April 2008 - council - lists.icann.org

Brief summaries of significant Internet policy issues
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG April 21, 2008

April 21, 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 find at: http://gnso.icann.org/policy-update/ Policy Updates a new directory on the left hand navigation bar of the GNSO website: http://gnso.icann.org/ In this new directory, you will find the monthly updates of the brief summaries of a number of significant Internet policy issues that are being addressed by the ICANN community’s bottom-up policy development structure, as well as other significant activities of interest. This latest monthly update is provided by ICANN’s Policy Staff in response to community requests for periodic summaries of ICANN’s policy work. Links to additional information are included in the updates and we encourage you to go beyond these brief staff summaries and learn more about the ICANN community’s work. Our goal is to maximize transparency and broad community participation in ICANN’s policy development activities. We continue to investigate more effective and efficient ways to communicate the relevance, importance and status of ongoing issues to the ICANN community. Comments and suggestions on how we can improve these efforts are most welcome and should be sent to policy-staff(a)icann.org. -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

RE: [council] RE: Fast Flux Report - questions
by Tim Ruiz April 21, 2008

April 21, 2008

Chuck, I agree with that approach. In fact, the exchange of questions and the answers below exemplify why such an approach is necessary. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] RE: Fast Flux Report - questions From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> Date: Fri, April 18, 2008 2:52 pm To: "Liz Gasster" <liz.gasster(a)icann.org>, "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette(a)cov.com>, <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Sorry to sound like a broken record, but the more I think about the issue, the more I am convinced that the best thing we could do as a Council before initiating a PDP is to develop very specific list of questions and form an expert panel that is tasked with trying to answer the questions. The expert panel could be formed from volunteers from the SSAC, the APWG, and constituencies that have expertise related to the use of fast flux. Such a panel could be given a relatively short timeline, assuming they can complete the work in that timeline. It is possible that, if the right experts are included, they might be able to respond to the questions in a month or two. Chuck From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Liz Gasster Sent: Friday, April 18, 2008 3:19 PM To: Rosette, Kristina; council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] RE: Fast Flux Report - questions Kristina and all, Following are responses below from staff where we can. I believe some of your questions highlight the need for further study (possibly in more areas than we've identified in the report, as some of your questions suggest). Happy to try to answer further where we can, if you have more questions. I just want to note again too that given the short time frame to prepare the report, the breadth of sources we were able to draw upon were necessarily limited. I really like your idea about noting sources and including a bibliography when we prepare issues reports in the future, and I'm going to add this as a suggestion in our GNSO improvements process so that we capture this idea to consider in the development of a new policy development process. Liz From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 7:00 AM To: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] Fast Flux Report - questions 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. LG -- staff considered the SAC Advisory (SAC 025) and I also consulted extensively with Lyman Chapin. We referred to the email exchanges on the SSAC list during the period of time in which the SSAC folks were discussing fast flux and preparing SAC 025, the presentations and transcripts from the SSAC workshops in Los Angeles (http://losangeles2007.icann.org/node/78) and Delhi (http://delhi.icann.org/node/97) and informally with a few other sources. 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? LG -- Chuck's comment was right. There could be a benefit to coordinating with the ccNSO. Not making a judgment on "no lasting value". 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? LG - That is why we mention the importance of developing best practices, which then can be enhanced and upgraded over time to keep up better with new techniques developed to undermine existing deterrent techniques. Perhaps a policy outcome might point to the need to adopt rigorous best practices and refresh on an ongoing basis. But my understanding on fast flux is that these best practices do not necessarily exist today, so the question might be how to encourage their development in a structured and focused way, as a necessary precursor to deciding how to encourage or require their widespread adoption. Might the GNSO Council take on a convening role here? Or encourage or direct in some other way? In this context, the inference of concern about "lasting value" of imposing a specific practice is intended. Page 8: For how long and on what scale has proxy redirection been used to maintain high availability and spread the network load? LG - We need to study this more. The key question I was raising is, "are there valid uses that need to be considered, that could be undermined if certain deterrent steps were imposed?" It is not clear from our cursory view how broadly this is used - seems also unlikely that there would be need for such constant and frequent fluxing in this context, but we couldn't determine for sure either way. 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? LG -- This is anecdotal and may only be one entity, another potential subject of further study. 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"? LG - Would need to study further. 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? LG - Would need to study further. (I have not included a scope clarification question because I understand that it has already bee posed.) Many thanks. Kristina

3 2

Please volunteer for the Inter-Registrar transfer drafting group
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG April 18, 2008

April 18, 2008

[To: Council[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear All, The GNSO Council, at its meeting on 17 April, 2008, unanimously approved the creation of a short term drafting team charged with producing a recommendation for Council deliberation that includes precise wording for the 4 provisions for reason for denial of Inter-Registrar transfers. The task includes suggesting changes to the initial formulations based on the comments received from the constituencies and from the public comment period. http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/final-report-irt-policy-09apr08.pdf 1. No payment for previous registration period (including credit card charge-backs) if the domain name is past its expiration date or for previous or current registration periods if the domain name has not yet expired. In all such cases, however, the domain name must be put into "Registrar Hold" status by the Registrar of Record prior to the denial of transfer (Reason #5 in the policy). 2. A domain name was already in “lock status” provided that the Registrar provides a readily accessible and reasonable means for the Registered Name Holder to remove the lock status (Reason #7 in the policy). 3. A domain name is in the first 60 days of an initial registration period (Reason #8 in the policy). 4. A domain name is within 60 days (or a lesser period to be determined) after being transferred (apart from being transferred back to the original Registrar in cases where both Registrars so agree and/or where a decision in the dispute resolution process so directs) (Reason #9 in the policy). The drafting team is open to participants from all constituencies, Nominating Committee appointees and liaisons to the GNSO Council. Olof Nordling will be the staff lead and the proposed timeline should allow for a public comment period on the recommendation and a vote to be taken at the Paris meeting in June 2008. It was further suggested that the group use the mail-server list gnso-trans-pdp[at]icann.org with the public archives at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-trans-pdp/ Please let the Secretariat <gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org> know by COB on Tuesday 22 April, 2008 who would like to be on the drafting team so that there is no delay in starting work. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Fwd: GAC recommendations regarding the terms of reference for WHOIS studies
by Avri Doria April 18, 2008

