July 2008 - council - lists.icann.org

Final Report Of The Working Group On GNSO Council Restructuring
by Robert Hoggarth July 28, 2008

July 28, 2008

As you may recall, on 26 June 2008 in Paris, the ICANN Board of Directors endorsed the recommendations of the Board Governance Committee's (BGC) GNSO Review Working Group, with the exception of the BGC's recommendation regarding GNSO Council restructuring. The Board asked the GNSO to convene a small working group on Council restructuring and said that the group "should reach consensus and submit a consensus recommendation on Council restructuring by no later than 25 July 2008 for consideration by the ICANN Board as soon as possible." (see ICANN Board Resolution 2008.06.26.13, <http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm#_Toc76113182> ) The Working Group has now made its report to the Board. Because of the high degree of community interest in this topic, I am circulating a copy of this report to all of you and Glen will be posting the report on the GNSO web site. Now that the group's deliberations have concluded, the raw materials of those deliberations will soon be compiled and made publicly available for community review. Best regards, Rob Hoggarth Robert L. Hoggarth, Esq. Senior Policy Director ICANN robert.hoggarth(a)icann.org

1 0

Public Comment Period Open: ALAC Review: Final Report by Independent Evaluator Released
by Glen de Saint Géry July 28, 2008

July 28, 2008

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org; liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: regional-liaisons[at]icann.org] http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-25jul08-en.htm ALAC Review: Final Report by Independent Evaluator Released 25 July 2008 ICANN is posting the summary http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/alac/summary-alac-independent-review-25jul0… and final report http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/alac/alac-independent-review-final-25jul08.… of the Independent Review of the ALAC submitted by Westlake Consulting. These documents will be available shortly in multiple languages. ICANN is seeking public comment on the report. Details on the public comment forum can be found here. http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-200809.html#alac-rev-… Westlake Consulting was selected by ICANN's Board to conduct the independent review of the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) and related structures. Key objectives of the review include: [To determine] whether the ALAC has a continuing purpose in the ICANN structure; and, If so, whether any change in structure or operations is desirable to improve its effectiveness. This review is part of ICANN's ongoing commitment to its evolution and improvement. ICANN's bylaws require periodic, independent examinations of the role and operation of key elements of ICANN. More information about ICANN Independent Reviews is available at <http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/>. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

RE: [council] FW: Added Volunteers for IRTP Part A WG
by Tim Ruiz July 28, 2008

July 28, 2008

Glen, These two registrars also volunteered. Thought I had sent you their info. If not, let me know. Mark Klein (Sedo.com) Steven Vine (Register.com) Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [council] FW: Added Volunteers for IRTP Part A WG From: Glen_de_Saint_Géry <Glen(a)icann.org> Date: Fri, July 25, 2008 5:08 pm To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Dear All, Volunteers are still very welcome! The Inter Registrar Transfer Policy Part A - PDP Working Group mailing list has been established: Gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08[at]icann.org The public archives are at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08/ Currently the following volunteers have been subscribed: Avri Doria - GNSO Chair Chuck Gomes - GNSO vice chair Mike Rodenbaugh CBUC Council Liaison Adam Eisner - Tucows Registrar c. Margie Milam - Markmonitor Registrar c. Paul Diaz - Networksolutions Registrar c. James M. Bladel - Godaddy Registrar c. Barbara Steele - Verisign Registry c. Megan Carpenter - IPC Kevin R. Erdman - IPC Marc Trachtenberg - IPC The Inter Registrar Transfer Policy Part A - PDP Working Group Charter is posted at: http://gnso.icann.org/index.html and http://gnso.icann.org/issues/ and may be directly viewed at: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/transfers/irtp-working-group-charter-jun08.htm The working group is open and the constituencies are encouraged to submit the names of volunteers to join the working group by COB on Friday 25 July 2008. Community members who wish to be invited to join the group should contact the GNSO secretariat <gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org> and the invitations will be reviewed by the GNSO Council. Thank you. Kind regards Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Fwd: SAC 033, Domain Name Registration Records and Directory Services
by Avri Doria July 26, 2008

