ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[council] Monthly Policy Update

  • To: "Council GNSO" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, liaison6c <liaison6c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [council] Monthly Policy Update
  • From: "Denise Michel" <denise.michel@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 01:47:21 -0700
  • Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:reply-to :sender:to:subject:mime-version:content-type:x-google-sender-auth; bh=jp8TTUvq39nFEDq+waaadbb80jKEJGSd+XOYPSxVOPA=; b=PaNz/ifl57FYcQlC6K5glO9pqGMQe5zETDm8y9OkaA1rUz3ifjRIULOif25APMgY28 cb/0IIp+Lxc8E+GU4CAjxSvryeuV2Dy5QGEhngTlOGhb4Ij3qgPwWR1T0r97cw64HAij LD690jzR6pcmRGujnNxdqPHvGKByo7/aMo5NM=
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:reply-to:sender:to:subject:mime-version :content-type:x-google-sender-auth; b=be60h77Fv2JE4fCOc/V7kYTaw2KNrNHPnjAGIIHkIbZanlmcJ1xwbJGkt+zYzZjHxF lOjeYroMvSgxRnn6p9DWclk84YdULgg648UumKVLzEeg6KVwSO4h7Xn4mdu7VOKsb63f nZeba6ytwZnbkgdFzkBm3ys2qPJJ7F6BQamrY=
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Reply-to: denise.michel@xxxxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

ICANN's July Monthly Policy Update is included below.  It also will be
posted (with hyperlinks) on ICANN's website at <
http://www.icann.org/topics/policy/> and is available via online
subscription.  To receive these updates in your inbox each month, go to <
http://www.icann.org/newsletter> and select "Policy Update" to subscribe.

Denise Michel
ICANN VP, Policy




  3.  GNSO – WHOIS

Below are brief summaries of issues that are being addressed by the ICANN
community's bottom-up policy development structure, as well as other
significant activities of interest.  This latest monthly update is provided
by ICANN's Policy Staff in response to community requests for periodic
summaries of ICANN's policy work.  Links to additional information are
included below and we encourage you to go beyond these brief Staff summaries
and learn more about the ICANN community's work.  Our goal is to maximize
transparency and broad community participation in ICANN's policy development
activities.  Comments and suggestions on how we can improve these efforts
are most welcome and should be sent to policy-staff@xxxxxxxxx.


Recent Developments
On 26 June 2008, the ICANN Board approved all of the GNSO Improvement
Report's recommendations, except for the recommendation on GNSO Council
restructuring.  The Board also requested that the GNSO convene a small
working group on council restructuring and provide for the Board's
consideration a consensus recommendation by 25 July 2008.

Next Steps
The public comment period on the Council's top-level GNO Improvements
implementation plan is scheduled to close on 17 July 2008.  A small working
group on GNSO Council restructuring has convened and expects to continue
with its work.  Consistent with its Resolution, Board consideration of the
future structure of the GNSO Council is expected to be resolved no later
than at its 28 August 2008 meeting.

The ICANN Board has approved a comprehensive set of recommendations to
improve the structure and operations of the Generic Names Supporting
Organization (GNSO). This effort is part of ICANN's own ongoing commitment
to evolve and improve, and follows an independent review of the GNSO by the
London School of Economics and others, as well as extensive public

A working group of the ICANN Board Governance Committee (BGC WG) developed
and presented these recommendations in a GNSO Improvements Report that
includes ways to improve the effectiveness of the GNSO's policy development
activities, structure, operations and communications. At the February 2008
Board meeting in New Delhi, the Board accepted the Report for consideration,
and directed ICANN Staff to post it for public comment, draft a detailed
implementation plan in consultation with the GNSO, begin implementation of
the non-contentious recommendations, and then return to the Board and
community for further consideration.

The GNSO Council subsequently formed a GNSO Improvement Planning Team
(Planning Team), comprised of GNSO leadership, constituency representatives,
ICANN Staff and a Board liaison participant, in order to develop a top-level
implementation plan to organize and manage the implementation effort. On 19
May 2008, the Planning Team produced a draft version of the GNSO
Improvements Top Level Plan.  The plan focuses on the creation of two
standing committees, GNSO Process and GNSO Operations, which would be
responsible for ensuring that the work of implementing BGC WG
recommendations is carried out.