April 18, 2008

Hi, Attached is the GAC communiqué related to WHOIS Studies. It makes some concrete suggestions for studies and study specifics. Liz please forward this to the Whois team, as I do not seem to be on that list. I believe this information should be included and considered with the other comments contributions that were received. thanks a. Begin forwarded message: > From: "Janis Karklins" <janis.karklins(a)icann.org> > Date: 18 April 2008 08:38:40 EDT > To: "'Peter Dengate Thrush'" <barrister(a)chambers.gen.nz>, "'ICANN > Board ICANN Board List'" <icann-board(a)icann.org> > Cc: "'Avri Doria'" <avri(a)psg.com>, "'Avri Doria'" <avri(a)acm.org> > Subject: GAC recommendations regarding the terms of reference for > WHOIS studies > > Peter, > > On behalf of the GAC and with reference to the GAC communiqué of the > New Delhi meeting, I am sending the GAC recommendations regarding > the terms of reference for WHOIS studies. > These recommendations is copied also to the GNSO Chair as a > contribution to the GNSO Council’s efforts to solicit input from the > public regarding WHOIS studies. > > Best regards > JK

1 0

GAC recommendations regarding the terms of reference for WHOIS studies
by Bruce Tonkin April 18, 2008

April 18, 2008

Hello All, Please see attached communication from the GAC chair to the Board chair. The GAC chair also stated: "These recommendations is copied also to the GNSO Chair as a contribution to the GNSO Council's efforts to solicit input from the public regarding WHOIS studies." Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

GNSO Council motions passed on Thursday 12 April 2008
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG April 18, 2008

April 18, 2008

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear Council Members, Ahead of the complete minutes, please find the motions that were passed by the GNSO Council at the teleconference on Thursday, 17 April, 2008. Kind regards, Glen Motion 1 ========= The GNSO Council approved the creation of a drafting team charged with producing a recommendation for Council deliberation that includes precise wording for the 4 provisions for reason for denial of Inter-Registrar transfers. http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/final-report-irt-policy-09apr08.pdf Drafting is open to participants from all constituencies, Nominating Committee appointees and liaisons to the GNSO Council. Motion 2 ======== Whereas, the GNSO Council has discussed the Issues Report on Domain Tasting and the Final Outcomes Report of the ad hoc group on Domain Tasting; Whereas, the GNSO Council resolved on 31 October 2007 to launch a PDP on Domain Tasting; Whereas, the GNSO Council authorized on 17 January 2008 the formation of a small design team to develop a plan for the deliberations on the Domain Tasting PDP (the "Design Team"), the principal volunteers to which had been members of the Ad Hoc Group on Domain Tasting and were well-informed of both the Final Outcomes Report of the Ad Hoc Group on Domain Tasting and the GNSO Initial Report on Domain Tasting (collectively with the Issues Report, the "Reports on Domain Tasting"); Whereas, the GNSO Council has received the Draft Final Report on Domain Tasting; Whereas, PIR, the .org registry operator, has amended its Registry Agreement to charge an Excess Deletion Fee; and both NeuStar, the .biz registry operator, and Afilias, the .info registry operator, are seeking amendments to their respective Registry Agreements to modify the existing AGP; The GNSO Council recommends to the ICANN Board of Directors that: 1. The applicability of the Add Grace Period shall be restricted for any gTLD which has implemented an AGP ("Applicable gTLD Operator"). Specifically, for each Applicable gTLD Operator: a. During any given month, an Applicable gTLD Operator may not offer any refund to a registrar for any domain names deleted during the AGP that exceed (i) 10% of that registrar's net new registrations in that month (defined as total new registrations less domains deleted during AGP), or (ii) fifty (50) domain names, whichever is greater. b. A Registrar may seek an exemption from the application of such restriction in a specific month, upon the documented showing of extraordinary circumstances. For any Registrar requesting such an exemption, the Registrar must confirm in writing to the Registry Operator how, at the time the names were deleted, these extraordinary circumstances were not known, reasonably could not have been known, and were outside of the Registrar's control. Acceptance of any exemption will be at the sole reasonable discretion of the Registry Operator, however "extraordinary circumstances" which reoccur regularly will not be deemed extraordinary. c. In addition to all other reporting requirements to ICANN, each Applicable gTLD Operator shall identify each Registrar that has sought an exemption, along with a brief descriptive identification of the type of extraordinary circumstance and the action (if any) that was taken by the Applicable gTLD Operator. 2. Implementation and execution of these recommendations shall be monitored by the GNSO. Specifically; a. ICANN Staff shall analyze and report to the GNSO at six month intervals for two years after implementation, until such time as the GNSO resolves otherwise, with the goal of determining; i. How effectively and to what extent the policies have been implemented and followed by Registries and Registrars, and ii. Whether or not modifications to these policies should be considered by the GNSO as a result of the experiences gained during the implementation and monitoring stages, b. The purpose of these monitoring and reporting requirements are to allow the GNSO to determine when, if ever, these recommendations and any ensuing policy require additional clarification or attention based on the results of the reports prepared by ICANN Staff. 19 Votes in favour. The motion passed by a supermajority. 19 Votes in favour: Philip Sheppard, Mike Rosenbaugh, Bilal Beiram, Kristaina Rosette, Cyril Chua, Tony Hlmes, Tony Harris, Greg Ruth, Norbert Klein, Avri Doria, Olga Cavalli (one vote each) Tom Keller, Chuck Gomes, Jordi Iparraguirre, Edmon Chung (two votes each) 4 Votes against: Adrian Kinderis, Tim Ruiz (two votes each) Ute Decker had bad network connectivity and was cut off the call for the vote. Absent: Robin Gross, Carlos Souza, Jon Bing Thank you, Kind regards, Glen -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

