- At-Large - lists.icann.org

Trends
by Franck Martin Sept. 28, 2007

Sept. 28, 2007

http://www.google.com/trends?q=ICANN&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=0 -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Franck Martin franck.martin(a)gmail.com "Toute connaissance est une réponse à une question" G. Bachelard

1 0

Re: [At-Large] At-Large review - Status ?
by Nick Ashton-Hart Sept. 27, 2007

Sept. 27, 2007

Happy to update you. No contract has been awarded; the BGC will discuss it in LA. Roberto may have more to add on the subject; if he does no doubt he'll reply. -----Original Message----- From: Robert Guerra <lists(a)privaterra.info> To: At-Large writ small <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> Sent: 9/26/2007 3:48:59 AM Subject: [At-Large] At-Large review - Status ? Any news yet on the At-Large review? Specifically who has been awarded the contract. I ask, as the review was - supposed - to start in Feb, yet no announcement on the winning bid has yet been announced. Recent press releases by ICANN seem to indicate that the review started in Feb. Something that would be news to me.. regards, Robert --- Robert Guerra <rguerra(a)privaterra.ca> Managing Director, Privaterra Tel +1 416 893 0377 _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org

2 1

ICANN to Issue Advisory Regarding Transferring Domains Between Registrars, Asks for Public Comment
by Nick Ashton-Hart Sept. 27, 2007

Sept. 27, 2007

Notice of Intent to Issue Advisory Regarding the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy 19 September 2007 ICANN has observed that there is confusion within the registrar community concerning the circumstances under which registrars may validly deny transfer requests pursuant to the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (“Transfer Policy”). The purpose of this Notice of Intent to Issue an Advisory regarding the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy is to allow interested parties 30 days to comment on the proposed advisory (which can be viewed at: http://www.icann.org/ announcements/proposed-advisory-19sep07.htm). ICANN will consider all comments received at the close of the 30-day comment period. Interested parties have until 19 October 2007 to submit comments at retransfers-comments(a)icann.org. Posted comments can be viewed at http://forum.icann.org/lists/retransfers-comments/. The purpose of the proposed advisory is to assist ICANN-accredited registrars in understanding that under the Transfer Policy: Registrars are prohibited from denying a domain name transfer request based on non-payment of fees for pending or future registration periods during the Auto-Renew Grace Period; and A registrant change to Whois information is not a valid basis for denying a transfer request. Developed through ICANN’s consensus policy process, the Transfer Policy was approved unanimously by ICANN’s Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) and its Board of Directors. After consultation with several interested parties, the Transfer Policy was adopted in 2004. The Transfer Policy provides domain name holders with a standardized process for transferring their domain names from one ICANN-accredited registrar to another upon request. All ICANN- accredited registrars and unsponsored gTLD registry operators are required to comply with the Transfer Policy pursuant to their agreements with ICANN. With over 900 ICANN-accredited registrars operating in the marketplace, offering a myriad of services, consumers have a diversity of options for the provision of registration services, from full service registration packages with web-hosting options, to bargain registration packages providing minimal customer service. However, this diversity of options cannot be fully appreciated by consumers if the provisions of the Transfer Policy are interpreted and applied inconsistently by registrars, thereby preventing consumers from freely transferring their domain names when they choose to do so. The Transfer Policy allows domain name holders to transfer their domain names from one ICANN-accredited registrar to another, except under nine limited circumstances. Registrar transfer denials that are not based on the nine reasons enumerated in the Transfer Policy discourage competition, create confusion, encourage abuse and violate the Transfer policy. The purpose of the proposed advisory is to provide clarity and promote consistent handling of transfer requests. The Transfer Policy has proven to be a valuable resource for consumers enabling them to exercise freedom of choice in the domain name registration marketplace. For the benefit of consumers, registrars, registries and other interested parties, ICANN issued today’s proposed advisory to clarify the limited circumstances under which the Transfer Policy allows registrars to deny transfer requests. Comments regarding the proposed advisory are encouraged. ICANN is aware that the GNSO’s Transfers Working Group is currently studying several issues related to the Transfer Policy with the intention of recommending language modifications to the GNSO Council. However, the purpose of ICANN’s proposed advisory is to clarify existing policy. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director, At-Large ICANN Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +41 (22) 595 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

ICANN Posts Communication from the Universal Postal Union (UPU) Regarding its Sponsorship of the .POST Top-Level Domain
by Nick Ashton-Hart Sept. 27, 2007