More Information
•    GNSO Improvements information page <
•    Full GNSO Improvements Report <

•    15 February 2008 Board resolution on GNSO Improvements <
•    Summary and Analysis of Comments on GNSO Improvements Report <
•    GNSO Improvements - Top Level Plan, 21 June 2008 <
•    26 June Board resolution on GNSO Improvements <
http://www.icann.org/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm - _Toc76113182>

Staff Contact
Rob Hoggarth, Senior Policy Director


Recent Developments
The ICANN Board approved the GNSO Council recommendation to curb abuse of
the "add grace period" (AGP) for domain tasting, and also approved the draft
budget for FY 2008-09, which includes language to curb domain tasting. Prior
to Board approval, Staff prepared an initial "Implementation Advisory" on
modifications to the AGP, which examined each component of the GNSO Council
recommendation and identified particular implementation steps that should be
considered to put the recommendation and the FY 09 Budget Plan in place.

Next Steps
Staff will be developing a detailed implementation plan for community

The term "domain name tasting" refers to a situation where an entity
registers a domain name and then tests to see if the name has sufficient
traffic to generate more income than the annual registration fee, usually
through the addition of pay-per-click advertising. If the address is deemed
sufficiently profitable, it is kept.  If not, the current "add grace period"
(AGP), that allows domains to be returned within five days without cost, is
used to return the domain at no net cost to the registrant and no ICANN
charge levied on the registrar. The practice is controversial because
registrants who engage in it are able to temporarily register hundreds of
thousands of domain names, with these temporary registrations far exceeding
the number of domain names actually licensed.

Over time, there has been a significant increase in the number of domains
registered and returned prior to expiration of the AGP.  A significant
number of community members feel the AGP process presents a loophole that
facilitates this conduct.  On 17 April 2008, the GNSO Council by
supermajority vote approved a recommendation that would prohibit any gTLD
operator that has implemented an AGP from offering a refund for any domain
name deleted during the AGP that exceeds 10% of its net new registrations in
that month, or fifty domain names, whichever is greater. Under the terms of
the motion, an exemption from the limitation could be sought for a
particular month, upon a showing of extraordinary circumstances detailed in
the motion.

In addition, the provision that had been included previously in the ICANN
draft budget for FY 2009 (applying the ICANN USD .20 annual fee to all new
registrations) was modified to reflect the same threshold included in the
GNSO Council recommendation.  This new language would apply the annual ICANN
fee only to those registrations that exceed the maximum of (i) 10% of that
registrar's net new registrations in that month (defined as total new
registrations less domains deleted during AGP), or (ii) fifty (50) domain
names, whichever is greater.

More Information
•    Public comment request on Domain Tasting motion with summary of
comments <http://www.icann.org/public_comment/#dt-motion-21may08>
•    GNSO Domain Tasting Issues Report, June 2007 <

•    Outcomes Report, October 2007 <
•    Final Report, 4 April 2008 <
•    ICANN Board resolution on Domain Tasting <
•    Reference to relevant language in FY 09 Budget, see p. 20  <
•    16 June Staff Implementation Advisory on Domain Tasting <

Staff Contact
 Liz Gasster, Senior Policy Counselor

3.     GNSO – WHOIS

Recent Developments
During the June 2008 Paris meeting, the GNSO Council voted to reconvene a
group to review the study recommendations offered through the public comment
period and the studies requested by the GAC and, based on those
recommendations and the GAC request, prepare a concise list of hypotheses.
The group has six (6) weeks to deliver this to the Council for

Next Steps
Following submission of the list of hypotheses to the Council, the Council
will then decide whether any potential studies should be further considered,
and if so, identify hypotheses that it would like the Staff to determine
cost, feasibility, potential methodology, and estimated time frames for

WHOIS services provide public access to data on registered domain names,
data that currently includes contact information for Registered Name
Holders. The extent of registration data collected at the time a domain name
is registered, and the ways such data can be accessed, are specified in
agreements established by ICANN for domain names registered in generic
top-level domains (gTLDs). For example, ICANN requires accredited registrars
to collect and provide free public access to (1) the name of the registered
domain name and its name servers and registrar, (2) the date the domain was
created and when its registration expires, and (3) the contact information
for the Registered Name Holder including the technical contact, and the
registrant's administrative contact.

WHOIS has been the subject of intense policy development debate and action
over the last few years. Information contained in WHOIS is used for a wide
variety of purposes. Some uses of WHOIS data are viewed as constructive and
beneficial. For example, sometimes WHOIS data is used to track down and
identify registrants who may be posting illegal content or engaging in
phishing scams. Other uses of WHOIS are viewed as potentially negative, such
as harvesting WHOIS contact information to send unwanted spam or fraudulent
email solicitations. Privacy advocates have also been concerned about the
privacy implications of unrestricted access to personal contact information.

