- Bc-gnso - lists.icann.org

internet threat report
by Adam Palmer April 13, 2011

April 13, 2011

I apologize if this is a repeat. I know I sent the below to some of you individually, but I can't recall if I sent this to the entire BC list. I think many of you would be interested. This links to Symantec's web page, but its not product related. All, Today marks the launch of Symantec's Internet Security Threat Report, Volume 16<http://www.symantec.com/about/news/resources/press_kits/detail.jsp?pkid=thr…>, which highlights how the volume and sophistication of threats skyrocketed in 2010. The report is one of the most comprehensive sources of Internet threat data in the world. This report highlights dramatic increases in both the frequency and sophistication of targeted attacks on enterprises; the continued growth of social networking sites as an attack distribution platform; and a change in attackers' infection tactics, in which they are increasingly targeting vulnerabilities in Java to break into traditional computer systems. In addition, the report explores how attackers are exhibiting a notable shift in focus toward mobile devices. One new aspect to the report this year is the development of the "Build Your Report" online tool<http://go.symantec.com/istr>, where a custom report can be created by selecting only those topic areas of interest. You can select from more than 50 different metrics of the threat landscape to create a personalized report. If you would like any further information on this report please feel free to contact me. Best regards, Adam Palmer Norton Lead Cybersecurity Advisor Symantec +1-703-232-4914

1 0

GAC Comments on Board Response to the GAC Scorecard
by Phil Corwin April 13, 2011

April 13, 2011

The GAC's responsive comments have just been posted at http://gac.icann.org/system/files/20110412_GAC_comments_on_the_Board_respon… Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

2 1

.net renewal - informational posting from ICANN
by Marilyn Cade April 13, 2011

April 13, 2011

http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11apr11-en.htm Public Comment: Proposal for Renewal of the .NET Registry Agreement11 April 2011 ICANN has posted a proposed draft renewal agreement for the operation of the .NET registry. The current .NET Registry Agreement is due to expire on 30 June 2011.ICANN's gTLD registry agreements provide for presumptive renewal so long as certain requirements are met. The agreements also provide that upon renewal, changes may be made in the agreement to render the terms similar to other comparable agreements. The proposed renewal agreement from Verisign includes modified provisions to bring the .NET agreement into line with other comparable agreements (e.g. BIZ, COM, INFO, ORG), including terms such as traffic data, limitation of liability, indemnification, assignment, and notice provisions.In addition to the changes to bring .NET into conformance with other agreements, Verisign has requested a change to give more flexibility for the registry to take action to prevent the registration of particular domain names when necessary in order to protect the security and stability of the DNS and the Internet - such as the actions that were taken by Verisign and other registries in coordination with ICANN in order to mitigate the threat from the Conficker virus. One other significant change to the agreement would give the registry operator more flexibility to offer training, technical support, marketing or incentive programs for the purpose of supporting the development of the Internet in underserved markets.The appendices to the agreement are also generally consistent with the current agreement. There are limited updates and deletion of obsolete provisions to Appendices 4, 7 and 10 - readily apparent in the redline document. These updates reflect changes to technical protocols and refinement of reporting requirements.The following documents are provided for public comment: * Proposed Renewal Agreement [PDF, 388 KB] * Redline showing changes from the current .NET agreement [PDF, 200 KB] * Proposed Renewal Agreement Appendices [PDF, 892 KB] * Redline showing changes from the current .NET appendices [PDF, 608 KB] * Summary and explanation of changes [PDF, 356 KB] Public comment may be submitted to net-agreement-renewal(a)icann.org through 10 May 2011 and viewed at http://forum.icann.org/lists/net-agreement-renewal/. Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

1 0

RE: For BC review & comment: draft response to Whois Review Team
by lynn＠goodsecurityconsulting.com April 12, 2011

April 12, 2011

7 8

RAA contract participation
by Mike O'Connor April 11, 2011

April 11, 2011

hi all, i think Avri's on to something here. i agree with the points she's making. http://www.circleid.com/posts/registrar_stakeholder_group_gnso_works_agains… i haven't been tracking our positions on these motions -- i'm hoping that we're supporting the conclusions of the WG and resisting the inclination of the Council to rewrite the WG's conclusions. mikey - - - - - - - - - phone 651-647-6109 fax 866-280-2356 web http://www.haven2.com handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)

