July 2008 - At-Large - lists.icann.org

RAA Amendments Consultation
by At-Large Staff July 16, 2008

July 16, 2008

Dear All: FYI, with respect to the RAA Consultation, as I mentioned to many of you in Paris, the documents are being translated now and should be ready shortly. Beau, the lead on ALAC for the RAA Working Group, has asked that a briefing be scheduled for the members of the WG and we are working on arranging this at present. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Frederic Teboul ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

5 4

Gmail Reveals the Names of All Users
by Jeffrey A. Williams July 16, 2008

July 16, 2008

All, especially Vint, Well Vint, seems yet again Google has proven their disregard for your users privacy and security. Bad show, IMO! Thanks allot for propagating even more UCE/Spam there Vint! >:( < sarcasm intended > Oh yes, and BTW Vint, now that this errant mistake has surfaced, how long to you think it is going to be before technical terrorist or organized Internet crime groups are going to exploit it? My guess is, it's already too late... Second question Vint: Why in the HELL don't you folks at Google test out your code vigorously BEFORE you release it to the public? You of all people should know better. See: Have you ever wanted to know the name of admin(a)gmail.com? Now you can. Through a bug in Google calendars http://blog.holdenkarau.com/2008/07/gaping-whole-in-gmail-privacy.html the names of all registered Gmail accounts are now readily available. All you need to find out the names of any gmail address is a Google calendar account yourself. Depending on your view this ranges from a harmless "feature" to a rather serious privacy violation. According to some reports, spammers are already exploiting this "feature"/bug to send personalized spam messages. Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0

Europe May Put ACTA Back On Faster Track
by Jeffrey A. Williams July 16, 2008

July 16, 2008

All, FYI: [ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ] http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/index.php?p=1152 Intellectual Property Watch 16 July 2008 Europe May Put ACTA Back On Faster Track By Monika Ermert for Intellectual Property Watch Despite earlier statements by European negotiators that the planned Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) would need time for fine- tuning, nations seem to accept a fast track movement now. ACTA has been mentioned as an agenda item of the French presidency of the European Union (from July to January), the European Commissions Trade Directorate General (DG Trade) prepared a public report about its consultation with stakeholders in June, and the European Parliament has included ACTA in a draft report on the impact of counterfeiting on international trade. On Tuesday, Luc Chatel, secretary of state for consumer affairs and industry, and spokesman for the French government, explained that [pdf] the fight against piracy and counterfeiting is high on the agenda of the French presidency. Chatel said, During her presidency, France will work hard to make progress in this fight by taking a global approach. France would aim to present, during the EU Council meeting on competition policies 25-26 September, an integrated concept including a new plan for border controls that would update the border regulation currently in effect. In addition to creating an observatory against counterfeiting and better cooperation and information exchange among EU governments - using also the European Anti-Fraud Office, ACTA is indispensable to realising global cooperation and the enforcement of IP rights, Chatel said. A DG Trade spokesperson told Intellectual Property Watch, If you have the G8 leaders and the EU presidency behind it, then clearly there is a lot of dynamism. The Commission is prepared to help move forward with the negotiations. DG Trade is preparing a public report on its consultation with stakeholders on 23 June attended by around one hundred participants from industry and civil society. The European Parliaments Committee on International Trade also is working on the issue. International Trade Committee Member Daniel Caspary, European Peoples Party (EPP) member, told Intellectual Property Watch that he welcomes the approach of targeted global penal law sanctions. There are some questions with regard to civil rights, he said. But the Commission, which has been mandated to negotiate for the EU by the Council of Ministers, promised to take care of this issue. Draft Report sees ACTA as Pressure Tool Caspary said he is expecting amendments seeking safeguards for fundamental civil rights to a draft Parliament Report on the impact of counterfeiting on international trade prepared by liberal MEP Gianluca Susta. The report is clearly positive about ACTA and proposes that the full Parliament should call on the Commission to continue its fight against counterfeiting and piracy in parallel with the multilateral negotiations, also by means of bilateral, regional and multilateral agreements and also should call on the Commission and the member states to make all appropriate efforts to achieve a swift and satisfactory conclusion to the ACTA agreement. The entry into force of ACTA, Susta said in the report, would be an essential international benchmark and could ensure that counterfeiting is suppressed more effectively and provide an important tool for putting pressure on non-signatory third countries. The draft report also welcomes the growing interest by WTO member countries in ACTA and would hope that the agreement could also be signed by China. Caspary said it was clear to him that searches by border control authorities, for example in China, had to be backed by a judges decision. Anything else is impossible, he said, because otherwise one would open the gates for industrial espionage. Caspary downplayed the fact that for an assessment of ACTA members of Parliament should at least have a look at the draft text. Other observers confirmed that during an update given to the Trade Committee by DG Trade officials there were requests for the document. But so far ACTA negotiations have been held behind closed doors. The next meeting of negotiators is expected at the end of the month after a meeting planned for this week had to be postponed, sources said. A Critical Assessment of EU Bilateral Trade Agreements A more cautious approach in bilateral trade agreements with regard to fighting counterfeiting and piracy is recommended in a briefing paper requested by the International Trade Committee and prepared by Duncan Matthews of Queen Mary College, University of London. Matthews asks in his summary that inclusion of IP enforcement in agreements had to be done on the basis of adequate evidence on the level of counterfeiting and piracy, recommends that the European Parliament should consider the need to balance flexibilities in the TRIPS agreement with the need for additional provisions in bilateral agreements and warns that agreements that contain provisions on recourse to bilateral dispute settlement mechanisms risk weakening the multilateral dispute settlement system. TRIPS refers to the World Trade Organization Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. As IP rights are private rights, the main responsibility for taking measures to protect and enforce intellectual property rights should lie with individual right holders, said Matthews. He recommended establishing a parliamentary forum or an inter-parliamentary observatory to monitor and assess the impact of bilateral agreements in the fight against counterfeiting and piracy. On ACTA, he notes concerns by observers that ACTA would impose a narrow trade agenda at the expense of global cooperation and evidence- based policies, criminalising non-commercial copyright and trademark infringements, reinforcing digital rights management (DRM) technologies contrary to fair use principles in copyright law, and protecting internet service providers (ISPs) from liability for the actions of their subscribers. Matthews analysis might give some members of the EU Parliament second thoughts, yet so far it seems that Parliament will be kept outside of the negotiations. Parliament would be consulted, but as long as the Lisbon Treaty has not been signed there is no co-decision role for the Parliament on this, according to the DG Trade spokesman. Representatives of several non-governmental organisations have begun digging into the question of whether this legal assessment is correct, given that there was no harmonisation with regard to penal law sanctions against IP violations in the European Union. This has been blocked so far by member states. Monika Ermert may be reached at info(a)ip-watch.ch. Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0

DNS Security holes: Not a Guessing Game, comments by Paul Vixie
by Jeffrey A. Williams July 16, 2008

July 16, 2008

All, FYI from circle ID: Comment by Paul Vixie http://www.circleid.com/posts/87143_dns_not_a_guessing_game/#4238 While ISC is totally ready and willing to cooperate with ICANN on the root zone demo David mentioned, that demo is of technology, not political will, and is therefore somewhat off-topic. I want the real root zone signed with a real key so that TLDs who sign themselves will have a secure place to publish their TLD keys. I have searched the world and I've busted into every smoke filled room on it, and I have still not found the person who can say "yes" to that, nor have I found the people who are currently saying "no". What I do know is that if ICANN and USG had the political will to make this happen, it would happen. My note: Well I find this interesting attempt to hold out the olive branch while at the same time attempting to keep a distance from ICANN. Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0

