Skip to main content
Resources

ICANN POLICY UPDATE | Volume 14, Issue 9 – September 2014

PDF Version [779 KB]

https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/update-2014-02-20-en

CONTENTS:

Across ICANN

  1. Pre-ICANN 51 Policy Update Webinar
  2. Issues Currently Open for Public Comment

Across SOs/ACs

  1. Call for Observers to join Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions

ASO

  1. Regional Internet Registry Number Resource Policy Discussions

ccNSO

  1. ccNSO Opens Nomination Period for Council and Board Seat 12
  2. ccNSO Publishes Draft Agenda for Los Angeles Members Meeting
  3. ccNSO Welcomes .IN as its Newest Member

GNSO

  1. Work Continues on Preventative and Curative Rights Protections for International Organizational Identifiers
  2. GNSO Council appoints Mason Cole as Liaison to GAC
  3. Standing Committee for GNSO Improvements Implementation Recommends Changes to GNSO Operating Procedures
  4. Uniformity of Reporting (RAPWG) – Issue Closed

At-Large

  1. ALAC Policy Development Activities from mid-August to early-September
  2. Alan Greenberg Selected as Next ALAC Chair
  3. At-Large Community Comprises 179 At-Large Structures
  4. September Monthly At-Large RALO Roundup
  5. At-Large Website Revamp Project Begins

GAC

  1. Successful GAC Open Forum at IGF in Istanbul
  2. Chair's Report from High Level Governmental Meeting in London available

SSAC

  1. SSAC Publishes Overview and History of the IANA Functions

Read in Your Preferred Language

ICANN's Policy Update is available in all six official languages of the United Nations. Policy Update is posted on ICANN's website and is available via online subscription. To receive the Update in your Inbox each month, visit the ICANN subscriptions page, enter your e-mail address, and select "Policy Update" to subscribe. This service is free.

ICANN Policy Update statement of purpose

Send questions, comments and suggestions to: policyinfo@icann.org.

Policy Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees

Address Supporting Organization ASO
Country Code Names Supporting Organization ccNSO
Generic Names Supporting Organization GNSO
At-Large Advisory Committee ALAC
Governmental Advisory Committee GAC
Root Server System Advisory Committee RSSAC
Security and Stability Advisory Committee SSAC

Across ICANN

1. Pre-ICANN 51 Policy Update Webinar

At a Glance

As ICANN 51 in Los Angeles approaches, the Policy Development Support Team is working diligently to update the global multistakeholder community on policy development work at ICANN. The team will be hosting the Pre-ICANN 51 Policy Update Webinar on Thursday 2 October 2014. There are two 90-minute sessions to allow for greater participation from around the world: 10:00 UTC and 19:00 UTC.

If you plan to attend one of the webinar sessions, please RSVP by completing and submitting this form by 26 September 2014. Remote participation details will be sent the week of 29 September 2014.

Recent Developments

The Pre-ICANN 51 Policy Update Webinar sessions will provide an overview of policy development activities across ICANN and the ongoing Transition of Stewardship of the IANA Functions and the ICANN Accountability track efforts.

Updates will also be provided on activities of the ICANN Supporting Organizations (ASO, ccNSO, and GNSO) and on the progress of policy advice efforts of the ICANN Advisory Committees (ALAC, GAC, RSSAC, and SSAC). Topics will include:

  • ASO and RIR Activities
  • Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part D
  • Policy and Implementation
  • Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Issues
  • ccNSO Framework of Interpretation Final Report
  • ALAC Policy Advice Activities
  • GAC's Remaining Advice on new gTLDs
  • GAC ATRT2 Recommendations Implementation
  • RSSAC Caucus Work Parties
  • SSAC Advisories and Activities

Each webinar session will include a moderated question and answer session with our subject matter experts.

Next Steps

Please join the Pre-ICANN 51 Policy Update Webinar and learn more about policy development at ICANN. We encourage you to engage with us on social media by using the hashtag, #ICANNPolicy.

More Information

Staff Contact

Carlos Reyes, Senior Policy Analyst


2. Issues Currently Open for Public Comment

Several public comment periods are currently open on issues of interest to the ICANN community. Act now to share your views on the following topics:

Introduction of Two-Character Domain Names for .SOHU, .IMMO, .SAARLAND, .CLUB. The Registry Services Evaluation Policy requires these proposals to be published for public comment. Reply period ends 1 October.

Proposed Bylaws Changes Regarding Consideration of GAC Advice. Proposal to create a higher voting threshold for the Board to not follow GAC advice. Reply period ends 6 October.

Implementing Rights Protection Mechanisms in the Name Collision Mitigation Framework. This paper examines operational and other considerations for several approaches regarding appropriate Rights Protection Mechanisms for release of second-level domain block list names. Reply period ends 7 October.

Enhancing ICANN Accountability Process. Are there any final modifications or improvements needed to the process design to allow for this discussion to proceed? Comment period ends 27 September; there is no reply period.

Introduction of Two-Character Domain Names for .JETZT, .GLOBAL, .NEUSTAR, .KIWI, .BERLIN. The Registry Services Evaluation Policy requires these proposals to be published for public comment. Comment period ends 3 October; reply period ends 24 October.

Board Working Group Report on Nominating Committee. Recommendations include increasing number of appointees from ccNSO and ASO, and a reduction in the GNSO appointees. Comment period ends 21 October; reply period ends 13 November.

At any time, the full list of issues open for public comment, plus recently closed and archived public comment forums, can be found on the Public Comment web page.

