Dear council members, Unfortunately, due to business urgency, I can not participate in the today call. I'm confident my colleague Ron Sherwood can inform you about all activities at ALAC. Best regards, Rudi Vansnick ccNSO liaison ALAC President - CEO ——————————————— Internet Society Belgium ————————————————— President - CEO Tel +32/(0)9/329.39.16 rudi.vansnick@isoc.be Mobile +32/(0)475/28.16.32 Dendermondesteenweg 143 B-9070 Destelbergen BELGIUM www.internetsociety.be "The Internet is for everyone" ——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— Op 17-sep-2010, om 15:22 heeft Gabriella Schittek het volgende geschreven:
Dear Councillors,
The agenda for the upcoming Council call on the 21st September at 12.00 UTC is available at http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/agenda-council-21sep10-en.pdf
1) Confirmation of Minutes and Actions from 17th August 2010
The minutes are available at http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/minutes-council-call-17aug10-en.pdf
3) ICANN/ENISA Incident Response Survey
See attachment 1 + email copied in below.
5) Recommendations Wildcard Study Group
See attachment 2
6) Finance Working Group – approval of charter
See attachment 3 (redline version) and 4 (clean version)
9) Liaison Updates
9.1) At-Large Liaison
See: Attachment 5: ALAC Statement on New gTLD Applicant Guidebook Ver. 4 and Attachment 6: ALAC Statement on the Initial Report on Vertical Integration Between Registrars and Registries
Also, from Ron: For councilors with the time and inclination to read about the next ICANN meeting destination, here [courtesy of the ALAC list] is a link to a Conde Nast article on Cartagena. (Sleeping Beauty <http://www.concierge.com/cntraveler/articles/10622> )
9.2 GNSO Liaison
Report to follow
--- From: Yurie Ito <yurie.ito@icann.org> Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 15:42:45 -0700 To: Patrick Jones <patrick.jones@icann.org>, Greg Rattray <greg.rattray@icann.org>, Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel@icann.org> Subject: Re: ICANN National Survey
Hi Patrick,
This survey is a response to the ccNSO, GAC and other comments about understanding the connections and the gaps between national CSIRTs and DNS operations. Our intent to conduct such a survey has been consistently mentioned in our communications related to the way forward the DNS-CERT, beginning with our public response to comments in April. And has been part of all the stakeholders discussions on this topic including at the Brussels meeting. Answer to those specific questions below;
1, What is purpose of survey?
- See above.
2. How does this survey relate to the survey Rod announced in his letter to the ccNSO in response of DNS-CERT discussion in Nairobi.
- Rod's april memo on DNS-CERT to ccNSO and others mentions no survey. Our May summary of analysis on comments states that survey will be conducted in the way forward section. It is clearly addressed in Rod's 11th August memo to the ccNSO, gNSO and ALAC chairs to include the participation of ENISA.
3. What will be role of ENISA role? ICANN role?
- ENISA is coordinating the survey within its region as we prepared the survey. ENISA volunteered to do that along with other regional CSIRT organization.
4. Has the initiative on this survey been communicated/announced to ccTLD community? If not, will it be? CAN they influence the process?
- Through the processes described above, as well as in the public forum of DNS-CERT at the Brussels meeting. We willing to work with anybody going forward. We will work with them the interpreting the analysis of survey. CENTR is free to work with ENISA as they desire.
5. What is current status? Has the survey been conducted? If not, when
- CERT/CC sent out the survey and messages to all the National CSIRTs last week.
6 Where ccTLD community members involved in drafting
- We are not sure why this is concerned here. Staff was acting to answer the specific questions raised by the community, and had announced publicly the intend to conduct such survey back to May.
7. How does this relate to the activities of the ccNSO Incident Response WG? Have they been informed/involved?
- It does not relate to WG's discussion directly, they have been informed through the process described above.
Thanks,
- Yurie
--- <ICANN_National_CSIRT_Survey[2].pdf><Advise Recommendations Wildcard Study Group version 3.doc><Financial Contrib WG#510FF7.doc><Financial contrib. - clean.doc><At-large 1.pdf><At-Large 2.pdf>