- ispcp - lists.icann.org

Council meeting
by KnobenW＠telekom.de April 11, 2012

April 11, 2012

All: Attached are the agenda and the motions for tomorrow's council meeting. Please feel free to comment. BTW, I've still a placeholder on my calendar for an ISPCP call tomorrow. Is that still valid? Best regards Wolf-Ulrich

1 0

WG: ICANN Board resolution on Batching from meeting of 28 March 2012
by KnobenW＠telekom.de March 31, 2012

March 31, 2012

FYI Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Bruce Tonkin Gesendet: Samstag, 31. März 2012 07:57 An: Council GNSO Betreff: [council] ICANN Board resolution on Batching from meeting of 28 March 2012 From: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-28mar12-en.ht m Batching of New gTLD Applications: Secondary Timestamp Whereas, the window for applying for new gTLDs opened on 12 January 2012, and is scheduled to close on 12 April 2012. Whereas, the New gTLDs Applicant Guidebook (section 1.1.2.5) <http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb> indicates that if the volume of applications received significantly exceeds 500, then applications will be processed in batches. Whereas, on 8 December 2011, the Board adopted a resolution (#2011.12.08.4a) authorizing the development of a plan to use a "secondary time stamp" for determining the processing order in the event that multiple batches are required. Whereas, the New gTLDs program team has developed proposed operational details of a plan for implementing a secondary time stamp, now referred to as "digital archery". Whereas, some members of the community have expressed concerns about whether the digital archery proposal is sensible and fair, and an informal subgroup of the Board has studied the feasibility, benefits, and risks of the proposal as well as alternative batching mechanisms such as auction. Resolved (2012.03.28.01), the Board confirms the approval of secondary timestamp/digital archery as the mechanism for sorting new gTLD applications into batches, and directs that the operational details of the mechanism be communicated to applicants and the public as necessary and appropriate. Rationale for Resolution 2012.03.28.01 The reaffirmation of the Board's commitment to the secondary timestamp/digital archery is taken after an review of alternate proposals for batching processes considered after hearing the community's comments and concerns as raised at the ICANN meeting in San Juan, Costa Rica. A small group of the Board intensively looked at the digital archery solution, a potential auction solution, and considered the prioritization comments provided by the community. For the ongoing application round, affirming the digital archery process is the fairest way to achieve a non-random batching solution that accounts for diversity across all regions of ICANN. The Board also reaffirms the Rationale for Resolutions 2011.12.08.04 - 2011.12.08.06. The batching selection process determines how applications will be divided into batches and prioritized for evaluation analysis. Conceptually, the batching selection process is relatively straightforward and includes the following four steps: 1.Applicants register in an online batching system to select their batching preference (i.e., earliest or any batch) and select a target date and time (e.g., Target Date: 10 May 2012 and Target Time: 12:00:00 UTC); 2.Applicants re-enter the online batching system and generate a message that is sent from their computer/system to the online batching system. The online batching system records the date and time the applicant's message is received. (e.g., Message Received Date: 10 May 2012 and Message Received Time: 12:00:01); 3.The system calculates the time variance between the applicant's Target Date/Time from step 1 and the Message Received Date/Time from step 2. This time variance is known as the applicant's "secondary timestamp" Based on the example in steps 1 and 2 above the secondary timestamp is 1 second. The closer to zero the secondary timestamp is the more likely the application will be processed in the earliest batch, assuming the applicant has opted in to the earliest batch. 4.The batching selection process then combines the applicant's batching preference (i.e., earliest or any batch), the "secondary timestamp" (e.g., 1 second), and the geographic region to determine the batch/processing order for the specific application. However, the implementation of the online batching system must be undertaken with care and it must ensure that a secure, consistent, and objective process is available for all applicants. The operational details of the online batching system have considered and addressed a number of concerns. Those concerns include ensuring that: 1.The details of the batching selection process are clear to applicants, through direct communications with them; 2.Only authorized applicants can enter the online batching system to perform the specific tasks necessary to complete the batching selection process; 3.An opt-out mechanism is available so applicants can designate their batching preference (i.e. earliest or any batch); 4.The online batching system allows applicants to perform their tasks without hindrance (i.e., system remains available during appropriate times); 5.Latency concerns are addressed in a fair manner so that applicants are not put at an advantage or disadvantage based on their geographic location; 6.The target time variance is measured at a level that allows ICANN to adequately determine batches; and 7.Applicants are allowed to practice portions of the process to understand how the target time variance will be calculated. 8.The goals of geographical diversity and fairness are taken into account. Accordingly, to ensure that applicants and prospective applicants are aware of the batching selection process the Board has determined that it is appropriate to take this action now. The Board is therefore approving the operational details of the batching selection process and is authorizing the CEO to release the details of this plan. Providing for this now will allow the community and applicants to understand when applications will be processed if a large number of applications (i.e., significantly more than 500 applications) are received by ICANN.

