ALAC review T Drakes from the ALAC Review working group joined this discussion. W Ludwig, who was unable to attend the meeting, sent a statement about the ALAC Review on behalf of EURALO. There was some discussion on recommendation 12 of the ALAC review: That the ALAC should explore ways to differentiate between organizations that genuinely represent individual Internet users, and are therefore ALS candidates, as opposed to those which may be a better fit with the NCUC. S Bachollet noted that he did not think that it was possible to have one single label for all entities that are engaged in the policy process. There should be some flexibility in that regard. A Greenberg added that the ICANN bylaws said that you could join one constituency but that this did not exclude that you worked in another constituency. B Brendler said that participants should be either in the Business constituency or in At-Large. The different constituencies should not be confused. A Muehlberg noted that the RALOs should be able to manage their own budget to some degree and was disappointed that this question was not addressed in the report. T Drakes asked A Muehlberg to forward these points directly to her. W Seltzer agreed and added that the reviewers did not sufficiently reach out to some parts of the At-Large constituency. Many opinions held within the constituency were not reflected in the report. T Drakes regretted that the reviewers could not keep the original statements and noted that the interviewed participants should be advised to keep their statements in upcoming reviews. W Seltzer added that overall too much time was spent on the structure of the ALAC in the review and not enough on the role of the public interest within ICANN. She noted that the current system made it difficult to engage interested people in participating because it was unclear was difference their commitment was able to make. The Chair said to T Drakes that she would receive a couple of different statements from the community by the end of the public comment period on September 12th. T Drakes noted that minority views that were not currently reflected in the report would be incorporated if it were deemed appropriate by the Review WG. There will be an initial Thinking Report released in Cairo. The final review will be presented in Cairo. ALAC Teleconference The official monthly ALAC meeting started at 1408 UTC. The meeting did not have quorum. There were more than seven ALAC members who dialled into this call at some point but there were never more than seven present at the same time. Staff announcements The Staff announced to upcoming briefing sessions on DNS response modification on September 17th and an introduction to IANA on September 29th. (link) There will also be two introductory briefing session on the registration of domain names, one on how the current system affects registrants and one on how if affects users. New ALAC members S Bachollet introduced P Vande Walle who was recently elected to replace V Cretu as one of the European representatives in the ALAC. Liaison Reports GNSO Liaison report A Greenberg gave a short overview of the report he submitted on the recent activities of the GNSO and highlighted some of the issues that the ALAC may wish to comment upon (please read the report for full details): * Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) He noted that the first part has been concluded and the constituencies, including ALAC now have the chance to comment. S Bachollet thought it is important that the ALAC made a statement. C Langdon-Orr and V Scartezini agreed. * New gTLDs A Greenberg noted that the new gTLD approval process was taking shape. He believed it was important to have a short ALAC statement on how some of the influx money that is likely to result out of this should be used. * Whois Hypothesis Study Group He noted that the ALAC has been asked for preliminary comments on the report of the Whois Hypothesis Study Group before September 25 Council meeting and formal