June 2012 - council - lists.icann.org

Public Comment- Interisle Consulting Group's WHOIS Proxy/Privacy Reveal & Relay Feasibility Survey
by Glen de Saint Géry 05 Jun '12

05 Jun '12

http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-04jun12-en.htm Interisle Consulting Group's WHOIS Proxy/Privacy Reveal & Relay Feasibility Survey Comment/Reply Periods (*) Important Information Links Comment Open: 4 June 2012 Comment Close: 25 June 2012 Close Time (UTC): 23:59 UTC Public Comment Announcement<http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-04jun12-en.htm> Reply Open: 26 June 2012 To Submit Your Comments (Forum)<mailto:whois-pp-survey@icann.org> Reply Close: 16 July 2012 View Comments Submitted<http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-pp-survey/> Close Time (UTC): 23:59 UTC Report of Public Comments Brief Overview Originating Organization: GNSO Council - Interisle Consulting's WHOIS Proxy/Privacy Reveal & Relay Feasibility Survey Categories/Tags: Policy Processes Purpose (Brief): This survey, conducted by the Interisle Consulting Group in Boston, MA, USA, is intended to help the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council determine the feasibility of conducting an extensive analytical study ("full study") into communication Relay and identity Reveal requests sent for gTLD domain names registered using Proxy and Privacy services. Current Status: This Public Comment solicitation represents an opportunity for the community to consider the survey results detailed in this draft report, ask questions, request clarifications, and share perspectives about the feasibility of conducting a full study into WHOIS Proxy/Privacy Reveal & Relay handling for gTLD domain names. In parallel, ICANN and Interisle will conduct a Webinar to facilitate feedback by summarizing this survey's purpose, methodology, key findings, and conclusions. Next Steps: Interisle will consider all comments submitted to this Public Comment forum during the comment period, incorporate any needed clarifications, and then publish a final version of this WHOIS Proxy/Privacy Reveal & Relay Survey report. Afterwards, the GNSO Council will use this report as a foundation to determine whether and how to launch a full study into WHOIS Proxy/Privacy Reveal & Relay handling for gTLD domain names. Staff Contact: Liz Gasster Email: policy.staff(a)icann.org<mailto:policy.staff@icann.org?subject=More%20information%20on%20the%20Interisle%20Consulting%20Group's%20WHOIS%20Proxy/Privacy%20Reveal%20and%20Relay%20Feasibility%20Survey%20public%20comment%20period> Detailed Information Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose At the request of the GNSO Council<http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201104>, ICANN engaged the Interisle Consulting Group to conduct an independent third-party WHOIS Privacy and Proxy Relay/Reveal Survey to gather, analyze, and present data that might allow the ICANN community to determine the feasibility of launching a full study and inform the design and conduct of a full study (should one be undertaken). Specifically, this survey assessed the willingness and ability of request originators, Privacy/Proxy providers, Registrars and other interested parties to participate in and provide data to a full study, identified factors that would promote or inhibit participation in a full study, and offered individuals and organizations who might be willing to participate in a full study an opportunity to identify themselves. This draft report presents the questions posed by this multi-lingual on-line survey, responses supplied by 168 survey respondents, input obtained through follow-up interviews, and the research team's analysis, conclusions, and recommendations about concerning a possible full study. The GNSO Council is now seeking community review and feedback on the draft report. The purpose of this Public Comment period is to ensure that survey results have been communicated clearly and to solicit feedback on the goals and nature of a full study of Relay and Reveal requests (if any) that could be feasible, given the findings provided by this survey report. The draft report and supporting appendices can be accessed here: · WHOIS Proxy/Privacy Reveal & Relay Feasibility Survey Draft Report<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-pp-survey-draft-report-31may12-en.