ICANN POLICY UPDATE
Volume 09, Issue 12 — December 2009
http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/
CONTENTS:
Across ICANN
ccNSO
GNSO
ASO
Joint Efforts
At-Large
SSAC
Read Policy Update in Your
Preferred Language
ICANN Policy Update is available in all six official languages of
the United Nations: English (EN), Spanish (ES), French (FR), Arabic (AR),
Chinese (Simplified -- zh-Hans), and Russian (RU). Policy Update is posted
on ICANN's website and
available via online subscription. To receive the Update in your Inbox
each month, simply go to the ICANN subscriptions
page, enter your e-mail address, and select “Policy Update” to
subscribe. This service is free of charge.
ICANN Policy Update
statement of purpose
Send questions, comments and suggestions to: policy-staff@icann.org.
Policy Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees
|
Address Supporting Organization |
|
|
Country Code Names Supporting
Organization |
|
|
Generic Names Supporting
Organization |
|
|
At-Large Advisory Committee |
|
|
Governmental Advisory Committee |
|
|
Root Server System Advisory
Committee |
|
|
Security and Stability Advisory
Committee |
Across ICANN
Each monthly issue of Policy Update provides the latest information
on the status of issues working their way through the policy development
process within ICANN. However, complex policy issues require much study; and
controversial issues stimulate much discussion within ICANN’s
multi-stakeholder community. The result: not every issue passes a significant
milestone every month.
Until now, when an issue has not progressed in newsworthy fashion, Policy
Update has reprinted last month’s article about that topic. That
approach makes each issue of the Update comprehensive and thorough.
But it also makes it difficult for the reader to quickly spot new developments.
In this issue, we experiment with a fresh approach. Where there are new
developments to report, you’ll see our normal article. If an issue is
still alive and still progressing, but has not hit a newsworthy milestone since
the previous issue of Policy Update, we provide a link to the most
recent past article. This approach makes it much easier for you to scan new
developments, while still providing background information with one-click
convenience.
We’re trying to make Policy Update a shorter, quicker read
that better fits your busy schedule. Our request: scan this month’s
issue, then let us know if you prefer this new format or our traditional
format. Send your thoughts to policy-staff@icann.org.
Thanks for sharing your perspective!
Numerous public comment periods are open on issues of interest to the ICANN
community. Act now for the opportunity to share your views on such items as:
More Information
For the full list of issues open for public comment, plus recently closed
and archived public comment forums, visit the Public Comments page.
Jordi Iparraguirre resigned as the representative from the Registries
Stakeholder Group to the GNSO Council, due to workload. His place is being
taken by Caroline Greer from dot-mobi (Caroline’s Statement of
Interest).
If you would like to thank a volunteer whose significant work in a
leadership position is done, send a brief email to scott.pinzon@icann.org and we’ll
try to work your note into the next issue of Policy Update. Submissions must be
received by the 7 th of each month to appear in that month’s issue.
ccNSO
At a Glance
The country code Name Supporting Organization (ccNSO) has accepted the
membership application of Mozambique (.mz), bringing the number of ccNSO
members up to 100.
Background
Any manager of a country code top-level domain can apply for membership in
the ccNSO. Membership has grown significantly during recent years, almost
doubling in the last three years. In 2009 alone, the ccNSO added 18 members,
including country code operators for .IL (Israel), .DE (Germany) and .EU
(European Union).
More Information
Staff Contact
Gabriella
Schittek, ccNSO Secretariat
At a Glance
On its website, the ccNSO has launched a new page which gathers free
resources that might be of use for ccTLD registries.
Recent Developments
Most of the resources were provided by ccTLDs, and also by institutions such
as NLnet Labs and organizations such as ENISA. The resources are divided into
three categories: Technical Resources, Marketing Resources and Policy Resources.
Background
The initiative for this page came from the Participation Working Group,
which recommended that the ccNSO Secretariat launch such a page for the benefit
of all ccTLD registries around the world.
Next Steps
The page has only started and resources will be added continuously. The
ccNSO Secretariat invites all registries (or similar institutions) to submit
resources which they think other registries might find useful.
More Information
Staff Contact
Gabriella
Schittek, ccNSO Secretariat
GNSO
At a Glance
The GNSO Council is reviewing an alternative proposal to combat
cybersquatting in the New gTLD Program. Recommendations they develop will be
considered by the ICANN Board of Directors.
