May 2010 - ispcp - lists.icann.org

WG: [council] motion for the Joint SO/AC Working Group on New gTLD Applicant Support
by KnobenW＠telekom.de May 14, 2010

May 14, 2010

Tony, see attached Rafik's motion. Could that be accepted without any amendments? Regards Wolf-Ulrich _____ Von: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Rafik Dammak Gesendet: Mittwoch, 12. Mai 2010 17:02 An: Council GNSO; Glen de Saint Géry Betreff: [council] motion for the Joint SO/AC Working Group on New gTLD Applicant Support Hello Everyone, I am submitting the proposed motion for council consideration about the Joint SO/AC Working Group on New gTLD Applicant Support charter. Regards Rafik The proposed motion: Motion to adopt a Charter for the Joint SO/AC Working Group on New gTLD Applicant Support (JAS WG) Whereas, on 1 April 2010, the GNSO Council resolved to form a joint working group with other interested Supporting Organizations (SO's) and Advisory Committee (AC's) to fulfill an ICANN Board request ( <http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#20> http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#20) to develop a sustainable approach to providing support to new gTLD applicants, keeping in mind the GNSO Implementation guideline to recover the cost of new gTLD applications and on-going services to new gTLDs; Whereas, the Joint SO/AC Working Group on New gTLD Applicant Support (JAS WG) has since been launched and has drafted a Charter (https://st.icann.org/so-ac-new-gtld-wg/index.cgi?so_ac_new_gtld_applicant_s…) for the WG activities. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT: Resolved, that the GNSO Council hereby adopts the Charter (https://st.icann.org/so-ac-new-gtld-wg/index.cgi?so_ac_new_gtld_applicant_s…) for the Joint SO/AC Working Group on New gTLD Applicant Support (JAS WG); Resolved further, that the GNSO Council Liaison for the Joint SO/AC Working Group on New gTLD Applicant Support (JAS WG), Rafik Dammak, shall inform the WG of this resolution within 48 hours of its adoption.

2 1

COMMENTS ON VERTICAL INTEGRATION
by Anthony Harris May 10, 2010

May 10, 2010

Guys, This is the best I could come up with, please help improve it... Tony Harris

4 4

WG: [council] Draft Terms of Reference for WHOIS Proxy/Privacy Services "abuse" study
by KnobenW＠telekom.de May 5, 2010

May 5, 2010

If you have any suggestions regarding the study outline pls. refer to Liz directly and cc to the list. Regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Liz Gasster Gesendet: Freitag, 30. April 2010 18:58 An: GNSO Council Betreff: [council] Draft Terms of Reference for WHOIS Proxy/Privacy Services "abuse" study All, The attached draft defines a WHOIS Privacy and Proxy Abuse Study which methodically analyzes a representative sample of gTLD domains associated with a variety of illegal/harmful Internet activities. By measuring how often these alleged and confirmed "bad actors" use Privacy/Proxy registrations, compared to the overall frequency of Privacy/Proxy registrations, this study will attempt to prove or disprove the following hypothesis: A significant percentage of the domain names used to conduct illegal or harmful Internet activities are registered via Privacy or Proxy services to obscure the perpetrator's identity. This draft is based on input proposals, refined to address several key challenges, including methods needed to study short-lived vs. long-lived activities, enumeration of useful input sources, and filtering of false positive reports. Suggestions are welcome; in particular, please consider the review questions posed on page 8. The next step will be to issue an RFP to determine study cost and feasibility by soliciting bids from researchers to conduct this study. Please note that a separate study is still being drafted to measure delays associated with Privacy/Proxy Reveal. Please provide all input by COB 14 May. We will finalize the RFP based on the input we receive. Thanks, Liz Liz Gasster Senior Policy Counselor ICANN