Sept. 27, 2007

ICANN Posts Communication from the Universal Postal Union (UPU) Regarding its Sponsorship of the .POST Top-Level Domain ICANN Continues Negotiations with UPU for .POST sTLD 6 September 2007 (Update 7 September with Public Comment Closing Date) The attached communication from the UPU (http://www.icann.org/ correspondence/donohoe-to-pritz-05sep07.pdf) [PDF, 193K] describes aspects of its intended sponsorship of the .POST sponsored top-level domain. ICANN and the UPU have entered into negotiations intended to result in the delegation of the .POST registry. This outreach by the UPU is intended to inform the community about proposed aspects of the UPU’s business model and requested contractual agreement. These proposals are based upon the UPU’s vision for adding significant value to: the DNS, its member states and their designated operators 1 of postal services, and the recipients of postal services. Certain aspects of these terms relate to the UPU’s status as an intergovernmental organization (IGO) comprised of member states and as specialized agency of the United Nations. Significantly, this outreach invites public examination and comment at an early stage of the negotiation. Negotiations will continue and comments made regarding this material will be taken into account as they are received. Comments on the UPU communication may be posted to stld-rfp- post(a)icann.org and viewed at http://forum.icann.org/lists/stld-rfp- post. Comments on this aspect of the negotiations with the UPU will close on 6 October 2007. [1] Designated Operator (DO): any governmental or non-governmental entity officially designated by the member country to operate postal services and to fulfill the obligations arising out of the Acts of the Union on its territory. For example in the UK it is Royal Mail , in the USA it is US Postal Service (USPS), in Brazil it is Empresa Brasileira de Correios e Telégrafos, in Kazakhstan it’s Kazpost, in Malaysia it’s Pos Malaysia Bhd, in Botswana it’s Botswana Post, and in Ghana it is Ghana Postal Services Corporation. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director, At-Large ICANN Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +41 (22) 595 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

Request for Comments — ICANN Board Review Draft Terms of Reference
by Nick Ashton-Hart Sept. 27, 2007

Sept. 27, 2007

Request for Comments — ICANN Board Review Draft Terms of Reference 20 September 2007 As part of the 2002-03 Evolution and Reform process, the ICANN community and Board established a principle of ongoing review of ICANN's structures to ensure their continuing relevance and effectiveness. This principle was embedded in the ICANN bylaws — making it a rare example in an international entity of constitutionally-required ongoing reform. In accordance with this requirement, and as part of ICANNs ongoing commitment to evolution and improvement, the Board approved at ICANN's December 2006 meeting in Sao Paulo a comprehensive schedule for independent review of ICANNs structures. The Board, on the recommendation of the Board Governance Committee, subsequently expanded this list to include the Board itself. The schedule is as follows: Nominating Committee estimated launch — December 2006 At-Large Advisory Committee estimated launch — February 2007 DNS Root Server System Advisory Committee estimated launch — July 2007 Board estimated launch — October 2007 Security and Stability Advisory Committee estimated launch — January 2008 ccNSO Supporting Organisation estimated launch — July 2008 Address Supporting Organisation (ASO) estimated launch — December 2008 The reviews are intended to ensure an independent examination of the role and operation of key elements of ICANN. As with the first two independent reviews, which were completed for the GNSO Council and the GNSO , these reviews will be conducted in an objective manner by independent reviewers, under guidance from the Board on each reviews terms of reference, and with the opportunity for public comment on the results of the reviews. As specified in Article IV, Section 4 of ICANNs Bylaws, the goal of the review, to be undertaken pursuant to such criteria and standards as the Board shall direct, shall be to determine (i) whether that organization has a continuing purpose in the ICANN structure, and (ii) if so, whether any change in structure or operations is desirable to improve its effectiveness. The results of these reviews shall be posted for public review and comment, and shall be considered by the Board not later than its second scheduled meeting after being posted for 30 days. Consideration by the Board includes the ability to revise the structure or operation of the Nominating Committee by a two-thirds vote of all members. The Draft Terms of Reference for a review of the Board is to be found at http://www.icann.org/reviews/icann-board-review-20sep07.pdf [PDF, 17K]. They are open for public comment until October 11, 2007. Public comments should be made at board-review-tor(a)icann.org and can be reviewed at http://forum.icann.org/lists/board-review-tor/. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director, At-Large ICANN Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +41 (22) 595 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

