[council] ICANN Policy Update - December 2009

[Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>]

ICANN POLICY UPDATE

Volume 09, Issue 12 - December 2009
http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/

CONTENTS:

Across ICANN

 1.  Policy Update Experiments with Streamlined 
Format<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-dec09-en.htm#1>
 2.  Issues Currently Open for Public 
Comment<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-dec09-en.htm#2>
 3.  Transitions<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-dec09-en.htm#3>

ccNSO

 1.  ccNSO Welcomes Mozambique as 100th 
Member<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-dec09-en.htm#4>
 2.  ccNSO Adds Shared Resources Web 
Page<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-dec09-en.htm#5>
 3.  Other Issues Active in the 
ccNSO<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-dec09-en.htm#6>

GNSO

 1.  "Specific Trademark Issues" Team 
Reports<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-dec09-en.htm#7>
 2.  Inter-Registrar Transfer Policies WG Reviews Comments from Public and 
Stakeholder Groups<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-dec09-en.htm#8>
 3.  Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery WG Receives Initial Survey Findings 
<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-dec09-en.htm#9>
 4.  Registration Abuse Policies Group Aims to Report by March 
2010<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-dec09-en.htm#10>
 5.  New GNSO Council Pushes Ahead on All 
Fronts<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-dec09-en.htm#11>
 6.  Other Issues Active in the 
GNSO<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-dec09-en.htm#12>

ASO

 1.  ARIN Shakes Up Policy Proposal for Recovered IPv4 
Addresses<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-dec09-en.htm#13>
 2.  Postpone Transition to 32-Bit ASN? RIPE Says 
Yes<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-dec09-en.htm#14>

Joint Efforts

 1.  Issues Active in Combined 
Efforts<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-dec09-en.htm#15>

At-Large

 1.  ALAC Responds to Board Review 
Report<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-dec09-en.htm#16>
 2.  ALAC Advises on the Introduction of IDN 
ccTLDs<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-dec09-en.htm#17>
 3.  ALAC Opposes Changes to the 
NomCom<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-dec09-en.htm#18>
 4.  EURALO Produces Outreach 
Brochure<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-dec09-en.htm#19>

SSAC

 1.  Issues Active with the 
SSAC<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-dec09-en.htm#20>

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<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/> and available via online 
subscription. To receive the Update in your Inbox each month, simply go to the 
ICANN subscriptions page<http://www.icann.org/en/newsletter/>, enter your 
e-mail address, and select "Policy Update" to subscribe. This service is free 
of charge.

ICANN Policy Update statement of purpose<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/>

Send questions, comments and suggestions to: 
policy-staff@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:policy-staff@xxxxxxxxx>.

Policy Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees
Address Supporting Organization

ASO<http://aso.icann.org/>

Country Code Names Supporting Organization

ccNSO<http://ccnso.icann.org/>

Generic Names Supporting Organization

GNSO<http://gnso.icann.org/>

At-Large Advisory Committee

ALAC<http://www.atlarge.icann.org/>

Governmental Advisory Committee

GAC<http://gac.icann.org/>

Root Server System Advisory Committee

RSSAC<http://www.icann.org/en/committees/dns-root/>

Security and Stability Advisory Committee

SSAC<http://www.icann.org/en/committees/security/>


________________________________


Across ICANN

1. Policy Update Experiments with Streamlined Format

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@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:policy-staff@xxxxxxxxx?subject=Policy%20Update%20Format>.
 Thanks for sharing your perspective!

________________________________

2. Issues Currently Open for Public Comment

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:

 *   Final Report on Three-Character Requirement and Variant 
Management<http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201001.htm#3cv-final-report>.
 This report from the IDN-Implementation Working Team addresses how to manage 
variants of internationalized top-level domain names, and whether there can be 
exceptions to the three-character requirement for generic Top Level Domains 
(gTLDs). Comment by 8 January 2010.
 *   2010 - 2013 Strategic 
Plan<http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201001.htm#strat-plan-2010>.
 ICANN invites comments from the community on this draft of its plan for the 
next few years. What should be the high-level objectives? Comment by 21 January 
2010.
 *   Special Trademark 
Issues<http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201001.htm#sti>. 
The Special Trademarks Issues Working Team (STI) has published its 
recommendations for creating a Trademark Clearinghouse and Uniform Rapid 
Suspension Procedure to protect trademarks in the New gTLD Program. Comment on 
their report by 26 January 2010.
 *   New gTLD Program: Draft Expressions of Interest/Pre-Registration 
Model<http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201001.htm#draft-eoi>.
 ICANN is soliciting comments on the Draft Expressions of 
Interest/Pre-Registrations Model for new generic top-level domains (new gTLDs). 
According to this draft model, entities interested in participating in the 
first round of the New gTLD Program are required to submit basic information 
about the participating entity and requested top-level domain, also referred to 
as "string." Comment by 27 January 2010.

