Re: [At-Large] ICANN Policy Update
All @large,
As regards the domain tasting issue I have not noticed any sufficient public
deliberation over the issue. I have visited all publicly accessible at-large
mailing lists and have found just few contributions on the merits. Moreover,
the domain tasting working group list is empty, which just supports my initial
suspicion.
In my view, the public deliberation was utterly insufficient and the ALAC's
updated statement for the final report is a premature unilateral conclusion of
the ALAC Committee directed more towards the registrars/registries expectations
than to the needs of the broad Internet user community worldwide. This is
particularly apparent in the position shift from the previously presented and
strongly supported fundamental motion for the AGP elimination, later swiftly
replaced by supporting the current draft motion, which in its current
formulation raises more questions than answers and formally 'as is' does not
guarantee anything.
I therefore propose to revise the updated statement and to start a proper
deliberation over the issue with full public participation.
Dominik Filipp, a GA list member
-----Original Message-----
From: alac-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:alac-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Denise Michel
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 11:21 AM
To: alac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [At-Large] ICANN Policy Update
Below (and attached in Word with hyperlinks) are brief summaries of a number of
significant Internet policy 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 and we
encourage you to go beyond these brief staff summaries and learn more about the
ICANN community's work. These monthly updates also will be available on our
website. Our goal is to maximize transparency and broad community participation
in ICANN's policy development activities. We continue to investigate more
effective and efficient ways to communicate the relevance, importance and
status of ongoing issues to the ICANN community.
Comments and suggestions on how we can improve these efforts are most welcome
and should be sent to policy-staff@xxxxxxxxxx
Regards,
Denise Michel
ICANN VP, Policy
ICANN POLICY UPDATE - April 2008
CONTENTS:
1. GNSO -- IMPROVEMENTS
2. GNSO -- DOMAIN NAME TASTING
3. GNSO -- WHOIS
4. GNSO -- INTER-REGISTRAR TRANSFER POLICY REVIEW
5. GNSO -- FAST FLUX HOSTING
6. GNSO/CCNSO -- BOARD SEAT ELECTIONS
7. MULTIPLE ENTITIES -- IDN ccTLDs
8. CCNSO -- INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS CONTINUE 9. CCNSO -- PHISHING SURVEY 10.
CCNSO -- NEW MEMBERS 11. ASO AC -- GLOBAL POLICY PROPOSALS (ASNs, IPv4) 12.
SSAC -- DNSSEC BROADBAND ROUTER TESTING REVISED 13. SSAC -- ANTI-PHISHING
ACTIVITIES 14. AT-LARGE -- NEW PRACTICES EXPAND POLICY PARTICIPATION 15.
AT-LARGE -- NEW WEBSITE/PORTAL LAUNCHED
1. GNSO -- IMPROVEMENTS
Background: The ICANN Board is considering a comprehensive set of
recommendations to improve the structure and operations of the Generic Names
Supporting Organization (GNSO). This is part of ICANN's ongoing commitment to
its evolution and improvement, and follows an independent review of the GNSO
and extensive public consultation. A working group appointed by ICANN's Board
has developed a comprehensive proposal (GNSO Improvements
Report) to improve the effectiveness of the GNSO, including its policy
activities, structure, operations and communications. On 15 February 2008, the
Board accepted the GNSO Improvements Report for consideration and directed
ICANN staff to open a public comment forum on the Report for 30 days, draft a
detailed implementation plan in consultation with the GNSO, begin
implementation of the non-contentious recommendations, and return to the Board
and community for further consideration of the implementation plan.
Recent Developments: The period for public comments on the GNSO Improvements
Report has been extended to 25 April 2008. Although many elements of the
report seem to have broad support, the proposed stakeholder groups/constituency
structures and allocation of seats on the GNSO Council continue to draw a
significant amount of discussion from a variety of parties including the
Business, Intellectual Property, and Internet Service Provider Constituencies
who advocate a different allocation of seats than that recommended to the Board.