Recent Developments
ICANN has published the third version of the Draft Applicant Guidebook,
which describes implementation details for the upcoming opening of the domain
name market to many new TLD operators. The GNSO’s new gTLD policy
recommendations were approved by the Board, but did not specify how to protect
trademarks in new gTLDs. Thus, ICANN Staff has published a series of memoranda
and proposals describing solutions for several new trademark protection
mechanisms. The Staff based their work on recommendations from the
Implementation Recommendation Team (IRT) and on public comments.
The ICANN Board asked that the GNSO expedite evaluation of certain of these
proposals, to determine whether they are consistent with the GNSO’s
policy recommendations. In response, the GNSO Council convened a select group
of representatives from each Stakeholder Group and Constituency, to evaluate
the recommendations. The Work Team (commonly referred to as the STI Work Team,
because they evaluate “special trademark issues”) has published its
report containing an alternative proposal to the recommendations contained in
the Draft Applicant Guidebook.
Next Steps
The GNSO is expected to vote on the recommendations described in the STI
Recommendations Report at its 17 December 2009 meeting.
Background
The latest draft of the Applicant Guidebook describing the process to apply
for new generic top-level domains (gTLDs) was released on 4 October. ICANN
proposed a series of new solutions to enhance protections of trademark rights
in new gTLDs.
The policy recommendations previously adopted by the GNSO recommended that
new gTLD strings must not infringe the existing legal rights of others. The
ICANN Board has requested that the GNSO review these implementation proposals
and provide feedback on whether they are consistent with this policy
recommendation, or whether there is an alternative proposal to address these
concerns that is equivalent or more effective and more implementable than the
current proposal.
The GNSO convened the STI Work Team to respond to the Board request. The STI
team developed an alternative proposal to address the issue of trademark
protection in new GTLDs, as described in its Report. The STI proposal supports:
More Information
Staff Contact
Margie Milam, Senior Policy
Counselor
At a Glance
The Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) aims to provide a
straightforward procedure for domain name holders to transfer their names from
one ICANN-accredited registrar to another. The GNSO is reviewing and considering
revisions to this policy.
Recent Developments
The IRTP Part B Working Group held an open Working Group meeting in Seoul at
which it reviewed the Transfer Dispute Resolution Policy. Their goal was to
determine whether they could devise possible modifications in response to
Question A in their charter, “whether a process for urgent
return/resolution of a domain name should be developed.”
The Working Group also solicited public comment on the issues the group
addresses. The comment period closed in October, and the group has started
reviewing the comments received (see http://forum.icann.org/lists/irtp-b/).
Next Steps
Following this review, the Working Group will turn its attention to the
Constituency / Stakeholder Group Statements it has received. For further
information, please consult the IRTP Part B
Working Group Workspace.
Background
The IRTP Part B Working Group addresses five issues relating to domain name
transfers, specified in their Charter and in
the August
issue of Policy Update. The IRTP Part B Working Group has been
meeting bi-weekly.
More Information
Staff Contact
Marika Konings, Policy Director
At a Glance
To what extent should registrants be able to reclaim their domain names
after they expire? At issue is whether the current policies of registrars on
the renewal, transfer and deletion of expired domain names are adequate.
Recent Developments
Following the ICANN meeting in Seoul, ICANN Staff continued to gather
information for the registrar survey which is intended to help inform the deliberations
of the Working Group. The survey reviews current registrar practices regarding
domain name expiration, renewal, and post-expiration recovery. The preliminary
results of this survey have now been presented to the Working Group.
Next Steps
The Working Group will continue meeting weekly to discuss the questions
outlined in its charter.
Following the finalization of the registrar survey, the Working Group will need
to review the results in further detail to determine how these may potentially
influence its response to the charter questions.
Background
During the ICANN meeting in Cairo, the ALAC voted to request an Issues
Report on the subject of registrants being able to recover domain names after
their formal expiration date. The ALAC request was submitted to the GNSO
Council on 20 November 2008. ICANN Staff prepared the Issues Report on
post-expiration domain name recovery and submitted it to the GNSO Council on 5
December 2008. ICANN Staff provided the GNSO Council with clarifications on the
questions raised in a motion that was adopted at its 18 December meeting. The
GNSO Council reviewed these clarifications during its meeting on 29 January and
agreed to create a Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery drafting team to
eventually propose a charter and to provide recommendations answering certain questions.
The GNSO Council adopted a charter for a Post-Expiration Domain Name
Recovery Working Group (PEDNR WG) at its meeting on 24 June in Sydney.
Following the adoption of the charter, a call for volunteers was launched (PDF).
In addition, a PEDNR workshop was held at the ICANN meeting in Sydney, enabling
a first exchange of views with the broader ICANN community on the issues
outlined in the charter above. A transcript and audio recording of the workshop
is available online.
The Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery Working Group (PEDNR-WG) has been
meeting weekly. The Group developed a registrar survey, intended to provide
additional information that can inform the deliberations of the Working Group.
In addition, the Working Group has started the review of the comments received
during the public
comment period, which was launched to solicit views on the questions
outlined in the PEDNR WG
Charter.
The Working Group held a workshop
at the ICANN meeting in Seoul, at which it provided an overview of the
discussions to date. The group also presented its findings in relation to
contractual provisions, as well as registrar practices in relation to
post-expiration. Furthermore, ICANN Staff provided an overview of the initial
results of the registrar survey.
More Information
Staff Contact
Marika Konings, Policy Director
At a Glance
Registries and registrars seem to lack uniform approaches for dealing
with domain name registration abuse, and questions persist as to what actions
"registration abuse" refers to. The GNSO Council has launched a
Registration Abuse Policies (RAP) Working Group to examine registration abuse
policies.
Recent Developments
The Working Group has started meeting weekly, with the objective of
delivering an Initial Report for review at the ICANN meeting to be held in
March 2010 in Nairobi, Kenya. The Working Group has continued reviewing the
list of abuses it defined, including domain tasting, fake renewal notices,
pay-per-click and cybersquatting. In addition, a number of sub-teams are reviewing
issues such as uniformity of contracts; spam, phishing and malware; and, Whois
availability.
Background
The RAP Working Group addresses issues outlined in its charter, such as:
defining the difference between registration abuse and domain name abuse; the
effectiveness of existing registration abuse policies; and which areas, if any,
would be suitable for GNSO policy development to address. They have generated
(and are reviewing) a document that provides working definitions of types and
categories of abuse, and cites the primary target for each abuse type.
In addition, a Uniformity of Contracts sub-team formed, and meets regularly
to review existing abuse provisions in registrar and registry agreements and to
discuss questions related to the uniformity of contracts. The sub-team ponders
issues such as, would there be benefits to having more uniformity in contracts?
How effective are existing provisions in dealing with registration abuse?
The RAP
Working Group held an open meeting in Seoul. There, it briefed the
community on its activities and discussions to date, including updates from the
different sub-teams on Uniformity of Contracts and Spam, Phishing, Malware.
Click here
for further background.
More Information
Staff Contacts
Marika Konings, Policy Director,
and Margie Milam, Senior Policy
Counselor
At a Glance
The Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) is implementing a
comprehensive series of organizational and structural changes to improve the
efficiency, effectiveness and accessibility of the organization. To become
familiar with the GNSO's new structure, visit the GNSO Improvements webpage.
Recent Developments
Having seated a new GNSO Council at the meeting in Seoul, Councilors are now
working diligently to understand all issues presently in the policy development
process, and to progress appropriately on those issues. A number of procedural,
structural, and housekeeping issues remain under discussion.
Council and Work Team Implementation Efforts. The GNSO’s
Operations Steering Committee (OSC) and Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC)
oversee five Work Teams staffed by volunteers from the GNSO and ALAC
communities. The Work Teams develop specific proposals and mechanisms for
implementing the GNSO Improvement Recommendations adopted by the Board. These
five Work Teams pursue the following activities:
Policy Process Efforts:
Operations Efforts:
Next Steps
The community implementation Work Teams will continue developing
recommendations for implementing the GNSO restructuring goals approved by the
Board. Existing GNSO Constituencies will be expected to continue their
re-confirmation discussions and it is hoped that recommendations from the GNSO
Constituency Operations Work Team will combine neatly with that process.
Dialogue on permanent CSG and NCSG charters will also likely begin soon.
The Board is expected to continue its deliberations on the pending new
Constituency petitions.
Background
Through a series of decisions at its February, June, August and October 2008
meetings, the ICANN Board has endorsed a series of goals for improving several
aspects of the GNSO’s structure and operations. These decisions culminate
from a two-year effort of independent review, community input and Board
deliberations. To learn about the GNSO's new structure and organization, please
see the discussion and diagrams on the GNSO Improvements webpage.
More Information
Staff Contact
Robert Hoggarth, Senior Policy
Director
ASO
At a Glance
Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) are discussing a proposed global
policy for handling IPv4 address space returned from the RIRs to IANA.
According to the proposal, IANA should act as a repository of returned address
space and, once the free pool of IANA IPv4 address space has been depleted,
allocate such space to the RIRs in smaller blocks than it currently does.
