April 2008 - council - lists.icann.org

Some discussion items for face to face gTLD meeting
by Karen Lentz April 8, 2008

April 8, 2008

Dear All, As noted in the agenda previously distributed, staff expects to cover the full set of GNSO recommendations at this week's meeting, reviewing the vision, planning, work, and most recent accomplishments for each. In advance of this, please see below a list of areas on which staff is particularly interested in input from the Council. Input is welcomed of course on any aspect of implementation, but staff has identified the following items for which Council input would be particularly desirable. Please note that Friday's meeting will not be the only opportunity for the Council and constituencies to provide input on these topics. The below are intended to serve as pointers to some areas to have in mind leading up to the next discussion. Allocation Methods (Recs 7,8,13) 1. RFP Information Could there be additional purposes to the information sought by ICANN in the application, beyond assessment against the criteria? Could applicant information be used for purposes such as compliance or sanctions, long-term registry stability, others? 2. Community-Based Applications If applicants may identify themselves up front as community-based applicants, and they have the option to select and subject other applicants to comparative evaluation, is it the intention that these applicants would have an advantage, and if so, can this be harmonized with principles of fairness and non-discrimination? This area may present challenges of perception, as there is likely to be significant diversity within the category of community-based applications. 3. Technical Service Provider Qualification ICANN has explored the idea of a separate qualification mechanism for "back-end" registry service providers (see http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-2-31jan08.htm) Does the GNSO believe that such a mechanism would be consistent with the principles and recommendations they have laid out? If so, what would be an appropriate contractual or accountability framework between these providers and ICANN? 4. Communications and Transitions between Application Rounds a. There are different paths for applications and timing will vary for these different paths. What is the appropriate measurement for when the first round is complete and a second can begin? When all applications to have reached their final resolution? Or can ICANN at some point create a "temporary reserved list" for any still-pending applications, excluding these from the next rounds? b. Given the GNSO's desire for the RFP to include scheduling information on subsequent rounds, what is an appropriate time frame for incorporating improvements from experience in Round 1 into the process, and how does this impact the timeline for future rounds? 5. Comparative Evaluation Criteria What are some examples of criteria that could be used for reviewing added value to the DNS, when there are two or more qualified applicants for the same string? As a starting point, see the "Community Value" criteria used in the sTLD round, http://www.icann.org/tlds/stld-apps-19mar04/PostAppA.pdf. Selection Criteria (Recs 2,3,4,5,6,12,20) 1. Objection Results If an application is denied by ICANN due to an objection prevailing against the string, does this carry over to subsequent rounds so that no future applicants could apply for that string? Could this vary depending on the different objection grounds? 2. File Extensions There has been an ongoing discussion concerning whether strings that are commonly-used file extensions should be disallowed as TLDs due to potential user confusion issues. Should there be any additional consideration of this issue following a set of public comments on this subject (see http://forum.icann.org/lists/new-gtlds-dns-stability/msg00014.html)? 3. Geographical Names Geographical names are not reserved, as per the RNWG recommendations. How can ICANN to handle applications for these names in a way that will address the GAC's concerns about country, territory, and place names (http://gac.icann.org/web/home/gTLD_principles.pdf)? Contractual Conditions (Recs 10,14,15,16,17,18,19) 1. Contract Variations Should there be a one-size fits all contract or could there be different contracts available depending on the type of applicant (private company, IGO, government)? I hope these questions are useful to you in your preparations. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. Best regards, Karen - Karen Lentz ICANN +1 310 301 5836 office +1 310 895 3637 mobile

1 0

Draft Methodology for Fast Track
by Gomes, Chuck April 7, 2008

April 7, 2008

Edmon/Avri, Regarding the Draft Methodology for Fast Track currently posted for comment: Meaningful string Does the definition include abbreviations? Language Committee Is this a territorial committee? Technical Committee Is this a territorical or communitee-wide committee? Chuck

2 2

Final Report on Domain Tasting
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG April 6, 2008

April 6, 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] The Final Report on Domain Tasting can be directly viewed at: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/domain-tasting/gnso-final-report-domain-tastin… and is posted on pages: http://gnso.icann.org/ http://gnso.icann.org/issues/ Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Briefing and Discussion on New gTLDs
by Denise Michel April 5, 2008