The GNSO Council decided in October 2007 that a comprehensive, objective and
quantifiable understanding of key factual issues regarding WHOIS would
benefit future GNSO policy development efforts, and plans to ask the ICANN
Staff to conduct several studies for this purpose. Before defining the
details of these studies, the Council solicited suggestions for specific
topics of study on WHOIS from community stakeholders, with possible areas of
study including a study of certain aspects of gTLD registrants and
registrations, a study of certain uses and misuses of WHOIS data, a study of
the use of proxy registration services, including privacy services, and a
comparative study of gTLD and ccTLD WHOIS.  A public comment forum was
opened through 15 February 2008, in order to solicit suggestions for
specific topics of study on WHOIS. Approximately 25 suggestions were
received, and a summary of comments was prepared.

On 27 March 2008, the GNSO Council convened a group of volunteers to do the
following: (1) review and discuss the Report on Public Suggestions on
Further Studies of WHOIS; (2) develop a proposed list of recommended
studies, if any, for which ICANN Staff would be asked to provide cost
estimates to the Council; and (3) produce the list of recommendations with
supporting rationale.

On 22 May 2008, the WHOIS study group delivered its report to the Council.
In addition to considering the recommendations solicited from the public,
the group also considered recommendations offered by the Governmental
Advisory Committee (GAC) for WHOIS studies. The report reflected two
opposing viewpoints among participants.  A significant number of
participants believe that no further studies should be conducted because
further study (and the resulting information) would be unlikely to persuade
any stakeholders to modify existing strongly held positions.  The second
group of participants believe further studies would be useful in informing
the debate, and their comments include specific recommendations for further
study in three primary areas: 1) the availability of privacy services; 2)
the demand and motivation for the use of privacy services; and 3) certain
studies of WHOIS misuse, detailed further in the report.

More Information
•    GNSO WHOIS Policy Work Web Page <http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/>
•    GAC Recommendations of 16 April 2008 <
•    Summary of Public Suggestions on Further Studies of WHOIS (updated 10
May 2008 with GAC recommendations of 16 April) <
•    25 June GNSO Council resolution on WHOIS <

Staff Contact
Liz Gasster, Senior Policy Counselor


Recent Developments
A GNSO drafting group addressing the first set of transfer denial reasons
(called "Transfer PDP 1") reported on its findings to the GNSO Council.  The
Council resolved on 25 June 2008 to post the proposals for transfer denial
reasons #8 and #9 for public comments, while deferring denial reasons #5 and
#7 to be handled in a future transfer policy development process (PDP) (see
explanations below). The Council also decided to launch the new PDP on "New
IRTP Issues" (aka "Set A" described below).

Next Steps
Following the public comment period regarding Transfer PDP 1, the Council
will decide on whether to forward the two proposed texts as a Council
Recommendation to the ICANN Board for modification of the IRTP provisions.
Regarding the New IRTP Issues - Set A, a charter for a new working group is
being developed and will be considered at the next GNSO Council meeting on
17 July 2008.

Consistent with ICANN's obligation to promote and encourage robust
competition in the domain name space, the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy
aims to provide a straightforward procedure for domain name holders to
transfer their names from one ICANN-accredited registrar to another should
they wish to do so. The policy also provides standardized requirements for
registrar handling of such transfer requests from domain name holders. The
policy is an existing community consensus that was implemented in late 2004
and is now being reviewed by the GNSO. As part of that effort, the GNSO
Council formed a Transfers Working Group (TWG) to examine and recommend
possible areas for improvements in the existing transfer policy. The TWG
identified a broad list of over 20 potential areas for clarification and
The IRTP performs a critical function but the specific terms of the policy
can be arcane and the work to clarify them complex.  In an effort to deal
with that complexity while moving to get clarifications and improvements
on-line as soon as possible, the Council initiated a policy development
process (Transfer PDP 1) to immediately examine four specific issues from
the broader list that addressed reasons for which a registrar of record may
deny a request to transfer a domain name to a new registrar. The IRTP
currently enumerates nine (9) specific reasons why a registrar can deny a
transfer. Those issues identified as needing clarification included the
•    "No payment for previous registration period" (Denial Reason #5);
•    "A domain was already in "lock" status" (Denial Reason #7);
•    The domain was in the first 60 days of an initial registration period
(Denial Reason #8); and
•    A domain name is within 60 days of being transferred (Denial Reason #9)
ICANN Staff finalized and posted an Initial Report for public comment as
part of this PDP and used public comments received to compile a Final Report
for the Council's consideration on further steps to take. At the GNSO
Council meeting on 17 April 2008, a drafting group was launched to develop
suggested text modifications for the four transfer denial reasons.