comments on how to proceed before the October 16 Council meeting. * GNSO Restructuring A Greenberg noted that the Board motion did not seem to apply the same representativeness, openness, transparency and fairness principles it expected from the other constituencies with respect to Stakeholders groups. A Greenberg volunteer to draft a formal statement to address this problem before the September 30 Board meeting. Issues to be raised at the ICANN Board meeting C Langdon-Orr noted that APRALO asked ICANN whether it was possible to receive funding for the At-Large workshop at this years IGF meeting and did not receive any response. She asked the Board liaison to make a comment about this incident at the next Board meeting and will send her a short email with details. ALAC Statement on RAA Amendments The Statement on RAA Amendments could not be ratified because there was no quorum. It was unanimously decided by the present ALAC members that the statement should be sent to T Cole and that a seven-day online vote should be put up starting September 10th to ratify the statement. Staff will put up a seven day ratification vote on the statement on the RAA Amendments. ALAC Statement on the Terms of Reference for SSAC Review It was suggested that the ALAC would not make a comment on this subject. New website navigation for http://www.atlarge.icann.org Staff made a short presentation of the two navigation options for the atlarge.icann website. It was generally felt that option B would be preferred although some comments were made that the menu items in option A were made it easier to navigate the website. P Vande Walle noted that the compatibility with different web browsers should be checked. Staff will now start with the implementation of the new website navigation. Input requested on GNSO Council restructuring A Greenberg said that he would start with a draft document to address the open questions raised in D Michel¹s email. He encouraged the ALAC members to send him comments. With regards to the statements made in the email regarding constituency representation (see D Michels email, issue no 5), A Greenberg encouraged the ALAC members to do some brainstorming. C Langdon-Orr said she would like to be part of this brainstorming. Redemption Grace Period (RGP) E Leibovitch said that it was suggested that the ALAC made a statement that a ³Redemption Grace Period² should be included in the RAA to ensure that a registrar cannot take advantage of the situation when a domain registration expires. A Greenberg added that there already was a clause that covered this event between registrars and registries. The issue will be discussed on the mailing list (See D Younger's submitted document for reference) WHOIS Data Accuracy and the WDPRS It was decided that the issue will be discussed on the mailing list. At-Large Summit Preparations There was some discussion on the Summit preparation meeting in Cairo. It was proposed to have the meeting on Saturday November 1st. Staff noted that this would probably be difficult because the rooms have already been allocated. Staff will try to arrange a Summit meeting on either Saturday November 1st or Friday November 7th. S Bachollet suggested that the Summit WG met later in September for a teleconfernece. Staff will arrange a teleconference later in September for the Summit WG. E Leibovitch from the Summit Commitee was asked to post the reports of the recent online activity to the online working space. Cairo Meeting Preparations and Planning C Langdon-Orr noted that it was proposed to dedicate Monday to a half day joint session with the ccNSO, ALAC, GAC and GNSO to discuss new gTLDs, IDN ccTLDs and to get briefings on the President¹s Strategy Committee and the improving institutional confidence process. She noted that this did not mean that the bilateral meetings would be replaced. The Chair asked if somebody objected to her proceeding with the planning of this meeting. There were no objections to this. The meeting was then adjourned.