ICANN Policy Update
by Denise Michel April 17, 2008

April 17, 2008

Below (and attached in Word with hyperlinks) are brief summaries of a number of significant Internet policy issues that are being addressed by the ICANN community's bottom-up policy development structure, as well as other significant activities of interest. This latest monthly update is provided by ICANN's Policy Staff in response to community requests for periodic summaries of ICANN's policy work. Links to additional information are included below and we encourage you to go beyond these brief staff summaries and learn more about the ICANN community's work. These monthly updates also will be available on our website. Our goal is to maximize transparency and broad community participation in ICANN's policy development activities. We continue to investigate more effective and efficient ways to communicate the relevance, importance and status of ongoing issues to the ICANN community. Comments and suggestions on how we can improve these efforts are most welcome and should be sent to policy-staff(a)icann.org. Regards, Denise Michel ICANN VP, Policy ICANN POLICY UPDATE – April 2008 CONTENTS: 1. GNSO -- IMPROVEMENTS 2. GNSO -- DOMAIN NAME TASTING 3. GNSO -- WHOIS 4. GNSO -- INTER-REGISTRAR TRANSFER POLICY REVIEW 5. GNSO -- FAST FLUX HOSTING 6. GNSO/CCNSO -- BOARD SEAT ELECTIONS 7. MULTIPLE ENTITIES -- IDN ccTLDs 8. CCNSO -- INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS CONTINUE 9. CCNSO -- PHISHING SURVEY 10. CCNSO -- NEW MEMBERS 11. ASO AC -- GLOBAL POLICY PROPOSALS (ASNs, IPv4) 12. SSAC -- DNSSEC BROADBAND ROUTER TESTING REVISED 13. SSAC -- ANTI-PHISHING ACTIVITIES 14. AT-LARGE -- NEW PRACTICES EXPAND POLICY PARTICIPATION 15. AT-LARGE -- NEW WEBSITE/PORTAL LAUNCHED 1. GNSO -- IMPROVEMENTS Background: The ICANN Board is considering a comprehensive set of recommendations to improve the structure and operations of the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO). This is part of ICANN's ongoing commitment to its evolution and improvement, and follows an independent review of the GNSO and extensive public consultation. A working group appointed by ICANN's Board has developed a comprehensive proposal (GNSO Improvements Report) to improve the effectiveness of the GNSO, including its policy activities, structure, operations and communications. On 15 February 2008, the Board accepted the GNSO Improvements Report for consideration and 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. Recent Developments: The period for public comments on the GNSO Improvements Report has been extended to 25 April 2008. Although many elements of the report seem to have broad support, the proposed stakeholder groups/constituency structures and allocation of seats on the GNSO Council continue to draw a significant amount of discussion from a variety of parties including the Business, Intellectual Property, and Internet Service Provider Constituencies who advocate a different allocation of seats than that recommended to the Board. Next Steps: Public comment period on the GNSO Improvements Report (closes 25 April 2008) -- subsequent Board action is expected at the Paris meeting. More Information: • GNSO Improvements information page < http://www.icann.org/topics/gnso-improvements/> • Full GNSO Improvements Report < http://www.icann.org/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-report-03fe…> • Board resolution on GNSO Improvements < http://www.icann.org/minutes/resolutions-15feb08.htm#_Toc64545918> Staff Contact: Denise Michel, VP Policy Development 2. GNSO -- DOMAIN NAME TASTING Background: In Spring 2007, ICANN's At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC), asked the GNSO Council to review the issue of "domain tasting." The term refers to a case when an entity registers a domain name and then tests to see if the name has sufficient traffic to provide more income than the annual registration fee (usually through the addition of pay-per-click advertising). If the address is deemed sufficiently profitable, it is kept. If not, the current "add grace period" (AGP) - where domains can be returned within five days without cost - is used to return the domain at no net cost to the registrant. Among other reasons, the practice is controversial because registrants who engage in this behavior can typically register many hundreds of thousands of domain names under this practice, with these temporary registrations far exceeding the number of domain names actually licensed. Over time, there has been a significant increase in the number of domains registered and returned prior to expiration of the AGP. A significant number of community members feel the AGP process presents a loophole that facilitates this conduct. In October 2007, after fact finding and consideration, the GNSO Council launched a formal policy development process (PDP) on domain tasting and encouraged ICANN staff to consider applying ICANN's fee collections to names registered and subsequently de-registered during the AGP. Subsequently, staff included in the initial draft of ICANN's next fiscal year budget, a proposal to charge a fee for all domains added, including domains added during the AGP. Public discussion of the budget, and this proposal, is ongoing. As part of the formal PDP process, an Initial Report was produced for public comment, outlining the problems caused by domain tasting, possible actions to be taken, and the arguments put forward for and against such actions . Public comments were incorporated into a draft Final Report posted on 8 February 2008. Recent Developments: At its 6 March 2008 meeting, the GNSO Council considered a motion drafted and subsequently revised by a small design team to stop the practice of domain tasting. The revised draft motion would prohibit any gTLD operator that has implemented an AGP from offering a refund for any domain name deleted during the AGP that exceeds 10% of its net new registrations in that month, or fifty domain names, whichever is greater. Under the terms of the motion, an exemption from the limitation may be sought for a particular month, upon a showing of extraordinary circumstances detailed in the motion. Public comments and constituency impact statements regarding the revised draft motion have been solicited and incorporated into a Final Report for Council consideration at its scheduled 17 April 2008 meeting. The comments and constituency statements reflect a plurality of views on what should be done to eliminate abuse of the AGP to facilitate domain tasting and addressed three potential options including (1) views on the draft resolution itself; (2) views on eliminating the AGP entirely; and (3) views on the