April 2008 - council - lists.icann.org

Alternate Fast Flux Motion
by Gomes, Chuck May 8, 2008

May 8, 2008

Here is an alternate motion for consideration by the Council regarding the fast flux issue. Comments, questions and suggested amendments are welcome. Chuck

2 2

Notes from Council/staff meeting on new gTLDs
by Olof Nordling May 5, 2008

May 5, 2008

Dear all, Attached please find notes from the meeting between GNSO Council and staff regarding new gTLD implementation work in LA on 10-11 April. Very best regards Olof

3 3

GNSO Council teleconference draft minutes , 17 April 2008
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG April 27, 2008

April 27, 2008

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear Council Members, Attached, please find the draft minutes of the GNSO Council teleconference held on 17 April 2008. Please let me know if you would like any changes made. 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

Update on WHOIS study group work
by Liz Gasster April 24, 2008

April 24, 2008

All, You may recall that during the 27 March meeting, the GNSO Council decided to: ...form a group of volunteers to: 1. Review and discuss the 'Report on Public Suggestions on Further Studies of WHOIS' 2. Develop a proposed list, if any, of recommended studies for which ICANN staff will be asked to provide cost estimates to the Council 3. Deliver the list of recommendations with supporting rationale not later than 24 April 2008. Following is an update on the progress made by the group (see list of group participants below). We have not completed our activities but hope to do so by 22 May, 2008. * The group has met by phone 3 times, on April 8, 15 and 22. The group has reviewed the summary of suggestions for further study of WHOIS, and the summary of previous WHOIS studies gathered by ICANN staff last fall. The group agreed it was important not to duplicate work that has been done or work that may be underway. * The group has discussed extensively the merits of proceeding with studies of WHOIS. Several participants think that more studies of WHOIS would be unlikely to persuade stakeholders to change current views. We discussed whether studies should be commissioned at all, and confirmed that one option could be to decide to recommend to the GNSO Council that no studies of WHOIS be done. This view was supported by some participants who are skeptical that the outcome of any study would change the views of entrenched parties on WHOIS issues. Many other participants think certain studies of WHOIS would be very useful and could provide new insights and information. This group thinks several of the proposed studies are finely targeted and carefully crafted to ask new questions and elicit new insights. The group does agree that any new studies should be targeted at answering identified policy questions or informing the policy debate in a definable way. * The possible study areas have been divided into seven categories or study question areas. Each member of the group is in the process of submitting their view of the priority level of each study "category". This tally will be discussed by the group on our next call. The seven categories are: 1. How big is the WHOIS misuse problem that may need to be solved? 2. Is there a non-compliance with data protection laws problem that needs to be solved? 3. Are there already market-driven solutions available? 4. Is there demand for market-driven solutions, and are they being used for legitimate or illegitimate purposes? 5. Do WHOIS data protections lead to abuse and misuse? 6. Are provisions for providing protected WHOIS data to law enforcement for investigation of crime and abuse effective? 7. Is WHOIS data accurate? * We expect to look at the specific study ideas in a subsequent analysis. * The group acknowledged and discussed the recommendations for WHOIS studies provided by the GAC in its latest communiqué of 16 April. These recommendations will be mapped to the proposed suggestions already received and considered as part of our small group recommendation to the GNSO Council. Our group meets next on 6 May. Again, we hope to provide a recommendation to the Council by 22 May. Thanks, Liz Gasster The following participants are subscribed to the current list: Jordi Iparraguirre - gTLD Registry C Ken Stubbs - gTLD Registry C David Maher - gTLD Registry C Steve Metalitz - IPC Lee Eulgen -IPC Steve DelBianco - CBUC Tony Harris - ISP Tim Ruiz - Registrar Paul Stahura - Registrar James Bladel - Registrar Krista Papac - Registrar Stéphane Van Gelder - Registrar Eric Brunner-Williams -Registrar Norbert Klein - NCUC Robin Gross - NCUC Danny Younger Beau Brendler Wendy Seltzer - ALAC Liaison on the ICANN Board ICANN Staff: Liz Gasster Denise Michel Robert Hoggarth Patrick Jones Glen de Saint Géry