The staff also populates a web page to help preview potential "upcoming" public comment opportunities. This page – "Public Comments – Upcoming" page – provides information about potential future public comment opportunities. The page is updated after every ICANN Public Meeting to help individuals and the community to set priorities and plan their future workloads.


Across SOs/ACs

3. Call for Observers to Join Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions

At a Glance

The chartering organizations of the Cross Community Working Group (CWG) to develop an Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions have called for observers to join this effort. The primary goal of the CWG is to produce a consolidated transition proposal for the elements of the IANA Functions relating to the Domain Name System.

Participating as observer

Participating in the CWG is open to members and observers. In addition to members, who are appointed by the chartering organizations, anyone interested in the work of the CWG, can join as an observer. Observers will be able to actively participate and attend all meetings; however, any consensus calls or decisions that need to be made will be limited to CWG members appointed by the chartering organizations. Observers may be from a chartering organization, from a stakeholder group not represented in the CWG, or self-appointed.

How to join

If you are interested in joining, please contact Grace Abuhamad or the Secretariat of your Supporting Organization or Advisory Committee. All participants (members and observers) will be listed on the CWG's webpage. All observers are also required to submit a Statement of Interest (SOI) following the procedures of their chartering organization. Where that is not applicable for observers, the GNSO Procedures should be followed.

Recent Developments and Next Steps

The CWG is currently in formation. To date, the ALAC, ccNSO, GNSO and SSAC have adopted the charter, and are in the process of appointing CWG members. It is anticipated that the CWG will have its first meeting (via teleconference) in early October, followed by a face-to-face meeting in Los Angeles during the ICANN 51 Public Meeting (currently scheduled for Monday 13 October from 12:15-13:45 local time (19:15-22:45 UTC), with remote participation).

Background

The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) has requested that ICANN "convene a multistakeholder process to develop a plan to transition the U.S. government stewardship role" with regard to the IANA Functions and related root zone management. In making its announcement, the NTIA specified that the transition proposal must have broad community support and meet the following principles:

  • Support and enhance the multistakeholder model.
  • Maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet DNS.
  • Meet the needs and expectation of the global customers and partners of the IANA services.
  • Maintain the openness of the Internet.

NTIA also specified that it would not accept a proposal that replaces the NTIA role with a government-led or an intergovernmental organization solution.

On June 6, ICANN proposed the creation of an IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) "responsible for preparing a transition proposal reflecting the differing needs of the various affected parties of the IANA functions."

It was determined that Stewardship Transition proposals for each of the IANA functions should be developed by the directly affected communities, the IETF and IAB for IANA functions related to Internet Protocol Parameters; the NRO, the ASO, and the RIRs for functions related the management and distribution of numbering resources; and the GNSO and ccNSO for functions related to the Domain Name System. These efforts will inform the work of the ICG, whose responsibility is to develop an overall integrated transition proposal from these autonomously developed components.

Two of IANA's global directly affected communities, the addressing and Internet protocol parameter communities, have responded to the NTIA's announcement and the formation of the ICG, by establishing working groups to provide input on their specific needs and expectations with respect to the IANA Stewardship Transition.

This CWG was formed as an integral part of this transition process, and to develop a proposal for the elements of the IANA Stewardship Transition that directly affect the naming community.

More Information

Staff Contact

Bart Boswinkel, ccNSO Senior Policy Advisor

Marika Konings, Senior Policy Director and Team Leader for the GNSO


ASO

4. Regional Internet Registry Number Resource Policy Discussions

At a Glance

Each of the five Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) has a webpage that lists Internet number policy proposals that are under discussion in their respective geographic region. Internet number policy discussions take place on open policy mailing lists and at Public Policy Meetings (list and meeting information is provided).

This is a sample of some of the number policy and other discussions that took place on the RIR policy mailing lists this month.

AFRINIC
Proposal page: http://www.afrinic.net/en/library/policies

AFRINIC reported the conclusion of a four-day training workshop in Lagos, Nigeria. Training included: IP Number Resources, IPv6 routing and transition mechanisms, and hands-on lab exercises. AFRINIC thanked the Association of Telecommunications Companies of Nigeria (ATCON) for hosting the workshop and making it a success.

APNIC
Proposal page: http://www.apnic.net/community/policy/proposals

A revised version of APNIC prop-111 (Request-based expansion of IPv6 default allocation size) was posted to the list for discussion. The proposal would allow organizations that already have an IPv6 /32 to request their allocation be increased to an IPv6 /29 (that's eight times as much address space). The revision added the requirement that organizations must show why they need the additional address space.

ARIN
Proposal page: https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/

There was discussion about Point of Contact (POC) validation. Concern was expressed about clicking on links in email. People that receive POC validation requests from ARIN can validate by simply replying to the email, or by selecting the URL that is provided.

LACNIC
Proposal page: http://www.lacnic.net/en/web/lacnic/politicas

New proposal, LACNIC LAC-2014-02, would make it easier to get Autonomous System Numbers. Currently, organizations need to be multihomed or multihome within two weeks of their request. The proposal would increase the current two weeks to a period somewhere between three months and a year. There was a good deal of support for this change.

RIPE
Proposal page: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/current-proposals/current-policy-proposals

There was considerable discussion of the proposal (RIPE 2014-02), which would allow the transfer of IPv4 PI (Provider Independent or "end user") address space. There was support for the proposal, which subsequently advanced to last call.