ICANN regional meetings -- good or bad?
by Wendy Seltzer Sept. 27, 2007

Sept. 27, 2007

In recent minutes, the Board approved a "regional meeting" in Taipei, announced at <http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-20sep07.htm> Some ALAC participants from the Asia-Pacific have raised concerns that none of the ALAC, AP RALO, or At-Large Structures were consulted, even though the ALAC and its structures are tasked with representing user interests in ICANN. I'm also concerned that ICANN not follow the strategy of other organizations, such as WIPO, in using regional meetings to divide and conquer, pitting regions against one another rather than helping them to realize and coordinate their common interests. I hope we can push ICANN away from that mode. Thoughts? --Wendy -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org Visiting Professor, Northeastern University School of Law Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/ http://www.torproject.org/

8 7

Summit Planning Report
by Thompson, Darlene Sept. 26, 2007

Sept. 26, 2007

Hi all, We have received a couple of requests to move the Summit Planning group to an ICANN discussion list. To this end, I have asked Nick if the List that he created is still up-and-going and am awaiting his reply. We plan on migrating the Google list over to the ICANN list as soon as I receive word back from Nick. On our own, though, we have moved a couple of the pertinent documents and such over to the ICANN Wiki. The synopsis on the idea behind the Summit is here: http://icannwiki.org/At-Large_Global_Summit And the draft proposal is here: http://icannwiki.org/ICANN_Ensemble The two are linked and we encourage discussion and amendment. As soon as the list is up, we will move the entire discussion and previous threads over to the new list. Darlene Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Department of Education/N-CAP c/o P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-6531 Fax: (867) 979-8870 dthompson(a)gov.nu.ca

1 0

At-Large review - Status ?
by Robert Guerra Sept. 26, 2007

Sept. 26, 2007

Any news yet on the At-Large review? Specifically who has been awarded the contract. I ask, as the review was - supposed - to start in Feb, yet no announcement on the winning bid has yet been announced. Recent press releases by ICANN seem to indicate that the review started in Feb. Something that would be news to me.. regards, Robert --- Robert Guerra <rguerra(a)privaterra.ca> Managing Director, Privaterra Tel +1 416 893 0377

2 1

Re: [At-Large] NomCom selections announced
by Robert Guerra Sept. 26, 2007

Sept. 26, 2007

Here's further information on the new incoming nomcom appointed ALAC members * Vanda Scartezini (Brazil, Latin America & Caribbean) Bio: http://www.icann.org/biog/scartezini.htm (Is in the ICANN board now, however her term will expire at the Fall 07 ICANN meeting.) * Fatimata Seye Sylla (Senegal, Africa) http://icannwiki.org/Fatimata_Seye_Sylla <http://esaconf.un.org/wb/default.asp? action=9&boardid=51&read=2758&fid=471> A computer specialist, President of a Senegalese NGO called Bokk Jang Senegal, which aims at using Information Communication Technologies for youth and women's education * Nguyen Thu Hue (Vietnam, Asia/Australia/Pacific) Bio: http://www.wgig.org/docs/Bio-Nguyen.htm regards, Robert --- Robert Guerra <rguerra(a)privaterra.ca> Managing Director, Privaterra Tel +1 416 893 0377 On 26-Sep-07, at 6:47 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > Hi, > > The NomCom's selections have been announced, please see <http:// > www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-25sep07.htm> (and copied > below.) > > Has the NCUC decided on a delegate for the 2008 NomCom? (Noting > that Karen is eligible to be considered again --should she wish. > Karen did a very good job this year, represented the constituency > well. Experienced people are helpful to the NomCom.) > > Adam > > > > > > Nominating Committee Announces New Board Members and Supporting > Organisation Roles > > 25 September 2007 > > The 2007 ICANN Nominating Committee (NomCom) has completed its > selections: > > ICANN Board of Directors > > * Harald Tveit Alvastrand (Norway, Europe) > * Dennis Jennings (Ireland/UK, Europe) > * Jean-Jacques Subrenat (France, Europe) > > Term: Conclusion of the ICANN Annual General Meeting for 2007 until > conclusion of the ICANN Annual General Meeting for 2010 > > GNSO Council > > * Avri Doria (USA, North America) > * Olga Cavalli (Argentina, Latin America & Caribbean) > > Term: Conclusion of the ICANN Annual General Meeting for 2007 until > conclusion of the ICANN Annual General Meeting for 2009 > > At-Large Advisory Committee > > * Vanda Scartezini (Brazil, Latin America & Caribbean) > * Fatimata Seye Sylla (Senegal, Africa) > * Nguyen Thu Hue (Vietnam, Asia/Australia/Pacific) > > Term: Conclusion of the ICANN Annual General Meeting for 2007 until > conclusion of the ICANN Annual General Meeting for 2009 > > ccNSO Council > > * Nashwa Abdel-Baki (Egypt, Africa) > > Term: Conclusion of the ICANN Annual General Meeting for 2007 until > conclusion of the ICANN Annual General Meeting for 2010 > > The biographies of the Nominees will also be posted shortly at > http://nomcom.icann.org/candidate-bios-2007.htm. The 2007 > Nominating Committee will also be posting a summary of its work on > its web page at http://nomcom.icann.org. > > The 2007 Nominating Committee received 93 Statements of Interest, > drawn from all five of the geographic regions during an open > nominating period that ran from 1 February 2007 to 18 May 2007. 12 > candidates were female and 81 were male. 25 candidates were from > North America, 23 candidates were from Europe, 23 were from Asia/ > Australia/Pacific, 13 were from Africa and 11 were from Latin > America/Caribbean. Some candidates are counted in more than one > region due to dual citizenship. > > Those selected will assume their duties at the conclusion of the > ICANN Annual Meeting for 2007 in Los Angeles, California on 2 > November 2007. > > END

