March 2014 - ispcp - lists.icann.org

Fwd: Domain Name Collisions
by Mike O'Connor June 22, 2014

June 22, 2014

hi all, Jim Baskin (of the BC, and Verizon) is working on finding partners for a collaboration on raising awareness about the Name Collision issue. this looks like a natural for many of us and i’ve agreed to circulate Jim’s proposal to the ISPCP. please include Jim in any replies to this note. Jim, i decided to add your introduction in, along with the proposal — it’s too good to leave out. :-) could people please give this some serious consideration — i think Izumi’s presentation would make a great contribution to this effort, for example. if hope much collaboration results. thanks, mikey > > On our last conference call I spoke about domain name collision analysis work Verizon has been undertaking with Interisle Consulting. We have been analyzing our DNS query logs to get a clearer picture of the extent and impact of “leaking” queries to not-yet delegated or operational gTLDs. > > We have been considering a parallel effort to develop documentation, and possibly a webinar, to help prepare ourselves and our customers for telecommunications and systems problems that could arise once queries to some of the new gTLDs begin to resolve and receive responses other than NXDOMAIN (domain does not exist). > > While preparing the plan to develop those materials, we realized that most of what we were describing would be of value to other carriers, ISPs, general business enterprises, and more. As a result, we have decided to reach out to like-minded companies to jointly fund the development of these materials. > > The following is a high-level description of the work effort. With the support of a handful of companies, these materials could be rapidly produced and distributed at minimal cost to each of the participating organizations. If your organization might be interested to supporting and benefiting from this work, please contact me to discuss it in more detail. We are open to refinement or reasonable expansion of the deliverables, keeping in mind that we want to keep the development timeline as short as possible since the first new gTLDs will go live within the next month. > > Thanks for your consideration, and please feel free to share this message with other organizations outside of the BC who might be interested in participating. > > Jim Baskin > Verizon Communications > > > Proposal for the Preparation of Awareness, Educational/Training, > and Technical Support Materials Related to DNS Name Collisions > > 1. Develop descriptions of specific query/response scenarios that could arise as a result of conflicts of private and public naming schemes in the DNS. Document how these situations might appear to a user or technical support person, and what can be done to deal with such situations before or after they arise. Integrate the material into a comprehensive awareness and training program. > > 2. Create documentation for awareness, training, and support for management, employees/users and support staff. Materials oriented for various audiences would include: > · For management: awareness materials about the potential operational, technical, and security risks of DNS name collisions. > · For employees/users: information about the changes in network and system behavior that could arise as a result of new TLDs being delegated, how to recognize when problems encountered could be a result of new TLD name conflicts, how they can resolve problems on their own, and when they will require technical support. > · For customer-facing personnel (sales, marketing): how to communicate with customers to make them aware of the change in TLD resolution behavior and the potential impact, before and after delegation of TLDs. > · For technical support personnel: step-by-step procedures for identification and avoidance or remediation of collision occurrences. > > 3. Create communication information packages for distribution by email, web, etc. as appropriate, for target audiences, possibly including one or more webinars. > > 5. If webinars are developed, conduct a single session of the webinar(s), which would be video-recorded for distribution. > >