1 0

Versión española del correo de D Michel sobre procedimiento de viajes
by At-Large Staff Sept. 9, 2008

Sept. 9, 2008

Estimados, El correo de Denise Michel y Doug Brent , enviado a la lista de distribución At-Large después de la discusión sobre el nuevo procedimiento, ha sido traducido en español. En el siguiente hipervínculo encontrarán el original en ingles enviado el día 28 de agosto: http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann.org/20 08q3/004599.html Estimados miembros de At-Large: Deseamos dar las gracias a aquellos que compartieron sus opiniones con nosotros la semana pasada en la conferencia sobre el nuevo procedimiento de viajes de la comunidad, así como a los que lo hicieron en línea. Somos conscientes de que cada vez que participa en ICANN, lo hace como voluntario, por lo que su contribución es muy apreciada. Conocemos la preocupación relativa a que la Junta directiva de ICANN, la comunidad y el personal no comprendan los requisitos de participación de At-Large. Asimismo, sabemos que At-Large considera que una financiación similar de viajes para distintas comunidades no es un enfoque equitativo. Específicamente, que la financiación de los viajes de ICANN se debería basar en la igualdad de oportunidades de participación de las partes interesadas en proporción a sus necesidades. Nuestro objetivo es apoyar una financiación de viajes que la comunidad ICANN considere adecuada para reducir la barrera de la participación, ampliar el grupo de participantes en ICANN y avanzar en el "trabajo" de ICANN. Existen multitud de opiniones diferentes sobre el significado de "adecuado" y nos comprometemos a continuar este diálogo y a estudiar (y, si es necesario, revisar) los procedimientos de viajes para el año fiscal 2010. Asimismo, nos esforzamos en garantizar que At-Large (y todos los demás participantes interesados en el trabajo de ICANN) disponga de las herramientas y recursos necesarios para realizar el trabajo sobre cuestiones de ICANN. At-Large es un miembro muy apreciado de la comunidad ICANN, y deseamos asegurar que su productividad continuada reciba el apoyo necesario. Por estas razones, ICANN ha dedicado siempre considerables recursos a At-Large, entre ellos: 1. Ha triplicado los recursos de personal dedicados a At-Large en el pasado año; 2. Ha aumentado sustancialmente cada año los fondos dedicados a At-Large; 3. Ha dedicado una cantidad importante de recursos adicionales durante éste y el último año fiscal a la traducción e interpretación, en gran parte debido a las necesidades de At-Large; 4. Ha realizado un desarrollo continuado de los mecanismos de participación en línea (por ejemplo, el sitio Web http://atlarge.icann.org <http://atlarge.icann.org/> es el más avanzado técnicamente de ICANN, el más multilingüe y será el primer sitio en admitir contribuciones de contenido directas de la comunidad) y se mejoran continuamente. La lista podría continuar, pero ya conocen estos y otros esfuerzos para ampliar su posibilidad de participación, ya que se han beneficiado directamente de ellos. Seguimos buscando más y mejores formas de garantizar que el usuario individual de Internet esté representado en las decisiones que le afectan y apreciamos su ayuda continuada y su compromiso en este esfuerzo, que es una parte fundamental del modelo de ICANN. Por supuesto, también otras comunidades son esenciales. Algunas de ellas han solicitado ayuda para asistir a las reuniones de ICANN por la misma razón que At-Large ha expuesto: las reuniones son una parte importante del proceso de ICANN y algunos de sus miembros no pueden permitirse acudir. ICANN no puede proporcionar la ayuda para viajes a todas las comunidades a un nivel de financiación que todos sus miembros consideren ideal. La realidad presupuestaria requiere compromisos. No obstante, deseamos proponer las siguientes ideas como forma, no tan solo de ocuparnos del nivel de ayuda de viajes para At-Large, sino de solucionar, además, algunos de los problemas subyacentes que ha planteado. Nuestra propuesta es la siguiente: 1. Trabajaremos con la comunidad durante todo este año fiscal para estudiar las provisiones del procedimiento de viajes que afectan a At-Large, especialmente la participación de RALO. Sería útil que At-Large propusiera un plan completo en la cumbre de At-Large de la Ciudad de México para decidir las necesidades de la comunidad en la