Recent Developments
The RIRs discussed the proposal at their most recent meetings. APNIC has
adopted the proposal, which has passed final call in AfriNIC and LACNIC. In
ARIN, the proposal has been modified and the modified version has recently
passed final call. RIPE was awaiting the outcome in ARIN before acting on the
proposal. The main question now is whether the different versions adopted lend
themselves to reconciliation as a single global policy.
Next Steps
If adopted by all RIRs, the Number Resource Organization Executive Committee
and the Address Supporting Organization Address Council (ASO AC) will review
the proposal and then forward it to the ICANN Board for ratification and
implementation by IANA.
Background
IPv4 is the Internet Protocol addressing system used to allocate unique IP
address numbers in 32-bit format. With the massive growth of the Internet user
population, the pool of such unique numbers (approximately 4.3 billion) is
being depleted and a 128-bit numbering system (IPv6) will need to take its
place.
The proposed global policy has two distinct phases; 1) IANA only receives
returned IPv4 address space from the RIRs and 2) IANA continues to receive
returned IPv4 address space and also reallocates such space to the RIRs. This
proposal is connected to a recently adopted global policy for allocating the
remaining IPv4 address space. When that global policy takes effect, it also
triggers phase two in the proposal.
More Information
Staff Contact
Olof
Nordling, Director Services Relations
At a Glance
Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) are discussing a proposed global
policy for Autonomous System Numbers (ASNs). The proposal would change the date
for a full transition from 16-bit to 32-bit ASNs from the beginning of 2010 to
the beginning of 2011, in order to allow more time for necessary upgrades of
the systems involved.
Recent Developments
The proposal has been introduced in all RIRs (AfriNIC, APNIC, ARIN, LACNIC
and RIPE). It is under discussion in AfriNIC, has passed final call in ARIN,
LACNIC and APNIC, and has been adopted in RIPE.
Next Steps
If all RIRs adopt the proposal, the Number Resource Organization Executive
Committee and the Address Supporting Organization Address Council (ASO AC) will
review the proposal and then forward it to the ICANN Board for ratification and
implementation by IANA.
Background
Autonomous System Numbers (ASNs) are identifiers used for transit of IP
traffic. ASNs were originally 16 bits in length, but a transition to 32-bit
ASNs is under way to meet increasing demand. In line with the adopted Global
Policy currently in force for ASNs, 16-bit and 32-bit ASNs exist in parallel,
but all will be regarded as 32 bits long beginning in 2010. The proposal defers
that date to the beginning of 2011.
More Information
Staff Contact
Olof Nordling, Director Services
Relations
Joint Efforts
At-Large
At a Glance
In response to a requirement in ICANN’s Bylaws, Boston Consulting
Group/ Colin Carter & Associates conducted an external review of the
effectiveness of ICANN’s Board of Directors. The Board Review Working
Group took the consultant’s findings and issued a draft report with eight
recommendations for improving the Board. ALAC has issued a statement responding
to the recommendations.
Recent Developments
On 19 September 2009, the ICANN Board Review Working Group issued its Draft
Final Report. In response to a call for public comment announced on 5 October
2009, the ALAC prepared a statement containing the views and suggestions of the
At-Large community as relayed to the ALAC in a bottom-up process pertaining to
the eight recommendations made by the Board Review Working Group
In broad terms, ALAC supports the Board Review Working Group recommendations
that are contained within the Draft Final Report; but has a number of concerns
on several of the specific recommendations. For example, regarding the
WG’s recommendation to reduce the size of the Board, ALAC stated that
having two Board members elected by the At-Large community, rather than only
one as resolved by the Board on 27 August 2009, would allow for greater balance
and diversity of the Board. The ALAC statement also disagrees with the
suggestion of the WG that the At-Large Director should replace the current
position of the ALAC liaison to the Board. Rather, the ALAC recommends that
when the At-Large Board Member is seated, the position of ALAC liaison to the
Board continue at least until a second At-Large Board member is put in place.
The proposed comments from At-Large / ALAC were initially composed by
Sebastien Bachollet, Chair of the At-Large working group on the Future
Structure and Governance of ICANN. The original text was made available for
At-Large community comment and was discussed during a teleconference of the
At-Large Working Group on the Future Structure and Governance of ICANN on 27
November 2009.
Rev2 of the text, prepared by Sebastien Bachollet with assistance from Adam
Peake, incorporated comments received from the At-Large community and the
members of the At-Large Working Group on the Future Structure and Governance of
ICANN. Rev3 of the text (the present document) includes grammatical
clarifications.
The ALAC ratified the Statement with a 13 - 0 vote on 9 December 2009.
