December 2012 - Ccnso-council

IANA Secure Notification Process Consultation
by Gabriella Schittek Dec. 17, 2012

Dec. 17, 2012

Dear all, IANA has opened a consultation on the IANA Secure Notification Process, as part of the 2012 IANA Functions Contract. The feedback received during this consultation will help ICANN implement a secure notification system that best meets the needs of the relevant stakeholders. Last day for comments is 10 January 2013. See more at: http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-12dec12-en.htm Kind regards, Gabi

1 0

ICANN CEO Blog post on WCIT meeting
by Gabriella Schittek Dec. 17, 2012

Dec. 17, 2012

Dear all, Fadi Chehadé has written a blog post about the WCIT meeting: http://blog.icann.org/2012/12/wcit-in-conclusion/ Kind regards, Gabi

1 0

Call recording, Council Call 11 December 2012
by Kristina Nordstrom Dec. 11, 2012

Dec. 11, 2012

Dear all, Please find the recording from today's Council call below: http://audio.icann.org/ccnso/ccnso-council-20121211-en.mp3 Kind regards, Kristina

1 0

Input requested for PDP on the Protection of IGO and INGO Identifiers in all gTLDs (IGO-INGO)
by Gabriella Schittek Dec. 11, 2012

Dec. 11, 2012

Dear all, The ccTLD community has received an invitation from the GNSO to provide input and information to their work on a Policy Development Process dealing with Intergovernmental Organisations (IGOs) and International Non-Governmental Organisations (INGOs). See below for further details. If your ccTLD is interested in providing input, it will be in an individual capacity, not as the ccNSO. Kind regards, Gabi === Dear SO/AC Chair, As you may be aware, the GNSO Council recently initiated a Policy Development Process (PDP) on the Protection of IGO and INGO Identifiers in all gTLDs (IGO-INGO). The GNSO Council is looking to expedite this PDP to accommodate requests from the ICANN Board and GAC. As part of its efforts to obtain input from the broader ICANN Community, at an early stage of its deliberations, the IGO-INGO Protections Working Group tasked with addressing this issue is looking for any input or information that may help inform its deliberations. You are strongly encouraged to provide any input your respective communities may have by providing it to the GNSO Secretariat (gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org) by 15 January 2013. For further background information on the WG’s activities to date, please see: * IGO-INGO Web Page (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/protection-igo-names.htm ). * Final Issue Report for insight into the current practices and issues experienced (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/protection-igo-names-final-issue-report-01o… ). * The IOC/RCRC DT page is also a good reference for how those efforts were combined with this PDP (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/red-cross-ioc.htm <http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/red-cross-ioc.htm> ). Below are elements of the approved charter that the WG has been tasked to address: As part of its deliberations on the first issue as to whether there is a need for special protections for IGO and INGO organizations at the top and second level in all gTLDs (existing and new), the PDP WG should, at a minimum, consider the following elements as detailed in the Final Issue Report: * Quantifying the Entities whose names may be Considered for Special Protection * Evaluating the Scope of Existing Protections under International Treaties/Laws for the IGO-INGO organizations concerned; * Establishing Qualification Criteria for Special Protection of names of the IGO and INGO organizations concerned; * Distinguishing any Substantive Differences between the RCRC and IOC designations from those of other IGO-INGO Organizations. Should the PDP WG reach consensus on a recommendation that there is a need for special protections at the top and second levels in all existing and new gTLDs for IGO and INGO organization identifiers; the PDP WG is expected to: * Develop specific recommendations for appropriate special protections, if any, for the identifiers of any or all IGO and INGO organizations at the first and second levels. * Determine the appropriate protections, if any, for RCRC and IOC names at the second level for the initial round of new gTLDs and make recommendations on the implementation of such protection. * Determine whether the current special protections being provided to RCRC and IOC names at the top and second level of the initial round of new gTLDs should be made permanent for RCRC and IOC names in all gTLDs; if so, determine whether the existing protections are sufficient and comprehensive; if not, develop specific recommendations for appropriate special protections (if any) for these identifiers. Questions to Consider: 1. What kinds of entities should be considered for Special Protections at the top and second level in all gTLDs (existing and new)? 2. What facts or law are you aware of which might form an objective basis for Special Protections under International Treaties/Domestic Laws for IGOs, INGOs as they may relate to gTLDs and the DNS? 3. Do you have opinions about what criteria should be used for Special Protection of the IGO and INGO identifiers? 4. Do you think there are substantive differences between the RCRC/IOC and IGOs and INGOs? 5. Should appropriate Special Protections at the top and second level for the identifiers of IGOs and INGOs be made? 6. In addition, should Special Protections for the identifiers of IGOs and INGOs at the second level be in place for the initial round of new gTLDs? 7. Should the current Special Protections provided to the RCRC and IOC names at the top and second level of the initial round for new gTLDs be made permanent in all gTLDs and if not, what specific recommendations for appropriate Special Protections (if any) do you have? 8. Do you feel existing RPMs or proposed RPMs for the new gTLD program are adequate to offer protections to IGO and INGOs (understanding that UDRP and TMCH may not be eligible for all IGOs and INGOs)? If possible, the WG would greatly appreciate receiving your input by 15 January 2013 at the latest. Your input will be very much appreciated. With best regards, Thomas Rickert, Chair of the IGO-INGO WG

