February 2008 - council - lists.icann.org

Fast Flux DNS
by Mike Rodenbaugh April 11, 2008

April 11, 2008

Hello, I propose the following motion for Council consideration in our next meeting on March 7th, may I please have a 'second'? Thanks, Mike Rodenbaugh Whereas, "fast flux" DNS changes are increasingly being used to commit crime and frustrate law enforcement efforts to combat crime, with criminals rapidly modifying IP addresses and/or nameservers in effort to evade detection and shutdown of their criminal website; Whereas, the Security and Stability Advisory Committee has reported on this trend in its Advisory SAC 025, dated January 2008: http://www.icann.org/committees/security/sac025.pdf/ Whereas, the SSAC Advisory describes the technical aspects of fast flux hosting, explains how DNS is being exploited to abet criminal activities, discusses current and possible methods of mitigating this activity, and recommends that appropriate bodies consider policies that would make practical mitigation methods universally available to all registrants, ISPs, registrars and registries, Whereas, the GNSO is likely an appropriate party to consider such policies The GNSO Council RESOLVES: ICANN Staff shall prepare an Issues Report with respect to "fast flux" DNS changes, for deliberation by the GNSO Council. Specifically the Staff shall consider the SAC Advisory, and shall outline potential next steps for GNSO policy development designed to mitigate the current ability for criminals to exploit the DNS via "fast flux" IP or nameserver changes.

4 5

draft bylaws amendment on absentee voting
by Liz Gasster March 3, 2008

March 3, 2008

All, Attached please find a draft bylaws amendment on absentee voting, developed by our drafting team (Philip, Chuck and Robin), with invaluable help from Dan Halloran, for your consideration. Please let me know if you have any questions. Liz Gasster

3 2

ICANN Draft Translation Programme open for public comment
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG Feb. 29, 2008

Feb. 29, 2008

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org; liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: regional-liaisons[at]icann.org] Please note the ICANN Translation Programme is open for public comment. http://www.icann.org/public_comment/ Open: 13 Feb 08 Closed: 14 Mar 08 Explanation: The draft translation programme that will be used by ICANN to communicate and interact with non-English speakers has been put out for community comment today. You can review it here in: ??????? | ?? | Français | English | Español | ??????? The programme has two main aims: to inform people about ICANN as an organisation, including its history, processes, component parts and evolution; and to allow people to participate effectively in the organisations ongoing decision-making and policy work. The mission of the programme is to provide those who are not fluent English speakers with an equal level of access to influence and participate in the work of the organisation. Following community input, the programme will be redrafted as necessary and put into a Final Report. The intention at this stage is to send the programme to the Board for review and/or approval at the Paris meeting in June. A full transcript of the public meeting held in New Delhi on Wed 13 Feb regarding this programme is also available. Please submit comments to: translation-programme(a)icann.org The archive of public comments may be viewed at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/translation-programme/ -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

GNSO Improvements Report 2008
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG Feb. 29, 2008

Feb. 29, 2008

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org; liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: regional-liaisons[at]icann.org] Please note that the GNSO Improvements Report 2008 is open for public comments from 25 February 2008 to 25 March 2008 http://www.icann.org/public_comment/#gnso-improvements-report-2008 GNSO Improvements Report 2008 Explanation: On February 15, 2008, ICANN's Board acknowledged receipt of the "GNSO Improvements Report" and indicated that it would like to receive final public comments on the Report to enable it to consider and implement the Report's recommendations as soon as possible. The Board has directed ICANN staff to open a public comment forum on the Report for 30 days, draft a detailed implementation plan in consultation with the GNSO, begin implementation of the non-contentious recommendations, and return to the Board and community for further consideration of the implementation plan. A copy of the Board's resolution regarding this matter can be found here. http://www.icann.org/minutes/resolutions-15feb08.htm You can read the full report here [PDF, 197K] http://www.icann.org/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-report-03fe… and see a web page with more information here. http://www.icann.org/topics/gnso-improvements/ The ICANN Board Governance Committee's "GNSO Review Working Group" http://www.icann.org/topics/gnso-improvements/ developed the Report's http://www.icann.org/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-report-03fe… set of recommendations to improve the effectiveness of the GNSO, including its policy activities, structure, operations and communications. The Report reflects the Working Group's examination of many aspects of the GNSO's functioning, including the use of working groups and the overall policy development process (PDP), and the structure of the GNSO Council and its constituencies. The Board Governance Committee determined that the GNSO Improvements working group had fulfilled its charter and forwarded the report to the Board for consideration." Is it clear to you what this comment period covers? Do you have all the information you need to respond? Please click "More information please" below to email ICANN directly Staff member responsible: Denise Michel | More information please Please submit comments to: [gnso-improvements-report-2008[at]icann.org] Archives: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-improvements-report-2008/ Please take the time to comment. Thank you. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