Next Steps: Public comment period on the GNSO Improvements Report (closes
25 April 2008) -- subsequent Board action is expected at the Paris meeting.
More Information:
* GNSO Improvements information page <
http://www.icann.org/topics/gnso-improvements/>
* Full GNSO Improvements Report <
http://www.icann.org/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-report-03feb08.pdf>
* Board resolution on GNSO Improvements <
http://www.icann.org/minutes/resolutions-15feb08.htm#_Toc64545918>
Staff Contact: Denise Michel, VP Policy Development
2. GNSO -- DOMAIN NAME TASTING
Background: In Spring 2007, ICANN's At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC), asked
the GNSO Council to review the issue of "domain tasting." The term refers to a
case when an entity registers a domain name and then tests to see if the name
has sufficient traffic to provide 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) - where domains can be returned
within five days without cost - is used to return the domain at no net cost to
the registrant. Among other reasons, the practice is controversial because
registrants who engage in this behavior can typically register many hundreds of
thousands of domain names under this practice, 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. In October 2007, after fact finding and consideration, the GNSO
Council launched a formal policy development process
(PDP) on domain tasting and encouraged ICANN staff to consider applying ICANN's
fee collections to names registered and subsequently de-registered during the
AGP. Subsequently, staff included in the initial draft of ICANN's next fiscal
year budget, a proposal to charge a fee for all domains added,
including domains added during the AGP. Public discussion of the budget,
and this proposal, is ongoing.
As part of the formal PDP process, an Initial Report was produced for public
comment, outlining the problems caused by domain tasting, possible actions to
be taken, and the arguments put forward for and against such actions .
Public comments were incorporated into a draft Final Report posted on 8
February 2008.
Recent Developments: At its 6 March 2008 meeting, the GNSO Council
considered a motion drafted and subsequently revised by a small design team to
stop the practice of domain tasting. The revised draft motion 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 may be sought for a
particular month, upon a showing of extraordinary circumstances detailed in the
motion.
Public comments and constituency impact statements regarding the revised draft
motion have been solicited and incorporated into a Final Report for Council
consideration at its scheduled 17 April 2008 meeting. The comments and
constituency statements reflect a plurality of views on what should be done to
eliminate abuse of the AGP to facilitate domain tasting and addressed three
potential options including (1) views on the draft resolution itself; (2) views
on eliminating the AGP entirely; and (3) views on the proposed ICANN budget
changes.
Next Steps: The GNSO Council will consider the Draft Motion at its upcoming
17 April 2008 meeting
More Information:
* Public comment request <
http://www.icann.org/public_comment/#domain-tasting>
* GNSO Domain Tasting Issues Report, June 2007 <
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/domain-tasting/gnso-domain-tasting-report-14jun07.pdf>
* Outcomes Report October 2007 <
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-domain-tasting-adhoc-outcomes-report-final.pdf>
* Final Report 4 April 2008 <
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/domain-tasting/gnso-final-report-domain-tasting-04apr08.pdf
>
Staff Contact: Liz Gasster, Senior Policy Counselor
3. GNSO -- WHOIS
Background: WHOIS services provide public access to data on registered domain
names. That data currently includes contact information for Registered Name
Holders. The extent of registration data collected at the time of registration
of a domain name, 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, 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 will 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 has solicited suggestions for specific topics of study on
WHOIS from community stakeholders. Possible areas of study might include 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, or a comparative study of
gTLD and ccTLD WHOIS.
Recent Developments: A forum for public comments on suggestions for specific
topics of study on WHOIS was open through 15 February 2008.
Approximately 25 suggestions were received. A summary of those comments has
been prepared. On 27 March the GNSO Council approved a motion to form a group
of volunteers to: (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 will be asked to provide cost estimates to the
Council; and (3) produce the list of recommendations with supporting rationale
not later than 24 April 2008.
Next Steps: A report from the small group reviewing the suggestions on further
WHOis studies is due to the Council by 24 April 2008. The GNSO Council will
consider the recommendations of the group. Based on direction from the
Council, ICANN staff will subsequently provide the Council with rough cost
estimates for various components of data gathering and studies.
The Council will then decide what data gathering and studies it will request,
given available resources. Staff will perform the resulting data gathering and
studies and report the results to the Council.
More Information: GNSO WHOis Policy Work Web page <
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/>
Staff Contact: Liz Gasster, Senior Policy Counselor
4. GNSO -- INTER-REGISTRAR TRANSFER POLICY REVIEW
Background: 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 that is now
being reviewed by the GNSO. As part of that effort, the 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 improvement.
In an effort to get improvements on-line as soon as possible, the GNSO Council
initiated a policy development process (PDP) to immediately clarify four
specific issues regarding reasons for which a registrar of record may deny a
request to transfer a domain name to a new registrar. That PDP process in now
under way and the GNSO constituencies have submitted their initial comments.
Recent Developments: ICANN staff finalized and posted an Initial Report
for public comments to immediately clarify the four specific issues regarding
reasons for which a registrar of record may deny a request to transfer a domain
name to a new registrar. A summary of those comments is now available (see <
http://forum.icann.org/lists/transfer-policy-2008/msg00004.html>). In parallel
with 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, the group delivered a report to the GNSO
Council with suggested clustering of those issues for consideration in five new
PDPs.