…> [PDF, 2.12 MB] · WHOIS Proxy/Privacy Reveal & Relay Feasibility Survey Draft Report Appendices<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-pp-survey-draft-report-appendices-…> [PDF, 1.19 MB] Section II: Background As part of a broader effort to develop a comprehensive understanding of the gTLD WHOIS system, the GNSO Council has expressed an interest in conducting an in-depth study ("full study") that would analyze Relay and Reveal requests sent for Privacy and Proxy-registered domain names. At the GNSO's request, ICANN issued an RFP in September 2010 which detailed a full study to explore and analyze a sample of Relay and Reveal requests sent for Privacy/Proxy-registered domain names to document how they are processed and identify factors that may promote or impede timely communication and resolution. The highly diverse and distributed nature of these practices has made it difficult to assess the effectiveness of related policies. The study's stated objective was therefore to help the ICANN community better understand how communication Relay and identity Reveal requests sent for Privacy/Proxy-registered domain names are actually being handled. To some, such a study might be highly desirable, if not essential. However, RFP responses revealed concerns about how such a study could be carried out or even if it could yield meaningful results. It was not clear what data (if any) could be made available to a study team; which entities could provide that data (and on what basis); what levels of participation would be forthcoming from key groups and other members of the community; or how to design and carry out a study so that it was likely to be successful. ICANN staff therefore recommended that a survey be conducted first, to determine the feasibility of conducting a full study. The GNSO Council authorized a survey to determine whether or not a full study would be feasible, under what conditions or limitations, and how likely it would be to obtain broad participation from Relay and Reveal initiators and responders. Results of this feasibility Survey, conducted independently by Interisle, are the subject of this draft report. Section III: Document and Resource Links 1. WHOIS Proxy/Privacy Reveal & Relay Feasibility Survey Draft Report<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-pp-survey-draft-report-31may12-en.…> [PDF, 2.12 MB] 2. WHOIS Proxy/Privacy Reveal & Relay Feasibility Survey Draft Report Appendices<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-pp-survey-draft-report-appendices-…> [PDF, 1.19 MB] 3. WHOIS Privacy/Proxy Relay & Reveal Studies RFP<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-proxy-privacy-relay-reveal-studies…> [PDF, 81 KB] 4. Report to the GNSO Council on WHOIS Privacy and Proxy Relay & Reveal studies<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-pp-relay-reveal-studies-report-11f…> [PDF, 247 KB] 5. gTLD WHOIS Privacy and Proxy Relay and Reveal Survey Now Live<http://blog.icann.org/2011/09/gtld-whois-privacy-and-proxy-relay-and-reveal…> Section IV: Additional Information Additional WHOIS studies are now being conducted at the request of the GNSO Council, as summarized by: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/ (*) Comments submitted after the posted Close Date/Time are not guaranteed to be considered in any final summary, analysis, reporting, or decision-making that takes place once this period lapses. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Public Comment - Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part C Policy Development Process Initial Report
by Glen de Saint Géry 05 Jun '12