1 0

WG: GNSO Council resolution 26 March 2012
by KnobenW＠telekom.de March 27, 2012

March 27, 2012

FYI Best regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Glen de Saint Géry Gesendet: Montag, 26. März 2012 19:16 An: council(a)gnso.icann.org Betreff: [council] GNSO Council resolution 26 March 2012 Dear All, The GNSO Council passed the following motion at the meeting today, 26 March 2012. A recording of the meeting is available at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-20120326-en.mp3 Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Motion to recommend to the Board a solution to protect certain Red Cross/Red Crescent (RCRC) and International Olympic Committee (IOC) names at the Top Level in New gTLDS Whereas, the Board Resolution 2011.06.20.01, authorized "the President and CEO to implement the new gTLD program which includes . . . incorporation of text concerning protection for specific requested Red Cross and IOC names for the top level only during the initial application round, until the GNSO and GAC develop policy advice based on the global public interest, . . ." (http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-20jun11-en.htm) Whereas, the IOC/RC Drafting Team established by the GNSO Council has considered a number of different options with respect to protections of both the IOC and the RCRC terms at the top level and has proposed a solution to modify the ICANN staff's implementation of the Board Resolution as reflected in the Applicant Guidebook dated January 12, 2012 (http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb) Whereas, the IOC/RC Drafting Team has collaborated with the Government Advisory Committee (GAC) during its deliberations in an attempt to identify a solution that addresses GAC concerns; Whereas, this proposed solution was posted for public comment on 2 March 2012 on an expedited basis as a matter of urgency in order to enable the Board to consider its adoption for the first round of new gTLD applications, which is scheduled to close on 12 April 2012; Whereas, the GNSO is mindful that implementation of the Board's resolution is needed to be available before the end of the Application Window; Whereas, the GNSO intends that these recommendations be solely limited to the IOC and RCRC; Whereas, the GNSO recognizes that there might be a policy impact of the protection for the IOC/RCRC for future rounds and at the second level; and Whereas, therefore, the IOC/RC Drafting Team recommends that the GNSO Council adopt this proposed solution as a recommendation for Board consideration and adoption at its meeting in Costa Rica for the application period for the first round of new gTLD applications'. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT: Resolved, that the GNSO Council adopts the following three recommendations of the IOC/RC Drafting Team: Recommendation 1: Treat the terms set forth in Section 2.2.1.2.3 as "Modified Reserved Names," meaning: a) The Modified Reserved Names are available as gTLD strings to the International Olympic Committee (hereafter the "IOC"), International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement (hereafter "RCRC") and their respective components, as applicable. b) Applied-for gTLD strings, other than those applied for by the IOC or RCRC, are reviewed during the String Similarity review to determine whether they are similar to these Modified Reserved Names. An application for a gTLD string that is identified as confusingly similar to a Modified Reserved Name will not pass this initial review. c) If an application fails to pass initial string similarity review: i. And the applied-for TLD identically matches any of the Modified Reserved Names (e.g., ".Olympic" or ".RedCross"), it cannot be registered by anyone other than the IOC or the RCRC, as applicable. ii. If the applied-for TLD is not identical to any of the Modified Reserved Names, but fails initial string similarity review with one of Modified Reserved Names, the applicant may attempt to override the string similarity failure by: 1. Seeking a letter of non-objection from the IOC or the RCRC, as applicable; or 2. If it cannot obtain a letter of non-objection, the applicant must: a. claim to have a legitimate interest in the string, and demonstrate the basis for this claim; and b. explain why it believes that the new TLD is not confusingly similar to one of the protected strings and makes evident that it does not refer to the IOC, RCRC or any Olympic or Red Cross Red Crescent activity. 3. A determination in favor of the applicant under the above provision (ii)(2) above would not preclude the IOC, RCRC or other interested parties from bringing a legal rights objection or otherwise contesting the determination. 4. The existence of a TLD that has received a letter of non-objection by the IOC or RCRC pursuant to (ii)(1), or has been approved pursuant to (ii)(2) shall not preclude the IOC or RCRC from obtaining one of the applicable Modified Reserved Names in any round of new gTLD applications. Recommendation 2: Protect the IOC/RCRC Terms in as many Languages as Feasible The GAC has proposed that the IOC and RCRC "names should be protected in multiple languages---all translations of the listed names in languages used on the Internet...The lists of protected names that the IOC and RC/RC have provided are illustrative and representative, not exhaustive." The Drafting Team recommends that at the top level for this initial round, the list of languages currently provided in Section 2.2.1.2.3 of the Applicant Guidebook are sufficient. In addition, the Drafting Team also notes that even in the unlikely event that a third party applies for an IOC or RCRC term in a language that was not contained on the list, the IOC or RCRC, as applicable, may still file an applicable objection as set forth in the Applicant Guidebook. Recommendation 3: Protections must be reviewed after the first round and that review should include consideration of changing the language to general requirements rather than naming specific organizations. In its proposal, the GAC has recommended that the protections for the IOC and RCRC should not just apply during the first round of new gTLDs, but should be a permanent protection afforded for all subsequent rounds. The Drafting Team recognizes that permanently granting protection to the IOC and RCRC may have policy implications that require more work and consultation so that protections may be reviewed. Resolved, that the GNSO submits this proposed solution for Board consideration and adoption at its next meeting as a recommended solution to implement Board Resolution 2011.06.20.01 for implementation in the first round of new gTLD applications. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