revisión de final de año del procedimiento de viajes de la comunidad y el proceso presupuestario del año fiscal 2009-2010. *Entendemos el planteamiento de que el procedimiento de viajes actual, si se aplica a At-Large en el próximo año fiscal, no toma en cuenta suficientemente las necesidades de RALO para poder participar en las reuniones cara a cara. En particular, a partir del tiempo empleado en una teleconferencia interpretada, en la que una parte considerable de los participantes eran hispanoparlantes, entendemos que At-Large es la comunidad que tiene mayores necesidades de ayuda para la traducción e interpretación en este momento y que, hasta que esté disponible una participación remota fiable que facilite la participación multilingüe en las reuniones cara a cara, la asistencia es más importante de lo que sería de otro modo. También entendemos la opinión de que incluso los participantes de RALO que hablan en inglés se benefician de la interacción cara a cara. Es más, el propósito del procedimiento de viajes es ampliar la participación en las reuniones cara a cara porque comprendemos su importancia. Por supuesto, toda la comunidad ICANN tendrá la oportunidad de estudiar el procedimiento de viajes al final de este año fiscal, junto con los planes y presupuestos estratégicos y operativos de ICANN. Estas consultas ofrecen importantes oportunidades para discutir y obtener información sobre distintas cuestiones relacionadas con RALO (además de los viajes) incluidas la traducción e interpretación, las reuniones regionales de ICANN, etc. Asimismo le animamos a discutir también sus necesidades con otras comunidades. 2. Recomendaremos que se revise el derecho de distintas comunidades a participar en el Programa de becas a la luz del nuevo procedimiento de viajes de la comunidad. Quizás sea necesario actualizar este programa después de evaluar el efecto de los objetivos compartidos y la ayuda proporcionada a través de los procedimientos de viajes y el Programa de becas. Hasta ahora, el programa había excluido la participación de At-Large, ya que los viajes de At-Large se financiaban por separado, y estaba dirigido a miembros de ccNSO y el Comité asesor gubernamental de los países elegidos como prioritarios para la ayuda. ccNSO recibe ahora alguna ayuda en concepto de procedimientos de viaje y se considerará la inclusión de GAC para el próximo año fiscal. Consideramos que los cambios realizados en los viajes para varias comunidades hace que este paso sea importante. 3. Las iniciativas de mejoras de GNSO ofrecen oportunidades para mejorar también la ayuda para At-Large. Como parte del trabajo de mejoras de GNSO aprobadas recientemente por la Junta, se emprenderán varias iniciativas para: a. Revisar y mejorar las herramientas, los procesos, los procedimientos y los mecanismos de ayuda a las circunscripciones de GNSO; b. Diseñar e implementar un esfuerzo de reclutamiento global para aumentar la participación en todas las circunscripciones de GNSO. Este trabajo incluirá un diálogo con las circunscripciones sobre cómo conseguirlo y deberá tener en cuenta las distintas necesidades de consulta y colaboración de nuestras comunidades globales para avanzar en el desarrollo de políticas. Dado el papel integral que juega At-Large en el desarrollo de políticas, deseamos explorar formas de implicar a At-Large en este diálogo y planificación, y ampliar los resultados a At-Large, según proceda. 4. Para garantizar que continúe el progreso realizado por las secretarías regionales en la creación de estructuras y procesos para trabajar con ALAC, ICANN proporcionará ayuda para viajes a las secretarías para la reunión de ICANN en El Cairo y la reunión final (junio de 2009) de ICANN para este año fiscal. Las bases de la financiación de las secretarías regionales serán las mismas que en el último año fiscal. Comprendemos la importancia de reuniones periódicas cara a cara de los líderes regionales y los miembros de ALAC, y sabemos que toda la comunidad se ha beneficiado de la asistencia de las secretarías a las reuniones de ICANN. Esperamos que estudiarán estas propuestas y verán en ellas la manera no tan sólo de solucionar el problema de la asistencia cara a cara a las reuniones de ICANN, sino la forma de avanzar en la implicación global de At-Large. Quedamos a la espera de sus noticias. Saludos, Doug Brent, COO Denise Michel, VP de políticas