New U.S. National IPR Coordination Center
by Jeffrey A. Williams July 15, 2008

July 15, 2008

All, An FYI that will be effecting all of us: The U.S. Departments of Homeland Security, Justice and Commerce and Postal Inspection Service announced last week the creation of a new National IPR Coordination Center that will be central point of the US federal government fight against counterfeiters. The fact sheet is available here: http://149.101.23.4/pi/news/factsheets/IPR_FS070117.htm I copied below the press release by Office of Public Affairs of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security US Immigration and Customs Enforcement July 10, 2008 Contact: Brandon Alvarez- Montgomery ICE Public Affairs Phone: (202) 538-1846 www.ice.gov News Release NEW NATIONAL INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS COORDINATION CENTER OPENS IN VIRGINIA Departments of Homeland Security, Justice and Commerce and Postal Inspection Service open command post to take joint action against counterfeiters WASHINGTON, D.C. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security announced today the opening of a new high-tech National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center (IPR Center) in Northern Virginia that will help maximize member agencies authorities and resources to counter the global threat of intellectual property rights violations. Intellectual property rights crimes are increasing in volume and complexity, costing legitimate companies and their hard-working employees billions in irreplaceable revenue, sa id Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff. These crimes threaten the health and safety of American consumers, and put illicit funds in the hands of criminals here as well as unknown recipients overseas. This center will fuse federal resources and promote partnerships with industry in new and powerful ways to protect American business and consumers from falling victim to dangerous and illicit goods. The center will host the restructured partnership of its components, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection, with the Department of Commerce, Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration, the Department of Justices Federal Bureau of Investigation and the U.S. Postal Inspection Service to combat counterfeiting and trademark piracy. Intellectual property is one of Americas most precious assets, said U.S. Secretary of Commerce Carlos M. Gutierrez. The Bush Administration has recognized the critical task of protecting intellectual property both domestically and internationally. This new IPR Center is just another example of this Administration stepping- up the fight against counterfeiting and piracy. DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff and Commerce Secretary Carlos M. Gutierrez joined business leaders, members of Congress and law enforcement officials to dedicate the new facility in Crystal City, Va., and to explain how this state-of-the- art center will function. The ICE- led IPR Center co-locates, for the first time, the regulators and law enforcement agencies that work to protect public safety and national security by stopping the importation of counterfeit, substandard and tainted products and the theft of intellectual property. Private sector rights holders across industries, across regions, and even among competitors will unanimously agree that the fight against IP crime cannot be won in isolation, said Keith Williams, president and CEO for Underwriters Laboratories, one of the world s leading product safety testing and certification organizations, who took part in the ceremony. The Center is perfectly positioned to build global partnerships capable of achieving exponential success in our collective battle against counterfeiting while fostering innovation, encouraging investment in research and development, and ultimately protecting the health and safety of consumers. Since 2000, the IPR Center has been the federal governments central point of contact in the fight against IPR violators. Under the new structure, and in the state-of-the-art facility, partners will employ a task force model to more effectively use authorities and resources to attack this international problem. The agencies will jointly manage investigative leads, investigations and operations and head off conflicts in enforc ement activity. In addition, they will strategically reach out nationally and internationally to train other law enforcement at every level about investigative best practices, to broaden intellectual property protection and to expand transnational enforcement capabilities. For international law enforcement agencies, the IPR Center will serve as a one-stop shop for partnering with the U.S. government to dismantle the criminal enterprises behind the flow of counterfeit items. For more information, contact: The National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center, 2451 Crystal Dr., Suite 200, Arlington, Va. 22202, 1 866-IPR-2060. E- mail is IPRCenter(a)dhs.gov # ICE # U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement was established in March 2003 as the largest investigative arm of the Department of Homeland Security. ICE is comprised of five integrated divisions that form a 21st century law enforcement agency with broad responsibilities for a number of key homeland security priorities. Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0