July 26, 2008

Begin forwarded message: > From: Dave Piscitello <dave.piscitello(a)icann.org> > Date: 25 July 2008 14:15:59 GMT+02:00 > > Avri and Chuck, hello, > > SSAC has published > > SAC 033 Domain Name Registration Records and Directory Services > http://www.icann.org/committees/security/sac033.pdf > > > This is a companion document to > > SAC 027 Comment to GNSO regarding WHOIS studies > http://www.icann.org/committees/security/sac027.pdf > > This paper asserts that the ICANN community would be served well if > the > accuracy and availability of domain registration information were > improved. > > It attempts to further clarify the distinction between the type of > services > currently offered using WHOIS and those services typically available > via > directory services frameworks used in enterprises and large > organizations > today. The paper is informational and makes no specific > recommendations. > SSAC suggests that this informational paper could serve as the basis > for > discussions related to future WHOIS features and services. > > Please contact me or Steve Crocker if you have any questions. > > Regards, > > > Dave > >

1 0

FW: Added Volunteers for IRTP Part A WG
by Glen de Saint Géry July 25, 2008

July 25, 2008

Dear All, Volunteers are still very welcome! The Inter Registrar Transfer Policy Part A - PDP Working Group mailing list has been established: Gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08[at]icann.org The public archives are at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08/ Currently the following volunteers have been subscribed: Avri Doria - GNSO Chair Chuck Gomes - GNSO vice chair Mike Rodenbaugh CBUC Council Liaison Adam Eisner - Tucows Registrar c. Margie Milam - Markmonitor Registrar c. Paul Diaz - Networksolutions Registrar c. James M. Bladel - Godaddy Registrar c. Barbara Steele - Verisign Registry c. Megan Carpenter - IPC Kevin R. Erdman - IPC Marc Trachtenberg - IPC The Inter Registrar Transfer Policy Part A - PDP Working Group Charter is posted at: http://gnso.icann.org/index.html and http://gnso.icann.org/issues/ and may be directly viewed at: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/transfers/irtp-working-group-charter-jun08.htm The working group is open and the constituencies are encouraged to submit the names of volunteers to join the working group by COB on Friday 25 July 2008. Community members who wish to be invited to join the group should contact the GNSO secretariat <gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org> and the invitations will be reviewed by the GNSO Council. Thank you. Kind regards Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Domain Name Security Paper Released
by Glen de Saint Géry July 25, 2008

July 25, 2008

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org; liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: regional-liaisons[at]icann.org] http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-24jul08-en.htm<http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=9826720&msgid=163486&act=9MXL&c=1…> ________________________________ Domain Name Security Paper Released 24 July 2008 Marina Del Rey, Calif: For many years, the Internet community has been developing and enhancing a Domain Name System (DNS) security technology called DNSSEC. ICANN's strategic<http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=9826720&msgid=163486&act=9MXL&c=1…> and operating<http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=9826720&msgid=163486&act=9MXL&c=1…> [PDF, 480K] plans call for ICANN to be operationally ready to deploy DNSSEC at the root level and work with relevant stakeholders to determine how this should be implemented. With input from many stakeholders, ICANN has prepared a document describing this path to operational readiness for signing the root. The purpose of this paper<http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=9826720&msgid=163486&act=9MXL&c=1…> [PDF, 342K] released today is to: a) articulate ICANN's initiatives toward operational readiness for DNSSEC signing; and b) help determine the right structures so ICANN is "…prepared to digitally sign the root using DNSSEC technology by late 2008", as directed in the July 2008 – June 2011 ICANN Strategic Plan after consultation with stakeholders and having sought the necessary approvals. Specifically, this document is not a roadmap for DNSSEC deployment. Ultimately, this roadmap will be developed by a community consultation process, and require relevant approvals through ICANN's IANA functions contract with the U.S. Department of Commerce. A public forum has been established at http://forum.icann.org/lists/dnssec-roadmap/<http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=9826720&msgid=163486&act=9MXL&c=1…> and ICANN actively seeks your input on this important matter. Email comments to dnssec-roadmap(a)icann.org<mailto:dnssec-roadmap@icann.org> In addition recently, a prominent security researcher privately reported two domain name system (DNS) vulnerabilities to many DNS name server developers. DNSSEC would be a solution to these vulnerabilities. The details of the vulnerabilities have not yet been disclosed publicly at this stage so that developers can produce patches to reduce the threat these vulnerabilities pose. Private disclosures of this kind also give DNS operators an opportunity to patch systems before the vulnerabilities can be exploited for malicious or criminal purposes. ICANN understands there will be a public announcement of these vulnerabilities by the researcher in coming weeks. This vulnerability does not affect root-level servers or services that provide authoritative name service at the top level. But it does represent a threat for domain name servers that operate between end users and the root; servers operated by Internet Service Providers or large enterprises. Commercial service providers in general are aware of this issue, and are working with vendors to update their software to the latest versions. ICANN's Security Stability Advisory Committee will be examining this issue and may report more fully later. ICANN urges any entity operating name services to update to the current versions to provide greatest protection. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