1 0

Version française du courriel de D Michel sur la procédure de voyage
by At-Large Staff Sept. 9, 2008

Sept. 9, 2008

Chers membres, Le courriel de Denise Michel et Doug Brent, envoyé à la liste de distribution At-Large après la discussion sur la nouvelle procédure de prise en charge des frais de déplacement de la communauté du 20 août, a été traduit en français. Veuillez trouver sur le lien suivant la version originale de ce courriel en anglais, envoyé le 28 août: http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann.org/20 08q3/004599.html À tous les membres de la Communauté des utilisateurs d'Internet : Nous voudrions remercier ceux d'entre vous qui ont donné leur avis la semaine dernière lors de la téléconférence sur la nouvelle procédure de prise en charge des frais de déplacement de la communauté, ainsi que ceux qui ont exprimé leur opinion en ligne. Nous sommes conscients que votre participation aux travaux vis-à-vis de l'ICANN repose sur le volontariat, ce qui rend votre contribution encore plus précieuse à nos yeux. Certains d'entre vous estiment que le Conseil d'administration, la communauté et le personnel de l'ICANN ne répondent pas aux attentes de la Communauté des utilisateurs d'Internet relatives à la participation, et qu'un financement à parts égales des frais de déplacement des différentes communautés n'est pas équitable. En fait, la politique de financement des frais de déplacement de l'ICANN devrait favoriser la participation des différentes parties prenantes en adaptant l'aide aux besoins. Notre but est d'élaborer un modèle de financement des frais de déplacement, que la communauté de l'ICANN juge « approprié », c'est-à-dire qui facilite la participation, élargisse le panel de participants et fasse avancer les travaux de l'ICANN. Nous avons conscience que le terme « approprié » est suffisamment vague pour laisser place à de nombreuses interprétations, mais nous sommes résolus à poursuivre ce dialogue et à adapter, voire modifier radicalement, les procédures de prise en charge des déplacements pour l'exercice fiscal 2010. Nous faisons également tout notre possible pour que la Communauté des utilisateurs d'Internet, ainsi que toutes les parties impliquées dans les activités de l'ICANN, disposent des outils et ressources nécessaires pour faire avancer les travaux sur les sujets qui intéressent l'ICANN. La Communauté des utilisateurs d'Internet étant un membre important de l'ICANN, nous souhaitons nous assurer que tout est mis en ¦uvre pour que ses travaux avancent. C'est pour ces raisons que l'ICANN a toujours alloué des ressources considérables à la Communauté des utilisateurs d'Internet, avec notamment : 1. Le triplement du personnel dédié à la communauté des utilisateurs d'Internet l'année passée. 2. Une augmentation substantielle des fonds attribués annuellement à cette communauté. 3. Un accroissement significatif des ressources consacrées à la traduction et à l'interprétation lors des deux derniers exercices fiscaux déterminé en grande partie par les besoins de cette communauté. 4. La poursuite du développement de vos outils de participation en ligne par exemple, le site Web http://atlarge.icann.org <http://atlarge.icann.org/> est l'outil le plus abouti techniquement de l'ICANN et le plus multilingue. Faisant l'objet d'améliorations en permanence, ce site est le premier à gérer les contributions directes de la communauté. Nous pourrions multiplier les exemples, mais nous savons que vous êtes conscients de tout ce que nous faisons pour faciliter votre participation car vous en profitez directement. Tous nos efforts visent à assurer une meilleure représentation des internautes dans les décisions qui les concernent. Et nous apprécions à leur juste mesure vos conseils et contributions qui entrent pour une part essentielle dans le modèle de l'ICANN. Bien entendu, les autres communautés sont tout aussi importantes. Elles ont également indiqué avoir besoin d'aide pour assister aux réunions de l'ICANN pour la même raison que celle que vous avez indiquée : les réunions représentent une part importante du processus de travail de l'ICANN et certains membres n'ont pas les moyens de s'y rendre. Mais l'ICANN ne peut pas prendre en charge le déplacement de toutes les communautés au niveau où leurs membres le souhaiteraient. Les contraintes budgétaires nous imposent des compromis. Cependant, nous souhaiterions vous soumettre les suggestions suivantes, non seulement pour déterminer le niveau de prise en charge des frais de déplacement de la Communauté des utilisateurs d'Internet, mais également pour répondre à certaines questions sous-jacentes que vous avez soulevées. Voici nos propositions : 1. Nous allons travailler avec la communauté tout au long de cet exercice fiscal pour examiner les dispositions de la procédure de prise en charge des frais de déplacement qui concernent la Communauté des utilisateurs d'Internet, et tout particulièrement la participation aux Organisations régionales d'utilisateurs d'Internet (ORUI). Il serait bon de finaliser une