5 4

Re: [bc-gnso] RAA contract participation
by Marilyn Cade April 8, 2011

April 8, 2011

The BC shld support itself/not the NCSG/NCUC. Do we have legitimate concerns abt when consultation w users shld apply to contractual terms? I can think of some, issues such as udrp/whois, accountability... But those cld be accomplished via public comment processes. Reasonable consultations: avoiding that some registrars do use this as "hell, no, we won't go" discussions. We shld understand other CSG and ALAC views. Not support NCSG/NCUC, which will be perhaps "stronger" than what busoness needs. Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Mike Roberts <mmr(a)darwin.ptvy.ca.us> Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2011 15:30:24 To: <Frederick.Felman(a)markmonitor.com>; <philip.sheppard(a)aim.be> Cc: <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] RAA contract participation I am not an apologist for the registrars, but I think they are getting a bad rap here. The job of the Board - with the assistance of the stakeholders - is to set policy for the manner in which the business side of the DNS is carried out. It's the job of ICANN management to turn that policy into appropriate contract language under which various DNS business entities - registries, registrars, etc. operate. It's the function of the various review processes to see that the Board's guidance is followed effectively. I think most BC members have been involved in contract writing and negotiation. It is not improved by having folks who are not parties to the contract being in the room pretending they have a role. Avri and others of her persuasion start out from the assumption that the Board can not be trusted, so the non-commercial stakeholders must be active in every corporate activity. This is a recipe for ICANN failure at what it does. Death by a thousand bureaucratic knives is still death. If the BC has no confidence in the competence of the Board, then the remedy is to fire the Board, not to try to run ICANN by committee. - Mike At 8:10 AM -0700 4/8/11, Frederick Felman wrote: >What's the logic behind the registrars position? It doesn't seem to >be represented in her article. So, while I understand her POV >because it's well developed, I don't understand why the registrars >are intransigent on this subject. > >Sent from +1(415)606-3733 > >On Apr 8, 2011, at 12:57 AM, "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard(a)aim.be> wrote: > >> >> >> I support the BC supporting the NCSG on this issue. >> >> Philip >> ---------- >> i all, >> >> i think Avri's on to something here. i agree with the points she's making. >> >> >>http://www.circleid.com/posts/registrar_stakeholder_group_gnso_works_agains… >> nn_multistakeholder/ >> >> i haven't been tracking our positions on these motions -- i'm >>hoping that we're >> supporting the conclusions of the WG and resisting the inclination of the >> Council to rewrite the WG's conclusions. >> >> mikey > >Sent from +1(415)606-3733 > >On Apr 8, 2011, at 12:57 AM, "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard(a)aim.be> wrote: > >> >> >> I support the BC supporting the NCSG on this issue. >> >> Philip >> ---------- >> i all, >> >> i think Avri's on to something here. i agree with the points she's making. >> >> >>http://www.circleid.com/posts/registrar_stakeholder_group_gnso_works_agains… >> nn_multistakeholder/ >> >> i haven't been tracking our positions on these motions -- i'm >>hoping that we're >> supporting the conclusions of the WG and resisting the inclination of the >> Council to rewrite the WG's conclusions. >> >> mikey >>

1 0

RE: For BC review & comment: draft response to Whois Review Team
by Lynn Goodendorf April 8, 2011