WG: Survey: ICANN effectiveness as a global organization
by KnobenW＠telekom.de March 25, 2012

March 25, 2012

FYI Best regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: owner-soac-discussion(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-soac-discussion@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Kurt Pritz Gesendet: Freitag, 23. März 2012 20:20 An: soac-discussion(a)icann.org Cc: David Olive; Robert Hoggarth; Jamie Hedlund Betreff: [soac-discussion] Survey: ICANN effectiveness as a global organization Dear Community Leader: ICANN is publishing today a survey (http://questionpro.com/t/AHB7OZM7Lx) <http://questionpro.com/t/AHB7OZM7Lx> to solicit community input on improving its effectiveness as a global organization. We seek your help to forward this email to your community members and encourage participation. ICANN has community participants and leaders from all regions of the world and seeks to enhance to its performance as a global organization. Participation is important. The feedback collected from the survey will help inform ICANN¹s strategy for improving its global engagement. By identifying the activities that are most important toward fully reflecting the global nature of ICANN¹s mission, the feedback will also help to establish priorities for ICANN. The survey results will be shared with the ICANN community and additional opportunities will be made available to comment before any actions are formalized and implemented. The survey is available in all of the UN languages, and feedback is encouraged from stakeholders in all regions. The survey is open until 22 April 2012. The survey is intended to aid understanding the following: 1) The extent to which our current participation and operating processes either: encourage global participation in ICANN; contribute to ICANN's global effectiveness; or improve ICANN's interactions as a global organization. 2) The extent to which ICANN's participation and operating processes improve ICANN's reputation globally. In addition to the multiple-choice survey questions, every section includes an open-ended text box to provide supporting information or specific recommendations. Taking the time to add written comments is important and can contribute directly to strategy development. If you have any questions or concerns about the survey, please send an e-mail to: participation(a)icann.org<mailto:participation@icann.org> or write directly to me at pritz(a)icann.org<mailto:pritz@icann.org>. Please participate. Please strongly encourage others to do so. Sincerely, Kurt Pritz ICANN

1 0

Draft comments on WHOIS Review
by tony holmes March 15, 2012

March 15, 2012

Dear ISPCP members Following discussions during our Constituency meeting in Costa Rica the following draft Constituency response on the report of the WHOIS Review team is attached. Comments/proposed amendments are requested. The deadline for submission of comments to ICANN is 18th March. On that basis could I request any comments or proposals for amendment are submitted by 12.00 hours 17th March. Please copy to the full list and I will do my best to incorporate them within the final draft. Thanks Tony