proposition de plan pour le Sommet de la Communauté des utilisateurs d'Internet à Mexico City, afin de prendre en compte ces besoins dans la révision de fin d'année de la procédure de déplacement de la communauté et dans la préparation du budget pour l'exercice fiscal 2009-2010. * Nous sommes conscients qu'appliquée en l'état à la Communauté des utilisateurs d'Internet lors du prochain exercice fiscal, la procédure de prise en charge des frais de déplacement ne répond pas aux besoins des ORUI et ne favorise pas la tenue de réunions face à face. En particulier, depuis une téléconférence où une partie non négligeable des participants parlait espagnol, nous avons réalisé que la Communauté des utilisateurs d'Internet est celle dont les besoins en traduction et interprétation sont les plus prégnants pour l'instant ; et jusqu'à ce qu'un outil fiable de participation à distance permette d'organiser des réunions face à face, la communication directe reste le mode de discussion privilégié. Nous sommes également d'accord avec le fait que même les participants anglophones aux ORUI bénéficient d'une communication directe. En fait, le but de cette procédure de prise en charge des frais de déplacement est d'élargir la participation aux réunions face à face, car ce sont ces rencontres qui sont les plus fructueuses. Bien entendu, l'ensemble de la communauté de l'ICANN aura la possibilité d'examiner cette procédure vers la fin du présent exercice fiscal, ainsi que le budget et les plans opérationnels et stratégiques de l'ICANN. Ces consultations seront l'occasion de discussions et d'échanges sur différents points concernant les ORUI (outre le déplacement), notamment la traduction et l'interprétation, les réunions régionales de l'ICANN, etc. Nous vous invitons également à comparer vos besoins avec ceux des autres communautés. 2. Nous proposerons que les critères d'éligibilité des différentes communautés au Programme d'adhésion soient réexaminés au vu de la nouvelle procédure de prise en charge des frais de déplacement. Il sera peut-être nécessaire d'apporter quelques modifications à ce programme après l'évaluation de l'impact des objectifs communs et de l'aide fournie par les procédures de prise en charge des frais de déplacement et le Programme d'adhésion. Jusqu'à présent, ce programme excluait la Communauté des utilisateurs d'Internet de toute participation, car le déplacement de ses membres faisait l'objet d'un financement séparé et les membres du ccNSO et du GAC (Government Advisory Committee) des pays concernés étaient prioritaires. Désormais, le ccNSO reçoit une aide dans le cadre des procédures de prise en charge des frais de déplacement et l'intégration du GAC dans ces mêmes procédures sera proposée lors du prochain exercice fiscal. Il nous semble que ces modifications apportées aux conditions de déplacement des différentes communautés sont de nature à répondre aux attentes formulées. 3. Les initiatives du GNSO contribuent également à aider la Communauté des utilisateurs d'Internet. Dans le cadre des travaux du GNSO récemment approuvés par le Conseil d'administration, plusieurs initiatives vont être lancées pour : a. analyser et améliorer les outils, les processus, les procédures et les mécanismes de financement des communautés du GNSO ; b. concevoir et mettre en ¦uvre une politique de recrutement globale dans toutes les communautés du GNSO. Ce travail inclura une phase de dialogue avec les communautés sur les modalités permettant d'atteindre cet objectif et devra prendre en compte des besoins en consultation et en collaboration de nos communautés globales pour élaborer une politique adaptée. Étant donné le rôle pivot joué par la Communauté des utilisateurs d'Internet dans le développement de politiques, nous souhaiterions l'impliquer dans les phases de dialogue et de planification, et lui appliquer les résultats dans la mesure du possible. 4. Pour garantir l'avancement des travaux des secrétariats régionaux concernant la création des structures et processus visant à instaurer une bonne collaboration et une communication efficace avec l'ALAC, l'ICANN prendra à sa charge le déplacement des secrétariats à la réunion du Caire et à la réunion de clôture de l'exercice fiscal prévue en juin 2009. Les secrétariats régionaux bénéficieront du même financement que lors de l'exercice fiscal précédent. Nous connaissons l'importance de ces réunions périodiques pour les responsables régionaux et les membres de l'ALAC, et nous sommes pleinement conscients que la présence des secrétariats aux réunions de l'ICANN a été bénéfique à la communauté dans son ensemble. Nous espérons que ces propositions retiendront votre intérêt non seulement pour solutionner la question de la présence aux réunions de l'ICANN, mais également pour consolider le rôle de la Communauté des utilisateurs d'Internet. C'est avec joie que nous vous retrouverons et que nous prendrons connaissance de vos avis et propositions. Cordialement, Doug Brent, Directeur d'exploitation Denise Michel, Vice-présidente en charge des politiques