More Information

For the full list of issues open for public comment, plus recently closed and 
archived public comment forums, visit the Public 
Comments<http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/> page.

________________________________

3. Transitions

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<http://gnso.icann.org/council/soi/greer-soi-13nov09-en.htm>).

If you would like to thank a volunteer whose significant work in a leadership 
position is done, send a brief email to 
scott.pinzon@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:scott.pinzon@xxxxxxxxx> 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

4. ccNSO Welcomes Mozambique as 100th Member

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

 *   Statistics on ccNSO membership 
growth<http://ccnso.icann.org/about/ccnso-membership-august-2003-november-2009.pdf>
 [PDF, 41K]
 *   Alphabetical list of all ccNSO 
members<http://ccnso.icann.org/about/members.htm>
 *   Status of all member 
applications<http://ccnso.icann.org/applications/summary-date.shtml>

Staff Contact

Gabriella 
Schittek<mailto:gabriella.schittek@xxxxxxxxx?subject=ccNSO%20FAQ%20page>, ccNSO 
Secretariat

________________________________

5. ccNSO Adds Shared Resources Web Page

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<http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/> and organizations such as 
ENISA<http://www.enisa.europa.eu/>. 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

 *   Look for the Resources tab on ccnso.icann.org<http://ccnso.icann.org/>

Staff Contact

Gabriella 
Schittek<mailto:gabriella.schittek@xxxxxxxxx?subject=ccNSO%20Resources%20Page>, 
ccNSO Secretariat

________________________________

6. Other Issues Active in the ccNSO

 *   IDN Policy 
Development<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-nov09-en.htm#5>
 *   Redirection and Wildcarding 
<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-nov09-en.htm#6>
 *   Delegation/Re-delegation of 
ccTLDs<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-nov09-en.htm#7>
 *   Incident Response 
Planning<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-nov09-en.htm#8>

________________________________


GNSO

7. "Special Trademark Issues" Team Reports

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:

 *   The creation of a Trademark Clearinghouse, envisioned as a convenient, 
centralized location to store registered trademark information on behalf of 
trademark holders. The Clearinghouse could support certain rights protection 
mechanisms, such as sunrise or Trademark Claims processes offered by registries.
 *   The creation of a Uniform Rapid Suspension procedure, which could provide 
trademark holders with a cost effective, expedited process in clear-cut 
instances of trademark abuse, provided that the procedure includes appropriate 
safeguards to protect registrants who engage in legitimate uses of domain names.

More Information

 *   More about trademark issues in the New gTLD 
Program<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/gnso-consultations-reports-en.htm>
 *   The Board's 
Letter<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg07609.html>
 *   Email archives for the STI Work 
Team<http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-sti/>
 *   The STI Recommendations 
Report<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg08031.html>

Staff Contact

Margie Milam<mailto:policy-staff@xxxxxxxxx>, Senior Policy Counselor

________________________________

8. Inter-Registrar Transfer Policies WG Reviews Comments from Public and 
Stakeholder Groups

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<http://sel.icann.org/node/6771/> 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<https://st.icann.org/irtp-partb/index.cgi?irtp_part_b>.

Background

The IRTP Part B Working Group addresses five issues relating to domain name 
transfers, specified in their 
Charter<https://st.icann.org/irtp-partb/index.cgi?irtp_part_b> and in the 
August issue<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-aug09-en.htm> of 
Policy Update. The IRTP Part B Working Group has been meeting bi-weekly.

More Information

 *   IRTP Part B Public comment 
period<http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-200910.html#irtp-b>
 (closed 5 October 2009)
 *   IRTP Part B Issues 
Report<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/transfers/irtp-report-b-15may09.pdf> [PDF, 
256K]
 *   Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy<http://www.icann.org/en/transfers/>
 *   PDP 
Recommendations<http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/transfer-wg-recommendations-pdp-groupings-19mar08.pdf>
 [PDF, 124K]

Staff Contact

Marika Konings<mailto:policy-staff@xxxxxxxxx>, Policy Director

________________________________

9. Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery WG Receives Initial Survey Findings

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<https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/post-expiration-dn-recovery-wg/attachments/post_expiration_domain_name_recovery_wg:20091203091011-0-3475/original/Registrar%20Survey%20-%20Preliminary%20Findings%20-%2024%20Nov%202009.ppt.pdf>
 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<https://st.icann.org/post-expiration-dn-recovery-wg/index.cgi>. 
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<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/background/domain-name-recovery-en.htm>.

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<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/post-expiration-recovery/call-pdp-pednr-06jul09.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<http://syd.icann.org/node/3869>.