Next Steps: The public comments received on the Initial Report will be used by
ICANN staff to compile a Final Report for the GNSO Council's consideration of
further steps to take in this PDP. The report from the short term planning
group on other potential PDPs will next be discussed and decided upon by the
GNSO Council.
More Information:
* Draft Advisory <
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/transfers/gnso-draft-transfer-advisory-14nov07.pdf
>
* Initial Report <
http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-17mar08.htm>
* PDP Recommendations <
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/transfer-wg-recommendations-pdp-groupings-19mar08.pdf>
Staff Contact: Olof Nordling, Manager, Policy Development Coordination
5. GNSO - FAST FLUX HOSTING
Background: Fast flux hosting is a term that refers to several techniques used
by cyber criminals to evade detection, in which 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 including users and ISPs as well
as registries and registrars.
Recent developments: 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 guidelines concerning fast flux hosting. Staff also notes that it
may be appropriate for the ccNSO also to participate in such an activity.
Next Steps: The GNSO Council is scheduled to discuss the topic at its upcoming
meeting on 17 April 2008.
More Iinformation:
* SSAC Report 025 on fast flux hosting, January 2008 -
http://www.icann.org/committees/security/sac025.pdf
* Issues Report on Fast Flux Hosting, corrected 31 March 2008 -
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/fast-flux-hosting/gnso-issues-report-fast-flux-25mar08.pdf
Staff Contact: Liz Gasster, Senior Policy Counselor
6. CCNSO/GNSO -- BOARD SEAT ELECTIONS
Background: The Country Codes Name Supporting Organization (ccNSO) and GNSO
Councils are responsible for filling two seats each on the ICANN Board of
Directors. ccNSO seats are identified as Board seat numbers 11 and 12.
GNSO seats on the Board are identified as seat numbers 13 and 14.
Recent Developments:
CCNSO Board Seat 11
Peter Dengate-Thrush was selected to fill seat 11 on the ICANN Board at the
ccNSO Council meeting on the 31 March 2008. This selection was based on the
outcome of a prior call for nominations among the ccNSO members. The only
candidate who was nominated and seconded was Mr. Dengate-Thrush and he accepted
the nomination.
Next Steps: The ccNSO Council Chair will provide the Secretary of ICANN with
written notice of the decision.
More Information: ccNSO ICANN Election of Director Procedures <
http://ccnso.icann.org/about/elections/election-procedure-to-elect-icann-director-03mar08.htm>
Staff Contact: Gabriella Schittek, ccNSO Secretariat
GNSO Board Seat 14
Rita Rodin was elected by the GNSO Council to fill seat 14 on the ICANN Board
of Directors. The election closed on 7 March 2008. The GNSO Council confirmed
the election results at its meeting scheduled on 27 March 2008, and pursuant to
the bylaws, Avri Doria, GNSO Chair, informed ICANN's General Counsel of the
outcome.
Next Steps: The next GNSO election process will commence at the end of this
year for the GNSO Chair. The current Chair's term ends 31 January 2009.
More Information: GNSO Elections Procedures <
http://gnso.icann.org/elections/election-procedures-2008.shtml>
Staff Contact: Glen De Saint Géry, GNSO Secretariat
7. MULTIPLE ENTITIES -- IDN ccTLDs
Background: The potential introduction of Internationalized Domain Names
(IDNs) represents the beginning of an exciting new chapter in the history of
the Internet. IDNs offer the potential for many 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 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.
IDNC Working Group Pursues The IDN "Fast Track"
A joint IDNC Working Group (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 process IDNccPDP (the ccNSO Policy Development Process on IDN
ccTLDs) 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 parameters of:
* 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.
A public workshop was held 11 February in New Delhi, India to discuss the DDIR
and a comment period was opened on that document.
Recent Developments: The IDNC WG has now produced a first draft of the IDNC WG
Methodology in the form of an Interim Report that has also been made available
for public comment. Discussions on the methodology were held at the ICANN
Regional Meeting in Dubai, UAE (1-3 April 2008) and public comments on the
methodology can be submitted until 25 April 2008.
Next Steps: The work schedule agreed to by the IDNC Working Group is as
follows:
* An Initial Report, which will solidify the topics and their relation to
the IDNccPDP.
* A final Interim Report, which will contain potential implementation
mechanisms is scheduled to be released 16 May 2008).