1 0

Public Comment: Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy - Part A 'New IRTP Issues' Background
by At-Large Staff Sept. 9, 2008

Sept. 9, 2008

Public Comment: Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy - Part A 'New IRTP Issues' Background http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-09sep08-en.htm 9 September 2008 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. As part of a broader review of this policy, a Policy Development Process (PDP) is currently ongoing on new Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy issues. These new Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy issues include questions relating to registrar exchange of registrant e-mail information, the potential need for including new forms of electronic authentication and potential provisions for "partial bulk transfers." Input requested The Working Group that was launched following the adoption of its charter by the GNSO Council on 17 July 2008 is requesting your input for its deliberations to answer the following questions (found in Section 1.3 of the issues report): Issue I - Is there a way for registrars to make Registrant E-mail Address data available to one another? Currently there is no way of automating approval from the Registrant, as the Registrant Email Address is not a required field in the registrar Whois. This slows down and/or complicates the process for registrants, especially since the Registrant can overrule the Admin Contact . If you believe policy change is needed, what options could be explored for registrars to make Registrant E-mail address data available? For each option, please identify how this would benefit automating approval, and, if any, what potential problems might be associated with this option. Please identify examples or best practices of email address use to facilitate and/or automate approval from a Registrant for a transfer. Although it is not the purpose of this Policy Development Process (PDP) to recommend changes to WHOIS policy, it conceivably could be an option to require registrant email addresses in WHOIS. The Working Group is interested in your views on that potential option, without regard to the broader WHOIS issues of availability and accuracy of WHOIS data. The Working Group is more particularly interested in your views about any other options not involving WHOIS. Issue II - Whether there is need for other options for electronic authentication (e.g., security token in the Form of Authorization (FOA)) due to security concerns on use of email addresses (potential for hacking or spoofing) . What security concerns can you identify related to current ways of authenticating registrants. Note, the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) has identified a risk of email spoofing for purposes of domain name hijacking, see link. We are interested in your views on this and any other concerns. Do you think there is a need for other options for electronic authentication? Please state the reasons for your answer. Do you know of any Registrars using additional means for electronic authorization (e.g. security token, digital signatures, etc.)? If so, what are they and who offers them? If a need would be identified for other options of electronic authentication, what other options could be explored? Of those other options to be explored, please identify the potential benefits but also any potential problems. Do you have or know of any data in relation to the impact of the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) deployment on security in relation to authentication? If so, please describe the source and type of data. Do you know of any further examples, apart from those mentioned in the issues report (.uk registry and .se registry), of electronic authentication methods? If so, what are they and who offers them? Issue III - Whether the policy should incorporate provisions for handling "partial bulk transfers" between registrars - that is, transfers involving a number of names but not the entire group of names held by the losing registrar . Should the policy incorporate provisions for handling "partial bulk transfers" between registrars? Please state the reasons and use-cases for your answer. Are you aware of any voluntary provisions to facilitate partial bulk transfers? If so, could you please provide further details on those provisions (apart from those already identified in the issues paper - NeuLevel (.biz), Nominet (.uk)). Background documents / links GNSO Issues Report Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy: Set A; "New IRTP Issues" (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/transfers/transfer-issues-report-set-a-23may08 .pdf) Charter Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy - Part A PDP Working Group (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/transfers/irtp-working-group-charter-jun08.htm ) IRTP Part A PDP Working Group Workspace (irtp part a pdp wg pdp jun08) IRTP Part A PDP Working Group E-mail archives (http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08/) Deadline and how to submit comments Comments are welcome via e-mail to <new-irtp-issues(a)icann.org> until 29 September 2008. Access to the public comment forum from which comments can be posted can be found at <new-irtp-issues(a)icann.org>. An archive of all comments received will be publicly posted at http://forum.icann.org/lists/new-irtp-issues/. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Frederic Teboul ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