proposed ICANN budget changes. Next Steps: The GNSO Council will consider the Draft Motion at its upcoming 17 April 2008 meeting More Information: • Public comment request < http://www.icann.org/public_comment/#domain-tasting> • GNSO Domain Tasting Issues Report, June 2007 < http://gnso.icann.org/issues/domain-tasting/gnso-domain-tasting-report-14ju…> • Outcomes Report October 2007 < http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-domain-tasting-adhoc-outcomes-report-fina…> • Final Report 4 April 2008 < http://gnso.icann.org/issues/domain-tasting/gnso-final-report-domain-tastin… > Staff Contact: Liz Gasster, Senior Policy Counselor 3. GNSO -- WHOIS Background: WHOIS services provide public access to data on registered domain names. That data currently includes contact information for Registered Name Holders. The extent of registration data collected at the time of registration of a domain name, and the ways such data can be accessed, are specified in agreements established by ICANN for domain names registered in generic top-level domains (gTLDs). For example, ICANN requires accredited registrars to collect and provide free public access to (1) the name of the registered domain name and its name servers and registrar, (2) the date the domain was created and when its registration expires, and (3) the contact information for the Registered Name Holder, the technical contact, and the registrant's administrative contact. WHOIS has been the subject of intense policy development debate and action over the last few years. Information contained in WHOIS is used for a wide variety of purposes. Some uses of WHOIS data are viewed as constructive and beneficial. For example, sometimes WHOIS data is used to track down and identify registrants who may be posting illegal content or engaging in phishing scams. Other uses of WHOIS are viewed as potentially negative, such as harvesting WHOIS contact information to send unwanted spam or fraudulent email solicitations. Privacy advocates have also been concerned about the privacy implications of unrestricted access to personal contact information. The GNSO Council decided in October 2007 that a comprehensive, objective and quantifiable understanding of key factual issues regarding WHOIS will benefit future GNSO policy development efforts, and plans to ask the ICANN staff to conduct several studies for this purpose. Before defining the details of these studies, the Council has solicited suggestions for specific topics of study on WHOIS from community stakeholders. Possible areas of study might include a study of certain aspects of gTLD registrants and registrations, a study of certain uses and misuses of WHOIS data, a study of the use of proxy registration services, including privacy services, or a comparative study of gTLD and ccTLD WHOIS. Recent Developments: A forum for public comments on suggestions for specific topics of study on WHOIS was open through 15 February 2008. Approximately 25 suggestions were received. A summary of those comments has been prepared. On 27 March the GNSO Council approved a motion 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 of recommended studies, if any, for which ICANN staff will be asked to provide cost estimates to the Council; and (3) produce the list of recommendations with supporting rationale not later than 24 April 2008. Next Steps: A report from the small group reviewing the suggestions on further WHOis studies is due to the Council by 24 April 2008. The GNSO Council will consider the recommendations of the group. Based on direction from the Council, ICANN staff will subsequently provide the Council with rough cost estimates for various components of data gathering and studies. The Council will then decide what data gathering and studies it will request, given available resources. Staff will perform the resulting data gathering and studies and report the results to the Council. More Information: GNSO WHOis Policy Work Web page < http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/> Staff Contact: Liz Gasster, Senior Policy Counselor 4. GNSO -- INTER-REGISTRAR TRANSFER POLICY REVIEW Background: Consistent with ICANN's obligation to promote and encourage robust competition in the domain name space, the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy aims to provide a straightforward procedure for domain name holders to transfer their names from one ICANN-accredited registrar to another should they wish to do so. The policy also provides standardized requirements for registrar handling of such transfer requests from domain name holders. The policy is an existing community consensus that was implemented in late 2004 that is now being reviewed by the GNSO. As part of that effort, the Council formed a Transfers Working Group (TWG) to examine and recommend possible areas for improvements in the existing transfer policy. The TWG identified a broad list of over 20 potential areas for clarification and improvement. In an effort to get improvements on-line as soon as possible, the GNSO Council initiated a policy development process (PDP) to immediately clarify four specific issues regarding reasons for which a registrar of record may deny a request to transfer a domain name to a new registrar. That PDP process in now under way and the GNSO constituencies have submitted their initial comments. Recent Developments: ICANN staff finalized and posted an Initial Report for public comments to immediately clarify the four specific issues regarding reasons for which a registrar of record may deny a request to transfer a domain name to a new registrar. A summary of those comments is now available (see < http://forum.icann.org/lists/transfer-policy-2008/msg00004.html>). In parallel with the PDP process, the Council tasked a short term planning group to evaluate and prioritize the remaining 19 policy issues identified by the Transfers Working Group. In March, the group delivered a report to the GNSO Council with suggested clustering of those issues for consideration in five new PDPs. Next Steps: The public comments received on the Initial Report will be used by ICANN staff to compile a Final Report for the GNSO Council's consideration of further steps to take in this PDP. The report from the short term planning group on other potential PDPs will next be discussed and decided upon by the GNSO Council. More Information: • Draft Advisory < http://gnso.icann.org/issues/transfers/gnso-draft-transfer-advisory-14nov07… > • Initial Report < http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-17mar08.htm> • PDP Recommendations < http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/transfer-wg-recommendations-pdp-groupings-19ma…> Staff