2 1

WG: GNSO Council motions 14 March 2012
by KnobenW＠telekom.de March 15, 2012

March 15, 2012

FYI Best regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Glen de Saint Géry Gesendet: Mittwoch, 14. März 2012 18:01 An: council(a)gnso.icann.org Betreff: [council] GNSO Council motions 14 March 2012 Dear All, The following resolutions were passed at the GNSO Council meeting on 14 March 2012. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards Glen Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) on 'thick' Whois Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on 'thick' Whois at its meeting on 22 September 2011 (see http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109) Whereas a Preliminary Issue Report on 'thick' Whois was posted on 21 November 2011 for public comment (see http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-21nov11-en.htm) Whereas a Final Issue Report on 'thick' Whois was published on 2 February 2012 (see http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/final-report-thick-whois-02feb12-en.pdf) Whereas, the Final Issue Report recommends that the GNSO Council proceed with a Policy Development Process limited to consideration of the issues discussed in this report, and the General Counsel of ICANN has indicated the topic is properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process and within the scope of the GNSO. Whereas nothing in this motion is intended to prejudice migration to thick Whois through contractual means. THEREFORE BE IT: Resolved, the GNSO will initiate a PDP on the issues defined in the Final Issue Report on 'thick' Whois; (see http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/final-report-thick-whois-02feb12-en.pdf) Resolved, a DT will be formed to create a charter for a Working Group, which will be submitted to the GNSO Council for its approval. Resolved, following the approval of the charter, a Working Group will be created for the purpose of fulfilling the requirements of the PDP. Approval of a Charter for the Locking of a Domain Name Subject to UDRP Proceedings PDP Working Group Motion made by: Joy Liddicoat Motion seconded by: Carlos Dionisio Aguirre Whereas on 15 December 2011 the GNSO Council initiated a Policy Development Process (PDP) on the Locking of a Domain Name Subject to UDRP Proceedings and decided to create a PDP Working Group for the purposes of fulfilling the requirements of the PDP (see http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201112) Whereas, following a call for volunteers, a drafting team was formed and its members have developed a charter for consideration by the GNSO Council; Whereas the GNSO Council has reviewed the charter submitted by the drafting team. RESOLVED, The GSNO Council approves the charter and appoints Joy Liddicoat as the GNSO Council Liaison to the Locking of a Domain Name Subject to UDRP Proceedings PDP Working Group. The GNSO Council further directs that the work of the Locking of a Domain Name Subject to UDRP Proceedings PDP Working Group be initiated no later then 14 days after the approval of this motion. Until such time as the WG can select a chair and that chair can be confirmed by the GNSO Council, the GNSO Council Liaison shall act as interim chair. Charter - http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/locking-domain-name-udrp-proceedings-charter-0… Motion to approve Cross Community Working Group Principles deferred from the Council meeting on 19 January 2012 Made by: Jonathan Robinson Seconded by: Jeff Neuman Whereas, the GNSO from time to time has participated in cross-community working groups to address issues of common interest to other ICANN supporting organizations (SO) and advisory committees (AC); Whereas, the GNSO Council desires to develop a GNSO agreed perspective with regard to the role, function and method of conducting joint activities for future projects that respects and preserves the recognized roles and responsibilities assigned to each SO/AC under the ICANN Bylaws; Whereas, on 06 October 2011 the GNSO Council approved a charter and the formation of a Drafting Team to define a way forward for the effective chartering, functioning, and utilization of such cross-community working groups; Whereas, on 04 January 2012 the Drafting Team provided to the Council for consideration Draft Principles for Cross-Community Working Groups: http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/draft-principles-for-cwgs-23dec11-en.pdf+.+ NOW THEREFORE, BE IT: Resolved, that the GNSO Council hereby approves the Draft Principles for Cross-Community Working Groups for its own guidance and requests staff to disseminate them to the Chairs of the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees asking them to provide input to the GNSO Council in 60 days on both the principles themselves and the route forward for community-wide adoption or development of a related set of principles for the operation of Cross-Community Working Groups; Resolved further, the GNSO Council thanks the Drafting Team members for their work in developing the Draft Principles and disbands the Team. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org> http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

WG: [council] Re: Joint NCUC-NPOC statement
by KnobenW＠telekom.de March 12, 2012

March 12, 2012

FYI Kind regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Stéphane Van Gelder Gesendet: Montag, 12. März 2012 15:22 An: council(a)gnso.icann.org GNSO Cc: Konstantinos Komaitis; Alain Berranger; Robin Gross Betreff: [council] Re: Joint NCUC-NPOC statement Wichtigkeit: Hoch Councillors, Please see below a joint statement from NCUC, NPOC and NCSG. Thanks, Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Head of Domain Operations Group NBT Le 12 mars 2012 à 18:47, Konstantinos Komaitis a écrit : > Dear Dr. Crocker and Mr. Van Gelder, > > Given the recent questions raised by the Board to the GNSO Council regarding the relationship between the Non Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC) and the Non Profit Operations Constituency (NPOC), please find below a joint statement. > > Many thanks > > Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis > NCUC Chair > > > JOINT NCUC-NPOC STATEMENT > > "Leadership teams from the Non-Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC) and the Non Profit Operations Constituency (NPOC) met on Sunday, March 11, 2012. The meeting was extremely fruitful and we discussed our differences and our shared objectives and how to improve working together going forward. The two constituencies plan to cooperate in joint outreach activities to strengthen NCSG and its mission. Initial positive steps were made in order to begin to build trust between the two NCSG constituencies and we are all committed in working together for the promotion of non-commercial interests in the Internet. We believe we can work out our differences and our governance issues internally. > > Signed > Ms. Robin Gross (NCSG Chair) > Mr. Alain Berranger (Acting NPOC Vice Chair) > Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis (NCUC Chair)

