February 2017 - ispcp - lists.icann.org

Copenhagen schedule
by Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Feb. 22, 2017

Feb. 22, 2017

FYI, the meeting schedule for Copenhagen has been published at https://schedule.icann.org/ Best regards Wolf-Ulrich

1 0

Fwd: [council] GNSO Council Resolution - 16 February 2017
by Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Feb. 20, 2017

Feb. 20, 2017

FYI, a challenging topic was finally solved. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht -------- Betreff: [council] GNSO Council Resolution - 16 February 2017 Datum: Sun, 19 Feb 2017 17:07:02 +0000 Von: Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org> An: council(a)gnso.icann.org <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Dear all, The following resolution was adopted by the GNSO Council at its meeting on Thursday, 16 February 2017. These resolutions are also published on page: https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_coun…> *1.**Confirmation that modification to procedure that implements the Whois conflicts with privacy law policy recommendation is consistent with the intent of the policy recommendation* Submitted by: James Bladel Seconded by: Rubens Kuhl Whereas, 1. In November 2005, the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) concluded a policy development process (PDP) on Whois conflicts with privacy law, which recommended the creation of a procedure to address conflicts between a contracted party's Whois obligations and local/national privacy laws or regulations. 2. The ICANN Board of Directors adopted the recommendations in May 2006 and the final procedure was made effective in January 2008. 3. As noted in the GNSO Operating Procedures, “Periodic assessment of PDP recommendations and policies is an important tool to guard against unexpected results or inefficient processes arising from GNSO policies”. As called for in Step 6 of the ICANN Procedure For Handling WHOIS Conflicts with Privacy Law[icann.org], “ICANN will review the effectiveness of the process annually”. 4. ICANN launched a review of the procedure in May 2014. Following a Call for Volunteers addressed to all interested parties, an Implementation Advisory Group (IAG) was formed to review the implementation of the policy recommendations and began its work in January 2015. The IAG devoted most of its time discussing whether additional triggers to invoke the procedure should be incorporated and if so how to ensure that they remain consistent with the existing policy. 5. On 26 May 2016, the IAG submitted its final report and recommendation to the GNSO Council. 6. In its final report, the IAG recommends a modification to the existing Whois Conflicts Procedure. The modification would allow a party to trigger the procedure by obtaining a written statement from the government agency charged with enforcing its data privacy laws indicating that a particular Whois obligation conflicts with national law and then submitting that statement to ICANN, in addition to the existing trigger. Resolved, 1. The GNSO Council has reviewed the IAG Final Report (http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/iag-review-whois-conflicts-procedure-23may1… <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_draft…>) and concludes that the proposed modification to the procedure conforms to the intent of the original policy recommendations and as such the GNSO Council confirms its non-objection to the modification being implemented by Global Domains Division Staff as outlined in Appendix I (http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/iag-review-whois-conflicts-procedure-append… <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_draft…>) as soon as practically feasible. 2. The GNSO Council recommends that as soon as the modification has been implemented all affected parties are informed accordingly. 3. Furthermore, the GNSO Council requests that ICANN staff, based on their experience of administering the modification, assess the practicality and feasibility of this new trigger in comparison to the existing trigger as well as the other triggers discussed in the IAG Final Report and reports back accordingly to the GNSO Council. 4. This assessment will inform the next periodic review of the effectiveness of the process, as directed by the policy, which will commence no later than 1 October 2017. The GNSO requests ICANN staff to report within 45 days on a projected timeline for this review and the assessment described in (3), and a draft charter for this working group. 5. The GNSO Council thanks the IAG for its work and takes note of the minority views included in the Final Report. The GNSO Council requests that these are shared with the Next-Generation Registration Directory Services PDP Working Group as the broader WHOIS issues raised in these views are expected to be dealt with in that PDP. Voting results <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_meet…> Nathalie Peregrine Specialist, SOAC Support (GNSO) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org <nathalie.peregrine(a)icann.org%20> Skype: nathalie.peregrine.icann Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses <applewebdata://EB3A6F47-9760-400D-A39B-A7EFFC56B467/learn.icann.org/courses…> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_gn…>

1 0

Fwd: Re: [council] Draft IETF "Problem Statement" on Special Use TLDs
by Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Feb. 15, 2017

Feb. 15, 2017

FYI Hi, Another document that may be of interest in this same line is: Title : The ALT Special Use Top Level Domain Authors : Warren Kumari Andrew Sullivan Filename : draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld-07.txt Pages : 11 Date : 2017-02-01 Abstract: This document reserves a string (ALT) to be used as a TLD label in non-DNS contexts, or for names that have no meaning in a global context. It also provides advice and guidance to developers developing alternate namespaces. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-alt-tld/ Note that while these are stated as non DNS usage, there is a question of what response DNS gives for these names and the degree to which this bumps up against ICANN's roles and responsibilities as defined in the MOU between the organization. It should also be noted the Draft Problem Statement on "Special Use Domain Names" is currently in IETF DNSOP WG Last Call (WGLC). avri

1 0

Draft IETF "Problem Statement" on Special Use TLDs
by Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Feb. 15, 2017

Feb. 15, 2017

Colleagues, the IETF has recently published a Draft Problem Statement on "Special Use Domain Names". https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dnsop-sutld-ps/?include_text=1 From the document summary: This document presents a list, believed to be complete, of the problems associated with the assignment of special-use names. Solutions to these problems are out of scope for this document. No assertion is made that any of these problems is more or less important than any other. ... These problems should not appear to every reader to all be problems: we intend to cover any problem that any participant considers a problem, not just those problems that everyone agrees are problems. In addition, no assertion is made that all of these problems must be addressed, or that, if we think they should be addressed, the IETF is the organization with competence to address them. While each problem has one or more solutions, the solutions may in some cases be mutually contradictory, or may come with costs that do not justify the benefit that would be obtained from solving them. Our constituency should follow the work on this and discuss it at a time deemed necessary. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich

2 1