Contact: Olof Nordling, Manager, Policy Development Coordination 5. GNSO – FAST FLUX HOSTING Background: Fast flux hosting is a term that refers to several techniques used by cyber criminals to evade detection, in which criminals rapidly modify IP addresses and/or name servers. The ICANN Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) recently completed a study of fast flux hosting. The results of the study were published in January 2008 in the SSAC Advisory on Fast Flux Hosting and DNS (SAC 025). Because fast flux hosting involves many different players—the cybercriminals and their victims, ISPs, companies that provide web hosting services, and DNS registries and registrars—it is possible to imagine a variety of different approaches to mitigation. Most of these will require the cooperation of a variety of actors including users and ISPs as well as registries and registrars. Recent developments: On 26 March 2008, staff posted an Issues Report on fast flux hosting, as directed by the GNSO Council. In the Report, staff recommends that the GNSO sponsor additional fact-finding and research to develop best practices guidelines concerning fast flux hosting. Staff also notes that it may be appropriate for the ccNSO also to participate in such an activity. Next Steps: The GNSO Council is scheduled to discuss the topic at its upcoming meeting on 17 April 2008. More Iinformation: • SSAC Report 025 on fast flux hosting, January 2008 - http://www.icann.org/committees/security/sac025.pdf • Issues Report on Fast Flux Hosting, corrected 31 March 2008 - http://gnso.icann.org/issues/fast-flux-hosting/gnso-issues-report-fast-flux… Staff Contact: Liz Gasster, Senior Policy Counselor 6. CCNSO/GNSO -- BOARD SEAT ELECTIONS Background: The Country Codes Name Supporting Organization (ccNSO) and GNSO Councils are responsible for filling two seats each on the ICANN Board of Directors. ccNSO seats are identified as Board seat numbers 11 and 12. GNSO seats on the Board are identified as seat numbers 13 and 14. Recent Developments: CCNSO Board Seat 11 Peter Dengate-Thrush was selected to fill seat 11 on the ICANN Board at the ccNSO Council meeting on the 31 March 2008. This selection was based on the outcome of a prior call for nominations among the ccNSO members. The only candidate who was nominated and seconded was Mr. Dengate-Thrush and he accepted the nomination. Next Steps: The ccNSO Council Chair will provide the Secretary of ICANN with written notice of the decision. More Information: ccNSO ICANN Election of Director Procedures < http://ccnso.icann.org/about/elections/election-procedure-to-elect-icann-di…> Staff Contact: Gabriella Schittek, ccNSO Secretariat GNSO Board Seat 14 Rita Rodin was elected by the GNSO Council to fill seat 14 on the ICANN Board of Directors. The election closed on 7 March 2008. The GNSO Council confirmed the election results at its meeting scheduled on 27 March 2008, and pursuant to the bylaws, Avri Doria, GNSO Chair, informed ICANN's General Counsel of the outcome. Next Steps: The next GNSO election process will commence at the end of this year for the GNSO Chair. The current Chair's term ends 31 January 2009. More Information: GNSO Elections Procedures < http://gnso.icann.org/elections/election-procedures-2008.shtml> Staff Contact: Glen De Saint Géry, GNSO Secretariat 7. MULTIPLE ENTITIES -- IDN ccTLDs Background: The potential introduction of Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) represents the beginning of an exciting new chapter in the history of the Internet. IDNs offer the potential for many new opportunities and benefits for Internet users of all languages around the world by allowing them to establish domains in their native languages and alphabets. An IDN ccTLD (internationalized domain name country code top level domain) is a country code top-level domain (corresponding to a country, territory, or other geographic location as associated with the ISO 3166-1 two-letter codes) with a label that contains at least one character that is not a standard Latin letter (A through Z), a hyphen, or one of the standard numerical digits (0 through 9). The technical potential for ICANN to now make these domain names available for assignment is prompting significant discussion, study and demand within the ICANN community – particularly for territories who want to make use of non-Latin characters. Current efforts are taking place on two fronts; (1) efforts to identify a "fast track" process to provide new domain opportunities to territories with immediate justifiable needs; and (2) efforts to develop a comprehensive long term plan that ensures a stable process for all interested stakeholders. IDNC Working Group Pursues The IDN "Fast Track" A joint IDNC Working Group (IDNC WG) was chartered by ICANN's Board to develop and report on feasible methods, if any, that would enable the introduction of a limited number of non-contentious IDN ccTLDs, in a timely manner that ensures the continued security and stability of the Internet while a comprehensive long-term IDN ccTLD policy is being developed. On 1 February 2008, the IDNC WG posted a "Discussion Draft of the Initial Report" (DDIR) for public comment and input from the ICANN community. The DDIR clarified the relationship between the "fast track" process and the broader long-term process IDNccPDP (the ccNSO Policy Development Process on IDN ccTLDs) and also identified the mechanisms for the selection of an IDN ccTLD and an IDN ccTLD manager. The ccNSO Council determined that those mechanisms were to be developed within the parameters of: • The overarching requirement to preserve the security and stability of the DNS; • Compliance with the IDNA protocols; • Input and advice from the technical community with respect to the implementation of IDNs; and • Current practices for the delegation of ccTLDs, which include the current IANA practices. A public workshop was held 11 February in New Delhi, India to discuss the DDIR and a comment period was opened on that document. Recent Developments: The IDNC WG has now produced a first draft of the IDNC WG Methodology in the form of an Interim Report that has also been made available for public comment. Discussions on the methodology were held at the ICANN Regional Meeting in Dubai, UAE (1-3 April 2008) and public comments on the methodology can be submitted until 25 April 2008. Next Steps: The work schedule agreed to by the IDNC Working Group is as follows: • An Initial Report, which will solidify the topics and their relation to the IDNccPDP. • A final Interim Report, which will contain potential implementation mechanisms is scheduled to be released 16 May 2008). • The Final Report, which