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<http://forum.icann.org/lists/pednr-wg-questions/>, which was launched to 
solicit views on the questions outlined in the PEDNR WG 
Charter<https://st.icann.org/post-expiration-dn-recovery-wg/index.cgi>.

The Working Group held a workshop at the ICANN meeting in 
Seoul<http://sel.icann.org/node/6753/>, 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

 *   GNSO Issues Report on Post-Expiration Domain Name 
Recovery<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/post-expiration-recovery/report-05dec08.pdf>
 [PDF, 416K]
 *   Translations<http://gnso.icann.org/policies/> of the GNSO Issues Report on 
Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery
 *   ICANN Staff 
response<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg06162.html> to 
GNSO request for clarifications
 *   PEDNR Public Comment 
Period<http://forum.icann.org/lists/pednr-wg-questions/>

Staff Contact

Marika Konings<mailto:policy-staff@xxxxxxxxx>, Policy Director

________________________________

10. Registration Abuse Policies Group Aims to Report by March 2010

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<http://mex.icann.org/files/meetings/mexico2009/transcript-gnso-registration-abuse-policies-workshop-03mar09-en.txt>
 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<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/background/rap-en.htm> for 
further background.

More Information

 *   Registration Abuse Policies Issues Report, 29 October 
2008<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/registration-abuse/gnso-issues-report-registration-abuse-policies-29oct08.pdf>
 [PDF, 400K]
and translation<http://gnso.icann.org/policies/> of summary
 *   Registration Abuse Policies WG 
Charter<https://st.icann.org/reg-abuse-wg/index.cgi?action=display_html;page_name=registration_abuse_policies_working_group>
 *   Registration Abuse Policies Mexico City Workshop 
Transcript<http://mex.icann.org/files/meetings/mexico2009/transcript-gnso-registration-abuse-policies-workshop-03mar09-en.txt>
 *   Registration Abuse Policies Working Group 
Workspace<https://st.icann.org/reg-abuse-wg/index.cgi?registration_abuse_policies_working_group>
 (Wiki)

Staff Contacts

Marika Konings<mailto:policy-staff@xxxxxxxxx>, Policy Director, and Margie 
Milam<mailto:policy-staff@xxxxxxxxx>, Senior Policy Counselor

________________________________

11. New GNSO Council Pushes Ahead on All Fronts

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<http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/>.

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:

 *   The PDP Work Team<https://st.icann.org/icann-ppsc/index.cgi?pdp_team> is 
developing recommendations for a new policy development process (PDP). The team 
continues its drafting work, meeting weekly .
 *   The Working Group Model Work 
Team<https://st.icann.org/icann-ppsc/index.cgi?working_group_team> is still 
reviewing drafts of its two new guidebooks, "Working Group Implementation and 
Charter Drafting Guidelines" and "Working Group Operating Model Guidebook."

Operations Efforts:

 *   The GNSO Operations Work 
Team<https://st.icann.org/icann-osc/index.cgi?gnso_operations_team> continues 
meeting bi-weekly to address additional provisions to the GNSO Operating 
Procedures now that the new Council is seated. One issue under discussion is 
how to address Council member abstentions, conflicts of interest, and any 
impacts on voting procedures.
 *   The GNSO Constituency & Stakeholder Group Operations Work 
Team<https://st.icann.org/icann-osc/index.cgi?constituency_operations_team> 
developed recommendations for a "tool kit" of basic administrative, operational 
and technical services that could be made available to all Constituencies. 
There recommendations were approved by the Operations Steering Committee (OSC), 
and a motion to approve the recommendations will be considered by the GNSO 
Council at its 17 December meeting. The Work Team is finalizing recommendations 
on its remaining tasks.
 *   The GNSO Communications Coordination Work 
Team<https://st.icann.org/icann-osc/index.cgi?osc_communications_team> (CCT) 
submitted to the OSC its final recommendations to (a) enhance the GNSO's 
ability to solicit meaningful community feedback, (b) improve GNSO's 
coordination with other ICANN structures, and (c) make 
gnso.icann.org<http://gnso.icann.org> more usable. At the OSC's request, ICANN 
Staff gathered OSC member comments concerning the report and drafted a letter 
(currently circulating for approval) to the CCT containing suggestions for the 
Work Team to consider. One specific recommendation is to split the final CCT 
report into two sections: (1) Technology and (2) Communications and 
Coordination -- to take advantage of the Technology aspect being closer to 
completion. Staff developed drafts for both of these reports, which are 
currently being reviewed pending final approval by the CCT.

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<http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/>.