ICANN Makes Presentation to Midterm Review Public Meeting
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG Feb. 29, 2008

Feb. 29, 2008

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org; liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: regional-liaisons[at]icann.org] http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-28feb08.htm ICANN Makes Presentation to Midterm Review Public Meeting Now is the time to start planning transition 28 February 2008 WASHINGTON, DC: The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers made its presentation on the Midterm Review of the Joint Project Agreement (JPA) between itself and the United States Department of Commerce at a public meeting held today in Washington, DC. "I think that after almost 10 years of experience of this model the question before us is very stark: Are we going to complete the White Paper’s vision of private sector management of the Internet’s system of unique identifiers? I believe the overwhelming view from virtually all participants is that transition is the goal and the interest is in settling how we get there," ICANN Chair Peter Dengate Thrush said. Today’s public meeting was held to discuss the written submissions that the National Telecommunications and Information Administration had received during its recently concluded public comment period on the JPA between the U.S. Department of Commerce and ICANN. The JPA was signed in September 2006, is due to conclude in September 2009 and was scheduled for a Midterm Review at this point. In his presentation the Chairman said he would ask the President’s Strategy Committee to outline a plan for developing this transition framework. They will meet in April and make a first presentation involving the community, starting a process for further engagement with the community at the ICANN meeting in Paris in June. The process will be guided by the input ICANN has received so far from its own consultations, and the analysis of the comments surveyed in this Review. "The U.S. government has been and remains a staunch advocate for an Internet that is based on values of freedom, enterprise and crucially coordination — not control. Now, there are final steps to be taken to make this a reality and to celebrate an enlightened U.S. policy under two administrations to transition to private sector management of the domain name system. "We all now need to work together over the 18 months remaining in the JPA to finalize the model for the long term," Dengate Thrush said. The complete statement to the public meeting is available on the ICANN website at http://www.icann.org/jpa/presentation-to-jpa-midterm-review-public-meeting-… [PDF, 201K]. -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Election Procedures for ICANN Board Director - Seat 14
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG Feb. 28, 2008

Feb. 28, 2008

[To: council(a)gnso.icann.org] Dear Council Members, The voting for the ICANN Board Director to fill seat 14 will start tomorrow, Friday, 29 February 2008 at 15:00 UTC and close on Friday, 7 March 2008 at 15:00 UTC. The results will be confirmed at the GNSO Council meeting on 27 March 2008 at 19:00 UTC. http://gnso.icann.org/elections/election-procedures-2008.shtml There is one candidate, Rita Rodin. Voting will take place by secret e-mail ballot. The ballots will be sent out individually to each GNSO Council members' e-mail address and will come from tally(a)icann.org, so please check your spam filters! Please follow the detailed instructions and return the ballot to the e-mail address stated in the ballot. It is the same procedure that was used for the GNSO Council chair vote. All GNSO Council members are eligible to vote, that is, 3 representatives from each constituency, Registrars, gTLD registries, Commercial and Business Users (CBUC), Non Commercial Users (NCUC), Intellectual Property (IPC), and Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers (ISPCP) and the 3 Nominating Committee appointees. Liaisons from the ALAC and the GAC do not vote. All matters pertaining to the elections should be sent to the separate mailing list created for the purpose of managing elections going forward. This list will include the ALAC and GAC liaisons to the Council and the GNSO Secretariat. This list name is <gnso-elections(a)icann.org> and archives will be posted at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-elections/ following the conclusion of the election. Messages posted to the list should be treated as confidential until the end of the elections. The GNSO Secretariat may, however, disclose them to the General Counsel's office to the extent appropriate to obtain advice about how to handle procedural problems that arise during the voting process. The Council list should continue to be used for normal policy development work. The GNSO Council will confirm the results of the voting at the Council meeting scheduled on 27 March 2008. Once that occurs, the GNSO Secretariat will prepare and post a full record of all voting, including how each member voted in each round. Pursuant to ICANN Bylaws (http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm) Article VI, section 8.4, the GNSO should give notice of its selection no later than five months after the Annual General Meeting in 2007, which will be 2 April 2008. Let me know if you have any questions or issues with the ballots. Thank you very much. Kind regards, Glen -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