2 1

string delegations
by Mike O'Connor March 30, 2014

March 30, 2014

hi all here are all the strings delegated over the last two weeks — i was attending the ICANN meetings in Singapore last week. mikey DATE STRING REGISTRY 27 March 2014 BLACK Afilias Limited 27 March 2014 REN Beijing Qianxiang Wangjing Technology Development Co., Ltd. 27 March 2014 MEET Afilias Limited 25 March 2014 SOHU Sohu.com Limited 22 March 2014 LONDON Dot London Domains Limited 20 March 2014 NYC The City of New York by and through the New York City Department of Information Technology & Telecommunications 19 March 2014 COLOGNE NetCologne Gesellschaft für Telekommunikation mbH 19 March 2014 AXA AXA SA 19 March 2014 WEBCAM dot Webcam Limited 19 March 2014 TRADE Elite Registry Limited 15 March 2014 JETZT New TLD Company Description of the name-collision problem and link to mitigation research project -- http://www.haven2.com/index.php/archives/name-collision-research ICANN's "Name Collision Resources and Information" page - http://www.icann.org/en/help/name-collision ICANN's list of all delegated new gTLDs - http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/delegated-strings ICANN’s list of scheduled “sunrise” and “trademark claims” periods for new gTLDs - http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/sunrise-claims-periods Follow this link if you would like to subscribe to this weekly bulletin — http://ispcp.info/mailman/listinfo/gtld-delegations Follow this link if you would like to learn more about the Internet Service Provider and Connectivity Provider (ISPCP) constituency of ICANN’s Generic Name Supporting Organization (GNSO) — www.ispcp.info

1 0

Fwd: CROPP
by MAEMURA Akinori March 27, 2014

March 27, 2014

Everyone, Chris Mondini gave me a link to CROPP - Community Regional Outreach Partner Program. I will look at it and please you do so to find how it will work for us. Akinori -------- Original Message -------- Subject: CROPP Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 23:09:10 -0700 From: Chris Mondini <chris.mondini(a)icann.org> To: Maemura Akinori <maem(a)nic.ad.jp> CC: Tony Holmes <tony.holmes(a)synetergy.com>, Jia-Rong Low <jiarong.low(a)icann.org>, Yu-Chuang Kuek <yuchuang.kuek(a)icann.org> Dear Akinori, Please can you share with your local colleagues info on the Community Regional Outreach Partner Program? In theory it could help ISPCP members like you by supporting travel to events to help with outreach and recruitment for your constituency if it is aligned with the regional engagement strategy of ICANN. There is information on the community WIKI. Do you already have access to that? The appropriate link to share with folks is this one - https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=41900609. As I mentioned, the main requirement is that your plan be aligned with the ICANN regional engagement strategy. Business engagement and outreach by ICANN constituencies are part of that mix. Kuek or Jia Rong should be able to answer any questions on that. Kind regards, Christopher Mondini VP, Stakeholder Engagement North America and Global Business /Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers/ /12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300; Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536/ / / /chris.mondini(a)icann.org <mailto:chris.mondini@icann.org>/ /+1 (310) 578-8658 (direct)/ /+1 (650) 796-4665 (mobile)/ /Skype: chris.mondini.icann/

1 0

Fwd: [council] FW: Protections of IGO acronyms
by Novoa, Osvaldo March 21, 2014

March 21, 2014

All, I think this is important since it represents a conflict between GNSO policy and GAC advice. Personally I think that in the PDP we went as far as we could and we shouldn't compromise any further. We should talk about this. Best regards, Osvaldo Inicio del mensaje reenviado: De: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson(a)afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> Fecha: 21 de marzo de 2014 00:07:22 GMT+8 Para: "council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>" <council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Asunto: [council] FW: Protections of IGO acronyms Responder a: "jrobinson(a)afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>" <jrobinson(a)afilias.info<mailto:jrobinson@afilias.info>> All, Please see the attached. Jonathan From: Cherine Chalaby [mailto:cherine.chalaby@icann.org] Sent: 20 March 2014 18:30 Subject: Protections of IGO acronyms Dear Jonathan, Attached please find a letter regarding protections for IGO acronyms. This letter describes the proposal shared with the GAC and acknowledges some potential differences with GNSO policy. It is therefore important that the GNSO receives this letter prior to the official launch of the Singapore meeting. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Best regards, Cherine ________________________________ El presente correo y cualquier posible archivo adjunto est? dirigido ?nicamente al destinatario del mensaje y contiene informaci?n que puede ser confidencial. Si Ud. no es el destinatario correcto por favor notifique al remitente respondiendo anexando este mensaje y elimine inmediatamente el e-mail y los posibles archivos adjuntos al mismo de su sistema. Est? prohibida cualquier utilizaci?n, difusi?n o copia de este e-mail por cualquier persona o entidad que no sean las espec?ficas destinatarias del mensaje. ANTEL no acepta ninguna responsabilidad con respecto a cualquier comunicaci?n que haya sido emitida incumpliendo nuestra Pol?tica de Seguridad de la Informaci?n This e-mail and any attachment is confidential and is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not intended recipient please inform the sender immediately, answering this e-mail and delete it as well as the attached files. Any use, circulation or copy of this e-mail by any person or entity that is not the specific addressee(s) is prohibited. ANTEL is not responsible for any communication emitted without respecting our Information Security Policy.