April 5, 2008

ICANN staff is completing preparations for a briefing and discussion with the Council about the additional investigation and research staff has done on implementation of the GNSO's Final Report on the Introduction of New gTLDs. As requested by the Council, arrangements are being made to accommodate in-person participation in Los Angeles (beginning the evening of 10 April and continuing all day on 11 April) by GNSO Council members (or designated constituency representatives), as well as remote participation. An agenda and additional information will be provided shortly (and posted publicly). Please see <http://icann.org/topics/new-gtld-program.htm> for implementation development updates (the relevant section also is included below). Please note that this 10/11 April session addresses work-in progress on potential implementation of the GNSO's Final Report on the Introduction of New gTLDs. The Report is still under consideration by ICANN's Board, and a comprehensive, proposed implementation plan will not be available for consideration and comment by the GNSO and the public until the Board approves the Report and directs staff to develop an implementation plan. Please email <newgtld(a)icann.org> if you have questions. Regards, Denise -- Denise Michel ICANN VP, Policy denise.michel(a)icann.org *Program implementation development updates*: ICANN has made considerable progress in developing potential implementation models of the GNSO Policy recommendations for the introduction of New gTLDs. - Background Information Regarding Previous New GTLD Application Rounds<http://icann.org/topics/background-info-newgtld-apps-13feb08.htm>(13 February 2008) - Public Comments Requested on DNS Stability: the effect of New gTLDs on the Internet Domain Name System<http://icann.org/announcements/announcement-06feb08.htm>(6 February 2008) In preparing for the expected implementation of the gTLD policy recommendations, staff is conducting some review and analysis of the technical issues involved in this development. The addition of gTLDs to the namespace is an expansion of the DNS on a potentially large scale, to include many more names at the top level. ICANN is publishing a paper called DNS Stability: the effect of New gTLDs on the Internet Domain Name System <http://icann.org/topics/dns-stability-draft-paper-06feb08.pdf>[PDF, 53K] to solicit informed input on the technical issues relevant to the addition of new gTLDs, and to provide transparency toward how it will interpret and implement this recommendation. The goal is a clear set of rules that will be available to potential new gTLD applicants; so that it is known from the outset what tests will be applied to each application. ICANN is seeking feedback on the proposed approach as a step in its implementation planning for the introduction of new gTLDs. Comments may be submitted to new-gtlds-dns-stability(a)icann.org by March 7 2008. Comments can be viewed at http://forum.icann.org/lists/new-gtlds-dns-stability/. - ICANN has retained Deloitte Audit & Enterprise Risk Services from Belgium and Interisle Consulting Group from the United States to develop in detail important portions of the Request for Proposals (RFP) for the new gTLD process. (21 December 2007) These parties have begun work (at ICANN direction and using product developed by staff to date) on technical and business criteria, criteria for resolving confusing similarity, and development of a comparative evaluation process. (ICANN issued a Statement of Work<http://icann.org/tlds/new-gtld-sow-06sep07.htm>on 6 September 2007 and received eleven expressions of interest and seven proposals from candidates in Australia, Europe, the Middle East, South America, and the United States. - Draft standards and procedures have been developed for policy recommendations relating to resolving dispute arising from objections to proposed TLDs based on morality or public order , and legal rights of others. (21 December 2007) ICANN has engaged counsel from numerous international jurisdictions to inform the development of standards that could be applied to the GNSO recommendations and used by the Dispute Resolution Service Provider(s). It is anticipated that standards and procedures will be finalized in coordination with the selected Dispute Resolution Service Provider(s). (See ICANN's call for expressions of interest from Dispute Resolution Provider(s)<http://icann.org/topics/drsp-call-for-expressions-of-interest.pdf>[PDF, 25K] - ICANN staff has created the draft requirements document describing the program interface that will be developed in the coming months. (21 December 2007) The program interface is the web-based system to be used to receive and manage incoming applications. - Collaboration on the global communications plan and strategy continues within cross-functional teams at ICANN. (21 December 2007) A draft communications plan to address GNSO implementation advice has been completed. - ICANN has developed a draft position paper regarding the policy recommendation concerning DNS stability. (21 December 2007) ICANN expects to post the paper for public comment early 2008.