Monthly Policy Update
by Denise Michel July 15, 2008

July 15, 2008

ICANN's July Monthly Policy Update is included below. It also will be posted (with hyperlinks) on ICANN's website at < http://www.icann.org/topics/policy/> and is available via online subscription. To receive these updates directly each month, go to < http://www.icann.org/newsletter> and select "Policy Update" to subscribe. Regards, Denise Michel ICANN VP, Policy ============================== ICANN POLICY UPDATE – July 2008 CONTENTS 1. GNSO – IMPROVEMENTS 2. GNSO – DOMAIN NAME TASTING 3. GNSO – WHOIS 4. GNSO – INTER-REGISTRAR TRANSFER POLICY REVIEW 5. GNSO – FAST FLUX HOSTING 6. MULTIPLE ENTITIES – DOMAIN NAME FRONT RUNNING 7. MULTIPLE ENTITIES – IDN ccTLDs 8. MULTIPLE ENTITIES – ICANN'S GEOGRAPHIC REGIONS 9. CCNSO – INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT PLANS 10. AT-LARGE – PARIS MEETING 11. AT-LARGE – AT-LARGE SUMMIT 12. AT-LARGE – ELECTIONS 13. ASO AC – GLOBAL POLICY PROPOSALS (ASNs, IPv4) 14. SSAC – DNSSEC-CAPABLE NAME SERVER SURVEY 15. SSAC – ANTI-PHISHING ACTIVITIES Below are brief summaries of issues that are being addressed by the ICANN community's bottom-up policy development structure, as well as other significant activities of interest. This latest monthly update is provided by ICANN's Policy Staff in response to community requests for periodic summaries of ICANN's policy work. Links to additional information are included below and we encourage you to go beyond these brief Staff summaries and learn more about the ICANN community's work. Our goal is to maximize transparency and broad community participation in ICANN's policy development activities. Comments and suggestions on how we can improve these efforts are most welcome and should be sent to policy-staff(a)icann.org. 1. GNSO – IMPROVEMENTS Recent Developments On 26 June 2008, the ICANN Board approved all of the GNSO Improvement Report's recommendations, except for the recommendation on GNSO Council restructuring. The Board also requested that the GNSO convene a small working group on council restructuring and provide for the Board's consideration a consensus recommendation by 25 July 2008. Next Steps The public comment period on the Council's top-level GNO Improvements implementation plan is scheduled to close on 17 July 2008. A small working group on GNSO Council restructuring has convened and expects to continue with its work. Consistent with its Resolution, Board consideration of the future structure of the GNSO Council is expected to be resolved no later than at its 28 August 2008 meeting. Background The ICANN Board has approved a comprehensive set of recommendations to improve the structure and operations of the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO). This effort is part of ICANN's own ongoing commitment to evolve and improve, and follows an independent review of the GNSO by the London School of Economics and others, as well as extensive public consultation. A working group of the ICANN Board Governance Committee (BGC WG) developed and presented these recommendations in a GNSO Improvements Report that includes ways to improve the effectiveness of the GNSO's policy development activities, structure, operations and communications. At the February 2008 Board meeting in New Delhi, the Board accepted the Report for consideration, and directed ICANN Staff to post it for public comment, draft a detailed implementation plan in consultation with the GNSO, begin implementation of the non-contentious recommendations, and then return to the Board and community for further consideration. The GNSO Council subsequently formed a GNSO Improvement Planning Team (Planning Team), comprised of GNSO leadership, constituency representatives, ICANN Staff and a Board liaison participant, in order to develop a top-level implementation plan to organize and manage the implementation effort. On 19 May 2008, the Planning Team produced a draft version of the GNSO Improvements Top Level Plan. The plan focuses on the creation of two standing committees, GNSO Process and GNSO Operations, which would be responsible for ensuring that the work of implementing BGC WG recommendations is carried out. More Information • GNSO Improvements information page < http://www.icann.org/topics/gnso-improvements/> • Full GNSO Improvements Report < http://www.icann.org/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-report-03fe…> • 15 February 2008 Board resolution on GNSO Improvements < http://www.icann.org/minutes/resolutions-15feb08.htm#_Toc64545918> • Summary and Analysis of Comments on GNSO Improvements Report < http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-improvements-report-2008/msg00033.html> • GNSO Improvements - Top Level Plan, 21 June 2008 < http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-improvements-top-level-plan-21jun08.pdf> • 26 June Board resolution on GNSO Improvements < http://www.icann.org/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm - _Toc76113182> Staff Contact Rob Hoggarth, Senior Policy Director 2. GNSO – DOMAIN NAME TASTING Recent Developments The ICANN Board approved the GNSO Council recommendation to curb abuse of the "add grace period" (AGP) for domain tasting, and also approved the draft budget for FY 2008-09, which includes language to curb domain tasting. Prior to Board approval, Staff prepared an initial "Implementation Advisory" on modifications to the AGP, which examined each component of the GNSO Council recommendation and identified particular implementation steps that should be considered to put the recommendation and the FY 09 Budget Plan in place. Next Steps Staff will be developing a detailed implementation plan for community review. Background The term "domain name tasting" refers to a situation where an entity registers a domain name and then tests to see if the name has sufficient traffic to generate more income than the annual registration fee, usually through the addition of pay-per-click advertising. If the address is deemed sufficiently profitable, it is kept. If not, the current "add grace period" (AGP), that allows domains to be returned within five days without cost, is used to return the domain at no net cost to the registrant and no ICANN charge levied on the registrar. The practice is controversial because registrants who engage in it are able to temporarily register hundreds of thousands of domain names, with these temporary registrations far exceeding the number of domain names actually licensed. Over time, there has been a significant increase in the number of domains registered and returned prior to expiration of the AGP. A significant number of community members feel the AGP process presents a loophole that facilitates this conduct. On 17 April 2008, the GNSO Council by supermajority vote approved a recommendation that would prohibit any gTLD operator that has implemented an AGP from offering a refund for any domain name deleted during the AGP that exceeds 10% of its net new registrations in that month, or fifty domain names, whichever is greater. Under the terms of the motion, an exemption from the limitation could be sought for a particular month, upon a showing of extraordinary circumstances detailed in the motion. In addition, the provision that had been included previously in the ICANN draft budget for FY 2009 (applying the ICANN USD .20 annual fee to all new registrations) was modified to reflect the same threshold included in the GNSO Council recommendation. This new language would apply the annual ICANN fee only to those registrations that exceed the maximum of (i) 10% of that registrar's net new registrations in that month (defined as total new registrations less domains deleted during AGP), or (ii) fifty (50) domain names, whichever is greater. More Information • Public comment request on Domain Tasting motion with summary of comments <http://www.icann.org/public_comment/#dt-motion-21may08> • GNSO Domain Tasting Issues Report, June 2007 < http://gnso.icann.org/issues/domain-tasting/gnso-domain-tasting-report-14ju…> • Outcomes Report, October 2007 < http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-domain-tasting-adhoc-outcomes-report-fina… > • Final Report, 4 April 2008 < http://gnso.icann.org/issues/domain-tasting/gnso-final-report-domain-tastin… > • ICANN Board resolution on Domain Tasting < http://www.icann.org/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm#_Toc76113173> • Reference to relevant language in FY 09 Budget, see p. 20 < http://www.icann.org/en/financials/proposed-opplan-budget-v3-fy09-25jun08-e… > • 16 June Staff Implementation Advisory on Domain Tasting < http://gnso.icann.org/issues/domain-tasting/gnso-domain-tasting-implementat… > Staff Contact Liz Gasster, Senior Policy Counselor 3. GNSO – WHOIS Recent Developments During the June 2008 Paris meeting, the GNSO Council voted to reconvene a group to review the study recommendations offered through the public comment period and the studies requested by the GAC and, based on those recommendations and the GAC request, prepare a concise list of hypotheses. The group has six (6) weeks to deliver this to the Council for consideration. Next Steps Following submission of the list of hypotheses to the Council, the Council will then decide whether any potential studies should be further considered, and if so, identify hypotheses that it would like the Staff to determine cost, feasibility, potential methodology, and estimated time frames for testing. Background WHOIS services provide public access to data on registered domain names, data that currently includes contact information for Registered Name Holders. The extent of registration data collected at the time a domain name is registered, and the ways such data can be accessed, are specified in agreements established by ICANN for domain names registered in generic top-level domains (gTLDs). For example, ICANN requires accredited registrars to collect and provide free public access to (1) the name of the registered domain name and its name servers and registrar, (2) the date the domain was created and when its registration expires, and (3) the contact information for the Registered Name Holder including the technical contact, and the registrant's administrative contact. WHOIS has been the subject of intense policy development debate and action over the last few years. Information contained in WHOIS is used for a wide variety of purposes. Some uses of WHOIS data are viewed as constructive and beneficial. For example, sometimes WHOIS data is used to track down and identify registrants who may be posting illegal content or engaging in phishing scams. Other uses of WHOIS are viewed as potentially negative, such as harvesting WHOIS contact information to send unwanted spam or fraudulent email solicitations. Privacy advocates have also been concerned about the privacy implications of unrestricted access to personal contact information. The GNSO Council decided in October 2007 that a comprehensive, objective and quantifiable