1 0

GNSO Community Background Briefings - Singapore 2014
by Mike O'Connor March 18, 2014

March 18, 2014

hi all, i’m attaching the Community Background Briefing document. these are terrific short summaries of the policy work that’s currently under way. here’s the table of contents: Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part D Policy Development Process page: 2 Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues Policy Development Process page: 4 Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information Policy Development Process page: 6 IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms Preliminary Issue Report8 Policy & Implementation page: 10 Data & Metrics for Policy Making Working Group page: 12 Cross Community Working Groups Principles Drafting Team14 WHOIS Studies Update page: 16 mikey PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

1 0

another great "backgrounder" by Samantha Dickenson
by Mike O'Connor March 18, 2014

March 18, 2014

this woman never sleeps. here’s another great post describing the lay of the land on the IANA issue. i found the links to various proposals especially helpful. http://linguasynaptica.com/how-do-you-solve-a-problem-like-iana/ mikey PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

1 0

Fwd: [council] Agenda - new gTLD Program Committee - Saturday 22 March 2014
by Mike O'Connor March 18, 2014

March 18, 2014

Begin forwarded message: > From: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au> > Subject: [council] Agenda - new gTLD Program Committee - Saturday 22 March 2014 > Date: March 17, 2014 at 5:45:47 PM CDT > To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > > From: > > > > From: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/agenda-new-gtld-22mar14-en.h… > > 22 March 2014 > > > Main Agenda: > > * GAC Advice Update > > * Approval of Disbursements to New gTLD Auction Service Provider > > * Approval of Registry Agreement Specification 13 for Brand Category of Applicants > > * Reconsideration Request 13-13, Christopher Barron/GOProud > > * Reconsideration Request 14-7, Asia Green IT System Ltd. > > * Discussion on Correspondence > > * Update on proposed review mechanism for perceived inconsistent string confusion objection determinations > > * AOB > > > PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

1 0

Fwd: [council] Universal Acceptance session at ICANN49
by Mike O'Connor March 17, 2014

March 17, 2014

Begin forwarded message: > From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> > Subject: [council] Universal Acceptance session at ICANN49 > Date: March 17, 2014 at 11:24:12 AM CDT > To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > Hello everyone, as some interest has been expressed in this important issue, I thought you and your constituents might be interested in a session on Universal Acceptance of All TLDs scheduled for the ICANN meeting in Singapore. It will be held on Monday 24 March from 15:15-16:45 Singapore time. You'll see from the attached abstract and format that plenty of time has been set aside for discussion and audience Q&A; in addition, since this is an issue that goes beyond ICANN and will require collaboration with industry vendors, we will also have Google and Microsoft representatives on the panel. > > The session is co-sponsored by the ccNSO-GNSO Joint IDN Working Group and the ALAC IDN Working Group. We hope that many GNSO community members will be able to attend and participate in the discussion. > > Cheers > Mary > > Mary Wong > Senior Policy Director > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) > Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 > Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org > > * One World. One Internet. * PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

1 0

Re: [council] Message from Policy & Implementation WG
by Mike O'Connor March 16, 2014