1 0

ICANN Board meeting agenda - 29 April 2008
by Bruce Tonkin April 24, 2008

April 24, 2008

From: http://www.icann.org/minutes/ Special Meeting of the ICANN Board of Directors Proposed Agenda 1) Approval of Minutes from Special Meeting of the ICANN Board for 27 March 2008 2) .DS Key registry for Top-Level Domain DNSSEC keys 3) .KN (St. Kitts and Nevis Islands) Redelegation 4) Finance Committee Report on Foreign Exchange Issues 5) .PRO Proposed Contract Amendments 6) Meetings Discussion 7) Paris Meeting Budget 8) Cairo Meeting Proposal Acceptance 9) Proposal to allow absentee voting on GNSO Council 10) Update on BGC independent review activities 11) ALAC Review Working Group Charter 12) Update on GNSO Improvements 13) Status of New gTLD Implementation Planning 14) Discussion of Outcomes from Riga Board Workshop 15) President's Report 16) Other Business

1 0

RE: Notification of Public Comment Period on PIR's proposed implementation of DNSSEC in .ORG
by Patrick Jones April 23, 2008

April 23, 2008

Dear Council, Please take note that ICANN has opened a comment period on PIR's proposed implementation of DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC) in .ORG. See http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-23apr08.htm. Comments received by 23:59 UTC 24 May 2008 will be considered by the RSTEP Review Team handling the PIR proposal. The RSTEP Report is due by 5 June 2008, but could be released before that date. The expectation is that the RSTEP Report and comments will be considered by the ICANN Board in Paris. Please let me know if you have any questions. Regards, Patrick -- Patrick L. Jones Registry Liaison Manager & Coordinator, ICANN Nominating Committee Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330 Marina del Rey, CA 90292 Tel: +1 310 301 3861 Fax: +1 310 823 8649 patrick.jones(a)icann.org

1 0

Motion re. IRTP PDPs
by Gomes, Chuck April 21, 2008

April 21, 2008

In anticipation of our Council meeting on 8 May, I am submitting the attached motion with regard to the IRTP PDP recommendations made by the small group for the additional 19 IRTP policy issues not covered by the current IRTP PDP that is underway. If you have any questions or amendments, please communicate them on this list. Also, a second would be welcome. Note that I came to the conclusion that it would not be realistic to do any of the PDPs in parallel because of the extensive Council workload already on the table. Chuck

1 0

Fast Flux Report - questions
by Rosette, Kristina April 21, 2008

April 21, 2008

All, Here are some initial questions/requests about the report. I will forward additional questions soon. Page 1: The report states that staff "consulted other appropriate and relevant sources of information". In the interest of transparency, I would appreciate having those sources be identified. As a general note, it may be helpful to all readers of the report if the issues reports included a bibliography or sources consulted section. Pages 6, 14: One interpretation of the reference to "domains in ccTLDs are targeted as well" is that there is no "lasting value" to developing gTLD policy regarding any issue that occurs in both gTLDs and ccTLDs. Is this interpretation intended? Pages 6, 14: Similarly, one interpretation of the reference to "static rules through a policy development process might be quickly undermined by intrepid cybercriminals" is that there can be "no lasting value" to developing gTLD policy regarding any issue that results from or is associated with cybercriminals because they move more quickly than the PDP and, as interpreted by one IPC member, "are smarter than we are". Is this interpretation intended? Page 8: For how long and on what scale has proxy redirection been used to maintain high availability and spread the network load? Page 9: Did more than one person describe evasion of "black holing" "anecdotally as a possible 'legitimate use'" of fast flux? Any evidence or research to suggest that it actually happens? Page 10: How likely is that fast flux hosting "could be significantly curtailed by changes in the way in which DNS registries and registrars currently operate"? Page 11: Is it technically possible now for registries and registrars to act in two ways set forth in report? Practically possible? If so, do they? If not, have reasons for not doing so been provided and, if so, what are they? (I have not included a scope clarification question because I understand that it has already bee posed.) Many thanks. Kristina

3 4

RyC Confusingly Similar Statement
by Gomes, Chuck April 21, 2008

April 21, 2008

Here's a statement developed by the RyC regarding New gTLD Recommendation 2, hopefully providing some new thoughts in that regard. Chuck

3 8

GNSO Council teleconference MP3 recording 17April 2008
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG April 21, 2008

April 21, 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 teleconference, held on April 17, 2008 at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-20080417.mp3 http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#april Happy listening! Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0