1 0

{Disarmed} Fwd: [icann-staff] San Juan to Los Angeles
by Nick Ashton-Hart Sept. 25, 2007

Sept. 25, 2007

Dear All: I got this from Kieren; thought it would provide a brief, easy read of what's happened between the 29th and the upcoming 30th International meetings Begin forwarded message: > > > A guide to intersessional ICANN work > > > > > ICANN's meeting at the end of June in San Juan, Puerto Rico was > notable by the large amount of policy work that was tackled, and by > a number of significant changes within ICANN as an organisation. > > If anything, ICANN's next meeting in Los Angelesbetween 29 October > and 2 November will see even more issues dealt with, and further > changes introduced across the organisation. > > As such, ICANN decided to produce a progress report to bring people > up to speed with what is going on. This document will review what > happened at San Juan and provide at least a partial review of what > we expect to occur at the Los Angeles meeting in an effort to draw > threads between the two. > > Up to date > > The hope is that publications such as this will keep people up-to- > date plus enable everyone to spread the load of document review > over a longer timeframe and so contribute to a more efficient and > effective Los Angeles meeting. > > The issues dealt with will be kept as concise as possible with > links provided to more in-depth resources. Despite this effort > though, the document remains lengthy so a contents list at the top > lets people jump quickly to particular issues of interest. > > All feedback and comments on this document are welcome. > > > > > > Contents > > POLICY ISSUES > > Domain name tasting > > IDNs > > New gTLDs > > RAA > > Whois > > IPv6 > > ORGANISATIONAL ISSUES > > Accountability and transparency > > Independent review > > NomCom > > Online developments > > Translation > > Vint and the Board > > > > POLICY ISSUES > > > > This part deals with the issues that are currently going through > the ICANN decision-making processes (as opposed to Organisational > Issues (below) which concern changes within ICANN and its structure). > > > > > > Domain name tasting > > > > Background info > > ICANN staff contact(s): Olof Nordling (Policy); Patrick Jones > (Services) > > At San Juan: > > A public discussion was held on an Issues Paper produced by Staff > covering domain name tasting. There was also a domain tasting > tutorial (full details, including transcript). > > The Staff recommended that a policy development process (PDP) be > conducted i.e. that the issue became a formal discussion matter > within ICANN. The GNSO Council decided it needed more facts and > figures before taking that step. An ad hoc working group was formed > to do more research and draft the terms of reference for a possible > PDP. > > > San Juan to Los Angeles: > > The ad hoc group will do more research on the issue and report to > the Council in October. The Council may then vote on whether to > launch a PDP. > > As part of that research, the group prepared a fact- > findingquestionnaire to gather facts and opinions from the Internet > community. An interactive online poll was set up to elicit > information from across the community. You can view the results here. > > The Intellectual Property constituency within the GNSO also > produced a supplemental RFI online poll to gain more in-depth > information. > > In the meantime, Staff are continuing work on other mechanisms for > dealing with domain tasting that do not require a formal PDP, such > as the ICANN Budget process, or registry contracts. Those > deliberations will form part of the report provided the GNSO Council. > > > At Los Angeles: > > The issue is also likely to feature in a number of public fora and > in discussion at the GNSO Council. > > By the time of the meeting the GNSO Council may have launched a > formal PDP into the issue, in which case the first steps will be > taken in Los Angeles. If the GNSO Council feels a PDP is not the > best route to address domain name tasting, then focus is likely to > shift onto the alternatives outlined by Staff. > > > > > > > IDNs > > > > ICANN staff contact: Tina Dam > > At San Juan: > > Internationalized domain names (IDNs) was one of the biggest work > issues at the San Juan meeting, and will be a key policy issue at > the Los Angeles meeting. > > The Board adopted a number of procedures for adding IDNs to the > root in order to carry out real-life tests and also directed Staff > to implement a series of recommendations issued by the root server > operators just prior to the meeting. > > The Board also drew attention to the work done by a series of > organisations outside ICANN in order to get IDN deployment moving > further down the road. There was revision of the IDNA protocol, > plus successful early lab tests and an SSAC report that it saw no > security or stability risks in adding IDNs to the root for testing > purposes. This all prepared the ground for real-life root tests. > > There was also significant work done on the wider policy issues > surrounding the introduction of IDNs. The ccNSO and GAC produced an > issues paper which asked a series of questions to focus debate on > how to deal with IDNs from a policies and process standpoint. The > GNSO discussed IDN issues in the context of the introduction of new > generic top-level domains (gTLDs). It