05 Jun '12

http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-04jun12-en.htm Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part C Policy Development Process Initial Report Comment/Reply Periods (*) Important Information Links Comment Open: 4 June 2012 Comment Close: 4 July 2012 Close Time (UTC): 23:59 UTC Public Comment Announcement<http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-04jun12-en.htm> Reply Open: 5 July 2012 To Submit Your Comments (Forum)<mailto:irtp-c-initial-report@icann.org> Reply Close: 25 July 2012 View Comments Submitted<http://forum.icann.org/lists/irtp-c-initial-report/> Close Time (UTC): 23:59 UTC Report of Public Comments Brief Overview Originating Organization: GNSO Working Group Categories/Tags: Policy Processes Purpose (Brief): The Generic Names Supporting Organization's (GNSO) Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part C Working Group has published its Initial Report and is looking for community input on its proposed recommendations for changes to the existing IRTP. Current Status: As a required step of the GNSO Policy Development Process, the IRTP Part C Working Group has now published its Initial Report for public comment. Next Steps: Following review of the public comments received, the Working Group will continue its deliberations and finalize its report for submission to the GNSO Council. Staff Contact: Marika Konings Email: policy-staff(a)icann.org<mailto:policy-staff@icann.org?subject=More%20information%20on%20the%20Inter-Registrar%20Transfer%20Policy%20Part%20C%20Policy%20Development%20Process%20Initial%20Report%20public%20comment%20period> Detailed Information Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose In addition to background information, an overview of the WG's deliberations and community input received to date, the Initial Report<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/transfers/irtp-c-initial-report-04jun12-en.pdf> [PDF, 1.23 MB] contains the following four preliminary recommendations: · Recommendation #1 (Charter Question A) - The IRTP Part C WG recommends the adoption of change of registrant consensus policy, which outlines the rules and requirements for a change of registrant of a domain name registration. At this point in time, the WG is of the view that such a policy should follow the five steps as outlined in the section 5 of the Initial Report under the heading 'proposed change of control process for gTLDs', but recognizes that there are additional details and/or steps that may need to be added and therefore requests community input on the proposed process and related notes. · Recommendation #2 (Charter Question B): the WG recommends Section 2 of the IRTP be revised to insert the following section: 2.1.4 Once obtained, an FOA is valid for (45 or 60 1<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/irtp-c-initial-report-04jun12-e…>) calendar days, or until the domain name expires, or until there is a Change of Registrant, whichever occurs first. The WG recorded rough consensus for the above recommendation, but some noted that support was conditional on a second recommendation related to this charter question being considered by the WG, which recommends that: · Recommendation #3 (Charter Question B): the Standard FOA is enhanced to support FOAs that have been pre-authorized or auto-renewed by a Prior Registrant who has chosen to opt out of this time-limiting requirement after having received a standard notice as to the associated risks. This enhancement would introduce a modified FOA, which would serve exclusively as a notification to the Prior Registrant that their pre-authorized domain transfer had occurred. The implementation of this recommendation should be accompanied by the appropriate security measures to protect Registrants from hijacking attempts using pre-approval as the attack vector. The WG is planning to discuss the details of such security measures in further detail in the next phase of its work. · Recommendation #4 (Charter Question C): The WG recommends that all gTLD Registry Operators be required to publish the Registrar of Record's IANA ID in the TLD's thick WHOIS. Existing gTLD Registry operators that currently use proprietary IDs can continue to do so, but they must also publish the Registrar of Record's IANA ID. This recommendation should not prevent the use of proprietary IDs by gTLD Registry Operators for other purposes, as long as the Registrar of Record's IANA ID is also published in the TLD's thick Whois. In addition to input on these preliminary recommendations, the WG is specifically requesting feedback on a number of open items such as, amongst others: whether the proposed change of registrant policy should be accompanied by a restriction that would prevent a change of registrar immediately following a change of registrant for 60 days; whether this change of registrant policy should be incorporated as a stand-alone policy or as part of the existing IRTP; which changes to registrant information should qualify as a 'change of registrant', and; whether there are any other expected impacts of the proposed recommendations in addition to those already anticipated by the WG. Those interested in providing input are strongly encouraged to especially review section 5 of the Initial Report in further detail in order to obtain further understanding concerning the WG's thinking and rationale with regards to these recommendations. The WG appears to have rough consensus for all the above recommendations, but it should be noted that no formal consensus call was undertaken. Such a formal consensus call will be conducted once the recommendations are finalized following review of the public comments received on this Initial Report. The WG would like to encourage all interested parties to submit their comments and suggestions so these can be considered as the WG continues its deliberations in view of finalizing its report and recommendations in the next phase of the policy development process. ________________________________ 1<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/irtp-c-initial-report-04jun12-e…> The WG has not decided yet on the exact timeframe and would welcome community input. Section II: Background The aim of the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) is to provide a straightforward procedure for domain name holders to transfer their names from one ICANN-accredited registrar to another. The GNSO Council is reviewing and considering revisions to this policy through a series of Working Groups it has established to conduct these efforts. The IRTP Part C PDP Working Group has been tasked to consider the following three questions: 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. Section III: Document and Resource Links · IRTP Part C Initial Report<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/transfers/irtp-c-initial-report-04jun12-en.pdf> [PDF, 1.23 MB] · IRTP Part C Final Issue Report<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/issue-report-irtp-c-29aug11-en.pdf> [PDF, 625 KB] · Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy<http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/transfers> Section IV: Additional Information None (*) Comments submitted after the posted Close Date/Time are not guaranteed to be considered in any final summary, analysis, reporting, or decision-making that takes place once this period lapses. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Preliminary Issue Report on the Protection of Certain International Organization Names
by Brian Peck 05 Jun '12

05 Jun '12

Dear All, In response to the GNSO Council motion calling for an issue report on the topic of whether additional protections should be provided to the names of certain international organizations at the first and second levels for names introduced through the New gTLD Program, please find attached the Preliminary Issue Report. Please note that in conjunction with the publication of the Preliminary Issue Report, a public comment forum has been opened (see http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-5-04jun12-en.htm ). Comments can be submitted until 25 June following which the comment reply will open (replies will be accepted until 16 July). Please let us know if you have any questions. Best Regards, Brian Policy Director ICANN

1 0

Prague schedule published
by Glen de Saint Géry 04 Jun '12

04 Jun '12

Dear All, Please find the full schedule as published. http://prague44.icann.org/full-schedule Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