1 0

Port 25 Management
by Jaime Wagner - CGI May 4, 2010

May 4, 2010

Follows the description of an effort among ISPs and CPs in Brazil to foster Internet security. Other countries have already done that. I think that we could mention also that a faster pace of DNSSEC adoption would increase security, DNS wise. But Internet security is a much broader issue that requires coordinated efforts in many areas and by different actors, many beyond the scope of ICANN. Brazilian ISPs and connectivity operators are working together in implementing port 25 management. The adoption will be gradual and a schedule is being accompanied by a working group coordinated by CGI.br, which comprises telecommunications operators, Anatel, ISPs and associations representing these sectors. What is port 25 management? Is the set of actions to separate submission of e-mails by one user from the transport of messages between email servers. How is this separation of functions done? The submission of e-mails, done via mailer software such as Thunderbird and Outlook, shall be made by a unique port for this purpose: the 587/TCP with authentication. But the transport is still done via 25/TCP. How this prevents spam? When users adopt port 587/TCP, the operator (ADSL, cable, 3G, etc.) will be able to filter traffic directed to port 25/TCP. Thus, legitimate mails, which use port 587, are not affected. But the spam that is sent by infected machines (botnets) directly to e-mail servers (port 25), will be blocked and will not leave the network. A spammer cannot send emails via port 587/TCP? Yes, but the transmission has to be authenticated, making it traceable and allows the application of other preventive measures by the e-mail service provider. But if there are spam filters, what are the advantages of this action? Prevent spam from leaving the infected machines network. This avoids bandwidth waste and prevents the paying by the spammers victim user for sending spurious messages. The email servers are also less loaded, increasing the quality of service. Jaime Wagner CGI (Comitê Gestor da Internet no Brasil) Representante dos Provedores de Acesso e Conteúdo <mailto:jaime@corp.plugin.com.br> jaime <mailto:jaime@cgi.br> @cgi.br (51)8126-0916 j.w(a)gner.net.br

1 0

Fw: [gnso-vi-feb10] Innovative Proposal
by Anthony Harris May 4, 2010

May 4, 2010

Guys, This is the PIR proposal I referred to. Tony Harris ----- Original Message ----- From: Kathy Kleiman To: Gnso-vi-feb10(a)icann.org Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 1:21 PM Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] Innovative Proposal Dear VI WG, Now is the time to rollout new competition and new gTLDs that will service the growth and future of the Net. Now is not the time to tamper with tried and true systems. The subprime mortgage crisis in the United States was led by cries for innovation and unwinding of the regulations that had long held a steady hand in the financial markets. Few relatively small experiments ultimately had the unintended, unanticipated and domino-like effect of the collapse of multiple financial institutions. As one failure precipitated another, it soon became evident that the damage could not be constrained, or easily reversed. In the end, the public trust was lost in not only in the institutions themselves but also in the regulatory bodies which had heard but not heeded the call for restraint. With stakes high for serving the public interest, and preserving the security and stability of the Internet, tampering with a proven model is not an option - not for us, nor for the millions of registrants, websites, listserves and other systems which depend on the domain names we offer. It is far easier to determine the right structure to drive behavior, than to police conduct after the fact. PIR hereby submits a proposal which relies on the most basic of principles, as well as some innovative ideas. In the interest of delivering this proposal to the Working Group by today's deadline, we provide a framework here, and will follow with further details and explanations. We look forward to the discussion today, and in the days and weeks ahead. Please find our new proposal for our discussion attached. Best, Kathy Kleiman Director of Policy, PIR Kathy Kleiman Director of Policy .ORG The Public Interest Registry Direct: +1 703 889-5756 Mobile: +1 703 371-6846 Visit us online! Check out events & blogs at .ORG Buzz! Find us on Facebook | dotorg See the .ORG Buzz! Photo Gallery on Flickr See our video library on YouTube CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: Proprietary and confidential to .ORG, The Public Interest Registry. If received in error, please inform sender and then delete. From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@icann.org] On Behalf Of Margie Milam Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2010 11:53 PM To: Gnso-vi-feb10(a)icann.org Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] Vertical Integration Antitrust and Competition Memorandum Dear All, In preparation for tomorrow's call, please review the attached Antitrust Memorandum. Amy Stathos will be available to participate on the VI-WG call to discuss this document. Best Regards, Margie ______________ Margie Milam Senior Policy Counselor ICANN ______________

2 1

COMMENTS ON VERTICAL INTEGRATION
by Anthony Harris May 3, 2010

May 3, 2010

Guys, As you are aware, our Constituency has been asked to submit comments on the question of Vertical Integration. With some difficulty, due to the size of the VI working group (70+ members) and the profusion of e-mails, I have tried to sift through the essence of the discussions, which are yet far from over. >From proposals presented by various participants, I think the one coming from the PIR through Kathy Kleiman, would seem to echo the concerns that ISPCP members have been expressing. Since I am unable to attach it herein, you will find it in a separate e-mail as a forwarded message. Additionally, I am attaching some selected segments of a report by CRA International, presented to ICANN on October 23rd., 2008, which can serve as a basis for understanding the challenges involved in VI. http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/crai-report-24oct08-en.pdf The discussions in the WG revolve around these identified issues, and there are advocates for complete and unlimited integration, for none at all, and some who seek hybrid solutions. After we discuss on the call, we can decide on the contents of the comment to be presented to ICANN. Sorry I couldnt get this to you all earlier. Tony Harris

1 0