will contain the actual recommendations of the IDNC WG is due to be published 13 June 2008) More Information: • Public Comments Requested on Initial Draft Fast-Track Mechanism < http://icann.org/announcements/announcement-01feb08.htm> • Draft Methodology for Fast Track < http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/idnc-proposed-methodology-31mar08.pdf> • Public Comments on the Discussion Draft of the Initial Report < http://www.icann.org/public_comment/#dd-idn-cctld-ft> Staff Contact: Bart Boswinkel, Senior Policy Advisor CCNSO Also Focuses On Comprehensive IDNccTLD Policy Development Background: In parallel to considerations of a "fast track" approach, the ccNSO Council has initiated a comprehensive long term policy development process for IDNccTLDs (referred to as the IDNccPDP). At its meeting in October 2007, the ccNSO Council resolved to call for an Issues Report to examine the need for an IDNccPDP to consider: • Whether Article IX of the ICANN bylaws applies to IDN ccTLDs associated with the ISO 3166-1 two letter codes, and if it does not then to establish if Article IX should apply. • Whether the ccNSO should launch a PDP to develop the policy for the selection and delegation of IDN ccTLDs associated with the ISO 3166-1 two-letter codes. The Council formally requested that Issues Report on 19 December 2007 and directed ICANN staff to identify policies, procedures, and/or by-laws that should be reviewed and, as necessary revised, in connection with the development and implementation of any IDN ccTLD policy – including efforts designed to address the proposed fast-track concept. Recent Developments: The GNSO and several other parties have submitted comments regarding the proposal to set a comprehensive long term policy development process for IDNccTLDs (referred to above as the IDNccPDP). An Issues Report will be submitted to the ccNSO Council and will form the basis for the Council's decision on whether or not to formally initiate the IDNccPDP. Next Steps: Comments regarding the preparation of an Issues Report on the IDNccPDP and are now being evaluated. More Information: IDNccPDP Announcement: < http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-19dec07.htm> Staff Contact: Bart Boswinkel, Senior Policy Advisor 8. CCNSO -- INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS CONTINUE Background: The ccNSO Council has recently been taking steps to improve its work plans, administrative procedures and communications tools. As a result of a ccNSO Council workshop held at the ICANN New Delhi meeting, a working group of the Council was established to propose administrative procedures for the ccNSO. The ccNSO Council also approved creation of a new "authoritative" ccNSO email list. The organization has also been conducting a participation survey in an effort to understand better why ccTLDs do or do not participate in ccNSO meetings. Recent Developments: In preparation for making recommendations on new structures, the new "Working Group on ccNSO Administrative Procedures" has had two conference calls on the structuring processes within the ccNSO. All ccTLD managers have been invited to subscribe to a new global ccTLD email list and a first draft of the results of the ccNSO participation survey recently was shared with the community at the African Top Level Domain meeting in Johannesburg. Next Steps: The Working Group will continue to develop new procedures for the ccNSO. More Information: • ccNSO <http://www.ccnso.icann.org/> • ccTLD Community Email List < http://www.ccnso.icann.org/about/charter-cctld-community-list.pdf> Staff Contacts: Bart Boswinkel, Senior Policy Advisor and Gabriella Schittek, ccNSO Secretariat 9. CCNSO -- PHISHING SURVEY Background: The term "phishing" has been used to describe criminal and fraudulent attempts by cybercriminals to acquire sensitive private information (such as usernames, passwords and credit card details) by masquerading as trustworthy entities in an electronic communication. Phishing remains a major problem among ccTLDs and as a result ccNSO members are being called upon to identify countermeasures that can be undertaken to fight back. A draft survey seeking to identify those types of measures was presented to and approved by the ccNSO Council during its meeting in New Delhi in February 2008. The survey was launched and sent to all available email lists. ICANN regional liaisons were also asked to help distribute the survey. Recent Developments: Originally, survey results of the anti-phishing survey were expected to be ready for posting by early April 2008, but the response period has been extended to allow for the receipt of more survey responses. To date 21 responses have been received and Staff is working to inspire more. Next Steps: Survey response and evaluation time extended to encourage more responses. More information: Survey < http://ccnso.icann.org/surveys/anti-phishing-survey-27feb08.pdf> Staff Contact: Gabriella Schittek, ccNSO Secretariat 10. CCNSO -- NEW MEMBERS Russia (.ru) and Georgia (.ge) recently were approved as new ccNSO members. The ccNSO now has 77 members. More Information: ccNSO Applications Archive < http://www.ccnso.icann.org/applications/summary-date.shtml> Staff Contact: Gabriella Schittek, ccNSO Secretariat 11. ASO AC - GLOBAL POLICY PROPOSALS (ASNs, IPv4) Background: Two significant global policy proposals on addressing matters continue to be actively studied and discussed within the addressing community. If they are (1) adopted by all Regional Internet Registries (RIRs), (2) verified by the Address Supporting Organization (ASO) and (3) subsequently ratified by the ICANN Board, the policies will govern the allocation of Internet addresses from the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) to the RIRs. The two current proposals are described below. Recent Developments: Autonomous System Numbers (ASNs) Autonomous System Numbers (ASNs) are addresses used in addition to IP addresses for Internet routing. A new global policy proposal for ASNs would formalize the current procedure for allocation of ASNs and provides a policy basis for the transition from 2-byte (16 bits) to 4-byte (32 bits) ASNs. The final transition step is now foreseen for 31 December 2009, after which date the distinction between 2- and 4-byte ASNs will cease and all ASNs will be regarded as of 4-byte length, by appending initial zeroes to those of 2-byte original length. Next Steps: This new 4-byte proposal has been adopted in all RIRs. It will be forwarded to the ICANN Board for ratification by the ASO Address Council after the Council has verified that each RIR's procedural steps have been duly followed. More information: Background