October 2011 - council - lists.icann.org

Public Comment Forum Opened - Geographic Regions Review Draft Final Report
by Olga Cavalli Oct. 3, 2011

Oct. 3, 2011

Hi Geographic Regions Draft Final Report is published now for public comments. http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/ http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/geo-regions-draft-final-report-30sep… Best regards Olga

2 1

RE: [council] Motion from the RrSG - Clarification
by Tim Ruiz Oct. 3, 2011

Oct. 3, 2011

After receiving requests from both Heather Dryden and Suzanne Radell I would like to be sure that the comment I made below, when originally introducing this motion, is clearly understood. First, the recommendations I refer to in my comment are numbered bullets 1, 2, and 3 (but the RrSG would still like to explore the viability of numbered bullet 4. Numbered bullet 5 was removed in the later amended motion). Second, while I stand by my comment that we, the RrSG, feel those recommendations are generally agreed as necessary by LEAs and supported by the GAC, I want to be sure it is understood that we have not had the motion reviewed nor approved by either LEAs or the GAC. The basis for that comment are the following: 1. Law Enforcement Recommended RAA Amendments and ICANN Due Dilligence - Detailed Version as included in the Final Drafting Team Report on Improvements to the RAA beginning on page 133: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/raa/raa-improvements-proposal-final-report-18o… 2. GAC Communique Nairobi 10 March 2010 (section VI) and Janis Karklins, GAC Chariman, letter to Peter Dengate Thrush, 12 April 2010 as included in the Final Drafting Team Report on Improvements to the RAA beginning on pages 141 and 140 respectively. Note that in both it states the GAC expects the LEA proposals will be "thoroughly examined and taken into consideration." 3. Discussions that have taken place between LEAs and registrars, and discussions that have taken place between the GAC and registrars. Again, the motion and the idea of establishing these recommendations as consensus policy through a PDP (and then immediately enforceable on all registrars) was our idea alone. Thanks, Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [council] Motion from the RrSG From: "Tim Ruiz" <tim(a)godaddy.com> Date: Tue, September 13, 2011 1:51 pm To: "GNSO Council" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> The following motion (also attached as a doc file) is being made at the request of the RrSG. We feel the recommendations contained in it are requested and generally agreed as necessary by Law Enforcement Agencies (LEA), are supported by the GAC, and have not garnered any opposition from other SGs or Cs. Tim -------------- WHEREAS, the Registrar Stakeholder Group has consulted extensively with representatives of international law enforcement agencies regarding the nature of Internet-based criminal activity and the information and tools available to help address crime that involves the domain name system; and WHEREAS, the Registrar Stakeholder Group has reviewed law enforcement proposals and requests regarding registrar cooperation in addressing online crime; and WHEREAS, the GNSO Council is prepared to assist law enforcement in its long-term effort to address Internet-based criminal activity; NOW THEREFORE, the GNSO Council recommends to the ICANN Board of Directors that: 1. ICANN-accredited registrars must provide to ICANN staff, and ICANN staff must keep on record, a valid physical address for the purpose of receiving legal service. This record must include a valid street address, city, appropriate region, telephone number and fax number. Registrars must publish this information on their respective web sites, and must notify ICANN staff and update their published addresses within 30 days of a change of address. 2. ICANN-accredited registrars must provide to ICANN staff, and ICANN staff must keep on record, the names of each registrar’s respective corporate President, Vice President, and Secretary, or the appropriate equivalents of those positions. These data may be made available upon request to a verified representative of a law enforcement agency, in a manner agreed to by ICANN staff, ICANN-accredited registrars, and representatives of law enforcement agencies. Registrars will notify ICANN of any changes in this information within 30 days of a change. 3. ICANN-accredited registrars must publish on their respective web sites e-mail and postal mail addresses to which law enforcement actions may be directed. The e-mail address will use a uniform convention (example: lawenforcement(a)example.tld) to facilitate ease of use by law enforcement agencies. Registrars may, at their individual discretion, include language in this section of their web sites, directed to the general public, that makes clear the use and expected outcomes of these points of contact and identifies the appropriate points of contact for other forms of business. Requests submitted by verified law enforcement agencies to this discrete point of contact must receive an acknowledgement of receipt from the registrar within 24 hours. 4. Law enforcement agencies provide, within six months of the date of approval of this policy by the ICANN Board and via the general advice of the GAC to the Board, their recommendations for a database and identification system that allows for expedient identification to a registrar of a law enforcement agency, and verification of the contacting party as a law enforcement agency upon that agency’s first contact with a registrar. 5. Implementation and execution of these recommendations be monitored by the GNSO. Specifically: a. ICANN staff will analyze and report to the GNSO at six-month intervals for one year following implementation, until such time as the GNSO resolves otherwise, with the intention of determining: i. How effectively and to what extent the policies have been implemented and followed by Registrars, and ii. Whether or not modifications to these policies should be considered by the GNSO as a result of experiences 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 amendment, clarification or attention based on the results of the reports prepared by ICANN staff.