2 1

Dial in Details Council Call 11 December
by Kristina Nordstrom Dec. 11, 2012

Dec. 11, 2012

Dear all, Please find below the dial in details for the Council Call next week on 11 December at 12:00 UTC. If you need dial out assistance please let me know as soon as possible. Dial in numbers: http://www.adigo.com/icann/ Conference ID: 5258 Adobe Room: http://icann.adobeconnect.com/ccnsocouncil/ Two-way audio will be available in the Adobe Room. Kind regards, Kristina

1 1

Re: [ccnso-council] Council Agenda Call 11 December {Sender Address Possibly Forged}
by Barrack Ong'ondo Otieno Dec. 11, 2012

Dec. 11, 2012

Dear Chair, Colleagues, I would like to send an apology, i will not be able to make it for todays teleconference, i will follow the proceedings on the minutes. Thank you Best Regards On Tue, December 11, 2012 4:54 am, Lesley Cowley wrote: > Correction: the Girls into IT date is the 25th April. > > Lesley Cowley, OBE > CEO > Nominet > Minerva House > Edmund Halley Road > Oxford Science Park > Oxford, OX4 4DQ > UK > > Tel: +44-(0)-1865-332211 > http://www.nominet.org.uk/ > > From: Lesley Cowley <lesley(a)nominet.org.uk<mailto:lesley@nominet.org.uk>> > Date: Tuesday, 11 December 2012 01:07 > To: ccNSO Council > <ccnso-council(a)icann.org<mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org>> > Cc: Gabriella Schittek > <gabriella.schittek(a)icann.org<mailto:gabriella.schittek@icann.org>> > Subject: Re: [ccnso-council] Council Agenda Call 11 December {Sender > Address Possibly Forged} > > Dear Council Members, > > I am currently on holiday, so will not be joining you on the call > tomorrow. Byron has kindly agreed to Chair the call for me and please find > my latest Chair's update below: > > Chair's Update > Other than numerous ccNSO related emails, I spoke with Fadi Chehadi via a > telcon to continue his introduction to the ccNSO. He is particularly > interested in our comments on the ICANN Strategic Plan and I have offered > our assistance in developing a process for the development of the new > Strategic Plan. I also spoke to our work plan and highlighted the number > of current working groups and the time and commitment given by ccNSO WG > members. I was also able to highlight the continuing professional support > of our Secretariat. > > I have recently been working with others on the ccNSO Travel funding > committee and note that the task of deciding between worthy applicants is > not easy. We are developing an updated set of travel guildines which will > come to the Council for our next call. > > Finally, I have been in discussion with several community members about > the 'Girls into IT' day, which is an annual event designed to encourage > young women to consider a career in IT. This takes place on 26th April > 2013. To support the day, organisations might consider holding an open > morning, providing some careers talks to local schools, getting articles > into local media etc., - its all about sharing the range of careers open > to all in IT and the DNS!. I would welcome colleagues support for the > day and am hoping that we might be able to persuade some ccTLDs to be > involved. > > Kind regards, > > Lesley > > Lesley Cowley, OBE > CEO > Nominet > Minerva House > Edmund Halley Road > Oxford Science Park > Oxford, OX4 4DQ > UK > > Tel: +44-(0)-1865-332211 > http://www.nominet.org.uk/ > > From: Gabriella Schittek > <gabriella.schittek(a)icann.org<mailto:gabriella.schittek@icann.org>> > Date: Tuesday, 4 December 2012 14:53 > To: ccNSO Council > <ccnso-council(a)icann.org<mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org>> > Subject: [ccnso-council] Council Agenda Call 11 December > > Dear all, > > Below and attached is the draft Council Agenda for next week's Council > call. > > Please, let me know as soon as possible in case you have any topic to add. > > Thanks! > > Gabi > > Agenda ccNSO Council Telephone Conference > 11 December 2012 > > 1) Apologies > > 2) Minutes and Actions > > 3) Updates > > 3.1 Chair Update > 3.2 Vice-chair Update > 3.3 Councilors Update > 3.4 Regional Organisations Update > 3.4 Staff Update > > 4) Workplan Update > > 5) Participation ccTLD community in GNSO or other WGs > > 6) Appointment ccNSO Council Committee (ccNSO Council and Board Elections > Review) > > 7) Appointment Council Committee for 10th ccNSO Anniversary > > 8) At-Large White Paper Advise on Making ICANN Relevant, Responsive and > Respected > > 9) ICANN Academy Survey > > 10) Current and Upcoming IANAConsultations > > 11) Update ccNSO Travel Funding Guidelines > > 12) Liaison Updates > > 12.1 GNSO Liaison (Han Chuan Lee) > 12.2 ALAC Liaison (Ron Sherwood) > > 13) Date of Next Meetings > > 14) AOB > > > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by KeNIC MailScanner, and is > believed to be clean. > > Kenya Network Information Center (KENIC) > > -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by KeNIC MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. Kenya Network Information Center (KENIC)

2 1

Council Agenda Call 11 December
by Gabriella Schittek Dec. 11, 2012

Dec. 11, 2012

Dear all, Below and attached is the draft Council Agenda for next week's Council call. Please, let me know as soon as possible in case you have any topic to add. Thanks! Gabi Agenda ccNSO Council Telephone Conference 11 December 2012 1) Apologies 2) Minutes and Actions 3) Updates 3.1 Chair Update 3.2 Vice-chair Update 3.3 Councilors Update 3.4 Regional Organisations Update 3.4 Staff Update 4) Workplan Update 5) Participation ccTLD community in GNSO or other WG’s 6) Appointment ccNSO Council Committee (ccNSO Council and Board Elections Review) 7) Appointment Council Committee for 10th ccNSO Anniversary 8) At-Large White Paper Advise on Making ICANN Relevant, Responsive and Respected 9) ICANN Academy Survey 10) Current and Upcoming IANA Consultations 11) Update ccNSO Travel Funding Guidelines 12) Liaison Updates 12.1 GNSO Liaison (Han Chuan Lee) 12.2 ALAC Liaison (Ron Sherwood) 13) Date of Next Meetings 14) AOB

2 2

Additional Material for the ccNSO Council meeting tomorrow 11 December 20112
by Bart Boswinkel Dec. 10, 2012

Dec. 10, 2012

Dear all, Please find included for tomorrow¹s meeting: 1. Agenda item 4: Work plan - Work Plan overviews per December 2012 ( for you information) 2. Agenda item 8: At Large White Paper Proposed action letter from the ccNSO Council as submission on recommendation in White Paper that the ccTLD diversity of practices vis-à-vis ICANN¹s general standards and best practices needs to be addressed and relevant Background material. 3. Agenda item 10: Current and upcoming IANA consultations Proposed actions: Launch the ccNSO Statement procedure and seek volunteers from the Tech And FoI WG to form a drafting team. Send a request to extend the public comment period until such a time as ccNSO can submit a Statement. Kind regards, Bart