ICANN Opens Public Comment Period on Czech Arbitration Court Proposed Pilot Projects
by Glen de Saint Géry July 24, 2008

July 24, 2008

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org; liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: regional-liaisons[at]icann.org] http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-22jul08-en.htm<http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=9826720&msgid=162739&act=9MXL&c=1…> ICANN Opens Public Comment Period on Czech Arbitration Court Proposed Pilot Projects 22 July 2008 ICANN has received a request from the Czech Arbitration Court (CAC) to run two pilot projects related to its implementation of UDRP. Background to Posting CAC was approved as a UDRP provider at the Board meeting on 23 January 2008. CAC wishes to run tests of the following two UDRP-related services as part of its implementation of UDRP: A. Simplified way of sending signed hardcopies of Complaints and/or Responses to the Provider (Par. 3(b), Par. 5(b)) of the UDRP Rules. This pilot project aims at exploring and testing the legal and practical implications of a service that would enable parties to submit hardcopies of the complaints/responses in a simplified way. B. Service of delivery of signed hard copies. This pilot project seeks to explore and test the legal and practical implications of a new service related to e-UDRP consisting of the printing and delivering of signed electronic documents. ICANN has at the request of CAC agreed to post for public comment the description of the pilot projects<http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=9826720&msgid=162739&act=9MXL&c=1…> for a period of thirty days (30), along with a report<http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=9826720&msgid=162739&act=9MXL&c=1…> on the pilot project by professor Chris Reed, a recognized international authority on technology law and electronic commerce law . Those wishing to comment are encouraged to do so and to make their comments not later than 21 August 2008. Comments may be submitted by email to cac-pilot(a)icann.org<mailto:cac-pilot@icann.org> and may be viewed at http://forum.icann.org/lists/cac-pilot<http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=9826720&msgid=162739&act=9MXL&c=1…>. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

RE: [gnso-trans-pdp] RE: [council] Summary of Public Comments - IRTP PDP on Clarification of DenialReasons
by Gomes, Chuck July 23, 2008