understanding of key factual issues regarding WHOIS would benefit future GNSO policy development efforts, and plans to ask the ICANN Staff to conduct several studies for this purpose. Before defining the details of these studies, the Council solicited suggestions for specific topics of study on WHOIS from community stakeholders, with possible areas of study including a study of certain aspects of gTLD registrants and registrations, a study of certain uses and misuses of WHOIS data, a study of the use of proxy registration services, including privacy services, and a comparative study of gTLD and ccTLD WHOIS. A public comment forum was opened through 15 February 2008, in order to solicit suggestions for specific topics of study on WHOIS. Approximately 25 suggestions were received, and a summary of comments was prepared. On 27 March 2008, the GNSO Council convened a group of volunteers to do the following: (1) review and discuss the Report on Public Suggestions on Further Studies of WHOIS; (2) develop a proposed list of recommended studies, if any, for which ICANN Staff would be asked to provide cost estimates to the Council; and (3) produce the list of recommendations with supporting rationale. On 22 May 2008, the WHOIS study group delivered its report to the Council. In addition to considering the recommendations solicited from the public, the group also considered recommendations offered by the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) for WHOIS studies. The report reflected two opposing viewpoints among participants. A significant number of participants believe that no further studies should be conducted because further study (and the resulting information) would be unlikely to persuade any stakeholders to modify existing strongly held positions. The second group of participants believe further studies would be useful in informing the debate, and their comments include specific recommendations for further study in three primary areas: 1) the availability of privacy services; 2) the demand and motivation for the use of privacy services; and 3) certain studies of WHOIS misuse, detailed further in the report. More Information • GNSO WHOIS Policy Work Web Page <http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/> • GAC Recommendations of 16 April 2008 < http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karlins-to-thrush-16apr08.pdf> • Summary of Public Suggestions on Further Studies of WHOIS (updated 10 May 2008 with GAC recommendations of 16 April) < http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-study-suggestion-report-10may08.pdf > • 25 June GNSO Council resolution on WHOIS < http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/> Staff Contact Liz Gasster, Senior Policy Counselor 4. GNSO – INTER-REGISTRAR TRANSFER POLICY REVIEW Recent Developments A GNSO drafting group addressing the first set of transfer denial reasons (called "Transfer PDP 1") reported on its findings to the GNSO Council. The Council resolved on 25 June 2008 to post the proposals for transfer denial reasons #8 and #9 for public comments, while deferring denial reasons #5 and #7 to be handled in a future transfer policy development process (PDP) (see explanations below). The Council also decided to launch the new PDP on "New IRTP Issues" (aka "Set A" described below). Next Steps Following the public comment period regarding Transfer PDP 1, the Council will decide on whether to forward the two proposed texts as a Council Recommendation to the ICANN Board for modification of the IRTP provisions. Regarding the New IRTP Issues - Set A, a charter for a new working group is being developed and will be considered at the next GNSO Council meeting on 17 July 2008. Background Consistent with ICANN's obligation to promote and encourage robust competition in the domain name space, the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy aims to provide a straightforward procedure for domain name holders to transfer their names from one ICANN-accredited registrar to another should they wish to do so. The policy also provides standardized requirements for registrar handling of such transfer requests from domain name holders. The policy is an existing community consensus that was implemented in late 2004 and is now being reviewed by the GNSO. As part of that effort, the GNSO Council formed a Transfers Working Group (TWG) to examine and recommend possible areas for improvements in the existing transfer policy. The TWG identified a broad list of over 20 potential areas for clarification and improvement. The IRTP performs a critical function but the specific terms of the policy can be arcane and the work to clarify them complex. In an effort to deal with that complexity while moving to get clarifications and improvements on-line as soon as possible, the Council initiated a policy development process (Transfer PDP 1) to immediately examine four specific issues from the broader list that addressed reasons for which a registrar of record may deny a request to transfer a domain name to a new registrar. The IRTP currently enumerates nine (9) specific reasons why a registrar can deny a transfer. Those issues identified as needing clarification included the following: • "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. Parallel to the PDP process, the Council tasked a short term planning group to evaluate and prioritize the remaining 19 policy issues identified by the Transfers Working Group. In March 2008, the group delivered a report to the Council that suggested combining the consideration of related issues into five new PDPs. On 8 May 2008, the Council adopted the structuring of five additional inter-registrar transfers PDPs as suggested by the planning group (in addition to the ongoing Transfer PDP 1 on the four reasons for denying a transfer). The five new PDPs will be addressed in a largely consecutive manner, with the possibility of overlap as resources permit. The Council requested an Issues Report from Staff on the first of the new PDP issue sets (Set A – New IRTP Issues), which has since been delivered to the Council. The three "new" issues in Set A address (1) the potential exchange of registrant email information between registrars, (2) the potential for including new forms of electronic authentication to verify transfer requests and avoid "spoofing", and (3) to consider whether the IRTP should include provisions for "partial bulk transfers" between registrars. More Information • Draft Advisory < http://gnso.icann.org/issues/transfers/gnso-draft-transfer-advisory-14nov07… > • 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… > • PDP Recommendations < http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/transfer-wg-recommendations-pdp-groupings-19ma…> • Issues Report, Set A ( http://gnso.icann.org/issues/transfers/transfer-issues-report-set-a-23may08… 5. GNSO – FAST FLUX HOSTING Recent Developments At its 25 June 2008 meeting, the GNSO Council initiated a fast flux policy development process and appointed a fast flux working group chair and Council liaison. Next Steps With assistance from Staff, a template for constituency statements is due 40 days after the Working Group is initiated (5 August 2008), and constituency statements are then due 30 days after the template is released (no later than 4 September 2008). A Final Report will be submitted to the GNSO Council and posted for public comment at 90 days (target – 25 September 2008). The Working Group's Final Report will discuss these questions and the range of possible answers developed by its members. The Report also will outline potential next steps for Council deliberation. These next steps may include further work items for the Working Group or policy recommendation for constituency and community review and comment, and for Council deliberation. Background Fast flux hosting is a term that refers to several techniques used by cybercriminals to evade detection in which the criminals rapidly modify IP addresses and/or name servers. The ICANN Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) recently completed a study of fast flux hosting. The results of the study were published in January 2008 in the SSAC Advisory on Fast Flux Hosting and DNS (SAC 025). Because fast flux hosting involves many different players — the cybercriminals and their victims, ISPs, companies that provide web hosting services, and DNS registries and registrars — it is possible to imagine a variety of different approaches to mitigation. Most of these will require the cooperation of a variety of actors, and some will be outside of ICANN's scope. On 26 March 2008, Staff posted an Issues Report on fast flux hosting, as directed by the GNSO Council. In the Report, Staff recommends that the GNSO sponsor additional fact-finding and research to develop best practices concerning fast flux hosting. Staff also notes that it may be appropriate for the ccNSO to participate in such an activity. At its 8 May 2008 meeting, the GNSO Council formally launched a policy development process (PDP), rejected a task force approach and called for creation of a working group on fast flux. Subsequently, at its 29 May 2008 meeting, the GNSO Council approved a working group charter to consider the following questions: • Who benefits from fast flux, and who is harmed? • Who would benefit from cessation of the practice and who would be harmed? • Are registry operators involved, or could they be, in fast flux hosting activities? If so, how? • Are registrars involved in fast flux hosting activities? If so, how? • How are registrants affected by fast flux hosting? • How are Internet users affected by fast flux hosting? • What technical (e.g. changes to the way in which DNS updates operate) and policy (e.g. changes to registry/registrar agreements or rules governing permissible registrant behavior) measures could be implemented by registries and registrars to mitigate the negative effects of fast flux? • What would be the impact (positive or negative) of establishing limitations, guidelines, or restrictions on registrants, registrars and/or registries with respect to practices that enable or facilitate fast flux hosting? • What would be the impact of these limitations, guidelines, or restrictions to product and service innovation? • What are some of the best practices available with regard to protection from fast flux? The group also will obtain expert opinion, as appropriate, on which areas of fast flux are in scope and out of scope for GNSO policy making. More Information • SSAC Report 025 on Fast Flux Hosting, January 2008 < http://www.icann.org/committees/security/sac025.pdf> • Issues Report on Fast Flux Hosting, corrected 31 March 2008 < http://gnso.icann.org/issues/fast-flux-hosting/gnso-issues-report-fast-flux… > • 25 June GNSO Council resolution on Fast Flux Hosting < http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/> Staff Contact Liz Gasster, Senior Policy Counselor 6. MULTIPLE ENTITIES – DOMAIN NAME FRONT RUNNING Recent Developments At its 8 