April 8, 2011

Yes- the broad definition is the first one- not the second. Thanks Susan for your note. Connected by MOTOBLUR™ -----Original message----- From: Susan Kawaguchi <susank(a)fb.com> To: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org>, "lynn(a)goodsecurityconsulting.com" <lynn(a)goodsecurityconsulting.com> Cc: Janet O'Callaghan <jocallaghan(a)newscorp.com>, Berry Cobb <berrycobb(a)infinityportals.com>, Sarah Deutsch <sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com>, Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper(a)markmonitor.com>, "bc-GNSO(a)icann.org" <bc-GNSO(a)icann.org> Sent: Fri, Apr 8, 2011 11:33:23 EDT Subject: RE: For BC review & comment: draft response to Whois Review Team Hi Steve, I agree with Lynn that the definition you reference below is to narrow. We have had lots of discussion within the team and I think our work will be limited by this definition. Personally I would want it as broad as possible - Consumer = "Internet user" In discussions when the narrow definition would not include the 2 billion people using the internet but a subset of those that actually touch the whois record in some way. Susan From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco Sent: Friday, April 08, 2011 8:06 AM To: lynn(a)goodsecurityconsulting.com Cc: Janet O'Callaghan; Berry Cobb; Sarah Deutsch; Elisa Cooper; bc-GNSO(a)icann.org Subject: [bc-gnso] Re: For BC review & comment: draft response to Whois Review Team Lynn - I agree we want a broad definition of "consumer" for purposes of reviewing WHOIS. That's why I recommended we select the thought the scond defintion (below) was the one Any consumer that acts as a Producer of WHOIS data (see above), Maintainer of WHOIS data and provider of WHOIS Service (e.g. Registrars), or User of WHOIS data (e.g. - individuals, commercial or non-commercial entities who legitimately query the WHOIS data). On 4/7/11 8:59 PM, "lynn(a)goodsecurityconsulting.com<mailto:lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com>" <lynn(a)goodsecurityconsulting.com<mailto:lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com>> wrote: Thanks Steve for this draft and the work of the BC to provide productive comments. As an member of the Whois Review Team, I would personally appreciate support from the BC for the broader definition of "consumer" as a global Internet user rather than the narrow definition that would limit the concept of consumers to registrants and ICANN stakeholders. I maintain that the broader definition is consistent with language in other sections of the AOC that refer to "public interest" and "Internet users" as well as the policy requirement for public availability of Whois data. Also, I believe members of the BC have first hand experience with the UDRP process and a good understanding of the dependency on Whois data for dispute resolution. The BC perspective on this specific need for accurate and reliable Whois data would be helpful in progressing our work. Lynn -------- Original Message -------- Subject: For BC review & comment: draft response to Whois Review Team From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco(a)netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>> Date: Thu, April 07, 2011 2:46 pm To: "bc-GNSO(a)icann.org<mailto:bc-GNSO@icann.org>" <bc-GNSO(a)icann.org<mailto:bc-GNSO@icann.org>> Cc: Janet O'Callaghan <jocallaghan(a)newscorp.com<mailto:jocallaghan@newscorp.com>>, Lynn Goodendorf <lynn(a)goodsecurityconsulting.com<mailto:lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com>>, Berry Cobb <berrycobb(a)infinityportals.com<mailto:berrycobb@infinityportals.com>>, Sarah Deutsch <sarah.b.deutsch(a)verizon.com><http://sarah.b.deutsch@verizon.com%3e>;, Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper(a)markmonitor.com><http://Elisa.Cooper@markmonitor.com%3e>; ICANN is gathering responses to questions posed by the Whois review team. Attached is a discussion draft for BC response prepared by Elisa Cooper. (Steve DelBianco added a bit about Whois studies) On our last member call, several others also volunteered to add to this response, so we're looking forward to your additions: Sara Deutsch Berry Cobb Lynn Goodendorf Janet O'Callaghan ICANN's Comment period closes 17-Apr. Today (7-Apr) begins an 8-day review period for this discussion draft. We can submit this response later if members feel they need the entire 14-day review and discussion period. Please review and post your suggestions/edits as soon as possible. If there are no disagreements noted by 17-Apr, this response will be adopted without a voting period, and posted to ICANN. For topic background, see http://icann.org/en/public-comment/#whois-rt Thanks again to Elisa Cooper for serving as BC Rapporteur on this. Regards, Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination

1 0

RE: [bc-gnso] Attempt to bridge Board GAC impasse
by john＠crediblecontext.com April 8, 2011