Report < http://www.icann.org/announcements/proposal-asn-report-29nov07.htm> Staff Contact: Olof Nordling, Manager Policy Development Coordination Remaining IPv4 address space The IANA pool of unallocated IPv4 address blocks is continuing to be depleted. As announced last month, a new global policy has been proposed to allocate the remaining address blocks once a given threshold is triggered. The text of the proposed policy essentially recommends that when there are five /8 blocks remaining in the IANA pool, one remaining block will be allocated to each RIR. Next Steps: This proposal was discussed at the APNIC 25 meeting in February 2008 and at the ARIN (American Registry for Internet Numbers) in Denver earlier this month. It will be discussed in upcoming meetings of the other RIRs, next in RIPE (Resaux IP Europeens Network Coordination Centre) - Berlin 5-6 May 2008, LACNIC (Latin American and Caribbean Internet Addresses Registry) – Salvador/Bahia, Brazil 26-30 May 2008 and AfriNIC (African Region Internet Registry) – 24 May-6 June, Rabat, Morocco. More information: Background Report http://www.icann.org/announcements/proposal-ipv4-report-29nov07.htm Staff Contact: Olof Nordling, Manager Policy Development Coordination 12. SSAC -- DNSSEC BROADBAND ROUTER TESTING REVISED Background: When Sweden and other ccTLDs began more extensive deployment of the Domain Name System Security Extension (DNSSEC), it was discovered that several broadband routers failed when they received DNS response messages containing DNSSEC resource records and other DNSSEC related protocol parameters. Study of these routers revealed that many have embedded DNS servers. The DNSSEC deployment community and SSAC have been collaborating to create a testing program for broadband routers to gauge the ability of these devices to correctly process DNS messages that contain DNSSEC resource records. A set of web pages was developed by ICANN staff to provide a series of tests that Internet users could use to determine if their router succeeds or fails when DNNSEC is present in DNS response messages. Recent Developments: After reviewing the new testing suite for broadband routers running DNSSEC, Staff determined that the test suite was too complicated and required too much data collection and analysis for voluntary community participation. Next Steps: Staff is now investigating an alternative testing approach that may involve several independent bodies testing broadband routers and SOHO firewalls -- one for U.S. domestic products, one for Europe products, one for U.K. products, and one for Asia Pacific products. The testing criteria are being re-evaluated to determine a new common test suite with a goal to have this new testing begin before 1 May 2008. More Information: SSAC <http://www.icann.org/committees/security/> Staff Contact: Dave Piscitello, Senior Security Technologist 13. SSAC – ANTI-PHISHING ACTIVITIES Recent Developments: ICANN staff has been helping to update/revise a work in progress for the Anti Phishing Working Group entitled, "What To Do If Your Web Site Is Hacked." The document describes preparation and incident response with respect to web site phishing attacks. The report was approved by the Internet Policy Forum (formerly the DNS Policy Working Group) and is currently being edited and prepared for publication. A new SSAC Advisory entitled "Registrar Impersonation in Phishing Attacks" has been distributed for review and approval by SSAC and ICANN's general counsel. Several external experts have reviewed the Advisory and provided some valuable additional insights. The document may be distributed in two phases - the first to registrars, so that they are advised of the threat, and the second (at or prior to the ICANN Paris meeting) to the general public. ICANN staff is also assisting with anti-phishing investigations of two registrars who are alleged to be shielding phishing activities. In one case the registrar's WHOIS/43 service is not responding; in another case, staff is studying a service that allegedly hampers anti-phishing investigations by creating barriers on WHOIS information access. Staff Contact: Dave Piscitello, Senior Security Technologist 14. AT-LARGE – NEW PRACTICES EXPAND POLICY PARTICIPATION Recent Developments: New policy development processes and simultaneous translation improvements are significantly expanding policy participation in the At-Large community. As a result of additional staff capacity and other developments within the At-Large community, the process by which the At-Large community develops policy statements has been completely overhauled. At the direction of the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC), ICANN Staff has now begun producing initial draft statements on policy (synthesis statements of written and verbal comments) for review by working groups and subcommittees. These drafts are put through several steps of community review before being voted on by the ALAC. Approved comments are transmitted, as appropriate, to the public comment process or to the Board of ICANN. The first three products of this new process effort are already making their way through the process. They are: • ALAC Statement on the Proposed Travel Policy for Volunteers • ALAC Statement on the Operating Plan and Budget Framework for FY 2008/2009 • ALAC Statement on GNSO Improvements Additionally, the worldwide At-Large Calendar has been improved to include a community comments window to make it easier for the public to keep track of comments. Also, thanks to new simultaneous interpretation capabilities and a new teleconference service the African Regional At-Large Organisation (AFRALO) and the Latin America and the Caribbean Islands Regional At-Large Organisation (LACRALO) are now holding monthly teleconference meetings. Staff Contact: Nick Ashton-Hart, Director for At-Large 15. AT-LARGE – NEW WEBSITE/PORTAL LAUNCHED Recent Developments: At-Large's new website went live in March. The new site is built upon a state-of-the-art, open-source content management system – Drupal. The result is a framework which can be duplicated and used by other parts of ICANN. The new site provides an array of new features which the static html-based old site could not, including: • Two-way links between forums on the site and the community's mailing lists – with new postings soon to be automatically visible; • Dynamically updated content; • Standardised multilingual support built into the site's architecture • Multilingual calendaring and events, including support for multilingual documents and time zone support. More Information: At-Large < http://atlarge.icann.org> Staff Contact: Nick Ashton-Hart, Director for At-Large # # #