Parallel to the PDP process, the Council tasked a short term planning group
to evaluate and prioritize the remaining 19 policy issues identified by the
Transfers Working Group. In March 2008, the group delivered a report to the
Council that suggested combining the consideration of related issues into
five new PDPs.  On 8 May 2008, the Council adopted the structuring of five
additional inter-registrar transfers PDPs as suggested by the planning group
(in addition to the ongoing Transfer PDP 1 on the four reasons for denying a
transfer).  The five new PDPs will be addressed in a largely consecutive
manner, with the possibility of overlap as resources permit.
The Council requested an Issues Report from Staff on the first of the new
PDP issue sets (Set A – New IRTP Issues), which has since been delivered to
the Council. The three "new" issues in Set A address (1) the potential
exchange of registrant email information between registrars, (2) the
potential for including new forms of electronic authentication to verify
transfer requests and avoid "spoofing", and (3) to consider whether the IRTP
should include provisions for "partial bulk transfers" between registrars.

More Information
•    Draft Advisory <
•    Initial Report <
•    Final Report <
•    Drafting group outcome <
•    PDP Recommendations <

•    Issues Report, Set A (


Recent Developments
At its 25 June 2008 meeting, the GNSO Council initiated a fast flux policy
development process and appointed a fast flux working group chair and
Council liaison.

Next Steps
With assistance from Staff, a template for constituency statements is due 40
days after the Working Group is initiated (5 August 2008), and constituency
statements are then due 30 days after the template is released (no later
than 4 September 2008).  A Final Report will be submitted to the GNSO
Council and posted for public comment at 90 days (target – 25 September

The Working Group's Final Report will discuss these questions and the range
of possible answers developed by its members. The Report also will outline
potential next steps for Council deliberation. These next steps may include
further work items for the Working Group or policy recommendation for
constituency and community review and comment, and for Council deliberation.

Fast flux hosting is a term that refers to several techniques used by
cybercriminals to evade detection in which the criminals rapidly modify IP
addresses and/or name servers. The ICANN Security and Stability Advisory
Committee (SSAC) recently completed a study of fast flux hosting. The
results of the study were published in January 2008 in the SSAC Advisory on
Fast Flux Hosting and DNS (SAC 025).  Because fast flux hosting involves
many different players — the cybercriminals and their victims, ISPs,
companies that provide web hosting services, and DNS registries and
registrars — it is possible to imagine a variety of different approaches to
mitigation. Most of these will require the cooperation of a variety of
actors, and some will be outside of ICANN's scope.

On 26 March 2008, Staff posted an Issues Report on fast flux hosting, as
directed by the GNSO Council. In the Report, Staff recommends that the GNSO
sponsor additional fact-finding and research to develop best practices
concerning fast flux hosting. Staff also notes that it may be appropriate
for the ccNSO to participate in such an activity.

At its 8 May 2008 meeting, the GNSO Council formally launched a policy
development process (PDP), rejected a task force approach and called for
creation of a working group on fast flux. Subsequently, at its 29 May 2008
meeting, the GNSO Council approved a working group charter to consider the
following questions:

•    Who benefits from fast flux, and who is harmed?
•    Who would benefit from cessation of the practice and who would be
•    Are registry operators involved, or could they be, in fast flux hosting
activities? If so, how?
•    Are registrars involved in fast flux hosting activities? If so, how?
•    How are registrants affected by fast flux hosting?
•    How are Internet users affected by fast flux hosting?
•    What technical (e.g. changes to the way in which DNS updates operate)
and policy (e.g. changes to registry/registrar agreements or rules governing
permissible registrant behavior) measures could be implemented by registries
and registrars to mitigate the negative effects of fast flux?
•    What would be the impact (positive or negative) of establishing
limitations, guidelines, or restrictions on registrants, registrars and/or
registries with respect to practices that enable or facilitate fast flux
•    What would be the impact of these limitations, guidelines, or
restrictions to product and service innovation?
•    What are some of the best practices available with regard to protection
from fast flux?

The group also will obtain expert opinion, as appropriate, on which areas of
fast flux are in scope and out of scope for GNSO policy making.