Next Steps

AFRINIC 21 will be held in Mauritius 22-28 November 2014.
APNIC 38 to take place in Brisbane, Australia 9-19 September 2014.
ARIN 34 will be in Baltimore, Maryland 9-10 October 2014 (NANOG 62 is 6-8 October 2014).
LACNIC 22 will be in Santiago, Chile in October 2014.
RIPE 69 will be in London 3-7 November 2014.

More Information

Staff Contact

Carlos Reyes, Senior Policy Analyst


ccNSO

5. ccNSO Opens Nomination period to Council and Board Seat 12

At a Glance

The nomination period for both the ccNSO Council and ICANN Board Seat 12 has opened.

Recent Developments and Next Steps

The nomination period for the ccNSO Council and ICANN Board seat 12 opened on the 12 September 2014. It closes on 3 October at 23.59 UTC.

Background

Mike Silber's term for ICANN Board Seat 12 will expire at the ICANN Annual General Meeting 2015 and the three-year term of the following ccNSO Councilors (one from each region) ends at the ICANN meeting in Marrakech (8-12 February 2015):

Africa — Vika Mpisane, .ZA
Asia/Australia/Pacific — Young-Eum Lee, .KR
Europe — Katrina Sataki, .LV
Latin America/Caribbean — Margarita Valdes, .CL
North America — Byron Holland, .CA

All candidates, including Mike Silber, are entitled to be re-appointed.

All ccNSO members can nominate or second a candidate nomination to the ccNSO Council and ICANN Board Seat 12.

A Q&A session with all nominees is foreseen at the Los Angeles meeting.

More Information

Staff Contact

Gabriella Schittek, Policy Specialist & ccNSO Support Manager


6. ccNSO Publishes Draft Agenda for Los Angeles Members Meeting

At a Glance

The ccNSO has published its first draft agenda for the Los Angeles meeting.

Recent Developments and Next Steps

The ccNSO Program Working Group has published the first draft agenda for the ccNSO member meeting in Los Angeles. The meeting will focus on the IANA Oversight Transfer, ICANN Accountability and Internet Governance. It will also focus on presenting the final report of the Framework of Interpretation (FoI) Working Group, which has been looking into the existing policies and guidelines for Delegations and Redelegations of ccTLDs.

The agenda will be updated continuously towards the Los Angeles meeting.

Everyone interested is welcome to attend the ccNSO members meeting.

Background

The meetings agenda has been put together by the ccNSO Program Working Group, with the intent of identifying interesting and topical issues for the ccTLD Community.

A lot of inspiration is also derived from the ccNSO meeting surveys, where the community provides ideas and feedback on the agenda.

More Information

Staff Contact

Gabriella Schittek, Policy Specialist & ccNSO Support Manager


7. ccNSO Welcomes .IN as its Newest Member

At a Glance

.IN (India) joins the ccNSO.

Recent Developments and Next Steps

The ccNSO is pleased to welcome .IN (India) as its newest member. The ccNSO now counts 152 members and is looking forward to receiving further ccTLD membership applications.

More Information

Staff Contact

Gabriella Schittek, Policy Specialist & ccNSO Support Manager


GNSO

8. Work Continues on Preventative and Curative Rights Protections for International Organizational Identifiers

At a Glance

While the ICANN Board and the GNSO Council continue to discuss next steps relating to certain GNSO recommendations concerning preventative protections for International Governmental Organizations (IGOs) and International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGOs), the newly-launched GNSO Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group (WG) on curative rights protection mechanisms applicable to IGOs and INGOs has started work on the tasks outlined in its Charter. An Implementation Plan is being developed for other GNSO recommendations relating to IGO and INGO protections that have already been adopted by the ICANN Board.

Recent Developments

Following the GNSO Council's approval of the WG Charter on 25 June 2014, a Call for Volunteers was issued and the WG began meeting to discuss its work. Two Co-Chairs, Petter Rindforth (who is also the GNSO Council liaison to the WG) and Philip Corwin, have been elected by the WG and confirmed by the GNSO Council. The WG is tasked with exploring whether existing curative rights protection mechanisms (such as the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) and the Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) procedure) should be amended or if a separate, narrowly tailored dispute resolution procedure ought to be developed instead to address the problems currently faced by IGOs and INGOs in using these procedures.

On 4 September 2014, the GNSO Council met with Chris Disspain (ICANN Board) to discuss the 16 June 2014 request from the Board's New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC) that the GNSO consider amending those of its 2013 consensus recommendations concerning preventative protections for IGOs and INGOs that are inconsistent with Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) advice, in line with its PDP Manual. Previously, on 30 April 2014, the Board had adopted those of the GNSO's recommendations on IGO and INGO protection that are not inconsistent with the GAC's advice.

Next Steps

Regarding the work on curative rights protections for IGOs and INGOs, the new PDP WG continues to meet weekly. It is developing a Work Plan and will soon be reaching out to other ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees for input on its Charter. It is anticipated that one of the first tasks for the WG will be to conduct research and gather data on the problems experienced by IGOs and INGOs in using the UDRP and the URS, with the assistance of dispute resolution service providers currently administering these procedures.

Regarding the preventative protections previously recommended by the GNSO, the NGPC and the GNSO Council continue to discuss the issues raised by inconsistencies between these with the GAC advice received on such protections.

Regarding those of the GNSO's previous recommendations already adopted by the ICANN Board, an Implementation Review Team will be formed to work with ICANN staff to develop an Implementation Plan.