2 1

Amended Tasting Motion
by Adrian Kinderis April 17, 2008

April 17, 2008

All, Please see below an amendment to the Domain Tasting motion that the RC would like to propose on the call. Thanks. Adrian Kinderis Managing Director AusRegistry Group Pty Ltd Level 8, 10 Queens Road Melbourne. Victoria Australia. 3004 Ph: +61 3 9866 3710 Fax: +61 3 9866 1970 Email: adrian(a)ausregistry.com Web: www.ausregistrygroup.com The information contained in this communication is intended for the named recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain legally privileged and confidential information and if you are not an intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this communication in error, please delete all copies from your system and notify us immediately. Whereas, the GNSO Council has discussed the Issues Report on Domain Tasting and the Final Outcomes Report of the ad hoc group on Domain Tasting; Whereas, the GNSO Council resolved on 31 October 2007 to launch a PDP on Domain Tasting; Whereas, the GNSO Council resolved on 31 October 2007 to encourage staff to apply ICANN's fee collections to names registered and subsequently deregistered during the add-grace period; Whereas, the Board resolved on 23 January 2008 to encourage ICANN's budgetary process to include fees for all domains added, including domains added during the AGP; Whereas, the GNSO Council authorized on 17 January 2008 the formation of a small design team to develop a plan for the deliberations on the Domain Tasting PDP (the "Design Team"), the principal volunteers to which had been members of the Ad Hoc Group on Domain Tasting and were well-informed of both the Final Outcomes Report of the Ad Hoc Group on Domain Tasting and the GNSO Initial Report on Domain Tasting (collectively with the Issues Report, the "Reports on Domain Tasting"); Whereas, the GNSO Council has received the Draft Final Report on Domain Tasting; Whereas, PIR, the .org registry operator, has amended its Registry Agreement to charge an Excess Deletion Fee; and both NeuStar, the .biz registry operator, and Afilias, the .info registry operator, are seeking amendments to their respective Registry Agreements to modify the existing AGP; The GNSO Council recommends to the ICANN Board of Directors that: 1. The Staff continue the budgetary process towards approval with the inclusion of fees for all domains added, including domains added during AGP as directed in the Board resolution of 23 January 2008; 2. An allowance for a reasonable number of deletes as quantified in 4.a.i below be included against which the fees would not apply; 3. Upon approval of the budget including said fees and reasonable allowance, the deletes activity within the AGP shall be monitored by the GNSO. Specifically: a. ICANN Staff shall analyze and report to the GNSO within three months as to how effectively and to what extent the fees have reduced AGP delete activity; b. Whether or not further policy work should be considered by the GNSO as a result of the experiences gained during the monitoring stage. 4. Upon conclusion of the monitoring stage, if Staff reports and the GNSO confirms that the fees have not been sufficiently effective in reducing AGP delete activity, the Staff will immediately begin implementation of the following recommendation as Consensus Policy; a. The applicability of the Add Grace Period shall be restricted for any gTLD which has implemented an AGP ("Applicable gTLD Operator"). Specifically, for each Applicable gTLD Operator: i. During any given month, an Applicable gTLD Operator may not offer any refund to a registrar for any domain names deleted during the AGP that exceed (i) 10% of that registrar's net new registrations in that month (defined as total new registrations less domains deleted during AGP), or (ii) fifty (50) domain names, whichever is greater. ii. A Registrar may seek an exemption from the application of such restriction in a specific month, upon the documented showing of extraordinary circumstances. For any Registrar requesting such an exemption, the Registrar must confirm in writing to the Registry Operator how, at the time the names were deleted, these extraordinary circumstances were not known, reasonably could not have been known, and were outside of the Registrar's control. Acceptance of any exemption will be at the sole reasonable discretion of the Registry Operator, however "extraordinary circumstances" which reoccur regularly will not be deemed extraordinary. iii. In addition to all other reporting requirements to ICANN, each Applicable gTLD Operator shall identify each Registrar that has sought an exemption, along with a brief descriptive identification of the type of extraordinary circumstance and the action (if any) that was taken by the Applicable gTLD Operator. b. Implementation and execution of these recommendations shall be monitored by the GNSO. Specifically; i. ICANN Staff shall analyze and report to the GNSO at six month intervals for two years after implementation, until such time as the GNSO resolves otherwise, with the goal of determining; 1. How effectively and to what extent the policies have been implemented and followed by Registries and Registrars, and 2. Whether or not modifications to these policies should be considered by the GNSO as a result of the experiences gained during the implementation and monitoring stages, ii. The purpose of these monitoring and reporting requirements are to allow the GNSO to determine when, if ever, these recommendations and any ensuing policy require additional clarification or attention based on the results of the reports prepared by ICANN Staff.

1 0

MP3 afternoon session GNSO/Staff discussions on new gTLDs LA meeting 11 April 2008
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG April 16, 2008

April 16, 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 find the MP3 recording of the GNSO /Staff discussions on new gTLDs at a face to face meeting in Los Angeles on Friday afternoon, 13:20 to 17:30, 11 April 2008. http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gtld-meetings-2-20080411.mp3 ATTENDEES: Robin Gross, Norbert Klein - NCUC, Dirk Krischenowski - dot Berlin, Roger Castillo -.lat, Eric Brunner-Williams, Werner Staub -CORE Dan Schindler -CentralNic, Kristina Rosette, Steve metalitz - IPC, J. Scott Evans - IPC, Mike Rodenbaugh, Marilyn Cade - CBUC, Adrian Kinderis, Paul Stahura, James Bladel, Jon Nevett - RR, Avri Doria - NomCom GNSO Chair, Chuck Gomes - Ry GNSO Vice chair, Greg Ruth - ISP, Ken Stubbs, Ray Fassett - Ry, Jon Bing, Olga Cavalli - NomCom, Richard Tindall - Demandmedia Afternoon: Karl Manheim, Professor of Law at Loyola Law school STAFF John Jeffrey, Dan Halloran, Craig Schwartz, Olof Nordling, Karla Valente, Denise Michel, Karen Lentz, Glen de Saint Gery, Irving Sanchez. REMOTE PARTICIPATION: Keith Drazek - Neustar, Edward Viltz, Jeff Neumen Ry constituency, Danny Younger, Michael Palage Ry +IP +CBU constituencies, Hal Lubsen - Afilias, Thomas Lowenhaupt - Communisphere, Cheryl Langdon-Orr - ALAC Chair, David Maher - Ry constituency chair, Lyman Chapin - Interisle Consulting Group, Colin Strutt - Interisle Consulting Group, Amadeu Abril l Abril - .cat, Beau Brendler- Consumer reports Webwatch Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

New gTLD Implementation Notes
by Karen Lentz April 16, 2008

April 16, 2008

Dear All, Please find attached a document containing briefing notes on new gTLD implementation that were previously provided to the Board, as has been requested by the Council. The information has been compiled into one document, and has been edited to remove confidential and privileged information. I hope this is helpful. Please don't hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions. Best regards, Karen = Karen Lentz ICANN +1 310 301 5836 office +1 310 895 3637 mobile karen.lentz(a)icann.org

2 1