1 0

Fwd: [council] WG: AW: AW: WG: GNSO Council & Board
by Novoa, Osvaldo March 10, 2012

March 10, 2012

Dear all, Do you have any comments on these questions? Best regards, Osvaldo Inicio del mensaje reenviado: De: <KnobenW(a)telekom.de<mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de>> Fecha: 10 de marzo de 2012 15:02:17 CST Para: <council(a)gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Asunto: [council] WG: AW: AW: WG: GNSO Council & Board Following are the board questions to the GNSO Kind regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: Diane Schroeder [mailto:diane.schroeder@icann.org] Gesendet: Samstag, 10. März 2012 13:45 An: Knoben, Wolf-Ulrich Cc: Glen de Saint Géry Betreff: Re: AW: AW: WG: GNSO Council & Board Dear Wolf-Ulrich, I have the following interest from the Board for their meeting with the GNSO Council - "What will be in your view the medium-term impact of the new gTLD program on the structure of ICANN in general, and challenges it brings to the gNSO, its constituencies and policy development process. What are the potential issues and how to anticipate them?" this I s a question they would like to have all parts of the community starting to consider. Another question is: o What is the view on the need for stronger protections against defensive registrations at the second level, and a shift to WHOIS data authentication at time of sdata submission? Thank you. Diane Schroeder Director of Board Support ICANN 4676 Admiralty Way, Ste. 330 Marina del Rey, CA 90292 +1-310-823-9358 (main) +1-310-301-5827 (direct) +1-310-823-8649 (fax) +1-562-644-2524 (mobile) ________________________________ 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

WG: [council] Re: Root Server System
by KnobenW＠telekom.de March 6, 2012

March 6, 2012

FYI Kind regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Stéphane Van Gelder Gesendet: Montag, 5. März 2012 09:53 An: Rod Beckstrom Cc: Jeffrey A. Moss; council(a)gnso.icann.org GNSO Betreff: [council] Re: Root Server System Thanks Rod, I am copying the Council on this response so that anyone who has input or advice can provide it directly to Jeffrey. Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Head of Domain Operations Group NBT Le 3 mars 2012 à 02:06, Rod Beckstrom a écrit : Dear Stephane, You may be aware that there has been a recent threat of a future attack against the root-server system purporting to originate from the group Anonymous. ICANN takes all threats against DNS infrastructure seriously, as is consistent with our technical coordination role, our role as operator of the L Root server, and ICANN's mission to maintain the stable and secure operation of the Internet's unique identifier systems. We are tracking the threat and collaborating with others in the industry and greater community to ensure we are prepared. These efforts are being led by Jeff Moss, ICANN's Chief Security Officer. We are writing to ask you, in your role as Chair of the GNSO, if there is any advice or information that you or your members wish to share on this specific threat. If you have information concerning the threat, or if you have any questions, please contact Jeff Moss at jeffrey.moss(a)icann.org<mailto:jeffrey.moss@icann.org>. We will update you with relevant information as we receive it. Sincerely, Rod

2 1

WG: [council] Re: Root Server System
by KnobenW＠telekom.de March 5, 2012

March 5, 2012

FYI. Kind regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Stéphane Van Gelder Gesendet: Montag, 5. März 2012 09:53 An: Rod Beckstrom Cc: Jeffrey A. Moss; council(a)gnso.icann.org GNSO Betreff: [council] Re: Root Server System Thanks Rod, I am copying the Council on this response so that anyone who has input or advice can provide it directly to Jeffrey. Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager INDOM Group NBT France ---------------- Head of Domain Operations Group NBT Le 3 mars 2012 à 02:06, Rod Beckstrom a écrit : Dear Stephane, You may be aware that there has been a recent threat of a future attack against the root-server system purporting to originate from the group Anonymous. ICANN takes all threats against DNS infrastructure seriously, as is consistent with our technical coordination role, our role as operator of the L Root server, and ICANN's mission to maintain the stable and secure operation of the Internet's unique identifier systems. We are tracking the threat and collaborating with others in the industry and greater community to ensure we are prepared. These efforts are being led by Jeff Moss, ICANN's Chief Security Officer. We are writing to ask you, in your role as Chair of the GNSO, if there is any advice or information that you or your members wish to share on this specific threat. If you have information concerning the threat, or if you have any questions, please contact Jeff Moss at jeffrey.moss(a)icann.org<mailto:jeffrey.moss@icann.org>. We will update you with relevant information as we receive it. Sincerely, Rod

1 0