has an IDN working group, and > a "reserved names" sub-group that provided recommendations on > managing IDN TLDs. All that information will be considered by the > other elements of the ICANN structure. > > A number of conversations between different organisations inSan > Juan over the issue helped keep everyone abreast of other's views > and perspectives. > > > San Juan to Los Angeles: > > > With the ground prepared for inserting test IDNs into the actual > root, the last piece of the jigsaw is the approval of the plan for > what will be introduced, how, and how they will be evaluated. That > plan has been through public review and was approved by the ICANN > Board on 14 August, along with the delegation of the eleven > evaluative IDN TLDs. > > The next step will be to add the text labels and encourage Internet > users to use the new top-level domains in their own languages and > report any issues that they may find through the use of different > software and hardware. ICANN plans to encourage use of the test > IDNs through the introduction of wikis - where ordinary Net users > can directly edit content. > > In the meantime, the ccNSO, GAC, GNSO and ALAC will produce > responses to the ccNSO-GAC issues paper on the public policy issues > of introducing IDNs. The ccNSO is also considering launching a > policy development process (PDP) on the issue. > > The GNSO already has an IDN working group, formed as part of its > consideration of new gTLDs. The ccNSO also has its own IDN working > group. The SSAC has also opened a new project on IDNs which will > develop its terms of reference. > > > At Los Angeles > > It is possible that the first, earliest results following > introduction of real IDNs in the root may be available for review. > There remain a number of hurdles to be overcome to get to that > point but the hope is that the Los Angeles meeting will present a > milestone in the Internet's history. > > The community and Board will consider the responses from the > different supporting organisations and advisory committees on the > issues raised in the ccNSO-GAC paper in San Juan. In the best-case > scenario, the different groups will be able to find common ground > and present the result to the Board for review. In reality, a > degree of progress that moves closer to consensus for how to deal > with the complex issues of IDNs would be welcome and provide a > foundation for future work. > > There are two GAC closed working group meeting on IDNs onSaturday > 27 October and Sunday 28 October. IDNs are also likely to be a > regular feature of the two main public forums on the Monday (29 > Oct) and the Thursday (1 Nov). > > > > > > New gTLDs > > > > Background info > > ICANN staff contact(s): Craig Schwartz (Services). > > > At San Juan: > > New generic top-level domains was the topic of greatest discussion > at San Juan. Three reports on the issue, two developed by working > groups of the GNSO, were released and were the subject of > discussion in no less than six public sessions. > > The issue and the reports were raised at various public fora, in > front of the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board, and there were a > number of joint meetings between constituencies on new gTLDs. Links > to some of those meetings, where you can find transcripts of the > discussions are given below: > > 23 Jun: GNSO working group > 25 Jun: GNSO public forum > 27 Jun: New gTLDs and freedom of expression > 28 Jun: Public forum > > > > San Juan to Los Angeles: > > A draft final report combining all the reports and GNSO Council > input was compiled and put out to public comment. That comment > period ended 30 August, and a summary and analysisof comments was > posted. A review of the process was provided to the GNSO Council at > its meeting on 6 September. The Council approved the paper > [recording of the meeting (mp3)]. > > The report comes in two parts. You can review Part A here andPart B > here. A Board paper will now be drawn up for consideration at the > Los Angeles meeting. > > ICANN has also put out a request for statements of interest to > design the process that people will follow when applying for a new > gTLD. > > > At Los Angeles: > > The ICANN Board will vote on the Board paper. The Los > Angelesmeeting is also likely to see some serious discussion about > the practical steps forward in making the policy a reality. > > The GNSO Council will discuss the issue in working meeting on the > Saturday and Sunday (27, 28 Sep). It will also likely be a topic at > the joint GAC-GNSO meeting on the Sunday. There is apublic forum > solely on new gTLDs on the Monday. And the issue will inevitably be > discussed at the public forum on Thursday. > > Materials will be produced to explain and guide people through the > process for applying for new gTLDs, and to outline the decisions > that have been made with regard to new gTLDs, complete with a > timeline of the process. > > > > > > Registrar Accreditation Agreement > > > > ICANN staff contact: Tim Cole (Services) > > At San Juan: > > The ongoing review of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement had its > own workshop where planned changes were outlined and a number of > presentations given by representatives of different constituencies > (full details, including transcript). > > RAA reform was also discussed at the