May 2008 meeting, the GNSO Council approved a motion to create a drafting team to consider questions such as the following: • How is the [domain name front running] problem defined? • How prevalent is the problem? • Will the measures relating to domain tasting affect front running? • Are there rules within the RAA that can be used to address this activity? The goal of the drafting team was to bring a recommendation to the Council on whether to request an Issues Report or a more extensive research effort that could help to define the terms of reference for further work. Subsequently, on 29 May 2008, ICANN Staff recommended that more information be obtained about other research activities that may be contemplated or underway (such as possible research by the SSAC and by ICANN) before proceeding with work by this drafting team. At the GNSO Council meeting on 25 June 2008, the Council accepted this recommendation and voted to put the drafting team effort on hold until current research efforts are completed. At its June 2008 meeting in Paris, the ccNSO Council asked the ccNSO Secretariat to produce a high–level overview on front-running to allow further ccNSO discussion. Next Steps The GNSO Council may consider further work once current research efforts are completed, and the ccNSO Council will consider the Staff overview and related material. Background Domain name front running is the practice whereby a domain name registrar uses insider information to register domains for the purpose of re-selling them or earning revenue via ads placed on the domain's landing page. This practice is also sometimes referred to as domain reservation or cart-hold or cart-reserve. By registering the domains, the registrar locks out other potential registrars from selling the domain to a customer. The registrar typically uses the 5-day add grace period (AGP), during which the domain can be locked without permanent payment. On 27 March 2008, after being alerted to the issue by (1) industry input, (2) a Security and Stability Advisory Committee report, and (3) a letter from the At-Large Advisory Committee to the ICANN Board requesting emergency action, the Chair of the ICANN Board referred the matter to the GNSO Council for additional information gathering and policy development, if necessary. More Information • Original ALAC Correspondence Raising Front Running Issue < http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org/2008q… > • SAC 022, SSAC Advisory on Domain Name Front Running, October 2007 < http://www.icann.org/committees/security/sac022.pdf> • 29 May 2008 Staff response to GNSO Council questions on Front Running < http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/front-running-staff-response-to-gnso-c…> • 25 June GNSO Council resolution on Front Running drafting team < http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/> Staff Contact Liz Gasster, Senior Policy Counselor, GNSO, and Gabriella Schittek, ccNSO Secretariat 7. MULTIPLE ENTITIES – IDN CCTLDs Recent Developments The working group on IDN country code top level domains (IDNC WG) concluded its work and submitted to the ICANN Board a final report on feasible methods for timely (fast-track) introduction of a limited number of IDN ccTLDs associated with ISO 3166-1 two-letter codes while an overall, long-term IDN ccTLD policy is under development by the ccNSO. At the June 2008 Paris meeting, the Board directed Staff to: (1) post the IDNC WG final report for public comments; (2) commence work on implementation issues in consultation with relevant stakeholders; and (3) submit a detailed implementation report, including a list of any outstanding issues, to the Board in advance of the November 2008 ICANN Cairo meeting. Next Steps The IDNC WG Final Report has been posted for public comments. Staff will begin work on implementation issues in consultation with relevant stakeholders. Background The potential introduction of Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) represents the beginning of an exciting new chapter in the history of the Internet. IDNs offer many potential new opportunities and benefits for Internet users of all languages around the world by allowing them to establish domains in their native languages and alphabets. An IDN ccTLD (internationalized domain name country code top level domain) is a country code top-level domain (corresponding to a country, territory, or other geographic location as associated with the ISO 3166-1 two-letter codes) with a label that contains at least one character that is not a standard Latin letter (A through Z), a hyphen, or one of the standard numerical digits (0 through 9). The technical potential for ICANN to now make these domain names available for assignment is prompting significant discussion, study and demand within the ICANN community – particularly for territories and communities who want to make use of non-Latin characters. Current efforts are taking place on two fronts: (1) efforts to identify a "fast track" process to provide new domain opportunities to territories with immediate justifiable needs; and (2) efforts to develop a comprehensive long term plan that ensures a stable process for all interested stakeholders. The joint IDNC WG was chartered by ICANN's Board to develop and report on feasible methods, if any, that would enable the introduction of a limited number of non-contentious IDN ccTLDs, in a timely manner that ensures the continued security and stability of the Internet while a comprehensive long-term IDN ccTLD policy is being developed. On 1 February 2008, the IDNC WG posted a Discussion Draft of the Initial Report (DDIR) for public comment and input from the ICANN community. The DDIR clarified the relationship between the "fast track" process and the broader long-term ccNSO Policy Development Process on IDN ccTLDs (IDNccPDP), and also identified the mechanisms for the selection of an IDN ccTLD and an IDN ccTLD manager. The ccNSO Council determined that those mechanisms were to be developed within the following parameters: • The overarching requirement to preserve the security and stability of the DNS Compliance with the IDNA protocols; • Input and advice from the technical community with respect to the implementation of IDNs; and • Current practices for the delegation of ccTLDs, which include the current IANA practices. On 13 June 2008, the IDNC WG published a draft Final Report for discussion by the IDNC WG and the broader community. At the June 2008 Paris ICANN meeting, several workshops and meetings were conducted to discuss the draft Final Report, resulting in several revisions and the work necessary to enable the WG to submit its final report to the ICANN Board. In parallel to considerations of a "fast track" approach, the ccNSO Council initiated a comprehensive long-term policy development process for IDNccTLDs (referred to as the IDNcc PDP). The ccNSO Council formally requested an Issues Report on 19 December 2007 and directed ICANN Staff to identify policies, procedures, and/or by-laws that should be reviewed and, as necessary revised, in connection with the development and implementation of any IDN ccTLD policy – including efforts designed to address the proposed fast-track concept. According to the ICANN bylaws, the creation of the Issue Report is the second step in launching the IDN ccPDP. The final step is the decision of the ccNSO Council to initiate the ccPDP The GNSO and several other parties submitted comments regarding a proposed IDNcc PDP. The Issues Report was submitted to the ccNSO Council and is the basis for the Council's ongoing IDNcc PDP discussions. More Information • Board Proposal IDNC WG, the Final Report IDNC WG on Fast Track Process for IDN ccTLDs < http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-26jun08-en.htm> • IDNccPDP Announcement < http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-19dec07.htm> Staff Contact Bart Boswinkel, Senior Policy Advisor, ccNSO 8. MULTIPLE ENTITIES – ICANN'S GEOGRAPHIC REGIONS Recent Developments ICANN Staff is soliciting input from Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees. Next Steps Input will be summarized and reported to the Board for consideration. Background An ICANN Board resolution in 2000 directed Staff to assign countries to geographic regions on the basis of the United Nations Statistics Division's current classifications, and introduced the concept of "citizenship" in relation to the definition of ICANN Geographic Regions. The ICANN Geographical Regions were originally created to ensure regional diversity in the composition of the ICANN Board and were subsequently expanded in various ways to apply to the GNSO, ALAC and ccNSO. The ICANN Bylaws define five geographic regions as Africa, North America, Latin America/Caribbean, Asia/Australia/Pacific and Europe -- and also expand the concept that "persons from an area that is not a country should be grouped together with the country of citizenship for that area" so that the area or territory itself was similarly allocated to the region of the "mother country." Over time, the ccNSO has developed concerns about the Geographic Regions and related representational issues. The ccNSO Council passed a resolution recommending that the ICANN Board appoint a community-wide working group to further study and review the issues related to the definition of the ICANN Geographic Regions, to consult with all stakeholders and submit proposals to the Board to resolve the issues relating to the current definition of the ICANN Geographic Regions. The ICANN Board determined that because any change to ICANN Geographic Regions could have widespread effect in ICANN, the views of other Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees should be sought by the Board. The Board asked the ICANN community, including the GNSO, ccNSO, ASO, GAC, and ALAC, to provide the ICANN Staff with input on the ccNSO Council's resolution relating to ICANN's Geographic Regions. More Information • ccNSO Working Group Report and Recommendations < http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/ccnso-final-report-regions-wg-240907.p… > • 2 November 2007 ICANN Board Resolution < http://www.icann.org/minutes/resolutions-02nov07.htm#_Toc55609368> Staff Contact Robert Hoggarth, Senior Policy Director 9. CCNSO – INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT PLANS Recent Developments At its June 2008 meeting in Paris, the ccNSO Council adopted new administrative procedures that include: • Guidelines for ccNSO Council meetings; • Guidelines for ccNSO general meetings; • Setting-up Working Groups and templates to assist drafting of charters; • Guidelines for Selection of Board seats 11 and 12, and election of ccNSO Council members by the ccNSO; and • Guidelines for liaisons and observers from other ICANN related entities. Next Steps The Processes WG will continue its work on a few more guidelines, including one to improve the participation of ccTLDs in ICANN's yearly strategic and operational planning processes. Background The ccNSO Council has initiated efforts to improve its work plans, administrative procedures and communications tools. As a result of a Council workshop held at the ICANN New Delhi meeting earlier this year, a working group of the Council was established to propose administrative procedures for the ccNSO. The Council also approved the creation of a new "authoritative" ccTLD managers email list. At the time of the Paris meeting, 95 ccTLD managers had subscribed. Subscription is open to ccTLD managers and any persons they designate to be on the list. In addition, the ccNSO has been conducting a participation survey to understand better why ccTLDs do or do not participate in ccNSO meetings. The results of the survey were presented at the ccNSO meeting and will be published on the ICANN website. The Participation WG, in close cooperation with ICANN's Regional Liaisons, developed a leaflet on participation in both the ccNSO and Regional organizations. The leaflet was presented at the ICANN meeting in Paris last month. More Information • Guidelines and ccNSO information <http://www.ccnso.icann.org/> • ccTLD Community Email List < http://www.ccnso.icann.org/about/charter-cctld-community-list.pdf> • ccNSO Participation Working Group < www.ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/participationwg.htm> • ccNSO Administrative Processes Working Group < http://www.ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/processeswg.htm> Staff Contacts Bart Boswinkel, Senior Policy Advisor, ccNSO and Gabriella Schittek, ccNSO Secretariat 10. AT-LARGE – PARIS MEETING Recent Developments Last month in Paris, At-Large concluded a highly productive series of meetings. Highlights include: • Discussions on IDNs and new GTLDs at the ALAC's first meeting with the GAC; • Discussions on IDNs, New GTLDs, GNSO Improvements and future cooperative efforts at the ALAC's first meeting with the GNSO Council; • Discussions on Fast Track IDNs and Geographic Regions with the ccNSO Council; • The first meeting of the General Assembly of the European Regional At-Large Organisation (EURALO) (Regional At-Large Organizations – RALOs -- are the federations of At-Large user groups at the regional level); • Finalization of a statement to the ICANN Board on elements of the GNSO's New gTLD Policy Report; • Discussions in the At-Large community on how to create a structured, repeatable, bottom-up process for the development of ALAC policy statements to the Board; • Continued preparatory work on the At-Large Summit; • A well-attended and received workshop on the migration from IPv4 to IPv6; • Concentrated work and initial comments on the draft At-Large Review at two public sessions. More Information • The European Regional At-Large Organisation (EURALO) < http://www.euralo.org> • ALAC Statement to the Board of ICANN on the GNSO New gTLD Policy's Objections Provisions < https://st.icann.org/gnso-liaison/index.cgi/AL-ALAC-MT-32-6-2%20ALAC%20Stat… > Staff Contact Nick Ashton-Hart, Director for At-Large 11. AT-LARGE – AT-LARGE SUMMIT Recent Developments The ICANN Board approved funding for the At-Large Summit at its meeting in Paris last month. The Summit proposed by the At-Large community will bring together one representative from each of the worldwide community of Internet end-user groups participating in ICANN At-Large. The Summit is tentatively scheduled to be held in conjunction with the 2009 ICANN meeting in Mexico City. More Information • At-Large Summit proposal <https://st.icann.org/summit-wg> Staff Contact Nick Ashton-Hart, Director for At-Large 12. AT-LARGE – ELECTIONS Recent Developments The At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) Chair, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, opened the nominations for ALAC's ICANN Board Liaison position for the term that will commence at the close of the Cairo ICANN Meeting, in November 2008. The candidates include the incumbent, Wendy Seltzer, and Beau Brendler of Consumer Reports. Members of the At-Large community will have a teleconference with the candidates prior to the vote. An election also will be held in July 2008 for a vacant European seat on the ALAC. A third of the members of ALAC will be up for election in advance of the Cairo ICANN meeting as part of the staggered election cycles adopted by the RALOs in 2006 and 2007. Staff Contact Nick Ashton-Hart, Director for At-Large 13. ASO AC - GLOBAL POLICY PROPOSALS (ASNs, IPv4) Recent Developments - Autonomous System Numbers (ASNs) ASNs are addresses used in addition to IP addresses for Internet routing. A new global policy proposal for ASNs would formalize the current procedure for allocation of ASNs and provides a policy basis for the transition from 2-byte (16 bits) to 4-byte (32 bits) ASNs. The final transition step is now foreseen for 31 December 2009, after which date the distinction between 2- and 4-byte ASNs will cease and all ASNs will be regarded as of 4-byte length, by appending initial zeroes to those of 2-byte original length. The policy proposal has been adopted by all RIRs and the final text submitted from the NRO Executive Committee to the ASO Address Council (ASO AC). The proposal was forwarded to the ICANN Board for ratification on 13 June 2008. Next Steps The global policy proposal for ASNs has been posted for public comments on the ICANN website. Following the outcome of the public comments, the ICANN Board will decide on ratification of the policy within a 60-day period from the date of submission. Recent Developments - Remaining IPv4 Address Space The IANA pool of unallocated IPv4 address blocks continues to be depleted. As previously announced, a new global policy has been proposed to allocate the remaining address blocks once a given threshold is triggered. The text of the proposed policy essentially recommends that when there are five /8 blocks remaining in the IANA pool, one remaining block will be allocated to each RIR. The proposal has been discussed at all the RIR meetings (APNIC, ARIN, RIPE, LACNIC and AfriNIC) during the last four (4) months. The proposal has been adopted within ARIN and is in discussion within the other RIRs, where it has reached consensus within AfriNIC and LACNIC. Next Steps Discussions within RIPE and APNIC are not conclusive regarding the level of support for the proposal at this stage and may not be so until the next RIPE and APNIC meetings later in 2008. More information: • Background Report ASN < http://www.icann.org/announcements/proposal-asn-report-29nov07.htm> • Background Report IPV4 < http://www.icann.org/announcements/proposal-ipv4-report-29nov07.htm> Staff Contact Olof Nordling, Director Services Relations 14. SSAC – DNSSEC-CAPABLE NAME SERVER SURVEY Recent Developments SSAC continues to survey the availability of DNSSEC features amongst commercial, open source, and publicly available name server software releases. A public notice web page (SAC030) announcing the survey has been published. The set of survey questions were sent to approximately 40 software vendors and developers. SSAC has received survey responses from about 40% of the vendors and products surveyed. The majority of responses come from commercial vendors. Soliciting survey responses from the Open Source community has been more difficult. The initial set of responses is now published and contains responses from most major commercial DNS vendors. The initial results are encouraging –60% of products support DNSSEC core standards and have conducted interoperability testing. Tabularized results are online at http://www.icann.org/committees/security/sac030.htm. Next Steps SSAC will continue to collect information related to DNSSEC deployment status and intends to provide a more comprehensive report at the Cairo ICANN meeting. More Information • SSAC <http://www.icann.org/committees/security/> Staff Contact Dave Piscitello, Senior Security Technologist 15. SSAC – ANTI PHISHING ACTIVITIES Recent Developments The term phishing has been used to describe criminal and fraudulent attempts by bad actors to acquire sensitive private information, such as usernames, passwords and credit card details, by masquerading as trustworthy entities in an electronic communication. SSAC has been addressing this matter through several activities. Following a one-month opportunity offered to the Registrar community to review and comment, SAC028, Registrar Impersonation in Phishing Attacks, was published on 26 May 2008. The document was well received by the Internet Policy Committee's Anti Phishing Working Group (APWG), which hopes to factor some of SAC028's findings into the fast flux issues identification work being done for the GNSO. ICANN Staff has also reviewed a new APWG report, Global Phishing Survey: Domain Name Use and Trends in 2007, that surveys and analyzes data related to phishing attacks during 2007. Of particular interest is the report's analysis of phishing distribution across ccTLDs and a rise in the use of subdomains for phishing attacks. This report and a second report presented at the High Technology Crime Investigation Association (HTCIA) provide valuable insight into the spam and phishing "hot spots." Using spam data collected since 2005 the HTCIA report concludes that 90% of illegal web sites are hosted at domains registered through just 20 registrars. SSAC has concluded an initial study of a practice wherein a DNS operator may return a different DNS response message in response to a non-existent domain name error from the one that would reflect content the domain registrant intended to publish in its zone file. Two variants of this practice are described in SAC032, Preliminary Advisory on DNS Response Modification (June 2008). Parties to whom the registrant entrusts to host its zone file use the first variant, where the entrusted party creates a wild card resource record that resolves any name the registrant did not explicitly include in his zone file to an IP address of the entrusted party's choosing (typically a revenue generating or advertising page). The second variant is implemented by any operator of an iterative name server that processes a client's DNS query of a name in a domain. The operator intercepts and rewrites "name error" DNS responses so that the response signals "name exists" rather than the error the domain registrant intended to return. The DNS response from such an operator also redirects the client to an IP address of the DNS operator's choosing. Both variants create several troubling security and operational stability issues for domain registrants, and also create opportunities for phishing attacks. More Information • SAC028, Registrar Impersonation in Phishing Attacks, 26 May 2008 < http://icann.org/committees/security/ssac-documents.htm> • Global Phishing Survey 2007 < http://www.apwg.org/reports/APWG_GlobalPhishingSurvey2007.pdf> • SAC 032, Preliminary Advisory on DNS Response Modification, June 2008 < http://www.icann.org/committees/security/sac032.pdf> Staff Contact Dave Piscitello, Senior Security Technologist # # #