* The Final Report, which will contain the actual recommendations of the
IDNC WG is due to be published 13 June 2008)
More Information:
* Public Comments Requested on Initial Draft Fast-Track Mechanism <
http://icann.org/announcements/announcement-01feb08.htm>
* Draft Methodology for Fast Track <
http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/idnc-proposed-methodology-31mar08.pdf>
* Public Comments on the Discussion Draft of the Initial Report <
http://www.icann.org/public_comment/#dd-idn-cctld-ft>
Staff Contact: Bart Boswinkel, Senior Policy Advisor
CCNSO Also Focuses On Comprehensive IDNccTLD Policy Development
Background: In parallel to considerations of a "fast track" approach, the
ccNSO Council has initiated a comprehensive long term policy development
process for IDNccTLDs (referred to as the IDNccPDP). At its meeting in October
2007, the ccNSO Council resolved to call for an Issues Report to examine the
need for an IDNccPDP to consider:
* Whether Article IX of the ICANN bylaws applies to IDN ccTLDs associated
with the ISO 3166-1 two letter codes, and if it does not then to establish if
Article IX should apply.
* Whether the ccNSO should launch a PDP to develop the policy for the
selection and delegation of IDN ccTLDs associated with the ISO 3166-1
two-letter codes.
The Council formally requested that 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.
Recent Developments: The GNSO and several other parties have submitted
comments regarding the proposal to set a comprehensive long term policy
development process for IDNccTLDs (referred to above as the IDNccPDP). An
Issues Report will be submitted to the ccNSO Council and will form the basis
for the Council's decision on whether or not to formally initiate the IDNccPDP.
Next Steps: Comments regarding the preparation of an Issues Report on the
IDNccPDP and are now being evaluated.
More Information: IDNccPDP Announcement: <
http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-19dec07.htm>
Staff Contact: Bart Boswinkel, Senior Policy Advisor
8. CCNSO -- INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS CONTINUE
Background: The ccNSO Council has recently been taking steps to improve its
work plans, administrative procedures and communications tools. As a result of
a ccNSO Council workshop held at the ICANN New Delhi meeting, a working group
of the Council was established to propose administrative procedures for the
ccNSO. The ccNSO Council also approved creation of a new "authoritative" ccNSO
email list. The organization has also been conducting a participation survey
in an effort to understand better why ccTLDs do or do not participate in ccNSO
meetings.
Recent Developments: In preparation for making recommendations on new
structures, the new "Working Group on ccNSO Administrative Procedures" has had
two conference calls on the structuring processes within the ccNSO. All ccTLD
managers have been invited to subscribe to a new global ccTLD email list and a
first draft of the results of the ccNSO participation survey recently was
shared with the community at the African Top Level Domain meeting in
Johannesburg.
Next Steps: The Working Group will continue to develop new procedures for the
ccNSO.
More Information:
* ccNSO <http://www.ccnso.icann.org/>
* ccTLD Community Email List <
http://www.ccnso.icann.org/about/charter-cctld-community-list.pdf>
Staff Contacts: Bart Boswinkel, Senior Policy Advisor and Gabriella
Schittek, ccNSO Secretariat
9. CCNSO -- PHISHING SURVEY
Background: The term "phishing" has been used to describe criminal and
fraudulent attempts by cybercriminals to acquire sensitive private information
(such as usernames, passwords and credit card details) by masquerading as
trustworthy entities in an electronic communication.
Phishing remains a major problem among ccTLDs and as a result ccNSO members are
being called upon to identify countermeasures that can be undertaken to fight
back. A draft survey seeking to identify those types of measures was presented
to and approved by the ccNSO Council during its meeting in New Delhi in
February 2008. The survey was launched and sent to all available email lists.
ICANN regional liaisons were also asked to help distribute the survey.
Recent Developments: Originally, survey results of the anti-phishing survey
were expected to be ready for posting by early April 2008, but the response
period has been extended to allow for the receipt of more survey responses.
To date 21 responses have been received and Staff is working to inspire more.
Next Steps: Survey response and evaluation time extended to encourage more
responses.
More information: Survey <
http://ccnso.icann.org/surveys/anti-phishing-survey-27feb08.pdf>
Staff Contact: Gabriella Schittek, ccNSO Secretariat
10. CCNSO -- NEW MEMBERS
Russia (.ru) and Georgia (.ge) recently were approved as new ccNSO members.
The ccNSO now has 77 members.
More Information: ccNSO Applications Archive <
http://www.ccnso.icann.org/applications/summary-date.shtml>
Staff Contact: Gabriella Schittek, ccNSO Secretariat
11. ASO AC - GLOBAL POLICY PROPOSALS (ASNs, IPv4)
Background: Two significant global policy proposals on addressing matters
continue to be actively studied and discussed within the addressing community.
If they are (1) adopted by all Regional Internet Registries (RIRs), (2)
verified by the Address Supporting Organization (ASO) and (3) subsequently
ratified by the ICANN Board, the policies will govern the allocation of
Internet addresses from the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) to the
RIRs. The two current proposals are described below.