3 2

Fwd: Clarification of SSAC position re Board's postion on ALAC letter on "front-running"
by Avri Doria April 5, 2008

April 5, 2008

Hi, After I sent my message to this list, I forwarded a copy to Steve for his information. This is his reply to that message. a. Begin forwarded message: > From: Steve Crocker <steve(a)shinkuro.com> > Date: 5 April 2008 19:35:58 GMT+02:00 > To: Avri Doria <avri(a)acm.org>, Robert Guerra > <rguerra(a)privaterra.org>, Chris Disspain <ceo(a)auda.org.au> > Cc: Steve Crocker <steve(a)shinkuro.com>, ICANN SSAC <ssac(a)icann.org>, > ICANN Board of Directors <icann-board(a)icann.org> > Subject: Clarification of SSAC position re Board's postion on ALAC > letter on "front-running" > > Avri, > > Thanks for referring your note to me for comment. I'll try to > clarify our thinking on this matter. There are several different > dimensions, each of which deserves a few moments of attention, so > this note is a bit long. I've tried to structure it for easy > navigation. The sections that follow are: > > o Background correspondence > > o Discussion of whether front running exists and SSAC's finding to > date and our next steps > > (Mixed results and lots of controversy. More work needed.) > > o Discussion of whether whether is prohibited, irrespective of > whether it exists > > (Big surprise, at least to me, is that we don't seem to have either > an explicit prohibition nor even a shared ethic within the community.) > > o Discussion of what parts of the ICANN family should be involved, > and a process issue? (And, in particular, what's SSAC's role.) > > (This is a "consumer protection" and, perhaps, a "privacy" issue. > Does this have a distinct and unambiguous home?) > > > I have cc'd the Board and SSAC, and I invite you, Robert Guerra to > share it with the GNSO, the ALAC and the ccNSO, respectively. (I > don't mind if it's shared even more widely, but I think these are > the primary constituencies involved at the moment. ) > > Cheers, > > Steve > > = > = > = > = > = > = > = > = > ====================================================================== > > BACKGROUND CORRESPONDENCE and DOCUMENTS > > Here's your note to me. > > On Apr 5, 2008, at 6:10 AM, Avri Doria wrote: >> FYI >> >> Begin forwarded message: >>> From: Avri Doria <avri(a)acm.org> >>> Date: 5 April 2008 09:46:08 GMT+02:00 >>> To: Council GNSO <council(a)gnso.icann.org> >>> Subject: [council] Board's postion on ALAC letter on "front-running" >>> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I have put this on the list of topic for our next agenda. It >>> might be worth having some preliminary discussions on list. >>> >>> References: >>> - ALAC letter: <http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg04857.html >>> > >>> - Discussion under 11 Other business: <http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-27mar08.htm >>> > Board's Disposition: "The Chair determined that emergency >>> action is not required today but the matter will be referred to >>> the GNSO for additional information or policy development if >>> necessary, but not an emergency action." >>> >>> >>> My first questions: >>> >>> - Do we want/need to request an issues report? >>> - Do we want to request advice from SSAC on the degree to which >>> this is a threat to Stability and Security as stated in the ALAC >>> letter. SAC22 of Oct 07 <http://www.icann.org/committees/security/sac022.pdf >>> > spoke of it as being possibly contrary to core values but I do >>> not read their report as calling it a threat. Though the report >>> does seem to indicate that further investigation of issues >>> surrounding the practice could be investigated further. >>> >>> thanks >>> >>> a. > > The ALAC letter referred to above asks the Board to take immediate > action to curtail "domain hold," "cart-hold" and/or "cart-reserve" > activities such as Network Solutions and others have recently begun. > > You also reference SSAC report SAC 022. That report is the first of > two of our reports (SAC 022 and SAC 024) so far on front running. See > > http://www.icann.org/committees/security/sac022.pdf > http://www.icann.org/committees/security/sac024.pdf > > In SAC 022, we pointed out that checking the availability of a > domain name can be a sensitive act which may disclose an interest in > or a value ascribed to a domain name and we suggested to potential > registrants that domain name availability lookups should be > performed with care. We also noted there does not appear to be a > strong set of standards and practices to conclude whether monitoring > availability checks is an acceptable or unacceptable practice, and > we called for both public comment and policy development within the > appropriate bodies. > > In SAC 024, we reported that after receiving more than 100 inputs > over a two and half month period, we were unable to develop > definitive evidence that front running is actually taking place. > However, in discussions with Network Solutions regarding their newly > instituted practice of placing a hold on names being checked for > possible registration, Jon Nevett suggested that one or more > registries are possibly selling that information to domain name > tasters. The chain has a couple of steps. When a potential > registrant types in a name at NSI's web site to check for its > availability in one domain, e.g. within .com, NSI, like many other > registrars, automatically checks whether that name is available in > several other domains. They do so by forwarding the name to each of > the respective registries, and this provides an opportunity for one > or more of those registries to pass along that stream of queries to > a business partner who may be interested in registering it while the > original customer is still thinking about it. Here are Mr. Nevett's > comments in the transcript of the SSAC meeting in New Delhi on > February 13, 2008, http://delhi.icann.org/files/Delhi-WS-SSAC-13Feb08.txt > . > >> So what's been happening -- and we have information about this -- >> is domain name tasters register names in vast bulk and then they >> taste the names and only keep a very small percentage of the names >> that warrant purchasing because of traffic or pay per click. So >> the domain name tasters are looking for various sources of data. >> They look for bulk data wherever they can find it. The theory is >> that there were certain ccTLD registries that because when a >> customer comes to almost all registrars Web sites and asks for a >> name, [the