Public Forum and theBoard > meeting. The Board passed a resolution to consult widely with the > community over suggested changes and outlined a procedure for > arriving at RAA amendments. > > > San Juan to Los Angeles: > > A series of six suggested amendments to the RAA have been posted on > the ICANN website and a public comment period on them, which is > also open to other suggested changes, opened on 30 July and closed > on 10 September. > > A summary and analysis of community feedback will be made available > and further discussions with the registrar community carried out in > light of them. Proposed amendments to the RAA will then be posted > and a second public comment period opened. Other ICANN > constituencies will be invited to contribute their views. > > One important development in the relationship between ICANN and > registrars - that of ICANN storing (or, "escrowing") domain > registrant data from all registrars in case something goes wrong - > has also taken a step forward with the ICANN Board at its 14 August > meeting approving the choice of Iron Mountain to peform data > storage on ICANN's behalf (registrars have the option to choose > their own provider at their own expense). > > > At Los Angeles: > > Discussions surrounding proposed amendments to the RAA will form > part of public discussion, both at the public fora on Monday(29 > Oct) and Thursday (1 Nov), and at a dedicated workshop will be held > on Wednesday 31 Oct. Discussions within different constituencies > over the RAA are almost certain to form part of overall business. > > > > > > Whois > > > > Background info > > ICANN staff contact(s): Liz Gasster > > > At San Juan: > > Three working groups on different aspects of the Whois question > (natural versus legal person registrations; access to unpublished > data; and development of OPoC (Operational Point of Contact) > requirements) reported in time for the San Juan meeting. The > reports were compiled and debated in three sessions running all day > on 24 June (9am-12am; 1.45pm-3.15pm; and 3.30pm-5.30pm). > > San Juan to Los Angeles: > > The Whois working group used discussions at San Juan to focus on a > number of areas of contention, holding weekly conference calls to > discuss the issues and try to come to agreement. The working group > produced its final report [pdf] on 20 August. > > That report was put forward to the GNSO Council at its meetingon 30 > August [recording here (mp3)]. On 6 September [mp3], the Council > reviewed several Whois reports and approved a resolution for > further public comment with the intention to lead to a vote on the > issue on 31 October 2007 during the Los Angeles ICANN meeting. > > The resolution also called for ICANN staff to prepare a draft final > report. That report [pdf] was completed and put out for public > comment on 14 September. The comment period will close on 30 October. > > At Los Angeles: > > Whois discussions are likely to form part of discussions both > within the GNSO Council at their sessions on Saturday (27 > Oct),Sunday, Wednesday and Thursday. As well as in the public > forums on Monday and Thursday. > > The GAC will discuss Whois in a closed session on Sunday 28 October. > > > > > > IPv6 > > > > ICANN staff contact(s): Leo Vegoda > > > At San Juan: > > There was a workshop on IPv6 on Monday 24 June, and a GAC session > on the Tuesday. > > The Board also passed a series of resolutions concerning IPv6 > including that it would "participate in raising awareness of this > situation and promoting solutions". > > San Juan to Los Angeles: > > ICANN and IANA staff, as well as ICANN Board members, have given a > series of presentations and taken part in IPv6 discussions at > various conferences across the world. > > At Los Angeles: > > There will be two workshops on IPv6 run by IANA on Sunday 28 > October. The issue is also likely to form part of constituencies' > presentations prior to the public forum on Thursday 1 November. > > > > > > ORGANISATIONAL ISSUES > > > > This section covers changes going on with ICANN itself, such as > efforts to further increase transparency and accountability, plus > issues like translation and the structure and members of different > supporting organisations. > > > > > > Accountability and Transparency > > > > At San Juan: > > An extensive set of principles and frameworks were prepared and > released just prior to the meeting, with a public workshopheld to > discuss their content, followed by an open discussion session. > > The frameworks and principles cover: accountability and financial > accountability at ICANN; dispute resolution; information > disclosure; consultation principles; translation principles; and a > code of conduct. > > A public comment period was opened on the principles on 23 June. > > > San Juan to Los Angeles: > > The public comment period closed 31 August and a summary and > analysis of feedback received will be produced soon. The principles > will be redrafted in response to those comments and put out to a > second public comment period. > > At Los Angeles: > > The principles and frameworks will likely form part of discussions > at the public fora on Monday and Thursday. > > > > > > Independent review > > > > Independent review webpage > > At San Juan: > > There was an open forum session on changes to the GNSO and the GNSO > Council, and the Board discussed