1 0

6UK powerless to encourage IPv6 adoption. Board resigns.
by Ron Sherwood Dec. 8, 2012

Dec. 8, 2012

*Posted by Ron, ccNSO / ALAC Liaison* *Courtesy of ALAC* [image: 6UK] [image: IPv6 Forum logo] *6UK powerless to encourage IPv6 adoption. Board resigns.* 6UK powerless to encourage IPv6 adoption. Board resigns. Published on 07 December 2012 by philip in 6UK, The 6UK board has determined that the organisation cannot fulfil its purpose and therefore the directors, all volunteers, resigned at today’s AGM without seeking re-election. In the absence of nominations to the board, 6UK is to be wound up in accordance with its articles of association. 6UK is a not-for-profit membership organisation founded with seed funding of £20k from BIS in April 2010 to help the UK and UK organisations secure every competitive advantage available from the rapid adoption of the new protocol. The UK lags its neighbours, economies of similar size, G20 and EU member states when it comes to uptake of the new Internet protocol, IPv6. This is of growing concern because the RIPE NCC (the Regional Internet Registry for Europe, the Middle East and parts of Central Asia) began to allocate its very last address space of the previous protocol, IPv4, in September this year. Many factors impact the uptake of IPv6 and clearly free-market incentives are insufficient. Yet at a country level, delayed adoption significantly impacts national competitiveness, innovation and skills deleteriously. It may also hobble UK based companies facility to compete internationally. >From observing global IPv6 adoption patterns in recent times, one factor appears to dominate IPv6 adoption rates, namely government support. Countries with hands-off governments fall behind. Additional information The Internet equivalent of a telephone number is known as an Internet Protocol address, or IP address for short. Just as you need someone’s telephone number to call him or her, network technology needs an address when instructed to dispatch a packet of data from one computer to another. Today, the Internet mostly uses IP version 4 (IPv4) but this has now reached the limits of its capacity. IANA – the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority – issued the last IPv4 address to the Regional Internet Registries in February 2011. Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) is the next generation protocol that provides vastly expanded address space, allowing the Internet to grow to many billions of times its current size. Every organisation must consider the implications of the need to transition to IPv6 and decide what action it needs to take. Fortunately, having been defined towards the end of the 1990s, IPv6 is a well understood and low risk protocol. Useful resources An executive briefing and project planning guide are available at: http://www.6uk.org.uk/resources For general information about 6UK, please visit: http://www.6uk.org.uk Note: The 6UK website will continue serving until end-December. For general information from the RIPE NCC: http://www.ipv6actnow.org RIPE NCC on IPv4 exhaustion: http://www.ripe.net/internet-coordination/ipv4-exhaustion For analyses at RIPE LABS: https://labs.ripe.net/statistics/?tags=ipv6 For country statistics by Cisco: http://6lab.cisco.com/stats/index.php Recent article about US government efforts: http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/<http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/news/internet/3400101/how-us-is-winning-race-nex…> news/internet/3400101/how-us-<http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/news/internet/3400101/how-us-is-winning-race-nex…> is-winning-race-next-gen-internet<http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/news/internet/3400101/how-us-is-winning-race-nex…>(IPv6 is a requirement for network enabled products and services purchased by the US government.) The IPv6 Forum:http://www.ipv6forum.com The IPv6 Observatory: http://www.ipv6observatory.eu 11 Responses to “6UK powerless to encourage IPv6 adoption. Board resigns.” 1. Bernie says: 7 December 2012 at 6:20 pm If the big companies and institutions in the US would stop hoarding and give back all the IPV4 addresses they don’t need we’d have enough left for a long time. Have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assigned_/8_IPv4_address_blocks Companies sitting on entire class A blocks of over 16 million addresses each include IBM, apple, General Electric Company, Ford Motor Company, US Postal Service.. the list goes on and on. These companies only need a tiny fraction of these along with implementing NAT. The fact is that the reason we’re running out of IPV4 addresses is because the vast majority of them are being wasted. Instead of fixing that very simple problem (demand them back and only give them what they need) you’re trying to implement a huge change that will break almost every network based device in existence along with a significant amount of software. I’m glad you all resigned and the farce is now over – can we have or 20k back please. - Bob Smith says: 7 December 2012 at 10:27 pm Bernie, You miss the point that at the rate of growth of internet connected devices, a few more IPv4 addresses simply buys a relatively short amount of time, and as the Internet is getting exponentially more complicated as it grows, making the problem harder. NAT isn’t the solution either, as it has issues of its own. It’s simply not the case that IPv6 will go away if one sticks their head in the sand. It’s not quite cooked yet, but RIPE 554 is a step forward which will help its adoption. I’m sad to see that the government wouldn’t fix their procurements to include v6, which has effectively hamstrung this organisation, or effectively funded promotion of the migration. 20k isn’t even the price of a line-card for a router. 2. Mark says: 7 December 2012 at 10:26 pm IPv6 is mature, stable and works really well so please stop spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt about it breaking networks because it’s simply not true. 3. Christian de Larrinaga says: 7 December 2012 at 11:21 pm I’m very sorry to learn this news. After ten years + trying to generate awareness in the UK about IPv6 I was delighted when in 2010 the BIS chipped in to help found an industry body with strong credentials to promote IPv6 adoption. It seems the old challenge of the UK government waiting for Industry and Industry waiting for the government hasn’t been resolved. More IP addresses are needed if economic growth is to be secured particularly in digital services to the premises, sensor networks, electronic media and financial services and these addresses will have to be IPv6. IPv4 is effectively exhausted. ISOC UK England will continue to prioritise the adoption of v6 in the UK. 4. Sam says: 8 December 2012 at 12:09 am It is a big problem that so many organisations sit on blocks but equally sad is the lack of willing from government procurement measures. Lets hope the network administrators around are future proofing the nations systems. Also the guy who said v6 will break software… Why of why would you ever reference a ip in code??