1 0

Today's Senate hearing on IP enforcement
by Jeffrey A. Williams July 15, 2008

July 15, 2008

All, An FYI that effects us all: Today's hearing at the Senate Finance Committee International Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights and American Competitiveness July 15, 2008 at 10:00 a.m., in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building Member Statements: Max Baucus, MT Charles Grassley, IA Witness Statements: Andrew Lack, Chairman, SONY BMG Music Entertainment, New York, NY Jeffrey Kindler, Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, Pfizer Inc., New York, NY John Barton, George E. Osborne Professor of Law, Emeritus, Stanford Law School, Stanford, CA J. Walter Cahill, International Vice President, International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, Moving Picture Technicians, Artists and Allied Crafts, Washington, DC http://finance.senate.gov/sitepages/hearing071508.htm Andrew Lack: QUOTE The content community, governments, consumers, and ISPs themselves are beginning to respect the notion that the carriers of digital content must play a responsible role in curbing the systemic piracy that is threatening the future of all digital commerce. Industry has been hard at work on these critical issues, but we need the help of the U.S. and foreign governments to make the Internet safe for e-commerce in copyrighted material by encouraging marketplace solutions to take hold. END of QUOTE Testimony of Andy Lack Chairman, SONY BMG Music Entertainment before the Senate Finance Committee on International Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights and American Competitiveness July 15, 2008 Good morning. My name is Andy Lack, and I am Chairman of SONY BMG Music Entertainment. Thank you for the opportunity to address the Committee on the issue of intellectual property protection in global markets. I commend Chairman Baucus, Ranking Member Grassley, and the members of the Committee for recognizing that this issue is of great importance to the entire U.S. creative community, as well as to the U.S. economy and to U.S. society as a whole. This Committee has been a tremendous champion for strong and effective copyright protection in global markets, and I thank you for your leadership. Sony BMG is a recorded music joint venture that operates in more than 40 markets around the world and employs approximately 2300 workers in the United States. Headquartered in New York, SONY BMG is one of the four major record companies in the music industry. I think its worthwhile to highlight that, even though SONY BMG is a global company with integrated interests in all facets of the music business, ultimately our assets are thoroughly intangible because they are based in the creative work of the artists themselves. For this reason, economic survival in the music industry is reliant upon the adequate protection of intellectual property. The stakes for our national economy are high. It has been reported, and the Administration has so testified before Congress, that roughly 40% of the U.S. economy is dependent upon IP protection in one way or another, and the core copyright industries are alone responsible for an estimated 6% of U.S. GDP. But the continued growth of this vital economic sector is seriously at risk. This Committee has highlighted the importance of the global fight against piracy, and we need your help now more than ever. My industrys story is but one, yet it is telling: While people listen to more music today than at any point in recorded history, paid consumption is sharply down, as piracy and the acquisition of music through illegal channels continues to skyrocket. Creating opportunities for business growth is critical to ensuring the survival of one of the world's most vital, diverse and competitive industries. The record industry currently faces a piracy phenomenon on two fronts. One involves the physical marketplace, in which we confront increasingly organized and multinational criminal enterprises involved in massive production and trafficking of pirate CDs and other optical media. The second front of the piracy war exists in the online marketplace. Here, too, global criminal organizations are engaged in illegal distribution directed at generally law abiding citizens who, in the privacy of their own homes, are now actively involved in trading or sharing unauthorized recorded music files. It is necessary that any global IP protection regime address the piracy problem on both the physical and digital fronts. Page - 2 - Music companies are not alone in confronting the pernicious threat of counterfeit products and digital theft. A coalition spearheaded by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers, The Coalition Against Counterfeiting and Piracy (CACP), has highlighted the broad scope of the threat that counterfeiting and digital theft poses to the U.S. across more than two dozen sectors of the U.S. economy. The Coalition has emphasized that the threat from counterfeiting and digital theft robs the U.S. economy of hundreds of billions of dollars of GDP and hundreds of thousands jobs, threatens health and safety in many sectors, and is driven by organized crime. SONY BMG has employed a multi-pronged strategy to address these challenges. First, we are expanding legitimate avenues for digital distribution through creative new business models and experimental licensing arrangements. Second, we are educating the public and our industry partners about the risks involved with piracy and steps they can take to curb infringement. And, finally, we are taking enforcement actions against infringers, and against services that effectively encourage or induce infringement. However, a company like SONY BMG, and copyright industry bodies like RIAA, cannot fight piracy on our own. Today's pirates often operate through multinational criminal syndicates simultaneously involved in replication, printing and distribution around the globe. They rely on traditional means of avoiding punishment such as bribery and other forms of corruption, but also have new tools in their arsenal that increase their stature -- force and other threats of violence, and the ability to rapidly change the location of the various components of their enterprises when confronted with governments prepared to tackle piracy issues. Pirates actively seek out jurisdictions in which either the law, lax enforcement of the law, or the general inefficiency and corruption of the judicial system, offer relative safety for their operations. Company representatives and counsel have in some countries already experienced threats on their lives or physical intimidation when their investigations began to make progress. In some cases, this has prevented any enforcement activity by the private sector. We therefore look to the U.S. Government for leadership, at home and in bilateral and multilateral settings, to keep intellectual property protection at the top of the enforcement agenda and ensure that law enforcement agencies have the necessary tools and underlying legal framework to accomplish their goals. Adequate enforcement requires adequate resources, and to that end we believe that law enforcement must have dedicated personnel who are focused on seeking out and stopping illegal trafficking in pirated goods. The U.S. Government should encourage countries with existing organized crime laws and investigative procedures to bring them to bear against syndicate operations involved in piracy. And where such laws and procedures are not in place, the U.S. Government should encourage governments to adopt them and to include, among predicate offenses, intellectual property rights violations. Aggressive and constant monitoring of the implementation of bi- and multilateral trade agreements by our trading partners to ensure compliance is of paramount importance, and we salute the work that USTR, working with other U.S. Government agencies, does in this Page - 3 - regard. We also applaud the U.S. Government for the actions it has taken to make China accountable for its piracy problem, specifically through the filing of actions at the WTO. Congress can continue to play a role in helping to ensure that our trading partners meet their obligations to provide adequate and effective copyright protection by holding oversight hearings such as this, by ensuring that the Administration has adequate resources to safeguard this unique American asset, and by ensuring that all trade programs provide maximum leverage to require beneficiary countries to provide effective copyright protection. Unilaterally extended U.S. benefit programs crafted by Congress continue to play a key role in providing incentives to countries to meet their IPR obligations. This Committee should also continue to pay close attention to Russias accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO). The Russian government wishes to join the WTO; however, to date they appear unwilling to take sufficient actions against rampant copyright piracy as they are required to do by the bilateral IPR agreement concluded between Russia and the United States in November 2006. We strongly advocate that the U.S. Government not complete the WTO accession process with Russia until Russia takes actions that effectively address this critical problem. There have been some promising developments in Russia, but compliance with the bilateral agreement that has been called the roadmap to WTO accession has not yet been achieved. We are particularly concerned by the lack of government action against the individuals responsible for allofmp3.com and other similar online sites, and against the rogue licensing societies that purported to grant licenses for content that they did not control. SONY BMG, in line with the industry as a whole, has been adapting our business to the dramatic changes brought about by the digital age. In the US, only five years after the music download business first emerged in a commercially meaningful way, 23 per cent of all recorded music sold is online or mobile. Record labels are becoming broad-based entertainment companies, developing new revenue streams. The consumer has better choice, availability and flexibility in enjoying music than ever before. Our digital revenues are growing and diversifying as our business model changes from one dominant format to hundreds of channels and products. However, while broadband Internet access offers exciting prospects for the legitimate dissemination of copyrighted materials of all kinds, too often high-speed Internet connections are being used to distribute unauthorized copies of sound recordings, software, videogames, literary material, and motion pictures. The unprecedented growth of the Internet and increased availability of broadband connections, coupled with the absence of adequate copyright law and/or enforcement in the online environment in many countries, has provided pirates with a highly efficient distribution network to reach the global market. Pirates offering and distributing infringing product can now reach any part of the world with ease, regardless of where they are physically located. Consequently, the U.S. copyright industries face the daunting task of trying to enforce their legal rights in an online world where borders and distances have decreasing practical significance, and where anonymity is claimed. Page - 4 - What tools do we have to address this type of online piracy where legal action by the industry does not suffice? First, of course, we have the framework of international trade law discussed above. But industry and government must also work together to address the particular legal and technological challenges of the electronic marketplace. The so-called WIPO Internet treaties adopted in 1996 set the stage for fair international digital distribution of music. These treaties represented significant and necessary improvements in the international legal structure. Of greatest importance, the treaties made it absolutely clear that copyright holders are permitted to control the electronic delivery of their works to individual members of the public. This both anticipated and responded to the realities of the electronic marketplace, where copyright owners rely increasingly on electronic delivery to meet consumer demand. This level of copyright protection, in conjunction with technical protections (also addressed in these treaties), is key to encouraging copyright owners to make their works available through these new media. It is critical that the marketplace, with government support, continue to develop its own solutions. To that end, SONY BMG and other content companies have begun to engage in a dialogue with our industry partners to find new ways to cooperate in the fight against piracy. In particular, this past year has witnessed a virtual explosion of global public interest in developing structures in which Internet Service Providers (ISPs) can enhance their role in addressing the unauthorized transmission of copyright content. This is an important development, because until now ISPs have not adequately responded to the massive theft that is occurring through their networks. Today, however, a shift is underway. The content community, governments, consumers, and ISPs themselves are beginning to respect the notion that the carriers of digital content must play a responsible role in curbing the systemic piracy that is threatening the future of all digital commerce. Industry has been hard at work on these critical issues, but we need the help of the U.S. and foreign governments to make the Internet safe for e-commerce in copyrighted material by encouraging marketplace solutions to take hold. Furthermore, renewed emphasis on law enforcement training is vital to giving enforcement authorities the tools they need to quickly locate infringing Internet sites and pursue actions against the offenders who commit the most damage and/or refuse to remove the infringing content. Public education about the dangers of online infringement must be emphasized as well. As global boundaries continue to lose much of their practical relevance because of Internet growth, so must the usual lines separating the roles of industry and government in policy, enforcement and education. Close coordination will be the key to success in this challenging new environment. Finally, I mentioned the broad-based CACP coalition earlier and I would urge the Committee to give positive consideration to proposals the CACP has endorsed with respect to the creation of high-level leadership positions in the Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Patrol and other agencies, as well as the deployment of dedicated agents with adequate legal tools to protect our borders against counterfeiting and digital theft. Page - 5 - CONCLUSION Effectively addressing piracy in all of its variants is a key economic and cultural objective for the United States. Congress, the Administration and the private sector must work together to achieve this goal. Trade pressure and capacity-building through effective training continue to be primary mechanisms for encouraging foreign nations to address inadequacies in their legal and enforcement frameworks, and I urge the Committee to ensure that the Administration has all the possible tools at its disposal to exert such pressure and to provide necessary training. To this end, it is critical that the Administration be funded in such a way as to permit them to use their powers to the maximum extent, and I urge the Congress to appropriate sufficient funds to protect America's most creative, vibrant and profitable industries. We can and must prevail in these initiatives. Once again, I thank you for inviting me here today, and I look forward to your questions. Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0