IRTP Part C Initial Report
by Marika Konings 04 Jun '12

04 Jun '12

Dear All, On behalf of the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part C Working Group, please find attached the WG's Initial Report. Please note that in conjunction with the publication of the Initial Report, a public comment forum has been opened (see http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/irtp-c-initial-report-04jun12-e…). Comments can be submitted until 4 July following which the comment reply period will open. The WG is planning to provide an overview of the report to the GNSO Council in Prague, but if you have any comments or questions in the meantime, please feel free to share those. With best regards, Marika Sr. Policy Director ICANN

1 0

Draft Interisle report on gTLD WHOIS Relay and Reveal requests made of proxy and privacy providers has been posted
by Liz Gasster 04 Jun '12

04 Jun '12

All, I would like to inform you that the Draft Interisle report on Relay and Reveal requests made of proxy and privacy providers has been posted, see: http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-04jun12-en.htm. Comments and input are very much encouraged and appreciated. This posting is not being made specifically for discussion during the Prague meeting, though we're happy to comment generally on the report if requested. Interisle will be conducting two webinars (date and time to be confirmed) to review the content of the draft report with interested community members, and to encourage comment and input before the comment period closes on 25 June (replies accepted until 16 July). A final report from Interisle will be posted shortly thereafter. More information about the webinars will be announced shortly. Please let me know if you have any questions. Best regards, Liz

1 0

Public Comment Solicitation for FY13 Community Travel Support Guidelines
by Glen de Saint Géry 04 Jun '12

04 Jun '12

http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/travel-support-2013-01jun12-en.… Public Comment Solicitation for FY13 Community Travel Support Guidelines Comment/Reply Periods (*) Important Information Links Comment Open: 1 June 2012 Comment Close: 22 June 2012 Close Time (UTC): 23:59 UTC Public Comment Announcement<http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-4-01jun12-en.htm> Reply Open: 23 June 2012 To Submit Your Comments (Forum)<mailto:travel-support-2013@icann.org> Reply Close: 13 July 2012 View Comments Submitted<http://forum.icann.org/lists/travel-support-2013/> Close Time (UTC): 23:59 UTC Report of Public Comments Brief Overview Originating Organization: ICANN Travel Support Categories/Tags: Operations-Finances Purpose (Brief): Purpose to provide community members with the opportunity to review and comment upon proposed FY13 community travel support guidelines. Current Status: Pending review and comments. Changes in guidelines this year include: (1) New proposed booking and reimbursement procedures; and (2) Inclusion of data on FY13 special SO/AC budget requests approved (one time approvals, not ongoing support). Next Steps: There will be a Constituency Travel meeting on 26-June-2012 during the Prague meeting to further discuss proposed procedural changes for future travel bookings and reimbursements. Staff Contact: Steve Antonoff Email: steve.antonoff(a)icann.org<mailto:steve.antonoff@icann.org?subject=More%20information%20on%20the%20Public%20Comment%20Solicitation%20for%20FY13%20Community%20Travel%20Support%20Guidelines%20public%20comment%20period> Detailed Information Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose The proposed travel guidelines are posted each year for community review and comment prior to the next fiscal year. The purpose is to invite comments and questions specifically from the SO/AC community. Section II: Background Every year during planning for the next fiscal year budget, the community member travel support guidelines are posted for public review and comment. Section III: Document and Resource Links Proposed FY13 Community Travel Support Guidelines<http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/travel-support/draft-travel-support-g…> [PDF, 316 KB] Section IV: Additional Information One addition to this year guidelines is discussion of SO/AC Special Requests for FY13. In addition, a number of modifications to travel policy are proposed. (*) Comments submitted after the posted Close Date/Time are not guaranteed to be considered in any final summary, analysis, reporting, or decision-making that takes place once this period lapses. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Protecting Trademark Rights in New gTLDs: Selection of Trademark Clearinghouse Service Providers
by Glen de Saint Géry 02 Jun '12