Background

In November 2013, the GNSO Council unanimously approved all the consensus recommendations of its PDP WG on the Protection of International Governmental Organizations in All gTLDs (IGO-INGO PDP WG). One of these recommendations had been that the Council request an Issue Report, as a preceding step to a possible PDP, on the issue of access to and use of curative rights protection mechanisms such as the UDRP and the URS by protected IGOs and INGOs. The Preliminary Issue Report was published for public comment on 10 March 2014. A report of public comments received was published on 16 May 2014, and a Final Issue Report incorporating relevant public comments was prepared and sent to the GNSO Council on 25 May 2014. The GNSO Council voted to initiate a PDP based on the Final Issue Report on 5 June 2014, and approved the Charter for the PDP WG on 25 June 2014. A point of particular note is the specific limitation of the PDP to only those IGO and INGO identifiers that had previously been listed by the earlier IGO-INGO PDP WG as eligible for protection, in its consensus recommendations adopted by the GNSO Council in November 2013.

IGOs and INGOs currently have difficulties relying on the UDRP and URS to protect their identifiers at the second level. For IGOs, the procedural requirement to agree to submit to the jurisdiction of a court for purposes of an appeal is seen as potentially jeopardizing their status as being immune from national jurisdiction. For both IGOs and INGOs, the current mechanisms are premised on the ownership of a trademark or other such right – while some may own trademarks in their names and/or acronyms, this is not necessarily the case for all IGOs and INGOs.

On 30 April 2014, the ICANN Board had resolved to adopt those of the original IGO-INGO PDP WG's consensus recommendations that are not inconsistent with GAC advice received on the topic. On 16 June 2014, the Board's NGPC requested that the GNSO Council consider amending those remaining recommendations that are inconsistent with GAC advice, in line with the GNSO's documented processes as described in its PDP Manual. Although a motion to do so had been proposed at a previous GNSO Council meeting, the motion has since been withdrawn pending further discussions between the GNSO Council and the NGPC on the matter.

More Information

Staff Contact

Mary Wong, Senior Policy Director


9. GNSO Council appoints Mason Cole as Liaison to GAC

At a Glance

At its meeting on 4 September, the GNSO Council appointed Mason Cole, member of the gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group, to serve as the first GNSO Council Liaison to the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC). This is the result of a pilot project developed by the GAC-GNSO Consultation Group on GAC Early Engagement in Policy Development Processes.

Recent Developments and Next Steps

As part of the discussions within ICANN between the GNSO and GAC, on how to facilitate early engagement of the GAC in GNSO policy development activities, the option of appointing a GNSO liaison to the GAC had been proposed as one of the mechanisms to explore. As such, the GAC-GNSO Consultation Group (CG) on GAC Early Engagement in GNSO Policy Development Processes proposed to implement this option as a one-year pilot program in FY15 (starting 1 July 2014 to 30 June 2015). Following a call for volunteers and an evaluation process based on the objective criteria outlined in the call for candidates, Mason Cole was selected for this role during the GNSO Council meeting on 4 September. The GNSO Council Leadership Team will co-ordinate with Mason Cole as well as the GAC-GNSO Consultation Group on next steps and the successful implementation of this new role.

Background

The launch of the GAC-GNSO Consultation Group on Early Engagement was the result of discussions between the two entities at the ICANN meeting in Buenos Aires as well as previous ICANN meetings, reflecting a joint desire to explore and enhance ways of early engagement in relation to GNSO policy development activities. The issue was also specifically identified by both the first and second Accountability and Transparency Review Teams (ATRT).

ICANN receives input from governments through the GAC. The GAC's key role is to provide advice to ICANN on issues of public policy, and especially where there may be an interaction between ICANN's activities or policies and national laws or international agreements. The GAC usually meets three times a year in conjunction with ICANN Public Meetings, where it discusses issues with the ICANN Board and other ICANN Supporting Organizations, Advisory Committees and other groups. The GAC may also discuss issues with the Board either through face-to-face meetings or by teleconference.

The GNSO is responsible for developing policies for generic Top-Level Domains (e.g., .COM, .ORG, .BIZ). The GNSO strives to keep gTLDs operating in a fair, orderly fashion across one global Internet, while promoting innovation and competition. The GNSO uses the GNSO PDP to develop policy recommendations which, following approval, are submitted to the ICANN Board for its consideration.

The GNSO liaison to the GAC will be primarily responsible for providing timely updates to the GAC on GNSO policy development activities in order to complement the existing notification processes as well answering questions in relation to these (GNSO) activities that GAC members may have. Furthermore, the Liaison will be responsible for providing the GNSO Council with regular updates on progress, including on GAC activities, specifically in so far as these relate to issues of interest to the GNSO. The objective of the liaison mechanism, in combination with some of the other mechanisms that the CG is exploring, as well as existing early engagement tools, will be to facilitate effective early engagement of the GAC as well as to generally assist with flow of information between the GAC and the GNSO. This mechanism will be evaluated at the end of FY 15, by both the GNSO Council and the GAC, to determine whether or not to continue in either in the same form or with possible adjustments based on the feedback received.

More Information

Staff Contact

Marika Konings, Senior Policy Director and Team Leader for the GNSO


10. Standing Committee for GNSO Improvements Implementation Recommends Changes to GNSO Operating Procedures

At a Glance

The Standing Committee for GNSO Improvements Implementation (SCI) has approved three proposals to amend the GNSO Operating Procedures. These proposals relate to clarification of GNSO Working Group Consensus Levels as well as new provisions for waiving the deadline for submission of motions to the GNSO Council and voting outside a GNSO Council meeting.