April 8, 2011

I agree with Marilyn that ICANN has and likely will promote HOW to apply, not WHY. Berard > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Attempt to bridge Board GAC impasse > From: "Marilyn Cade " <marilynscade(a)hotmail.com> > Date: Fri, April 08, 2011 5:48 am > To: "Mike Palage " <michael(a)palage.com>, "Chris Chaplow " > <chris(a)andalucia.com>, "Bc GNSO list " <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> > > In my comments for BC, I noted that ICANN should include the full story about new gTLDs, not only promotion of how to apply. Millions of users will be highly confused by a campaign that only does the latter. They are users, and many do not want to be suppliers. Some do, or will. We need, as BC, to focus now, as well, on what a responsible communication plan would include re content. I doubt that a two month communications plan is sufficient. I doubt even more that ICANN staff is thinking )et about not "marketing" new gTLDs, but informing... Vast numbers of users of the kind of changes-- including IDNs, and numbers of new ASCII TLDs. > > I would like to volunteer to draft a short statement about how business users see the role and purpose of an educational and informational process, which ICANN now calls "communication" plan. We were among those that called for this activity. I think that as business leaders and users, we should contribute to shaping it. > > It would be inappropriate for ICANN to market new gTLDS,whether ASCII or IDN, instead, they need an informational and awarenedd message, part of which is how to apply. > > Marilyn Cade, in my individual member capacity > Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T > > -----Original Message----- > From: "Michael D. Palage" <michael(a)palage.com> > Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2011 11:49:12 > To: <chris(a)andalucia.com>; <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> > Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Attempt to bridge Board GAC impasse > > Chris, > > Speaking individually and not on behalf of all of the co-authors to the > article, I have no problem extending the initial communication period if > that could create greater consensus within the community. > > The reason we proposed an initial two month communication period in > connection with the string submission period is that under the current > guidebook timeline potential applicants need to be able to pay $185,000 and > COMPLETE the entire applications four months after the start of the > communication period. Under current Early Warning proposal a prospective > applicant only has to pay $10,000 and answer three questions. Then based > upon the initial public policy advice of the GAC, prospective applicants > would be better informed to make a business decision on whether to proceed. > > I would tend to agree that not enough attention has been paid to the > communication period, but from a triage control standpoint I am trying to > prioritize those issues where there is an impasse between the GAC and Board > on the remaining issues, and an Early Warning system appears to be a BIG one > in my opinion. > > In your worst case scenario of ICANN receiving ten thousands of > applications, what do you think is the better scenario. CURRENT APPLICANT > GUIDEBOOK: ICANN sitting with 1.85 billion in the bank (greater than the GDP > of a lot of countries) with ten thousand people demanding that their > applications be timely processed or the proposed EARLY WARNING proposal: > ICANN sitting with 100 million in the bank recognizing that there is > interest in over thousands of unique strings. I would submit it would be a > whole hell of a lot easier to slow down and readjust in the later versus the > former scenario. > > Thanks for the constructive feedback. > > Best regards, > > Michael > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of > Chris Chaplow > Sent: Friday, April 08, 2011 6:30 AM > To: 'bc - GNSO list' > Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Attempt to bridge Board GAC impasse > > > Michael, > > Thanks for posting the article which has it merits towards solving a > difficult problem. > > I notice that it contemplates reducing the four month communication campaign > to two. > > I think a more hangs on this campaign and we (community) are not paying much > attention to it. > > In most parts of the world the gTLD program is unknown - we need to ensure > the gTLD's are not just open to the enlightened few who attend ICANN > meetings. This is the purpose of the communications plan. In this present > environment we expect about 500 applications. > > However, with a successful campaign, and mainstream media running with the > story. I think we will see human 'herd mentality' > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_mentality and tens of thousands of > applications. > > The draft communications plan is posted here > http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-communications-plan-oct09-en. > pdf > > Apologies for being slightly 'off piste' to the thrust of your article and > all the hard work that has gone into it. Nether the less worth a comment. > > Best regards > > Chris Chaplow > Managing Director > Andalucia.com S.L. > Avenida del Carmen 9 > Ed. Puertosol, Puerto Deportivo > 1ª Planta, Oficina 30 > Estepona, 29680 > Malaga, Spain > Tel: + (34) 952 897 865 > Fax: + (34) 952 897 874 > E-mail: chris(a)andalucia.com > Web: www.andalucia.com <http://www.andalucia.com> > Information about Andalucia, Spain. > > -----Mensaje original----- > De: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] En nombre de > Michael D. Palage Enviado el: jueves, 07 de abril de 2011 19:27 > Para: bc-GNSO(a)icann.org > Asunto: [bc-gnso] Attempt to bridge Board GAC impasse > > > Hello All, > > For those that have been tracking the GAC new gTLD Scorecard one of the > areas in which there seems to be an impasse is in connection with what the > GAC has deemed an Early Warning system for those strings that might give > rise to important public policy considerations. I recently co-authored an > article attempting to bridge this gap, see > http://www.circleid.com/posts/a_phased_array_early_warning_system/. > > Any constructive feedback would be welcomed. > > Best regards, > > Michael

1 0

For BC review & comment: draft response to Whois Review Team
by Steve DelBianco April 8, 2011

April 8, 2011

ICANN is gathering responses to questions posed by the Whois review team. Attached is a discussion draft for BC response prepared by Elisa Cooper. (Steve DelBianco added a bit about Whois studies) On our last member call, several others also volunteered to add to this response, so we're looking forward to your additions: Sara Deutsch Berry Cobb Lynn Goodendorf Janet O'Callaghan ICANN's Comment period closes 17-Apr. Today (7-Apr) begins an 8-day review period for this discussion draft. We can submit this response later if members feel they need the entire 14-day review and discussion period. Please review and post your suggestions/edits as soon as possible. If there are no disagreements noted by 17-Apr, this response will be adopted without a voting period, and posted to ICANN. For topic background, see http://icann.org/en/public-comment/#whois-rt Thanks again to Elisa Cooper for serving as BC Rapporteur on this. Regards, Steve DelBianco Vice chair for policy coordination