Next Steps
The ALAC Statement will be transmitted to the ICANN Board of Directors. The
At-Large community will continue to be involved in the discussions related to
the Board Review Working Group process.
More Information
Staff Contact
Heidi Ullrich, At-Large
Secretariat
At a Glance
The IDN Policy Development Process Working Group is developing policies
they’ll recommend for managing internationalized domain names (IDNs). The
group issued a draft of a policy paper on the introduction of IDN country code
top-level domains (ccTLDs). ALAC has issued a statement responding to the
paper.
Recent Developments
The ALAC Statement on the “Draft Topic Paper for Policy on the
Introduction of IDN ccTLDs” provided input to the IDN Policy Development
Process WG 1 in the form of seven questions. The questions included requests
for clarifications on issues such as:
The paper also poses suggestions for additional topics to be addressed by
the Working Group, mostly related to IDN ccTLD strings.
The ALAC ratified the Statement with a 14 - 0 vote on 9 December 2009.
Next Steps
The ALAC Statement will be transmitted to the ICANN Board of Directors. The
At-Large Working Group on IDN Policy will continue following the output of the
Working Group on the Selection and Delegation of IDN ccTLDs (IDNccPDP WG 1).
Background
The ALAC statement was first drafted by James Seng, Chair of the At-Large
Working Group on IDN Policy. The original text was made available for At-Large
community feedback on 25 November 2009.
This text was further discussed during a teleconference of the At-Large Working
Group on IDN Policy on 3 December
2009.
The first revision of this document (the present version) was prepared by
James Seng and incorporates comments received from the At-Large community on
the original version.
More Information
Staff Contact
Matthias Langenegger, At-Large
Secretariat
At a Glance
In response to a call for public comment on the Review of the Nominating
Committee (NomCom) Draft Report, the ALAC issued a strong statement that
neither the size of the NomCom nor means of representation should be
significantly changed, other than to reflect any changes in the structure of
the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees.
Recent Developments
The “Review of the NomCom” Draft Final Report recommended
reducing the size of the NomCom, including decreasing the number of ALAC
representatives from their present five (one from each Regional At-Large
Organization, or RALO), to three (rotating among the regions). The ALAC
statement argues that any reduction in ALAC representation is unwise from the
standpoints of geographic diversity, the broad range of ICANN issues beyond
generic names addressed by the At-Large community, and representation of the
Internet-using public.
Background
The original
version of the ALAC Statement on the NomCom Review was composed by Wendy
Seltzer on behalf of the North-American Regional At-Large Organization and
published on 17 November 2009.
The At-Large Working Group on the Future Structure and Governance of ICANN
decided to use the North American Statement as a basis for their Draft ALAC
Statement on the NomCom review and held a teleconference
on November 27th to discuss the Statement.
Adam Peake subsequently incorporated the suggestions made during that
discussion and published the final draft version of the ALAC Statement (the
present version) on 1 December 2009.
The ALAC ratified the Statement with a 14 - 0 vote on 9 December 2009.
Next Steps
The ALAC Statement will be transmitted to the ICANN Board of Directors. The
At-Large community will continue to monitor discussions related to the review
of the NomCom.
More Information
Staff Contact
Matthias Langenegger, At-Large
Secretariat
At a Glance
Members of the At-Large European Regional Organization (EURALO) worked
intensively to create a brochure, which they will use for information
dissemination and outreach activities.
Recent Developments
Members of the European Regional At-Large Organization (EURALO) created a brochure
for increasing awareness of EURALO within Europe. Included in the EURALO
brochure are the key issues members are working on, including the introduction
of new generic Top-Level Domains (gTLDs), trademark issues, internationalized
domain names (IDNs), and the transition from IPv4 to IPv6. The brochure will be
used to facilitate outreach activities.
The brochure also provides information on the membership of EURALO. The
brochure has already been distributed at such key events as the Internet
Governance Forum held in Sharm el Sheikh, Egypt 15 – 18 November, 2009.
Next Steps
EURALO members will use the new brochure for outreach to potential new
At-Large Structures at upcoming regional events. Regional organizations in the
four other At-Large regions will be developing their brochures in the near
future.
More Information
Staff Contact
Matthias Langenegger, At-Large
Secretariat
SSAC
The Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) is considering several
security related issues, including the Report of the Root Scaling Study Team,
display and usage of Internationalized registration data (Whois data), orphaned
domain names, and domain name history. These and other topics may be the
addressed in future SSAC Reports or Advisories.
Staff Contact
Julie Hedlund,
Director, SSAC Support