March 16, 2014

hi Amr, this is great. i think this is a perfect example of terrific “pre-Saturday” conversation amongst the Councillors. back at you with a few replies. in general, i’m keen to do course-corrections early in the process to reduce the amount of “rework” the WG might otherwise have to do later. i’m especially keen to make sure that we do a good job of coordinating between the three working groups that may otherwise have gaps or collisions in their work. thanks! mikey On Mar 16, 2014, at 11:20 AM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr(a)egyptig.org> wrote: > Hi Mikey, > > I’ve included some preliminary thoughts on your comments in the documents attached, just as per my personal understanding of the ongoing discussions in the P&I WG. Brian and I are both Council liaisons to this WG, and I will be sure that all your comments are relayed to the full WG for further discussion and consideration. > > Just to clarify, at this point, the “Principles” document is still (although almost complete) work-in-progress. The WG still needs to discuss it a bit more, and there are still suggestions for amendments being made. The principles are, however, meant to be broad in order to guide the future work of sub-teams still being formed, but not to get into too much detail in order to allow them the flexibility they will need to deliberate on the charter questions. > > Regarding the “Working Definitions”, these are only meant to be used by the WG members in their internal discussions. They should help reduce confusion when more complex discussions start to take place, so that when a term is used, everybody understands to what it is referring. These definitions may change throughout the course of the WG as the WG members see fit. > > Hope this helped a little. > > Thanks. > > Amr > <PI Working Principles For Review in Singapore - Mikey + Amr.doc> > <PI Proposed Working Definitions - 19 February 2014 - Mikey + Amr.doc> > > > On Mar 16, 2014, at 4:03 PM, Mike O'Connor <mike(a)haven2.com> wrote: > >> hi all, >> >> these look great. i marked them up with the questions that popped out at me as i read them. i was doing this mostly as notes to myself and intended to just bring these up on Saturday. but i’ve attached them to this reply in case time grows tight in Singapore. these are my reactions as an individual and have not been reviewed by the ISPCP. >> >> great start! >> >> mikey >> >> >> <PI Proposed Working Definitions - 19 February 2014 - Mikey.doc> >> <PI Working Principles For Review in Singapore - Mikey.doc> >> >> >> On Mar 14, 2014, at 2:30 PM, Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> wrote: >> >>> Dear All, >>> >>> On behalf of the Policy & Implementation Working Group I would like to share with you the working definitions and working principles (under final review) that the WG has developed to facilitate its deliberations on the charter questions. You are encouraged to share these with your respective groups and share any feedback you may have with the WG either during its update to the GNSO in Singapore or as part of its F2F meeting which has been scheduled for Wednesday 26 March from 15.30 – 17.00 SGT in room Sophia, please see http://singapore49.icann.org/en/schedule/wed-policy-implementation. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Marika >>> <PI Working Principles For Review in Singapore.doc><PI Proposed Working Definitions - 19 February 2014.doc> >> >> >> PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) >> > PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

1 0

Re: [council] Message from Policy & Implementation WG
by Mike O'Connor March 16, 2014

March 16, 2014

hi all, these look great. i marked them up with the questions that popped out at me as i read them. i was doing this mostly as notes to myself and intended to just bring these up on Saturday. but i’ve attached them to this reply in case time grows tight in Singapore. these are my reactions as an individual and have not been reviewed by the ISPCP. great start! mikey On Mar 14, 2014, at 2:30 PM, Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> wrote: > Dear All, > > On behalf of the Policy & Implementation Working Group I would like to share with you the working definitions and working principles (under final review) that the WG has developed to facilitate its deliberations on the charter questions. You are encouraged to share these with your respective groups and share any feedback you may have with the WG either during its update to the GNSO in Singapore or as part of its F2F meeting which has been scheduled for Wednesday 26 March from 15.30 – 17.00 SGT in room Sophia, please see http://singapore49.icann.org/en/schedule/wed-policy-implementation. > > Best regards, > > Marika > <PI Working Principles For Review in Singapore.doc><PI Proposed Working Definitions - 19 February 2014.doc> PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

1 0