Recent Developments

On 3 June 2014 the SCI confirmed that it had attained Full Consensus for its recommendation that a clarification in the form of a footnote be added to the existing language in the GNSO Working Group (WG) Guidelines regarding WG Consensus Levels. On 5 September 2014 the SCI closed its formal consensus call on a proposal to amend the GNSO Operating Procedures to include provisions for waiving the 10-day motion submission deadline for the GNSO Council and to permit the GNSO Council in certain circumstances to vote outside a Council meeting.

Next Steps

The three recommendations for which the SCI has concluded consensus calls will be consolidated into a single proposal, to be published for public comment ahead of the ICANN meeting in Los Angeles in October 2014.

Background

The SCI was created in 2011 to review and assess the effectiveness of recommendations to GNSO operations and processes arising from the structural review of the GNSO. It was re-chartered by the GNSO Council in 2013 to review and assess the effective functioning of the GNSO Operating Procedures and WG Guidelines, either on request by the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO Council, or periodically in accordance with a review plan to be submitted to the GNSO Council.

The three proposals for which the SCI recently concluded consensus calls originated in requests from the GNSO Council to the SCI. The Council had sought the SCI's advice on the current wording in the GNSO WG Guidelines of the various consensus levels, to ascertain whether changes needed to be made to clarify that they include the possibility that a WG may reach "consensus against" a specific proposal, which is not the same as "divergence" or "no consensus" (both of which are defined in the WG Guidelines). The SCI concluded that in light of the new GNSO Review exercise that was about to launch, a clarification in the form of a footnote to the WG Guidelines would suffice to address the issue. The SCI will additionally recommend to the GNSO Council a more comprehensive review of the WG consensus levels as part of the new GNSO Review.

The GNSO Council had also requested that the SCI develop proposals to be added to the GNSO Operating Procedures that would: (a) allow the Council to waive the current requisite 10-day deadline for motions to be submitted for Council voting, and (b) enable the Council in certain circumstances to vote outside a Council meeting. The SCI has drafted proposals to address both these requests, including recommended language to align the new proposed language with existing Operating Procedures.

More Information

Staff Contact

Mary Wong, Senior Policy Director


11. Uniformity of Reporting (RAPWG) – Issue Closed

At a Glance

The GNSO Council resolved to close the issue regarding Uniformity of Reporting, a recommendation from the 2011 RAPWG, after ICANN's Contractual Compliance presentation on the completion of their three-year plan.

Recent Developments and Next Steps

At the ICANN 50 meeting in London and its subsequent 24 July 2014 session, the GNSO Council received updates from ICANN's Contractual Compliance team on the completion of their three-year plan to evolve the contractual compliance metrics and reporting functions. As a result, the GNSO Council resolved at its 4 September 2014 meeting that the issues around the Uniformity of Reporting recommendation had been addressed and that the issue is now considered closed.

Background

In 2009, the GNSO initiated a Working Group (WG) to further explore registration abuses and to determine if any policy development actions were required on any of the issues explored. The Registration Abuse Policies WG (RAPWG) developed several recommendations that spawned several separate efforts, with a few becoming PDPs and most others defined as non-PDPs. One of the issues recognized at the time was a severe deficiency in ICANN's Contractual Compliance reporting function. The WG had determined that access to certain types of complaint data to better inform the policy development process lacked a consistent method for collecting and analyzing complaint intakes. As a result the WG recommended that the GNSO Council further explore this issue in 2011.

Since then, the GNSO Council was briefed about this issue from the ICANN Contractual Compliance team, as well as, additional information provided by the RAPWG alumni group. Based on the information, the GNSO Council resolved that ICANN staff create an Issue Report on the Uniformity of Reporting as it pertains to the GNSO which was delivered on 31 March 2013. The Issue Report predominately focused on two issues. The first being the lack of data and metrics available in Contractual Compliance and the second issue focused on access to data and metrics from sources external to ICANN such as contracted parties and third-party providers. The latter spawned the Data and Metrics for Policy Making Working Group (DMPM) that is currently deliberating these issues.

To fully address the issues on the Uniformity of Reporting, ICANN's Contractual Compliance presented the completion of its three-year plan to the GNSO Council at the ICANN 50 meeting in London and at its July session. The presentation contained information in how the reporting functions of the group were transformed via proper categorization of complaint intake, the deployment of new systems to better store and track data, and a reporting front-end that produces a more meaningful, relevant, and transparent reporting method of Contractual Compliance data. The Internet community can view the dashboards here. After the compliance presentations, the GNSO Council resolved that the issues around the reporting function of Contractual Compliance had been addressed and considered it to be closed without further deliberations.

More Information

Staff Contact

Marika Konings, Policy Director


At-Large

12. ALAC Policy Development Activities from mid-August to early-September

At a Glance

The ALAC passed a motion during its Monthly Teleconference on 26 August 2014, which simplifies its process on preparing Statements in response to ICANN Public Comment request on the two-character domain names issue. As a result, between mid-August and early-September, the ALAC made a standing Statement in response to Public Comment requests on two character domain names issues.

Recent Developments

The four ALAC Policy Advice Statements submitted between mid-August and early-September are summarized below.

ALAC Statement on the Introduction of Two-Character Domain Names in the New gTLD Namespace

  • At-Large has taken note of the many new gTLD Registries' Registry Services Evaluation Process (RSEP) requests applying for exceptions to Specification 5, Section 2 of the New gTLD Registry Agreement.
  • Many of the RSEP requests are for the release of two character ASCII labels not on the ISO 3166-1 alpha 2 standard. However, the ISO 3166-1 alpha 2 standard will be updated to reflect changes to countries and territories. Future countries and territories may be consequently treated differently than those on today's ISO 3166-1 alpha 2 list.
  • Furthermore, two character ASCII labels at the second level have been made available for some gTLDs and many ccTLDs.
  • Absent any DNS-related security or stability issues, the ALAC believes that all the restrictions of two character ASCII labels at the 2nd level within a TLD should ultimately be removed, and has no problem with the current exceptions being approved.