registrar] will look at various dozens of different TLDs >> and see if the name is available. So one of the ccTLDs, for >> example, or maybe a gTLD, will be selling the data to front runners >> and tasters. So the tasting line is probably synonymous with the >> front-runner line. So what happens is they register these names in >> advance of customers, and then they taste it. > > > As you noted in your message, the Board declined to take emergency > action and referred the matter to the GNSO for possible policy > development. (See the last section of this note for a comment on > policy development.) > > > ====================================================================== > > DOES FRONT RUNNING EXIST? > > As noted above, the data is inconclusive. Jay Daley, CTO of > Nominet, reported he had looked closely at this question some time > ago and concluded it simply wasn't happening. Others have suggested > privately that it really does happen on a fairly significant scale. > Because there is a very high level of tasting, it may be hard to > sort out how many instances of apparent front running are just due > to "background radiation." And then we have Mr. Nevett's assertion > that one or TLDs is actively involved in this process. > > We expect to explore this a bit further. We are still formulating > specific plans on how to proceed, and we are open to suggestions and > offers for how to gather information efficiently, effectively, and > accurately. > > ===================================================================== > > IS FRONT-RUNNING PROHIBITED and DOES IT AFFECT SECURITY OR STABILITY? > > As we noted in SAC 022, we do not see any coherent and specific > framework that suggests front-running is prohibited. I believe the > Registrar Accreditation Agreement has language related to the proper > use of registration data, but that applies only after a registration > is complete. > > Practices and expectations vary from field to field. In certain > professions, particularly law and medicine -- and my experience is > primarily in the U.S. -- there are very strong rules governing the > privacy of information provided by a client or patient. There are > also strong rules governing the protection of customer information > among stockbrokers. If I ask my stockbroker about a particular > stock, it's considered unethical for him to use that information to > buy or sell that stock for himself or to help others to do so. > However, in our industry, I have not seen any similar explicit > statement of principle nor an explicit set of rules prohibiting > front-running and related practices. Thus, even if we were to find > reliable, concrete information that front-running is taking place, > it's not clear there is any basis for stopping it. > > "Security and Stability" is a mantra invoked with specialty gravity, > and there is sometime debate about whether a specific issues does or > does not fall into this category. I think it's hard to argue that > front-running, if it exists, is affecting the overall security or > stability of the domain name system, although one might imagine > fairly severe consequences if the practice existed and affected a > very large fraction of the potential registrants instead of only a > relatively small number. I emphasized "system." From any > particular user's perspective, if someone has swiped a name he is > looking at, the impact on him or his business could be very > substantial. Is that a "security" matter or a " consumer > protection" matter, and is there a strict distinction between the two? > > I would argue that if there is a structural bias against consumers, > that it's appropriate to consider that to be a weakness in the > security of the system. On the other hand, if a consumer has been > dealt with unfairly by a particular party, and there's no general > bias built into the system, that's a specific consumer protection > issue. I'm not sure whether everyone else would choose to draw the > lines in the same place. > > There is a secondary and slightly subtle element of security here. > Efficient and effective markets depend on reliable information and > trustworthy behavior. If there is a general perception that a > market is dangerous, the market may shrink and the results for the > buyers and sellers who are in the market may be inequitable. > Building and preserving confidence in a market is thus an important > aspect of "security." > > I don't think we've thought enough about this as a community, and I > would like to see some deeper thought and discussion. > > Returning to the specific matter of front-running, I find it odd and > dangerous that our framework of core values, principles, rules and > contracts does not address such practices explicitly. I think this > is a weakness in our overall framework and should be fixed. > > ===================================================================== > > WHO SHOULD BE INVOLVED? > > I don't see any single group as being the sole owner of these > issues. We certainly don't view this as the sole purview of SSAC > and we would be delighted if others are involved. The GNSO has a > natural role because the registrars and registries are primary > actors. At the same time, the people most strongly affected by > weaknesses in the process are potential registrants, and it's not > clear who speaks for them. ALAC, in its letter to Board, is > certainly taking a strong position. And this issue is not limited > to the gTLDs and ICANN-accredited registrars. The ccTLD community > presumably has the same issues. > > In our reports to the Board, we suggested other groups look at these > issues. Dan Halloran recently drew our attention to section 1.c in > By-Laws Annex A: GNSO Policy-Development Process: > > Advisory Committee Initiation. An Advisory Committee may raise an > issue for policy development by action of such committee to commence > the PDP, and transmission of that request to the GNSO Council. (http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#AnnexA > ) > > With some chagrin, I admit we hadn't realized there was a direct > channel for SSAC to forward to the GNSO a formal request for the > GNSO to commence the PDP. Would you find it helpful for us to send > our recommendations to you in this form? > > Irrespective of whether we send you a formal recommendation, I hope > this note has provided some useful information. We will be happy to > discuss it further if you desire. > > Thanks, > > Steve Crocker > SSAC Chair > > > > > > > >