More Information
•    SSAC Report 025 on Fast Flux Hosting, January 2008 <
•    Issues Report on Fast Flux Hosting, corrected 31 March 2008 <
•    25 June GNSO Council resolution on Fast Flux Hosting <

Staff Contact
Liz Gasster, Senior Policy Counselor


Recent Developments
At its 8 May 2008 meeting, the GNSO Council approved a motion to create a
drafting team to consider questions such as the following:

•    How is the [domain name front running] problem defined?
•    How prevalent is the problem?
•    Will the measures relating to domain tasting affect front running?
•    Are there rules within the RAA that can be used to address this

The goal of the drafting team was to bring a recommendation to the Council
on whether to request an Issues Report or a more extensive research effort
that could help to define the terms of reference for further work.
Subsequently, on 29 May 2008, ICANN Staff recommended that more information
be obtained about other research activities that may be contemplated or
underway (such as possible research by the SSAC and by ICANN) before
proceeding with work by this drafting team. At the GNSO Council meeting on
25 June 2008, the Council accepted this recommendation and voted to put the
drafting team effort on hold until current research efforts are completed.

At its June 2008 meeting in Paris, the ccNSO Council asked the ccNSO
Secretariat to produce a high–level overview on front-running to allow
further ccNSO discussion.

Next Steps
The GNSO Council may consider further work once current research efforts are
completed, and the ccNSO Council will consider the Staff overview and
related material.

Domain name front running is the practice whereby a domain name registrar
uses insider information to register domains for the purpose of re-selling
them or earning revenue via ads placed on the domain's landing page. This
practice is also sometimes referred to as domain reservation or cart-hold or
cart-reserve. By registering the domains, the registrar locks out other
potential registrars from selling the domain to a customer. The registrar
typically uses the 5-day add grace period (AGP), during which the domain can
be locked without permanent payment.

On 27 March 2008, after being alerted to the issue by (1) industry input,
(2) a Security and Stability Advisory Committee report, and (3) a letter
from the At-Large Advisory Committee to the ICANN Board requesting emergency
action, the Chair of the ICANN Board referred the matter to the GNSO Council
for additional information gathering and policy development, if necessary.

More Information
•    Original ALAC Correspondence Raising Front Running Issue <
•    SAC 022, SSAC Advisory on Domain Name Front Running, October 2007 <
•    29 May 2008 Staff response to GNSO Council questions on Front Running <

•    25 June GNSO Council resolution on Front Running drafting team <

Staff Contact
Liz Gasster, Senior Policy Counselor, GNSO, and Gabriella Schittek, ccNSO


Recent Developments
The working group on IDN country code top level domains (IDNC WG) concluded
its work and submitted to the ICANN Board a final report on feasible methods
for timely (fast-track) introduction of a limited number of IDN ccTLDs
associated with ISO 3166-1 two-letter codes while an overall, long-term IDN
ccTLD policy is under development by the ccNSO. At the June 2008 Paris
meeting, the Board directed Staff to: (1) post the IDNC WG final report for
public comments; (2) commence work on implementation issues in consultation
with relevant stakeholders; and (3) submit a detailed implementation report,
including a list of any outstanding issues, to the Board in advance of the
November 2008 ICANN Cairo meeting.

Next Steps
The IDNC WG Final Report has been posted for public comments. Staff will
begin work on implementation issues in consultation with relevant

The potential introduction of Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs)
represents the beginning of an exciting new chapter in the history of the
Internet. IDNs offer many potential new opportunities and benefits for
Internet users of all languages around the world by allowing them to
establish domains in their native languages and alphabets.

An IDN ccTLD (internationalized domain name country code top level domain)
is a country code top-level domain (corresponding to a country, territory,
or other geographic location as associated with the ISO 3166-1 two-letter
codes) with a label that contains at least one character that is not a
standard Latin letter (A through Z), a hyphen, or one of the standard
numerical digits (0 through 9). The technical potential for ICANN to now
make these domain names available for assignment is prompting significant
discussion, study and demand within the ICANN community – particularly for
territories and communities who want to make use of non-Latin characters.
Current efforts are taking place on two fronts: (1) efforts to identify a
"fast track" process to provide new domain opportunities to territories with
immediate justifiable needs; and (2) efforts to develop a comprehensive long
term plan that ensures a stable process for all interested stakeholders.