02 Jun '12

http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-3-01jun12-en.htm Protecting Trademark Rights in New gTLDs: Selection of Trademark Clearinghouse Service Providers 1 June 2012 ICANN is pleased to announce that it is working with Deloitte<http://www.deloitte.com/> and IBM<http://www.ibm.com/> on implementation of Trademark Clearinghouse services. The Trademark Clearinghouse will function as an information repository, offering authentication and validation services for trademark data. Trademark holders and gTLD registry operators will rely on the Clearinghouse to support rights protection mechanisms for the new gTLD space. The Clearinghouse is designed to be available globally, with capabilities for validating trademark data from multiple global regions. In accordance with the direction set by the community, the authentication and database administration functions of the Clearinghouse are separated. Upon the anticipated execution of final agreement(s), Deloitte Enterprise Risk Services (a department of Deloitte Bedrijfsrevisoren BV ovve CVBA) will serve as the authenticator/validator service provider, and IBM [International Business Machines of Belgium sprl / bvba] will provide technical database administration services. Both Parties will subcontract IPClearingHouse BVBA (aka CHIP) in order to facilitate theses services. Both providers are highly qualified, with significant experience, technical capacity, and proven ability to manage and support processes. About Deloitte: "Deloitte" is the brand under which her member firms offer a broad range of audit, consulting, financial advisory, risk and tax services to clients all over the world. In this respect, Deloitte's validation team has been provided the opportunity to manage several successful Sunrise validation processes for many ccTLDs and gTLDs, including but not limited to .ASIA, .TEL, .ME, .CO, .SO. About IBM: IBM is an industry pioneer and has deep and broad experience. IBM knows how to play the role of a strategic partner - one that will bring industry thought leadership to the table and proactively contribute to customers' business and IT strategy. IBM has one of the largest global infrastructures, which has led to economies of scale that is passed on to its customers. IBM's excellent IT professionals and ability to leverage intellectual capital has led to one of the most respected groups of IT skills in the industry. These service providers have been selected out of a process of consideration in accordance with the Request for Information<http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-5-03oct11-en.htm> issued 3 October 2011. Requirements for candidate service providers included: a demonstrated understanding of the issues concerning global intellectual property rights and the Internet, global capability to authenticate and validate trademark information, and experience designing, building, and operating secure transaction processing systems with 24/7/365 availability. ICANN has also sought candidates with a proven ability to manage and support processes in multiple languages, in addition to fulfillment of the technical requirements. ICANN is currently working with Deloitte and IBM to build and prepare for operation of Trademark Clearinghouse services to support the new gTLDs. Both firms will take part in the public discussion refining technical and operating specifications. Information about the Trademark Clearinghouse, including the current implementation model, and estimated fees, is available at http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse. This page is a new resource and will be updated on a regular basis to track progress toward launch of the Clearinghouse operations. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Public comment open: ICANN's FY 13 Security, Stability and Resiliency Framework
by Glen de Saint Géry 02 Jun '12