1 0

Call for Volunteers: Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group Members - Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part C
by Glen de Saint Géry Oct. 2, 2011

Oct. 2, 2011

Call for Volunteers: Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group Members - Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part C In Brief The Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council seeks volunteers to serve on a Working Group that will address issues related to the transfer of domain names between registrars. After investigating and considering specific issues (detailed below), the Working Group is expected to recommend how to handle these issues, which could include proposals for changes to the existing Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy<http://www.icann.org/en/transfers/policy-12jul04.htm> (a consensus policy adopted in 2004). What This Group Will Do The initial tasks of the group will be to consider the following questions[1] and make recommendations to the GNSO Council: a) "Change of Control" function, including an investigation of how this function is currently achieved, if there are any applicable models in the country-code name space that can be used as a best practice for the gTLD space, and any associated security concerns. It should also include a review of locking procedures, as described in Reasons for Denial #8 and #9, with an aim to balance legitimate transfer activity and security. b) Whether provisions on time-limiting Form Of Authorization (FOA)s should be implemented to avoid fraudulent transfers out. For example, if a Gaining Registrar sends and receives an FOA back from a transfer contact, but the name is locked, the registrar may hold the FOA pending adjustment to the domain name status, during which time the registrant or other registration information may have changed. c) Whether the process could be streamlined by a requirement that registries use IANA IDs for registrars rather than proprietary IDs. How This Group Will Work ICANN Working Groups use transparent, open processes. The meetings of this WG will be recorded, and the recordings will be available to the public. The mailing list for the IRTP Part C WG will be archived publicly. Working Group members are expected to submit Statements of Interest (SOI). The group will collaborate using a public workspace<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsoirtppdpwg/Home>. The Working Group is expected to follow the GNSO Working Group Guidelines<http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-07apr11-en.pdf>. How to Join The Council invites interested parties to provide names of expected participants who can then be added to the WG mailing list. The GNSO Council may also invite stakeholders and experts to join. Participants in the Working Group that addressed IRTP Part B are especially encouraged to apply. Community members who wish to be invited to join the group should contact the GNSO secretariat<mailto:gnso.secretariat@icann.org?subject=Application%20to%20Join%20IRTP%20Part%20C%20Working%20Group> (gnso.secretariat(a)icann.org) This WG is already forming; please apply promptly. Background The Inter�\Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) is a consensus policy adopted in 2004 to provide a straightforward procedure for domain name holders to transfer domain names between registrars. An overall review of this policy identified areas that require clarification or improvement. At its meeting of 22 September 2011, the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council passed a resolution chartering a Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group (WG) to address the topic of Inter-Registrar Transfer Policies (IRTP) Part C. Because the initial review identified a wide range of issues related to transferring domain names, the issues have been categorized into subsets. This Working Group will tackle the issues referred to as ��Part C��. Sent on behalf of the GNSO Chair, St��phane van Gelder Glen de Saint G��ry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org ________________________________ [1] See the Final Issue Report on the IRTP Part C<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/issue-report-irtp-c-29aug11-en.pdf> for further details on each of these issues.

1 0