The joint IDNC WG was chartered by ICANN's Board to develop and report on
feasible methods, if any, that would enable the introduction of a limited
number of non-contentious IDN ccTLDs, in a timely manner that ensures the
continued security and stability of the Internet while a comprehensive
long-term IDN ccTLD policy is being developed. On 1 February 2008, the IDNC
WG posted a Discussion Draft of the Initial Report (DDIR) for public comment
and input from the ICANN community. The DDIR clarified the relationship
between the "fast track" process and the broader long-term ccNSO Policy
Development Process on IDN ccTLDs (IDNccPDP), and also identified the
mechanisms for the selection of an IDN ccTLD and an IDN ccTLD manager. The
ccNSO Council determined that those mechanisms were to be developed within
the following parameters:

•    The overarching requirement to preserve the security and stability of
the DNS Compliance with the IDNA protocols;
•    Input and advice from the technical community with respect to the
implementation of IDNs; and
•    Current practices for the delegation of ccTLDs, which include the
current IANA practices.

On 13 June 2008, the IDNC WG published a draft Final Report for discussion
by the IDNC WG and the broader community. At the June 2008 Paris ICANN
meeting, several workshops and meetings were conducted to discuss the draft
Final Report, resulting in several revisions and the work necessary to
enable the WG to submit its final report to the ICANN Board.

In parallel to considerations of a "fast track" approach, the ccNSO Council
initiated a comprehensive long-term policy development process for IDNccTLDs
(referred to as the IDNcc PDP).  The ccNSO Council formally requested an
Issues Report on 19 December 2007 and directed ICANN Staff to identify
policies, procedures, and/or by-laws that should be reviewed and, as
necessary revised, in connection with the development and implementation of
any IDN ccTLD policy – including efforts designed to address the proposed
fast-track concept.  According to the ICANN bylaws, the creation of the
Issue Report is the second step in launching the IDN ccPDP. The final step
is the decision of the ccNSO Council to initiate the ccPDP

The GNSO and several other parties submitted comments regarding a proposed
IDNcc PDP. The Issues Report was submitted to the ccNSO Council and is the
basis for the Council's ongoing IDNcc PDP discussions.

More Information
•    Board Proposal IDNC WG, the Final Report IDNC WG on Fast Track Process
for IDN ccTLDs <
•    IDNccPDP Announcement <

Staff Contact
Bart Boswinkel, Senior Policy Advisor, ccNSO


Recent Developments
ICANN Staff is soliciting input from Supporting Organizations and Advisory

Next Steps
Input will be summarized and reported to the Board for consideration.

An ICANN Board resolution in 2000 directed Staff to assign countries to
geographic regions on the basis of the United Nations Statistics Division's
current classifications, and introduced the concept of "citizenship" in
relation to the definition of ICANN Geographic Regions. The ICANN
Geographical Regions were originally created to ensure regional diversity in
the composition of the ICANN Board and were subsequently expanded in various
ways to apply to the GNSO, ALAC and ccNSO.

The ICANN Bylaws define five geographic regions as Africa, North America,
Latin America/Caribbean, Asia/Australia/Pacific and Europe -- and also
expand the concept that "persons from an area that is not a country should
be grouped together with the country of citizenship for that area" so that
the area or territory itself was similarly allocated to the region of the
"mother country."

Over time, the ccNSO has developed concerns about the Geographic Regions and
related representational issues.  The ccNSO Council passed a resolution
recommending that the ICANN Board appoint a community-wide working group to
further study and review the issues related to the definition of the ICANN
Geographic Regions, to consult with all stakeholders and submit proposals to
the Board to resolve the issues relating to the current definition of the
ICANN Geographic Regions.

The ICANN Board determined that because any change to ICANN Geographic
Regions could have widespread effect in ICANN, the views of other Supporting
Organizations and Advisory Committees should be sought by the Board. The
Board asked the ICANN community, including the GNSO, ccNSO, ASO, GAC, and
ALAC, to provide the ICANN Staff with input on the ccNSO Council's
resolution relating to ICANN's Geographic Regions.

More Information
•    ccNSO Working Group Report and Recommendations <
•    2 November 2007 ICANN Board Resolution <

Staff Contact
Robert Hoggarth, Senior Policy Director


Recent Developments
At its June 2008 meeting in Paris, the ccNSO Council adopted new
administrative procedures that include:

•    Guidelines for ccNSO Council meetings;
•    Guidelines for ccNSO general meetings;
•    Setting-up Working Groups and templates to assist drafting of charters;
•    Guidelines for Selection of Board seats 11 and 12, and election of
ccNSO Council members by the ccNSO; and
•    Guidelines for liaisons and observers from other ICANN related

Next Steps
The Processes WG will continue its work on a few more guidelines, including
one to improve the participation of ccTLDs in ICANN's yearly strategic and
operational planning processes.