1 0

Re: [council] Agenda for New gTLD face to face meeting on 10-11 April 2008
by Avri Doria April 5, 2008

April 5, 2008

hi, Thank you for this information. From the agenda it looked like a purely informational meeting. Any chance you can give us a clue on some of the specific questions? Thanks a. On 4 Apr 2008, at 18:39, Kurt Pritz wrote: > There are several areas where there are different options for > implementation where each of the options would be following the > Policy Recommendations. We think Council input will be valuable in > these areas and also in testing staff reasoning. Also, staff has > examined the “legislative history” behind the recommendations. in > certain cases, staff wants to verify the rationale for adopting the > recommendations in order to properly express support if the > recommendations themselves. > > Kurt > > > On 4/4/08 6:38 AM, "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette(a)cov.com> wrote: > > > > I would also like clarification as to whether this is purely > informative or whether the staff anticipates that Council will be > able to provide reaction, guidance, etc. The distinction is very > important not only in terms of preparation (including trying to > schedule constituency meetings within the next 5 days), but also > attendance (especially for those prospective attendees whose travel > time is likely to far exceed the actual meeting time). > > Thanks. > > K > > > Kristina Rosette > Covington & Burling LLP > 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. > Washington, DC 20004-2401 > voice: 202-662-5173 > direct fax: 202-778-5173 > main fax: 202-662-6291 > e-mail: krosette(a)cov.com > > This message is from a law firm and may contain information that is > confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended > recipient, please immediately advise the sender by reply e-mail that > this message has been inadvertently transmitted to you and delete > this e-mail from your system. Thank you for your cooperation. > > > > > > ------------------------- > Sent from my Wireless Handheld > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org> > To: Karen Lentz <karen.lentz(a)icann.org> > Cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > Sent: Fri Apr 04 03:00:13 2008 > Subject: Re: [council] Agenda for New gTLD face to face meeting on > 10-11 April 2008 > > > Hi Karen, > > Thank you for the agenda. > > I have some questions: > > Is this purely an informational session or are there specific issues > and questions the council is being asked to react/respond to? As I > read the agenda, it seems like an informational session. If I am > reading the agenda incorrectly, and there are issues that we need to > discuss, I would be grateful if the council could be informed about > these as soon as possible. > > Also I would like to reiterate my request for the implementation notes > that we have been requesting, and which were promised to us, as soon > as possible. > > Finally as this agenda was produced by the staff without consultation, > I am assuming that the staff is planning to run the meeting. If this > is not the case, please let me know. > > thanks > > a. > > > > On 4 Apr 2008, at 04:48, Karen Lentz wrote: > > Dear Councilors, > > > > Please find attached the expected agenda for the face to face > > meeting next week in Los Angeles. We have organized the discussion > > according to the GNSO's Terms of Reference, with the approximate > > time frames allotted for each. Additional presentation materials > > will be distributed prior to the meeting, and these are forthcoming. > > > > Staff looks forward to a constructive session. Please let us know > > if you have additional questions. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Karen > > > > - > > > > Karen Lentz > > The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers > > 4676 Admiralty Way, No. 330 > > Marina del Rey, CA 90292 > > +1 310 301 5836 office > > +1 310 895 3637 mobile > > karen.lentz(a)icann.org > > <GNSO-gTLDs-Agenda-10-11-apr-08.pdf> > > > >