2 1

Re: [bc-gnso] Attempt to bridge Board GAC impasse
by Marilyn Cade April 8, 2011

April 8, 2011

In my comments for BC, I noted that ICANN should include the full story about new gTLDs, not only promotion of how to apply. Millions of users will be highly confused by a campaign that only does the latter. They are users, and many do not want to be suppliers. Some do, or will. We need, as BC, to focus now, as well, on what a responsible communication plan would include re content. I doubt that a two month communications plan is sufficient. I doubt even more that ICANN staff is thinking )et about not "marketing" new gTLDs, but informing... Vast numbers of users of the kind of changes-- including IDNs, and numbers of new ASCII TLDs. I would like to volunteer to draft a short statement about how business users see the role and purpose of an educational and informational process, which ICANN now calls "communication" plan. We were among those that called for this activity. I think that as business leaders and users, we should contribute to shaping it. It would be inappropriate for ICANN to market new gTLDS,whether ASCII or IDN, instead, they need an informational and awarenedd message, part of which is how to apply. Marilyn Cade, in my individual member capacity Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: "Michael D. Palage" <michael(a)palage.com> Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2011 11:49:12 To: <chris(a)andalucia.com>; <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Attempt to bridge Board GAC impasse Chris, Speaking individually and not on behalf of all of the co-authors to the article, I have no problem extending the initial communication period if that could create greater consensus within the community. The reason we proposed an initial two month communication period in connection with the string submission period is that under the current guidebook timeline potential applicants need to be able to pay $185,000 and COMPLETE the entire applications four months after the start of the communication period. Under current Early Warning proposal a prospective applicant only has to pay $10,000 and answer three questions. Then based upon the initial public policy advice of the GAC, prospective applicants would be better informed to make a business decision on whether to proceed. I would tend to agree that not enough attention has been paid to the communication period, but from a triage control standpoint I am trying to prioritize those issues where there is an impasse between the GAC and Board on the remaining issues, and an Early Warning system appears to be a BIG one in my opinion. In your worst case scenario of ICANN receiving ten thousands of applications, what do you think is the better scenario. CURRENT APPLICANT GUIDEBOOK: ICANN sitting with 1.85 billion in the bank (greater than the GDP of a lot of countries) with ten thousand people demanding that their applications be timely processed or the proposed EARLY WARNING proposal: ICANN sitting with 100 million in the bank recognizing that there is interest in over thousands of unique strings. I would submit it would be a whole hell of a lot easier to slow down and readjust in the later versus the former scenario. Thanks for the constructive feedback. Best regards, Michael -----Original Message----- From: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Chris Chaplow Sent: Friday, April 08, 2011 6:30 AM To: 'bc - GNSO list' Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Attempt to bridge Board GAC impasse Michael, Thanks for posting the article which has it merits towards solving a difficult problem. I notice that it contemplates reducing the four month communication campaign to two. I think a more hangs on this campaign and we (community) are not paying much attention to it. In most parts of the world the gTLD program is unknown - we need to ensure the gTLD's are not just open to the enlightened few who attend ICANN meetings. This is the purpose of the communications plan. In this present environment we expect about 500 applications. However, with a successful campaign, and mainstream media running with the story. I think we will see human 'herd mentality' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_mentality and tens of thousands of applications. The draft communications plan is posted here http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-communications-plan-oct09-en. pdf Apologies for being slightly 'off piste' to the thrust of your article and all the hard work that has gone into it. Nether the less worth a comment. Best regards Chris Chaplow Managing Director Andalucia.com S.L. Avenida del Carmen 9 Ed. Puertosol, Puerto Deportivo 1ª Planta, Oficina 30 Estepona, 29680 Malaga, Spain Tel: + (34) 952 897 865 Fax: + (34) 952 897 874 E-mail: chris(a)andalucia.com Web: www.andalucia.com <http://www.andalucia.com> Information about Andalucia, Spain. -----Mensaje original----- De: owner-bc-gnso(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] En nombre de Michael D. Palage Enviado el: jueves, 07 de abril de 2011 19:27 Para: bc-GNSO(a)icann.org Asunto: [bc-gnso] Attempt to bridge Board GAC impasse Hello All, For those that have been tracking the GAC new gTLD Scorecard one of the areas in which there seems to be an impasse is in connection with what the GAC has deemed an Early Warning system for those strings that might give rise to important public policy considerations. I recently co-authored an article attempting to bridge this gap, see http://www.circleid.com/posts/a_phased_array_early_warning_system/. Any constructive feedback would be welcomed. Best regards, Michael

1 0