ALAC Statement on the Introduction of Two-Character Domain Names for .DEALS, XN--FJQ720A, .CITY, .XYZ, .COLLEGE, .GOP, .TRADE, .WEBCAM, .BID, .HEALTHCARE, .WORLD, .BAND – Same as the ALAC Statement on the Introduction of Two-Character Domain Names in the New gTLD Namespace

ALAC Statement on the Introduction of Two-Character Domain Names for .LUXURY, .WANG, XN--3BST00M, XN--6QQ986B3XL, XN--CZRU2D, XN--45Q11C, .BUILD, .REN, .PIZZA, .RESTAURANT, .GIFTS, .SARL, XN--55QX5D, XN--IO0A7I, and 20 TLDs associated with Top Level Domain Holdings Limited – Same as the ALAC Statement on the Introduction of Two-Character Domain Names in the New gTLD Namespace

ALAC Statement on the Introduction of Two-Character Domain Names for .SOHU, .IMMO, .SAARLAND, .CLUB – Same as the ALAC Statement on the Introduction of Two-Character Domain Names in the New gTLD Namespace

Next Steps

More Information

Staff Contact

Xinyue (Ariel) Liang, At-Large Policy Coordinator


13. Alan Greenberg Selected as next ALAC Chair

At a Glance

Alan Greenberg, a long-time member of the At-Large Advisory Committee, has been selected as the next ALAC Chair. Alan will replace Olivier Crépin-Leblond, who has served as ALAC Chair since December 2010. Alan will begin a one-year, renewable term on 16 October 2014 during the ICANN 51 Meeting in Los Angeles.

Alan has shown extraordinary dedication to the At-Large community and ICANN throughout his years as an active volunteer. He was appointed to the ALAC by the Nominating Committee for the terms 2006-2008, 2008-2010, 2012-2014 and will begin a fourth two-year term at ICANN 51. In addition to serving on the ALAC, Alan has served as the ALAC Liaison to the GNSO between 2006 through 2014.

Alan Greenberg

More Information

In addition to his experience with At-Large, Alan recently served on the ATRT2 representing the ALAC perspective with relation to ICANN's overall Accountability and Transparency.

Alan has over forty-five years of experience with computing and networking technologies. For much of his career, he worked for McGill University in Montreal, Canada. Over the years, this included software design and development, education technology support, management and policy development. He was one of a handful of people who brought the Internet and its predecessor networks to Canada and worked on a variety of Canadian and international networking initiatives. He has taught courses in computer architecture and design, as well as managed the Internet Society (ISOC) workshops that taught personnel from 150 developing countries how to build, support, manage and use the Internet in their countries. He was also an elected member of the ISOC Board of Trustees from 2001-2004.

After his retirement from McGill, he continued to focus on the effective use of technology in developing countries. Projects included how to effectively spread the use of technology to benefit the country and its people; and a study of the linkages between technology and poverty, and how technologies can be effectively used for poverty alleviation, and how web and specifically mobile technologies can benefit developing populations.

Throughout his career, he has focused on how technology can be made accessible to the widest possible audience and the empowerment of people through the use of technology.

Alan holds a BSc degree in Mathematics and Physics, and an MSc in Computer Science, both from McGill University.

Staff Contact

Heidi Ullrich, Senior Director for At-Large


14. At-Large Community Comprises 179 At-Large Structures

At a Glance

The At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) has certified two new organizations as At-Large Structures (ALSes): Online News Association andInstituto Panameño de Derecho y Nuevas Tecnologías. These new ALSes expand the regional diversity of the At-Large community, which represents thousands of individual Internet end-users. With the addition of these new organizations, the number of accredited ALSes will now total 179.

Recent Developments

The ALAC has voted for the certification of Online News Association and Instituto Panameño de Derecho y Nuevas Tecnologías as At-Large Structures (ALS). The certification process included due diligence carried out by ICANN staff and regional advice provided by the relevant Regional At-Large Organizations (in these cases, NARALO and LACRALO).

Additional information on the new At-Large Structures:

Online News Association (ONA) is situated in Washington D.C., USA. ONA is a nonprofit membership organization for digital journalists, connecting journalism, technology and innovation. Its mission is to be a leader in the rapidly changing world of journalism; a catalyst for innovation in story-telling across all platforms; a resource for journalists seeking guidance and growth, and a champion of best practices through training, awards and community outreach. This organization will be an ALS within NARALO.

Instituto Panameño de Derecho y Nuevas Tecnologías (PANDETEC) is situated in the city of Panama, Panama. The membership of PANDETEC gathers group experts who are renowned for their intellectual, professional or public work in relation to new technologies, Internet laws or similar subjects This organization contributes to the development of clear and consistent legislation on new technologies law taking into account the country´s needs in relation to communications modern demands through networks of any kind and already existing new technologies or technologies created in the future. This organization will be an ALS within LACRALO.

Two NARALO ALSes were voted decertified by ALAC members due to lack of activity: Consumer WebWatch and the Alberta Community Network Association.

Next Steps

The vote concerning the application of Our Rights (AFRALO) will start this week.

Staff is currently awaiting Regional Advice from AFRALO Leadership for applicant ISOC South Africa Gauteng Chapter and from LACRALO Leadership for Internauta Colombia.