2 1

RE: New Registry Services Proposal Posted
by Patrick Jones April 5, 2008

April 5, 2008

This email services as notice of information to the Council that ICANN has posted a new Registry Service proposal on behalf of Public Interest Registry to implement DNSSEC in .ORG (see http://www.icann.org/registries/rsep/#2008004) This request is currently in ICANN's 15-calendar day preliminary determination period. Although public comments can be submitted at any time on a registry services proposal to registryservice at icann.org, this is not notification of a formal comment period. Information on the Registry Services Evaluation Process can be found at http://www.icann.org/registries/rsep/. 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

RE: [council] Board's postion on ALAC letter on "front-running"
by Tim Ruiz April 5, 2008

April 5, 2008

The note below is from the Board's discussion on the topic: ---------- Steve Crocker noted that this action was triggered by bad behavior by one or more registries and he sent a note around expanding on this. He considered that if the Board is making an emergency ruling, we ought to include the rest of it, telling registrars that if they know that the information's leaking out by some registries, then they're obliged not to deal with those registries. ---------- My opinion is that before we request an issues report, and possibly start yet another PDP in the midst of our reform, that we as a group should fully understand what it is we're requesting a report on and why. The advice you suggest from the SSAC is a good idea. But I think it also is important for us to understand why the *cart hold* activity is happening. So we should request any other information that has already been collected and not made available such as the note Steve refers to above on registry activity that may be at the root of the problem. We shouldn't be expected to appropriately analyze this issue if there is existing information on it that we do not have access to. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [council] Board's postion on ALAC letter on "front-running" From: Avri Doria <avri(a)acm.org> Date: Sat, April 05, 2008 2:46 am To: Council GNSO <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Hi, I have put this on the list of topic for our next agenda. It might be worth having some preliminary discussions on list. References: - ALAC letter: <http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg04857.html > - Discussion under 11 Other business: <http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-27mar08.htm > Board's Disposition: "The Chair determined that emergency action is not required today but the matter will be referred to the GNSO for additional information or policy development if necessary, but not an emergency action." My first questions: - Do we want/need to request an issues report? - Do we want to request advice from SSAC on the degree to which this is a threat to Stability and Security as stated in the ALAC letter. SAC22 of Oct 07 <http://www.icann.org/committees/security/sac022.pdf> spoke of it as being possibly contrary to core values but I do not read their report as calling it a threat. Though the report does seem to indicate that further investigation of issues surrounding the practice could be investigated further. thanks a.

1 0

Board's postion on ALAC letter on "front-running"
by Avri Doria April 5, 2008

April 5, 2008

Hi, I have put this on the list of topic for our next agenda. It might be worth having some preliminary discussions on list. References: - ALAC letter: <http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg04857.html > - Discussion under 11 Other business: <http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-27mar08.htm > Board's Disposition: "The Chair determined that emergency action is not required today but the matter will be referred to the GNSO for additional information or policy development if necessary, but not an emergency action." My first questions: - Do we want/need to request an issues report? - Do we want to request advice from SSAC on the degree to which this is a threat to Stability and Security as stated in the ALAC letter. SAC22 of Oct 07 <http://www.icann.org/committees/security/sac022.pdf> spoke of it as being possibly contrary to core values but I do not read their report as calling it a threat. Though the report does seem to indicate that further investigation of issues surrounding the practice could be investigated further. thanks a.

1 0

Final Report on Domain Tasting attached
by Liz Gasster April 4, 2008

April 4, 2008

All, Please find the "Final Report" on domain tasting, which should be posted later today. Please note also staff/OGC response to questions raised, pp. 7-8 and 16-17 of this report. Thanks, Liz

1 0