1 0

Public Comment until 29 September: Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy - Part A 'New IRTP Issues'
by At-Large Staff Sept. 9, 2008

Sept. 9, 2008

FYI: http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-09sep08-en.htm Public Comment: Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy - Part A 'New IRTP Issues' Background 9 September 2008 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. As part of a broader review of this policy, a Policy Development Process (PDP) is currently ongoing on new Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy issues. These new Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy issues include questions relating to registrar exchange of registrant e-mail information, the potential need for including new forms of electronic authentication and potential provisions for "partial bulk transfers." Input requested The Working Group that was launched following the adoption of its charter by the GNSO Council on 17 July 2008 is requesting your input for its deliberations to answer the following questions (found in Section 1.3 of the issues report): Issue I - Is there a way for registrars to make Registrant E-mail Address data available to one another? Currently there is no way of automating approval from the Registrant, as the Registrant Email Address is not a required field in the registrar Whois. This slows down and/or complicates the process for registrants, especially since the Registrant can overrule the Admin Contact . If you believe policy change is needed, what options could be explored for registrars to make Registrant E-mail address data available? For each option, please identify how this would benefit automating approval, and, if any, what potential problems might be associated with this option. Please identify examples or best practices of email address use to facilitate and/or automate approval from a Registrant for a transfer. Although it is not the purpose of this Policy Development Process (PDP) to recommend changes to WHOIS policy, it conceivably could be an option to require registrant email addresses in WHOIS. The Working Group is interested in your views on that potential option, without regard to the broader WHOIS issues of availability and accuracy of WHOIS data. The Working Group is more particularly interested in your views about any other options not involving WHOIS. Issue II - Whether there is need for other options for electronic authentication (e.g., security token in the Form of Authorization (FOA)) due to security concerns on use of email addresses (potential for hacking or spoofing) . What security concerns can you identify related to current ways of authenticating registrants. Note, the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) has identified a risk of email spoofing for purposes of domain name hijacking, see link. We are interested in your views on this and any other concerns. Do you think there is a need for other options for electronic authentication? Please state the reasons for your answer. Do you know of any Registrars using additional means for electronic authorization (e.g. security token, digital signatures, etc.)? If so, what are they and who offers them? If a need would be identified for other options of electronic authentication, what other options could be explored? Of those other options to be explored, please identify the potential benefits but also any potential problems. Do you have or know of any data in relation to the impact of the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) deployment on security in relation to authentication? If so, please describe the source and type of data. Do you know of any further examples, apart from those mentioned in the issues report (.uk registry and .se registry), of electronic authentication methods? If so, what are they and who offers them? Issue III - Whether the policy should incorporate provisions for handling "partial bulk transfers" between registrars - that is, transfers involving a number of names but not the entire group of names held by the losing registrar . Should the policy incorporate provisions for handling "partial bulk transfers" between registrars? Please state the reasons and use-cases for your answer. Are you aware of any voluntary provisions to facilitate partial bulk transfers? If so, could you please provide further details on those provisions (apart from those already identified in the issues paper - NeuLevel (.biz), Nominet (.uk)). Background documents / links GNSO Issues Report Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy: Set A; "New IRTP Issues" (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/transfers/transfer-issues-report-set-a-23may08 .pdf) Charter Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy - Part A PDP Working Group (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/transfers/irtp-working-group-charter-jun08.htm ) IRTP Part A PDP Working Group Workspace (irtp part a pdp wg pdp jun08) IRTP Part A PDP Working Group E-mail archives (http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08/) Deadline and how to submit comments Comments are welcome via e-mail to <new-irtp-issues(a)icann.org> until 29 September 2008. Access to the public comment forum from which comments can be posted can be found at <new-irtp-issues(a)icann.org>. An archive of all comments received will be publicly posted at http://forum.icann.org/lists/new-irtp-issues/. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0