The ccNSO Council has initiated efforts to improve its work plans,
administrative procedures and communications tools. As a result of a Council
workshop held at the ICANN New Delhi meeting earlier this year, a working
group of the Council was established to propose administrative procedures
for the ccNSO. The Council also approved the creation of a new
"authoritative" ccTLD managers email list. At the time of the Paris meeting,
95 ccTLD managers had subscribed.  Subscription is open to ccTLD managers
and any persons they designate to be on the list.

In addition, the ccNSO has been conducting a participation survey to
understand better why ccTLDs do or do not participate in ccNSO meetings. The
results of the survey were presented at the ccNSO meeting and will be
published on the ICANN website. The Participation WG, in close cooperation
with ICANN's Regional Liaisons, developed a leaflet on participation in both
the ccNSO and Regional organizations. The leaflet was presented at the ICANN
meeting in Paris last month.

More Information
•    Guidelines and ccNSO information <http://www.ccnso.icann.org/>
•    ccTLD Community Email List <
•    ccNSO Participation Working Group <
•    ccNSO Administrative Processes Working Group <

Staff Contacts
Bart Boswinkel, Senior Policy Advisor, ccNSO and Gabriella Schittek, ccNSO


Recent Developments
Last month in Paris, At-Large concluded a highly productive series of
meetings.  Highlights include:

•    Discussions on IDNs and new GTLDs at the ALAC's first meeting with the
•    Discussions on IDNs, New GTLDs, GNSO Improvements and future
cooperative efforts at the ALAC's first meeting with the GNSO Council;
•    Discussions on Fast Track IDNs and Geographic Regions with the ccNSO
•    The first meeting of the General Assembly of the European Regional
At-Large Organisation (EURALO) (Regional At-Large Organizations – RALOs --
are the federations of At-Large user groups at the regional level);
•    Finalization of a statement to the ICANN Board on elements of the
GNSO's New gTLD Policy Report;
•    Discussions in the At-Large community on how to create a structured,
repeatable, bottom-up process for the development of ALAC policy statements
to the Board;
•    Continued preparatory work on the At-Large Summit;
•    A well-attended and received workshop on the migration from IPv4 to
•    Concentrated work and initial comments on the draft At-Large Review at
two public sessions.

More Information
•    The European Regional At-Large Organisation (EURALO) <
•    ALAC Statement to the Board of ICANN on the GNSO New gTLD Policy's
Objections Provisions <

Staff Contact
Nick Ashton-Hart, Director for At-Large


Recent Developments
The ICANN Board approved funding for the At-Large Summit at its meeting in
Paris last month. The Summit proposed by the At-Large community will bring
together one representative from each of the worldwide community of Internet
end-user groups participating in ICANN At-Large.  The Summit is tentatively
scheduled to be held in conjunction with the 2009 ICANN meeting in Mexico

More Information
•    At-Large Summit proposal <https://st.icann.org/summit-wg>

Staff Contact
Nick Ashton-Hart, Director for At-Large


Recent Developments
The At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) Chair, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, opened the
nominations for ALAC's ICANN Board Liaison position for the term that will
commence at the close of the Cairo ICANN Meeting, in November 2008. The
candidates include the incumbent, Wendy Seltzer, and Beau Brendler of
Consumer Reports.  Members of the At-Large community will have a
teleconference with the candidates prior to the vote.

An election also will be held in July 2008 for a vacant European seat on the

A third of the members of ALAC will be up for election in advance of the
Cairo ICANN meeting as part of the staggered election cycles adopted by the
RALOs in 2006 and 2007.

Staff Contact
Nick Ashton-Hart, Director for At-Large


Recent Developments - Autonomous System Numbers (ASNs)
ASNs are addresses used in addition to IP addresses for Internet routing. A
new global policy proposal for ASNs would formalize the current procedure
for allocation of ASNs and provides a policy basis for the transition from
2-byte (16 bits) to 4-byte (32 bits) ASNs. The final transition step is now
foreseen for 31 December 2009, after which date the distinction between 2-
and 4-byte ASNs will cease and all ASNs will be regarded as of 4-byte
length, by appending initial zeroes to those of 2-byte original length. The
policy proposal has been adopted by all RIRs and the final text submitted
from the NRO Executive Committee to the ASO Address Council (ASO AC).  The
proposal was forwarded to the ICANN Board for ratification on 13 June 2008.