MP3 recording of GNSO Council interview with Rita Rodin 28 February 2008
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG Feb. 28, 2008

Feb. 28, 2008

[To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org [To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org; council[at]gnso.icann.org] Please find the MP3 recording of the GNSO Council and constituency interview with Rita Rodin, candidate for ICANN Board Director, seat # 14, held on February 28, 2008 at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-20080228%20.mp3 http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#feb Happy listening! -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

ICANN Opens Comment Period on Proposed Add Grace Period Modifications for NeuStar and Afilias
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG Feb. 28, 2008

Feb. 28, 2008

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org; liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: regional-liaisons[at]icann.org] http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-27feb08.htm ICANN Opens Comment Period on Proposed Add Grace Period Modifications for NeuStar and Afilias 27 February 2008 ICANN is today opening public comment periods on requests submitted by NeuStar, the .BIZ registry, and Afilias, the .INFO registry, to modify terms regarding the add grace period (AGP) in their respective registry agreements. On 5 February 2008, NeuStar and Afilias submitted separate but similar requests through the Registry Services Evaluation Process to modify the AGP in their respective TLDs in order “to address the excessive delete problem” (i.e. domain tasting) in .BIZ and .INFO. Currently there are no limitations on the number of deletions that a registrar can process and receive a refund during the five-day AGP. The proposed service would limit the number of AGP deletions where a registrar could receive a full registration fee credit each month: either 50 per month or 10% of that registrar’s net new monthly domain name registrations, whichever is greater. A registrar would be permitted to delete as many names as it wished during the five-day AGP, receiving credit throughout the month. However, at the end of the .BIZ or .INFO normal monthly billing cycle the Registrar’s account would be debited for the full value of the domain name registrations that exceeded the month’s set threshold. As provided for by existing consensus policy (http://www.icann.org/registries/rsep/rsep.html) ICANN has undertaken a preliminary determination to determine whether the proposed modifications might raise significant security or stability, or competition issues. ICANN's determination is that the proposed modifications by NeuStar and Afilias do not raise such issues. The next step in evaluation is that (because implementation of the proposals would require changes to the .BIZ and .INFO Registry Agreements) ICANN will post the proposed amendments, solicit public comment and refer the proposals to the ICANN Board for consideration. A copy of the proposed NeuStar amendment is available here [PDF, 25K], and a copy of the proposed Afilias amendment is available here [PDF, 25K]. Both amendments provide for changes to Appendix 7, Section 3.1.1. Comments on the NeuStar amendment submitted to neustar-agp-proposal(a)icann.org will be considered until 23:59 UTC 28 March 2008 and may be viewed at http://forum.icann.org/lists/neustar-agp-proposal/. Comments on the Afilias amendment submitted to afilias-agp-proposal(a)icann.org will be considered until 23:59 UTC 28 March 2008 and may be viewed at http://forum.icann.org/lists/afilias-agp-proposal/. Please keep in mind that these are separate proposals with separate public comment forums. All documentation regarding the NeuStar proposal is available at http://www.icann.org/registries/rsep/submitted_app.html#2008001, while documentation on the Afilias proposal is available at http://www.icann.org/registries/rsep/submitted_app.html#2008002 -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