July 23, 2008

Helpful clarification Tim & Barbara. Chuck Gomes > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-gnso-trans-pdp(a)icann.org > [mailto:owner-gnso-trans-pdp@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steele, Barbara > Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 1:23 PM > To: Tim Ruiz; Olof Nordling > Cc: gnso-trans-pdp(a)icann.org; Council GNSO > Subject: RE: [gnso-trans-pdp] RE: [council] Summary of Public > Comments - IRTP PDP on Clarification of DenialReasons > > > That is my understanding as well, Tim. > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > Barbara Steele > Compliance Officer > VeriSign Information Services > bsteele(a)verisign.com > Direct: 703.948.3343 > Mobile: 703.622.1071 > Fax: 703.421.4873 > 21345 Ridgetop Circle > Dulles, VA 20166 > > > Notice to Recipient: This e-mail contains confidential, > proprietary and/or Registry Sensitive information intended > solely for the recipient and, thus may not be retransmitted, > reproduced or disclosed without the prior written consent of > VeriSign Naming and Directory Services. If you have received > this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender > immediately by telephone or reply e-mail and destroy the > original message without making a copy. Thank you. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-gnso-trans-pdp(a)icann.org > [mailto:owner-gnso-trans-pdp@icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz > Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 11:44 AM > To: Olof Nordling > Cc: gnso-trans-pdp(a)icann.org; Council GNSO > Subject: [gnso-trans-pdp] RE: [council] Summary of Public > Comments - IRTP PDP on Clarification of DenialReasons > > > I'd like to explain what I believe to be the group's > reasoning for not accepting the IPC's proposal. I want to > assure Steve and the IPC that we did not gloss over their > proposal. It was carefully considered. > > While the group's work was part of a PDP, the Council created > it as 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." > > As a result, we understood our task to be "clarification" of > the existing reasons based on the previous and extensive work > already done under this PDP to determine the original intent > of each reason, and not one of recommending changes to the > policy. The IPC proposed wording, while well reasoned, we > believed constituted a change and/or addition to the original > intent of those reasons, and therefore a change in the policy. > > We used the same approach when addressing the other two > reasons. While the previous work done under the PDP seemed > clear that the majority of stakeholders were in agreement as > to the original intent of reasons #8 and #9, that was not so > clear regarding reasons #5 and #7. As a result, we felt they > would be best considered during one of the upcoming Transfer PDPs. > > Disclaimer: This is my recollection. Others on the drafting > team may recall things differently. > > > Tim > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [council] Summary of Public Comments - IRTP PDP on > Clarification of DenialReasons > From: Olof Nordling <olof.nordling(a)icann.org> > Date: Wed, July 23, 2008 9:36 am > To: Council GNSO <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > Cc: "gnso-trans-pdp(a)icann.org" <gnso-trans-pdp(a)icann.org> > > > Dear Council Members, (cc: drafting group list) > Attached please find a summary of the public comments outcome > of the recent posting for this PDP, for your information and > consideration of further steps to take. > Very best regards > Olof > > > > >

1 0

RE: [council] Summary of Public Comments - IRTP PDP on Clarification of DenialReasons
by Tim Ruiz July 23, 2008

July 23, 2008

I'd like to explain what I believe to be the group's reasoning for not accepting the IPC's proposal. I want to assure Steve and the IPC that we did not gloss over their proposal. It was carefully considered. While the group's work was part of a PDP, the Council created it as 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." As a result, we understood our task to be "clarification" of the existing reasons based on the previous and extensive work already done under this PDP to determine the original intent of each reason, and not one of recommending changes to the policy. The IPC proposed wording, while well reasoned, we believed constituted a change and/or addition to the original intent of those reasons, and therefore a change in the policy. We used the same approach when addressing the other two reasons. While the previous work done under the PDP seemed clear that the majority of stakeholders were in agreement as to the original intent of reasons #8 and #9, that was not so clear regarding reasons #5 and #7. As a result, we felt they would be best considered during one of the upcoming Transfer PDPs. Disclaimer: This is my recollection. Others on the drafting team may recall things differently. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [council] Summary of Public Comments - IRTP PDP on Clarification of DenialReasons From: Olof Nordling <olof.nordling(a)icann.org> Date: Wed, July 23, 2008 9:36 am To: Council GNSO <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Cc: "gnso-trans-pdp(a)icann.org" <gnso-trans-pdp(a)icann.org> Dear Council Members, (cc: drafting group list) Attached please find a summary of the public comments outcome of the recent posting for this PDP, for your information and consideration of further steps to take. Very best regards Olof

1 0

Summary of Public Comments - IRTP PDP on Clarification of Denial Reasons
by Olof Nordling July 23, 2008

July 23, 2008

Dear Council Members, (cc: drafting group list) Attached please find a summary of the public comments outcome of the recent posting for this PDP, for your information and consideration of further steps to take. Very best regards Olof

1 0