Next Steps
The global policy proposal for ASNs has been posted for public comments on
the ICANN website. Following the outcome of the public comments, the ICANN
Board will decide on ratification of the policy within a 60-day period from
the date of submission.

Recent Developments - Remaining IPv4 Address Space
The IANA pool of unallocated IPv4 address blocks continues to be depleted.
As previously announced, a new global policy has been proposed to allocate
the remaining address blocks once a given threshold is triggered. The text
of the proposed policy essentially recommends that when there are five /8
blocks remaining in the IANA pool, one remaining block will be allocated to
each RIR. The proposal has been discussed at all the RIR meetings (APNIC,
ARIN, RIPE, LACNIC and AfriNIC) during the last four (4) months. The
proposal has been adopted within ARIN and is in discussion within the other
RIRs, where it has reached consensus within AfriNIC and LACNIC.

Next Steps
Discussions within RIPE and APNIC are not conclusive regarding the level of
support for the proposal at this stage and may not be so until the next RIPE
and APNIC meetings later in 2008.

More information:
•    Background Report ASN <
•    Background Report IPV4 <

Staff Contact
Olof Nordling, Director Services Relations


Recent Developments
SSAC continues to survey the availability of DNSSEC features amongst
commercial, open source, and publicly available name server software
releases. A public notice web page (SAC030) announcing the survey has been
published.  The set of survey questions were sent to approximately 40
software vendors and developers. SSAC has received survey responses from
about 40% of the vendors and products surveyed. The majority of responses
come from commercial vendors. Soliciting survey responses from the Open
Source community has been more difficult. The initial set of responses is
now published and contains responses from most major commercial DNS vendors.
The initial results are encouraging –60% of products support DNSSEC core
standards and have conducted interoperability testing. Tabularized results
are online at http://www.icann.org/committees/security/sac030.htm.

Next Steps
SSAC will continue to collect information related to DNSSEC deployment
status and intends to provide a more comprehensive report at the Cairo ICANN

More Information
•    SSAC <http://www.icann.org/committees/security/>

Staff Contact
Dave Piscitello, Senior Security Technologist


Recent Developments
The term phishing has been used to describe criminal and fraudulent attempts
by bad actors to acquire sensitive private information, such as usernames,
passwords and credit card details, by masquerading as trustworthy entities
in an electronic communication.  SSAC has been addressing this matter
through several activities.

Following a one-month opportunity offered to the Registrar community to
review and comment, SAC028, Registrar Impersonation in Phishing Attacks, was
published on 26 May 2008.  The document was well received by the Internet
Policy Committee's Anti Phishing Working Group (APWG), which hopes to factor
some of SAC028's findings into the fast flux issues identification work
being done for the GNSO.

ICANN Staff has also reviewed a new APWG report, Global Phishing Survey:
Domain Name Use and Trends in 2007, that surveys and analyzes data related
to phishing attacks during 2007.  Of particular interest is the report's
analysis of phishing distribution across ccTLDs and a rise in the use of
subdomains for phishing attacks. This report and a second report presented
at the High Technology Crime Investigation Association (HTCIA) provide
valuable insight into the spam and phishing "hot spots." Using spam data
collected since 2005 the HTCIA report concludes that 90% of illegal web
sites are hosted at domains registered through just 20 registrars.

SSAC has concluded an initial study of a practice wherein a DNS operator may
return a different DNS response message in response to a non-existent domain
name error from the one that would reflect content the domain registrant
intended to publish in its zone file. Two variants of this practice are
described in SAC032, Preliminary Advisory on DNS Response Modification (June

Parties to whom the registrant entrusts to host its zone file use the first
variant, where the entrusted party creates a wild card resource record that
resolves any name the registrant did not explicitly include in his zone file
to an IP address of the entrusted party's choosing (typically a revenue
generating or advertising page). The second variant is implemented by any
operator of an iterative name server that processes a client's DNS query of
a name in a domain. The operator intercepts and rewrites "name error" DNS
responses so that the response signals "name exists" rather than the error
the domain registrant intended to return. The DNS response from such an
operator also redirects the client to an IP address of the DNS operator's
choosing. Both variants create several troubling security and operational
stability issues for domain registrants, and also create opportunities for
phishing attacks.

More Information
•    SAC028, Registrar Impersonation in Phishing Attacks, 26 May 2008 <
•    Global Phishing Survey 2007 <
•    SAC 032, Preliminary Advisory on DNS Response Modification, June 2008 <

Staff Contact
Dave Piscitello, Senior Security Technologist

#  #  #

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>