Re: [At-Large] [ga] What are ICANN and VeriSign doing regarding CERT Advisory #800113 / DNS Cache Poisoning?
by Jeffrey A. Williams July 15, 2008

July 15, 2008

George and all, Good idea and also a good question. It appears that ICANN's SSAC is unwilling or unable to address this long standing and glaring problem that endangers us all on a global basis. It BTW is not a new problem by any means. It's been around for years. Thanks to CERT, by the insistence of some of us security professionals hammering them, it has finally been recognized as a huge security problem. Maybe DHS or the USDOJ can apply some pressure on ICANN to either act, or get out of the way. It's also very clear that the ALAC has seemingly not identified this security problem as being very important either. I suppose or can only surmise that the ALAC and the ALS'es could care less how many users are damaged by this problem. Certainly they cannot claim that they were not made aware. So it seems that it's full speed ahead and dam the torpedoes as fast tracking IDN ccTLD's, new gTLD's, IDN gTLD's, Fast-Flux, anti-phishing, and other less important issues is ICANN's policy priorities. See: http://www.icann.org/topics/policy/ But thank you again George, for bringing this serious security problem back into the public eye. George Kirikos wrote: > Hello, > > ICANN and VeriSign have been oddly quiet over the entire DNS cache > poisoning issue: > > http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/800113 > http://www.circleid.com/posts/87143_dns_not_a_guessing_game/ > http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/07/08/195225&tid=172 > > PIR has a pending proposal to implement DNSSEC for .org: > > http://www.icann.org/registries/rsep/ > > Is that something that VeriSign has plans to accelerate for the > important .com and .net registries, in order to prevent a long-term > meltdown in DNS confidence/trust should DNS cache poisoning become > widespread in August and beyond? > > No need for a "formal" press release, but I think the community > deserves to know that people are working on the long-term solution to > this problem, and making it a higher priority relative to other lesser > issues. > > Point #14 in the latest policy newsletter appears to be the only "hint" > that a few people are working on things: > > http://www.icann.org/topics/policy/update-jul08.htm#14 > > Hopefully something will happen before Cairo, as by then there might be > widespread disruptions to the internet. Perhaps the Board might want to > consider an early special meeting this week or next: > > http://www.icann.org/minutes/ > > instead of waiting until July 31st, in conjunction with the SSAC. > > Sincerely, > > George Kirikos > http://www.kirikos.com/ Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0

NIST Release Draft Paper on Mobile Computing Security.
by Jeffrey A. Williams July 14, 2008

July 14, 2008

All, Will the ALAC, ICANN's SSAC be participating? Given .MOBI I would think so... Will ICANN's RAA with .MOBI registry be complying accordingly? I would hope so... See: (July 14, 2008) The US National Institute of Standards and Technology have released a paper containing draft guidelines on how to address the risks posed by mobile phones and other portable computing devices. NIST is seeking comments on the draft before final publication. http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/drafts/800-124/Draft-SP800-124.pdf http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2221548/nist-aims-boost-mobile http://www.gcn.com/online/vol1_no1/46628-1.html?topic=security Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0

Important requests for input -- where is ALAC?
by Evan Leibovitch July 14, 2008

July 14, 2008

I realize than many people are exhausted after Paris and that these months are vacation time for many in the northern hemisphere. However, I note two issues that are open for public comment, that are directly of interest to the public, and about which I have not heard a peep out of a single ALAC member: 1) The President's public consultations on Improving Institutional Confidence http://www.icann.org/public_comment/#iic-consultation http://www.icann.org/en/jpa/iic/index.htm Given everything we've gone through -- with the ALAC review, the widespread cynicism, the difficulty in doing outreach, even the challenges to our travel allocations -- isn't this EXACTLY where ALAC should be speaking, where it is perhaps uniquely qualified to speak towards institutional confidence (or rather, lack thereof)? This relates to the JPA and we _know_ that ICANN staff are sensitive to comments raised in this context. (Right Beau? ;-) ). 2) The Registrar Accreditation Agreement update http://www.icann.org/public_comment/#dpc-raa-2008 What are the public implications of the review of this document? I'm not sure what they are but I'm certain there are others here who do. Has ALAC even studied the changes? How do we know how the update affects the public? Both of these are issues for which public comment deadlines approach at the end of the month. Isn't this -- the identification of publicly - oriented issues an the development of publicly-centred comment -- the core function of ALAC? There certainly has been no call to the RALOs for comment. What's happening? It seems that the only ALAC mailing list traffic of late has been people saying they can't meet. :-) - Evan

1 0