02 Jun '12

http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/ssr-fy13-01jun12-en.htm ICANN's FY 13 Security, Stability and Resiliency Framework Comment/Reply Periods (*) Important Information Links Comment Open: 1 June 2012 Comment Close: 2 July 2012 Close Time (UTC): 23:59 Public Comment Announcement<http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-01jun12-en.htm> Reply Open: 3 July 2012 To Submit Your Comments (Forum)<mailto:ssr-fy13@icann.org> Reply Close: 3 August 2012 View Comments Submitted<http://forum.icann.org/lists/ssr-fy13/> Close Time (UTC): 23:59 Report of Public Comments Brief Overview Originating Organization: ICANN Security Team Categories/Tags: Security/Stability Purpose (Brief): ICANN is publishing its FY 13 Security, Stability & Resiliency Framework for community review. The Framework is an annual document, published in connection with ICANN's fiscal year calendar. The Framework describes ICANN's role in the ecosystem and operational priorities in security, stability and resiliency of the Internet's unique identifiers. Current Status: Open for public comment Next Steps: Comments will be collected and incorporated into the FY 13 SSR Framework. Staff Contact: Patrick Jones Email: patrick.jones(a)icann.org<mailto:patrick.jones@icann.org?subject=More%20information%20on%20ICANN's%20FY%2013%20Security,%20Stability%20and%20Resiliency%20Framework%20public%20comment%20period> Detailed Information Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose 1 June 2012 ICANN is publishing its FY 13 Security, Stability and Resiliency Framework for community review. The Framework is an annual document, published in connection with ICANN's fiscal year calendar. The Framework describes ICANN's role in the ecosystem and operational priorities in security, stability and resiliency of the Internet's unique identifiers. Similar to the FY 12 version, the FY 13 SSR Framework has been published in two sections. · Part A describes the foundation for ICANN's role in coordinating the security, stability and resiliency of the Internet's unique identifiers, an overview of the Internet ecosystem and ICANN's place in it, and developments in the ecosystem since the publication of the FY 12 Framework. · Part B describes the operational priorities for ICANN in SSR for the fiscal year commencing in July 2012, an overview of the ICANN Security team and its core areas and projects for FY 13. A new section has been added based on feedback received from the Security, Stability and Resiliency Review Team providing a status update on the activities described in the FY 12 SSR Framework published in May 2011. Comments on the FY 13 Framework are encouraged and may be sent to ssr-fy13(a)icann.org<mailto:ssr-fy13@icann.org> and viewed at http://forum.icann.org/lists/ssr-fy13/ through 2 July 2012 23:59 UTC (with a Reply Comment Period open from 3 July to 3 August 2012 23:59 UTC). Further community consultations will occur at the upcoming ICANN meeting in Prague, Czech Republic in June 2012, and during the month of July. Section II: Background FY 13 SSR Framework Part A - ICANN's Role in SSR and the Internet Ecosystem<http://www.icann.org/en/about/staff/security/ssr/ssr-plan-fy13-parta-01jun1…> [PDF, 782 KB] Part B - FY 13 Module on Operational Priorities and Activities; FY 12 Status Update<http://www.icann.org/en/about/staff/security/ssr/ssr-plan-fy13-partb-01jun1…> [PDF, 488 KB] Translations of the FY 13 SSR Framework will be posted as soon as possible. Section III: Document and Resource Links Learn more about the SSR Framework Previous versions of ICANN's Security, Stability and Resiliency Framework may be found on the ICANN Security team page (https://www.icann.org/en/about/staff/security<http://www.icann.org/en/about/staff/security>) or below. This annual document explains the connection between ICANN's role and remit in DNS Security, Stability and Resiliency, ICANN's Strategic and Operational Planning and its related SSR programs and initiatives for each fiscal year. · FY 12 SSR Framework<http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-02may11-en.htm> (2 May 2011) · FY 11 SSR Plan, clean version final<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/ssr/ssr-plan-fy11-clean-23nov10-en.pdf> (23 Nov 2010) [PDF, 1.49 MB] · FY 10 Plan for Enhancing Internet Security, Stability & Resiliency<http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-21may09-en.htm> (May 2009) Section IV: Additional Information NA (*) Comments submitted after the posted Close Date/Time are not guaranteed to be considered in any final summary, analysis, reporting, or decision-making that takes place once this period lapses. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Universal Acceptance of All TLDs - Prague Meeting
by Glen de Saint Géry 01 Jun '12

01 Jun '12

http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-31may12-en.htm Universal Acceptance of All TLDs - Prague Meeting 31 May 2012 Universal acceptance of all top-level domains is an on-going initiative within ICANN. Our goal is to raise awareness among all Internet users about the diversity of domains on the Internet. In the 1980s and 1990s the number of top-level domains (TLDs) was small and they all shared the same basic format - two-character ASCII country code TLDs (ccTLDs) or a handful of three-character ASCII generic TLDs (gTLDs). This standard format led software vendors and web site developers to build their programs making specific assumptions about what was considered a valid TLD. As long as the software recognized the TLDs, people were able to use them. In the past decade newer ASCII gTLDs longer than three characters were introduced, plus new domains written in various non-Latin scripts - known as Internationalized domain names (IDNs) - were added. In the not so distant future we will be seeing even more TLDs, including IDN TLDs, thanks to the new gTLD program and IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process. This is why ICANN is committed to raising awareness among Internet software developers so they can build their software to ensure compatibility with all domains, rather than relying on outdated assumptions. During the ICANN meeting in Costa Rica we held a roundtable discussion on TLD Acceptance. A panel of experts shared their experiences with the issue. We heard many suggestions on how to better guide our efforts in raising awareness of this initiative from the experts as well as from the community. At the upcoming ICANN meeting in Prague we will not have a session specific to this topic. Instead we are reaching out to groups such as The At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC), Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO) and others in order to schedule times to talk with them about the initiative and how they can help raise awareness. If you have any questions about this effort or would like to schedule a time during the Prague meeting to learn more about the initiative and how you can help raise awareness, please contact ICANN staff at tld-acceptance(a)icann.org<mailto:tld-acceptance@icann.org>. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0