the changes at its public Board > meeting. > > The Board also passed a resolution that asked for public comment to > be included into a new set of draft proposed recommendations to be > put out to further public comment. > > The final terms of reference [pdf] for review of the At Large > Advisory Committee were posted just prior to the meeting. > > San Juan to Los Angeles: > > The GNSO changes will be put through to a second public comment > period, as well as reviewed by the Board Governance Committee. The > Board may then consider whether to approve the suggested > improvements at its Board meeting in Los Angeles. > > Three other reviews will be conducted of the At Large Advisory > Committee. the Nominating Committee, and the ICANN Board itself. > Independent reviewers are currently being sought for the ALAC review. > > Review of the NomCom will be carried out by Interisle Consulting > Group. It has already started carrying out phone interviews with > people who have participated in or closely observed the NomCom > process. It also held an open public comment periodfrom 19 July to > 17 September. > > At the Board 14 August meeting, the Board announced it would wait > on a revised terms of reference of the review into the Board > itself. It then approved those terms at its next meeting on 11 > September, and they were put out for public comment on 20 September > until 11 October. > > At Los Angeles: > > The Board may approve the suggested changes to the structure and > functioning of the GNSO and GNSO Council. A number of sessions and > public fora will cover the different independent reviews going on: > GNSO, Nominating Committee, and the Board. > > There is a workshop on GNSO review on Monday 29 October. The > Interisle Consulting Group is holding a special session on its > NomCom review on Wednesday 31 Oct. The terms of reference for the > Board review should have been agreed and may form part of > discussions at the Board meeting. > > There should be news on the terms of reference for review of the > DNS Root Server System Advisory Committee. > > > > > > NomCom > > > The NomCom is undergoing an independent review of its structure and > purpose (see section above). > > At San Juan: > > The Nominating Committee met formally and informally with one > another at the San Juan meeting. It had previously announcedthat > there had been 93 Statements of Interest for the positions on > offer: three seats on the Board of Directors; two members of the > GNSO Council; three members of the At Large Advisory Committee; and > one member of the ccNSO Council. > > > San Juan to Los Angeles: > > In mid-July, the NomCom's 22 members met face-to-face and made > their final choices for the positions on offer. Those chosen will > be vetted before being officially announced before the end of > September. > > > At Los Angeles: > > Those chosen will participate in the meeting. > > > > > > Online developments > > > > At San Juan: > > A redesign of the ccNSO website was revealed; a beta version of a > new IANA website announced; and enhancements made to the San Juan > meeting website [http://sanjuan2007.icann.org] from the Lisbon > meeting site. A new maps feature on the main ICANN website was also > unveiled. > > > San Juan to Los Angeles: > > A new public comment webpage has been created to provide details of > all issues out for public comment at any given time. The ICANN blog > software has been updated; a new meeting website for the Los > Angeles meeting prepared and published; and ICANN shifted its > websites onto new, more powerful servers. > > A new ALAC site built on the more flexible Drupal software that > ICANN has been experimenting with since Sao Paulo is in > development, and will serve as the test-bed for an eventual shift > over to Drupal by all ICANN websites. A contact and registration > system called CiviCRM is being experimented with to allow for a > greater tie-in between individuals and ICANN's various websites. > > Early experiments are due to begin with automated translation > software in an effort to reach more non-English speaking members of > the community. > > At Los Angeles: > > The Los Angeles meeting website will include a number of > improvements over previous versions, making it easier for people to > find information, add information, and interact online both with > other attendees and with the meeting itself. > > The first experiments with automated translation may be ready to > demonstrate. A back-end system will make uploading, downloading and > handling files easier. Other ongoing improvements will be announced > as and when they go live. > > > > > > Translation > > > > At San Juan: > > A new draft translation framework was outlined as part of the draft > Management Operating Principles (put out for public comment). > > A special meeting to discuss the principles and ICANN transparency > and accountability in general (here for full details, including a > transcript), also saw the release of a translation policy outlining > ICANN's plans. En español aquí. > > ICANN has created an internal translation coordination team with > staff across departments. The team's priority is to hire an expert > translations consultant to help build a translation system. > > > San Juan to Los Angeles: > > The translation coordination team meet weekly. A number ofnew > translation webpages