Due diligence is also being carried out for 2 other organizations: DigitalSENSE Africa and the Cameroon League for Development. (AFRALO).

Background

One of the strengths of the At-Large community is that it incorporates the views of a set of globally diverse, Internet end-user organizations, or ALSes, organized within five RALOs. The views of these grassroots organizations are collected through an internal, bottom-up, consensus-driven policy development process and find representation in the official documents of the ALAC.

More Information

Staff Contact

Nathalie Peregrine, Policy staff support for At-Large


15. September Monthly At-Large RALO Roundup

At a Glance

This month we will focus on collective RALO projects. All five RALOs are focusing on leveraging synergies and coordinating the implementation of various strategic tasks derived from the ATLAS II Declaration [PDF, 662 KB].

The Declaration was the result of the ATLAS II Summit. It was presented to the ICANN community and ICANN's Board of Directors at the ICANN 50th meeting in London. In particular, the focus of cross-RALO efforts is on implementation of four RALO – specific recommendations and the agreement on basic RALO performance metrics.

Recent Developments

ATLAS II Implementation of Recommendations

The RALOs have been tasked with completing the following recommendations contained in the Declaration:

  • No. 28; "The ALAC should work with all RALOs and ALSes to map the current expertise and interests in their membership, to identify Subject Matter Experts and facilitate policy communication."
  • No. 29; "The ALAC should implement an automated system for tracking topics of interest currently being discussed among the various RALOs, and accessible by everyone."
  • No. 42; "ICANN should enable annual face-to-face RALO assemblies, either at ICANN regional offices or in concert with regional events."
  • No.43; "RALOS should encourage their inactive ALS representatives to comply with ALAC minimum participation requirements."

The RALOs are organizing themselves in working groups and task forces to be able to implement these recommendations in the short term.

Implementation of Performance Metrics across RALOs

In discussing performance metrics, each of the RALOs recognizes that they are comprised of very different communities, therefore performance indicators should be adjusted to each region's reality. Nevertheless, it is hoped that a best practice model applicable across all regions will be developed over the next few months.

At the moment, each RALO has its own level of basic performance requirements. However, the issue of imposing performance metrics to volunteers is a sensitive one and, therefore as RALOs evolve and the institutions consolidate, it is expected that the RALOs themselves will look to have some common participation and performance requirements. Some RALOs are already performing an overarching review of their internal Rules of Procedures and are looking to include stronger metrics relating to both RALO leaders and participation of ALSes.

Some current common performance requirements include submission of monthly RALO activities and written reports from At-Large members who occupy leadership positions, minimum meeting attendance requirements to enable an ALSes to vote, fulfillment of specific responsibilities for working group members, etc.

This review of RALO performance metrics is quite timely. In light of the importance of ICANN accountability, the At-Large community is at the forefront in reviewing its own accountability across leadership roles and RALOs.

The ALAC has already implemented a set of metrics applicable ALAC members. These metrics will serve as a foundation for the RALOs as they move forward with their own implementation.

The ALAC Metrics Working Group will create a set of metrics for the RALOs and ALSes and a set of recommendations to bring to the ALAC leadership for vote and subsequent implementation by the At Large community as a whole.

Additional information:

Staff Contact

Silvia Vivanco, Manager, Regional Affairs


16. At-Large Website Revamp Project Begins

At a Glance

The project for revamping the At-Large website (atlarge.icann.org) started in September. This project will include close collaboration between the At-Large community, ICANN staff, and external agencies. In particular, community members from the At-Large Technology Taskforce and At-Large Accessibility Working Group are at the heart of change, driving the direction of the organization, content, functionality, and design of the new website. A small joint team will meet at least two hours per week for interactive working sessions.

Next Steps

Based on the findings from Google Analytics and At-Large community interviews, ICANN staff drafted and presented a project charter, which iterates the objectives for a website revamp, identifies the characteristics of target audience, and outlines the responsibilities of the various entities involved.

The joint At-Large website revamp team aims to present the initial design during the ICANN 51 meeting in October 2014 and roll out a Beta Prototype during the ICANN 52 meeting in February 2015. April 2015 is the target month for the public launch of the new At-Large website.

Staff Contact

Xinyue (Ariel) Liang, At-Large Policy Coordinator


GAC

17. Successful GAC Open Forum at IGF in Istanbul

At a Glance

On 2 September, during the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Istanbul, the GAC held a well-attended "GAC Open Forum" session to inform participants about the structure and operations of the GAC.

Recent Developments

Following a recommendation from the ATRT2, a first "GAC Open Forum" session was held at the GAC meeting in London in June (see the London GAC Communiqué [PDF, 139 KB]) to inform the community about the GAC and its working methods. The session at the IGF drew on the experience from London and was slightly longer, with more time devoted to questions and discussions.

Next Steps

A similar "GAC Open Forum" is planned for ICANN 51 in Los Angeles, to be held on Wednesday 15 October in the GAC room at the venue. The GAC already counts 141 governments as Members and 31 IGOs as Observers – numbers that are expected to increase.

Background

ICANN receives input from governments through the GAC. The GAC's key role is to provide advice to ICANN on issues of public policy, especially where there may be interaction between ICANN's activities or policies and national laws or international agreements. The GAC usually meets three times a year at ICANN Public Meetings to discuss issues with the ICANN Board, Supporting Organizations, Advisory Committees and other groups. The GAC may also discuss with the Board at other times, meeting face-to-face or by teleconference.