1 0

Council Call Information Material
by Gabriella Schittek Dec. 6, 2012

Dec. 6, 2012

Dear Councillors, Below and attached are the Council call materials I have so far. Some more might follow closer to to the Council call. Kind regards, Gabi Agenda ccNSO Council Telephone Conference 11 December 2012 1) Apologies 2) Minutes and Actions http://www.ccnso.icann.org/node/35883 3) Updates 3.1 Chair Update 3.2 Vice-chair Update 3.3 Councilors Update 3.4 Regional Organisations Update 3.4 Staff Update 4) Workplan Update 5) Participation ccTLD Community in GNSO or other WG’s See attachment 1 Summary of ccTLD Community Discussions 6) Appointment ccNSO Council Committee (ccNSO Council and Board Elections Review) Keith Davidson Sokol Haxhiu Young-Eum Lee Katrina Sataki 7) Appointment Council Committee for 10th ccNSO Anniversary Chris Disspain Sokol Haxhiu Young-Eum Lee Vika Mpisane Barrack Otieno Souleymane Oumtanaga Katrina Sataki Margarita Valdes 8) At-Large White Paper Advise on Making ICANN Relevant, Responsive and Respected http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-20nov12-en.htm 9) ICANN Academy Survey 10) Current and Upcoming IANA Consultations (Open until 11 December 2012) Consultation on Internet Number Resources Performance Standards: http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-20nov12-en.htm (Open until 18 December 2012) Consultation on the IANA Customer Service Complaint Resolution Process: http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-27nov12-en.htm 11) Update ccNSO Travel Funding Guidelines 12) Liaison Updates 12.1 GNSO Liaison (Han Chuan Lee) Not provided in time for posting 12.2 ALAC Liaison (Ron Sherwood) See attachment 2: December ALAC Liaison Update 13) Date of Next Meetings 8 January 2013 12.00 UTC 12 February 2013 12.00 UTC 12 March 2013 12.00 UTC 14) AOB

1 0