have been created on ICANN's public > participation website to make the team's work as transparent as > possible in the hope of encouraging help from the community. > > The team has drawn up a job description for the translation expert, > is actively approaching those they have the requisite skills, and > is preparing the groundwork for when the expert is hired. A new > page outlining what has been translated and is currently being > translated is being created, and new webpages that provide all > translations of particular languages are in the pipeline. > > A number of experiment using automated translation software for > mailing lists is being prepared, and the results will feed into an > effort to translate dynamically created webpages. Technical > experimentation with wikis and community rating is being prepared > in the hope of involving the community in translating texts. > > A call put out to the community for checkers of translated > documents received a tremendous response and the current system for > translation is being reorganised to make the most of this new > resource. > > > At Los Angeles: > > An expert translations consultant should have been hired and it is > hoped an initial report will be possible for the Los Angelesmeeting. > > A translations meeting will be held on Wednesday 31 October, with > real-time interpretation available in French, Spanish, Russian and > Chinese to discuss plans and elicit feedback from the community. > > ICANN will have a more structured translation system in place, with > early results from the automated translation software efforts ready > to share with the community. A glossary of translated terms will be > completed and put out for review by the community. > > The Los Angeles meeting will provide improved translation for > attendees over previous meetings, and more documents will be > available in a wider range of languages than previously. > Interpretation will also be available in French, Spanish and > Russian in the main room for the entire meeting. > > > > > > Vint and the Board > > > > All Board meeting and minutes can be found here. > > Vinton G. Cerf, co-founder of the TCP/IP protocol, has been > chairman of ICANN almost since its inception. He will be standing > down as chairman at ICANN's Los Angeles meeting. Vint Cerf has been > the figurehead of ICANN - and, in many ways, the Internet itself. > As its chairman, he has played the most significant role - behind > the Internet community itself - in shaping how ICANN is formed and > how it works. > > At San Juan: > > Previous GNSO Council chair Bruce Tonkin became an ICANN Board > member, taking the place of Alejandro Pisanty. > > San Juan to Los Angeles: > > Three new Board members, decided by the Nominating Committee, will > be announced in early October. These new Board members will replace > Vint Cerf, Joichi Ito and Vanda Scartezini. > > Before the new members formally take their place on the Board at > Los Angeles however, they will review and discuss with the > remaining Board who should take over as chairman following theLos > Angeles meeting. > > At Los Angeles: > > The new Board members will take their places, and the new chairman > will be announced. Vint Cerf, Alejandro Pisanty, Joichi Ito and > Vanda Scartezini will be thanked for their contributions to ICANN. > > > > > The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is > an internationally organized, non-profit corporation that has > responsibility for Internet Protocol (IP) address space allocation, > protocol identifier assignment, generic (gTLD) and country code > (ccTLD) Top-Level Domain name system management, and root server > system management functions. These services were originally > performed under U.S. Government contract by the Internet Assigned > Numbers Authority (IANA) and other entities. ICANN now performs the > IANA function. > > As a private-public partnership, ICANN is dedicated to preserving > the operational stability of the Internet; to promoting > competition; to achieving broad representation of global Internet > communities; and to developing policy appropriate to its mission > through bottom-up, consensus-based processes. > > > > Los Angelesmeeting website > > > The Los Angelesmeeting has its own website, already up on the > Internet. > > You can find it at: > http:// > losangeles2007. > icann.org > > The site contains valuable information about the meeting, the > venue, nearby hotels, visa information and Los Angeles itself. > > As the meeting draws closer, the site will be updated with the > agenda itself, speakers, early presentations and so on. > > The website will also act as the online participation portal during > the meeting. > > If you have used one of ICANN's participation sites before, you > should find your username and password works automatically. > > Otherwise, registration is quick and easy and will provide you with > full access to the site as well as the ability to post your own > comments and content on the site. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Forward email > > > > This email was sent to kierenmccarthy(a)gmail.com, > bykieren.mccarthy(a)icann.org > > Update Profile/Email Address | Instant removal withSafeUnsubscribe™ > | Privacy Policy. > > Email Marketing by > > > > ICANN | 4676 Admiralty Way | Marina del Rey | CA | 90292 > > > >

1 0