More Information

Staff Contact

Olof Nordling, Senior Director, GAC Relations

Julia Charvolen, Coordinator, GAC Services


18. Chair's Report from High Level Governmental Meeting in London Available

At a Glance

The UK Minister Ed Vaizey, who chaired the High Level Governmental Meeting on Monday 23 June in London, has issued the Chair's Report [PDF, 306 KB] from the event.

Recent Developments

The High Level Governmental Meeting was hosted by the UK and chaired by the UK Minister Ed Vaizey with the GAC Chair as co-chair. Relevant Ministers from across the world had been invited, including from countries outside the GAC's current membership. 175 representatives attended from 77 governments, whereof 10 not yet members of the GAC, plus 11 Inter-Governmental Organizations (IGOs). The meeting included briefings by ICANN's leadership, discussions about the role of the GAC and about current high profile topics, such as the transition of US stewardship of the IANA functions.

Next Steps

The Chair's Report will inform the planning of future High Level Governmental Meetings and also serve as input for upcoming Internet governance meetings in other fora. In line with an ATRT 2 recommendation, the next High Level Governmental Meeting is expected to be held within two years.

Background

This was the second time that such a meeting was held. The first was hosted by Canada in conjunction with ICANN 45 in Toronto in October 2012.

ICANN receives input from governments through the GAC. The GAC's key role is to provide advice to ICANN on issues of public policy, especially where there may be interaction between ICANN's activities or policies and national laws or international agreements. The GAC usually meets three times a year at ICANN Public Meetings to discuss issues with the ICANN Board, Supporting Organizations, Advisory Committees and other groups. The GAC may also discuss with the Board at other times, meeting face-to-face or by teleconference.

More Information

Staff Contact

Olof Nordling, Senior Director, GAC Relations

Julia Charvolen, Coordinator, GAC Services


SSAC

19. SSAC Publishes Overview and History of the IANA Functions

At a Glance

On 15 August 2014 the SSAC published "SAC067: Overview and History of the IANA Functions." [PDF, 635 KB]

Recent Developments and Next Steps

On 15 August 2014, the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) published "SAC067: Overview and History of the IANA Functions" [PDF, 635 KB]. The Report provides an overview of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Functions – what they are and a history of how they evolved from the informal activities of a single person into the structured set of activities that are performed today in the context of a variety of contracts and agreements. Understanding this background is particularly important as the community considers the transfer of IANA Functions stewardship from the United States government to some other, yet–to–be–determined structure.

Next Steps

The SSAC will brief the ICANN community on the Report at the ICANN meeting in Los Angeles (ICANN 51) in October 2014.

Background

IANA is a traditional name used "to refer to the technical team making and publishing assignments of Internet protocol technical parameters." This technical team performs a set of tasks that involve the administration or coordination of many of the identifiers that allow the global Internet to operate. These tasks are currently performed by ICANN under a set of agreements including:

  • A contract with the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
  • A Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF).
  • An MoU with the Regional Internet Registries.
  • Agreements with some root server operators.
  • Contracts, MoUs, and other agreements with country code Top-Level Domain (ccTLD) administrators.
  • A number of contracts with generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) administrators.

As described in the current IANA Functions contract between ICANN and NTIA, the IANA Functions are:

  • Domain Name System (DNS) Root Zone Management.
  • Internet Numbers Registry Management.
  • Protocol Parameter Registry Management, including management of the "Address and Routing Parameter Area" (.ARPA) TLD.
  • Management of the "INTernational treaty organizations" (.INT) top-level domain.

The Report describes the activities included in the IANA Functions contract as well as the functions performed under the IETF MoU in order to establish a baseline of understanding for those interested in how the upper-most level of the Internet's system of unique identifiers is managed. It focuses primarily on the IANA Functions contract, but is intended to describe all of the activities related to the IANA Functions as they are currently performed, including those that lie outside of the IANA Functions contract.

More Information

Staff Contact

Julie Hedlund, Director, SSAC Support

policy-update-sep14-en.pdf  [779 KB]

Domain Name System
Internationalized Domain Name ,IDN,"IDNs are domain names that include characters used in the local representation of languages that are not written with the twenty-six letters of the basic Latin alphabet ""a-z"". An IDN can contain Latin letters with diacritical marks, as required by many European languages, or may consist of characters from non-Latin scripts such as Arabic or Chinese. Many languages also use other types of digits than the European ""0-9"". The basic Latin alphabet together with the European-Arabic digits are, for the purpose of domain names, termed ""ASCII characters"" (ASCII = American Standard Code for Information Interchange). These are also included in the broader range of ""Unicode characters"" that provides the basis for IDNs. The ""hostname rule"" requires that all domain names of the type under consideration here are stored in the DNS using only the ASCII characters listed above, with the one further addition of the hyphen ""-"". The Unicode form of an IDN therefore requires special encoding before it is entered into the DNS. The following terminology is used when distinguishing between these forms: A domain name consists of a series of ""labels"" (separated by ""dots""). The ASCII form of an IDN label is termed an ""A-label"". All operations defined in the DNS protocol use A-labels exclusively. The Unicode form, which a user expects to be displayed, is termed a ""U-label"". The difference may be illustrated with the Hindi word for ""test"" — परीका — appearing here as a U-label would (in the Devanagari script). A special form of ""ASCII compatible encoding"" (abbreviated ACE) is applied to this to produce the corresponding A-label: xn--11b5bs1di. A domain name that only includes ASCII letters, digits, and hyphens is termed an ""LDH label"". Although the definitions of A-labels and LDH-labels overlap, a name consisting exclusively of LDH labels, such as""icann.org"" is not an IDN."