RE: [gnso-dt-wg] purely personal pow
by Mike Rodenbaugh Feb. 28, 2008

Feb. 28, 2008

Thanks Tim, your analysis is right on. I also hope for a clear answer from Jeff, whose comments purported to represent the Registry Constituency, and also from ICANN Counsel. -Mike Rodenbaugh -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-dt-wg(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-dt-wg@icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 4:29 AM To: Neuman,Jeff Cc: gnso-dt-wg(a)icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-dt-wg] purely personal pow Jeff, Yes, that was a very good non-answer, and that fact that it is a non-answer concerns me. Seriously, this is a critical issue to understand the gTLD operators view on. If the registries believe that a consensus of Internet stakeholders is only valid if gTLD operators are included as stakeholders and not that they necessarily have to agree with the policy for it to be considered a consensus policy, then it's pretty cool that you got that actually stated in your contract with the ICANN. But if the registries believe that their contracts with ICANN require agreement of the gTLD operators on an issue in order for consensus to exist on that issue, then the rest of the stakeholders in this game are operating on very mis-guided assumptions - little things like fairness and equal consideration of our views. So which is it? And Avri, I hope we get a quick answer from ICANN Counsel on their opinion of this. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [gnso-dt-wg] purely personal pow From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us> Date: Tue, February 26, 2008 8:25 am To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim(a)godaddy.com>, <gnso-dt-wg(a)icann.org> Tim, I know this is going to sound like a non-answer to your question, but the only thing I am going to say at this point is that there were a number of tradeoffs made by the registries in the new agreements (whether for .com, .biz, .info, etc.) that were made. ICANN insisted on this new definition of Consensus Policies (as opposed to the old definition in the 2001 agreements - which by the way the 2001 agreements mirror your registrar accreditation agreement). In the new definition for registries (but not registrars), there is no longer a voting requirement for consensus policies and there are less protections for the registries (unlike the 2001 agreements). In addition, we lost the indemnity protections we used to have. In exchange, we wanted to make sure that gTLD Registries were included as key players in determining what consensus policies were, especially where we were the most impacted by the policy changes. We wanted to avoid situations (like this almost became), where the Council disregarded the opinions of the registries and came up with policies without adequate consultation or analysis of the impacts of the new policies/solutions on the registries. I hope that gives you some insight. And I know if ICANN changed (or wanted to change) the definition of "Consensus Policies" in the registrar agreements like it did for the registry agreements, you would be just as vigilant as we are being. Getting to the matter at hand, I think making sure the process is right and the community has adequate time to respond to the actual solution being presented will go a long way. Thanks. Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq. Sr. Director, Law, Advanced Services & Business Development NeuStar, Inc. e-mail: Jeff.Neuman(a)Neustar.us -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-dt-wg(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-dt-wg@icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 12:29 AM To: gnso-dt-wg(a)icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-dt-wg] purely personal pow Alan, It isn't the registry that has to worry about fraud. It's the registrar (they are consumer facing). There is no registry without an AGP that we deal with that makes any provision for fraud. We (the registrar) just eat it. If that extends to the gTLD registries with whom accredited registrars do most of their business, it will increase fraud costs considerably. I can't comment for my constituency yet on Jeff's proposal, but personally it looks acceptable with one exception, and I agree with the 21 day comment period. The exception is with the reporting. The identity of the registrar should be revealed only to ICANN in the registry report and not made public unless ICANN determines that the exception granted was not within policy. But I do have a question for Jeff and Chuck. Jeff quoted section 3.1(b)(iv) of the .com agreement which says: "Consensus Policies and the procedures by which they are developed shall be designed to produce, to the extent possible, a consensus of Internet stakeholders, including the operators of gTLDs." That same sentence is in the .biz and .info agreements as well (and probably others). I'm confused by the thread that followed the comments that included that quote. Jeff and Chuck, is it either of your opinions that the quote above means that in order for consensus to exist it must include the consensus agreement of the gTLD operators? Or Jeff, were you intending to point out that a consensus of Internet stakeholders was only valid if gTLD operators were included as stakeholders but not that they necessarily have to agree with the policy? Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [gnso-dt-wg] purely personal pow From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> Date: Mon, February 25, 2008 5:14 pm To: gnso-dt-wg(a)icann.org Jeff, as you have pointed out, many registries do not have an AGP. Presumably they have developed other cost-effective mechanisms to address fraud and other legitimate AGP-type applications. That being said, if we can use the existing AGP-mechanisms for those registries that already have them, and still eliminate the more unsavory uses, I can readily support it. Alan At 25/02/2008 09:41 AM, Neuman, Jeff wrote: >Avri, > >If there is a truly a consensus policy to get rid of the AGP, then how >are the registries going to offer a refund service on an objective basis >without a highly manual process costing much more than a $6.42 cents per >domain name. In other words, the only system of refunds that would not >dramatically increase the costs of provisioning domain names for >registries and registrars is an automated grace period. > >I believe "market forces" are what led to the Add-Grace Period in the >first place. In addition, "market forces" are what led to NeuStar and >Afilias' proposal. However, if there is a consensus policy to get rid >of the AGP, then in essence, we are taking market forces out of the >equation. > > > >Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq. >Sr. Director, Law, Advanced Services & > >Business Development > >NeuStar, Inc. >e-mail: Jeff.Neuman(a)Neustar.us > > >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-gnso-dt-wg(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-dt-wg@icann.org] On >Behalf Of Avri Doria >Sent: Monday, February 25, 2008 9:22 AM >To: gnso-dt-wg(a)icann.org >Subject: [gnso-dt-wg] purely personal pow > > >Hi, > >I cannot make the meeting tomorrow, I have one of my rare, these days >anyway, paying jobs (IGF) and will be busy all week. So I figured I >would send a note indicating my personal point of view in this issue. > > From a personal point of view, I wonder if doing away with the grace >period is not the right thing to do. This would leave it up to the >registries as to what sort of refund service they provide to the >registrars in this matter. I was asked a question during the ND >meeting which went something like: " Why is this not left up to >_Market Forces_. For example, credit card companies charge stores a >small fee for each refund they are forced to make to a customer. If >the store is responsible for a lot of refunds, then the fee goes up. >And if the store causes too many then they lose their account ..." >Now I do not consider myself an expert on _Market Forces_ or on how >and when they work, but the question seemed like a good one. One I >was not able to answer. I am not currently a supporter of this, so >am not arguing for it at this point. I just wonder if this option has >been explored sufficiently. > >In terms of the current somewhat compromise motion, if the DT >continues to have a majority in favor of sending it as a >recommendation to the council, I personally would prefer to see it go >out for, at least, updating of constituency statements, and perhaps >public comment, before the council votes on it, and would support the >Drafting Team coming to such a recommendation. > >Likewise, I think that constituting an open WG on a 120 days schedule >to review the issue and make a recommendation would also be something >I could support. For this we would need a very tight and specific >charter. The DT could recommend such a charter, or it could be >developed in another way. > >Thanks and best wishes for a peaceful and productive meeting > >a.

1 0

FW: ICANN travel funding
by Mike Rodenbaugh Feb. 28, 2008

Feb. 28, 2008

Fyi. -----Original Message----- From: michel.denise(a)gmail.com [mailto:michel.denise@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Denise Michel Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 2:00 PM To: Mike Rodenbaugh Subject: Re: ICANN travel funding No funds were set aside for GNSO Council travel support to Paris and there currently are no plans to provide support. Regards, Denise On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 8:53 AM, Mike Rodenbaugh <mxrodenbaugh(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Hi Denise, > > > > When should we expect to learn about ICANN travel funding for Paris? I > know > many folks are already planning their trips and it is a very busy time in > Paris. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Mike > > > > > > -- Denise Michel ICANN VP, Policy denise.michel(a)icann.org +1.408.429.3072

2 1