More Information

 *   GNSO Improvements Information Web 
Page<http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/>
 *   Latest public documents on proposals for new 
constituencies<http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/newco-process-en.htm>
 *   New Bylaws relevant to the New GNSO 
Council<http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws-amendments-27aug09.pdf> [PDF, 
160K]
 *   New GNSO Council Operating 
Procedures<http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/public-comment-draft-17sep09-en.pdf> 
[PDF, 108K]

Staff Contact

Robert Hoggarth<mailto:policy-staff@xxxxxxxxx>, Senior Policy Director

________________________________

12. Other Issues Active in the GNSO

 *   Vertical Separation between Registries and 
Registrars<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-oct09-en.htm#8>
 *   Whois Studies<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-nov09-en.htm#11>
 *   Fast Flux 
Hosting<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-sep09-en.htm#12>

________________________________


ASO

13. ARIN Shakes Up Policy Proposal for Recovered IPv4 Addresses

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

 *   Background 
Report<http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-12may09-en.htm> 
(updated 4 September 2009)
 *   Global Policy Proposal for Handling Recovered 
IPv4<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/background/ipv4-en.htm>

Staff Contact

Olof 
Nordling<mailto:mailto:policy-staff@xxxxxxxxx?subject=Global%20Policies%20for%20IPv4>,
 Director Services Relations

________________________________

14. Postpone Transition to 32-Bit ASN? RIPE Says Yes

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

 *   Background 
Report<http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-04sep09-en.htm> 
(posted 4 September 2009)

Staff Contact

Olof Nordling<mailto:policy-staff@xxxxxxxxx>, Director Services Relations

________________________________


Joint Efforts

15. Issues Active in Combined Efforts

 *   ICANN definition of Geographic 
Regions<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-nov09-en.htm#17>
 *   Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) amendments and registrant 
rights<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-nov09-en.htm#18>
 *   Internationalized Domain Names 
(IDNs)<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-nov09-en.htm#19>

________________________________


At-Large

16. ALAC Responds to Board Review Report

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<https://st.icann.org/working-groups/index.cgi?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

 *   ALAC Statement on the Board Review WG 
Report<https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?alac_statement_on_the_board_review_wg_report_al_alac_st_1109_1_rev3>
 *   ICANN Board Review Working Group Draft Final 
Report<http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/board/board-review-wg-draft-final-report-19sep09-en.pdf>
 [PDF, 228K]
 *   ALAC vote to ratify the 
statement<https://www.bigpulse.com/pollresults?code=UfjMs62S7dymGQULQFhn>:

Staff Contact

Heidi Ullrich<mailto:policy-staff@xxxxxxxxx>, At-Large Secretariat

________________________________

17. ALAC Advises on the Introduction of IDN ccTLDs

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:

 *   Who can be an IDN ccTLD operator?
 *   What is the selection process for IDN ccTLD operators for a territory?
 *   Who decides which group has the "rights" to an IDN ccTLD in a given script?

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<https://st.icann.org/idn-policy/index.cgi?03_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

 *   Draft Topic Paper for Policy on the Introduction of IDN 
ccTLDs<http://www.ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/idn-topic-paper-16oct09-en.pdf> 
[PDF, 116K]
 *   ALAC Statement on Draft Topic Paper for Policy on the Introduction of IDN 
ccTLD<https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?alac_statement_on_the_draft_topic_paper_for_policy_on_the_introduction_of_idn_cctld_al_alac_st_1209_1_rev1>
 *   ALAC Vote to ratify the 
Statement<https://www.bigpulse.com/pollresults?code=UfjMs62S7dymGQULQFhn>

Staff Contact

Matthias Langenegger, At-Large Secretariat<mailto:staff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

________________________________

18. ALAC Opposes Changes to the NomCom

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<https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?naralo_statement_on_the_nomcom_review>
 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<https://st.icann.org/working-groups/index.cgi?27_november_2009> 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

 *   ALAC Statement on the NomCom 
Review<https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?alac_statement_on_the_nomcom_review_al_alac_st_1109_2>
 *   Review of the ICANN Nominating Committee - Draft Final 
Report<http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/nomcom/nomcom-review-finalization-wg-draft-report-23sep09-en.pdf>
 [PDF, 396K]
 *   ALAC Vote to ratify the 
Statement<https://www.bigpulse.com/pollresults?code=UfjMs62S7dymGQULQFhn>

Staff Contact

Matthias Langenegger<mailto:policy-staff@xxxxxxxxx>, At-Large Secretariat

________________________________

19. EURALO Produces Outreach Brochure

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

 *   EURALO 
brochure<http://www.atlarge.icann.org/euralo/ic-euralo-brochure-10nov09-en.pdf> 
[PDF, 176K]

Staff Contact

Matthias Langenegger<mailto:policy-staff@xxxxxxxxx>, At-Large Secretariat

________________________________


SSAC

20. Issues Active with the 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<mailto:policy-staff@xxxxxxxxx?subject=SSAC%20Retreat>, Director, 
SSAC Support