Recent Developments:
Autonomous System Numbers (ASNs)
Autonomous System Numbers (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.
Next Steps: This new 4-byte proposal has been adopted in all RIRs. It will be
forwarded to the ICANN Board for ratification by the ASO Address Council after
the Council has verified that each RIR's procedural steps have been duly
followed.
More information: Background Report <
http://www.icann.org/announcements/proposal-asn-report-29nov07.htm>
Staff Contact: Olof Nordling, Manager Policy Development Coordination
Remaining IPv4 address space
The IANA pool of unallocated IPv4 address blocks is continuing to be depleted.
As announced last month, 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.
Next Steps: This proposal was discussed at the APNIC 25 meeting in February
2008 and at the ARIN (American Registry for Internet Numbers) in Denver earlier
this month. It will be discussed in upcoming meetings of the other RIRs, next
in RIPE (Resaux IP Europeens Network Coordination Centre) - Berlin 5-6 May
2008, LACNIC (Latin American and Caribbean Internet Addresses
Registry) - Salvador/Bahia, Brazil 26-30 May 2008 and AfriNIC (African Region
Internet Registry) - 24 May-6 June, Rabat, Morocco.
More information: Background Report
http://www.icann.org/announcements/proposal-ipv4-report-29nov07.htm
Staff Contact: Olof Nordling, Manager Policy Development Coordination
12. SSAC -- DNSSEC BROADBAND ROUTER TESTING REVISED
Background: When Sweden and other ccTLDs began more extensive deployment of
the Domain Name System Security Extension (DNSSEC), it was discovered that
several broadband routers failed when they received DNS response messages
containing DNSSEC resource records and other DNSSEC related protocol
parameters. Study of these routers revealed that many have embedded DNS
servers. The DNSSEC deployment community and SSAC have been collaborating to
create a testing program for broadband routers to gauge the ability of these
devices to correctly process DNS messages that contain DNSSEC resource records.
A set of web pages was developed by ICANN staff to provide a series of tests
that Internet users could use to determine if their router succeeds or fails
when DNNSEC is present in DNS response messages.
Recent Developments: After reviewing the new testing suite for broadband
routers running DNSSEC, Staff determined that the test suite was too
complicated and required too much data collection and analysis for voluntary
community participation.
Next Steps: Staff is now investigating an alternative testing approach that
may involve several independent bodies testing broadband routers and SOHO
firewalls -- one for U.S. domestic products, one for Europe products, one for
U.K. products, and one for Asia Pacific products. The testing criteria are
being re-evaluated to determine a new common test suite with a goal to have
this new testing begin before 1 May 2008.
More Information: SSAC <http://www.icann.org/committees/security/>
Staff Contact: Dave Piscitello, Senior Security Technologist
13. SSAC - ANTI-PHISHING ACTIVITIES
Recent Developments: ICANN staff has been helping to update/revise a work in
progress for the Anti Phishing Working Group entitled, "What To Do If Your Web
Site Is Hacked." The document describes preparation and incident response with
respect to web site phishing attacks. The report was approved by the Internet
Policy Forum (formerly the DNS Policy Working Group) and is currently being
edited and prepared for publication.
A new SSAC Advisory entitled "Registrar Impersonation in Phishing Attacks"
has been distributed for review and approval by SSAC and ICANN's general
counsel. Several external experts have reviewed the Advisory and provided some
valuable additional insights. The document may be distributed in two phases -
the first to registrars, so that they are advised of the threat, and the second
(at or prior to the ICANN Paris meeting) to the general public.
ICANN staff is also assisting with anti-phishing investigations of two
registrars who are alleged to be shielding phishing activities. In one case the
registrar's WHOIS/43 service is not responding; in another case, staff is
studying a service that allegedly hampers anti-phishing investigations by
creating barriers on WHOIS information access.
Staff Contact: Dave Piscitello, Senior Security Technologist
14. AT-LARGE - NEW PRACTICES EXPAND POLICY PARTICIPATION
Recent Developments: New policy development processes and simultaneous
translation improvements are significantly expanding policy participation in
the At-Large community.
As a result of additional staff capacity and other developments within the
At-Large community, the process by which the At-Large community develops policy
statements has been completely overhauled. At the direction of the At-Large
Advisory Committee (ALAC), ICANN Staff has now begun producing initial draft
statements on policy (synthesis statements of written and verbal comments) for
review by working groups and subcommittees. These drafts are put through
several steps of community review before being voted on by the ALAC. Approved
comments are transmitted, as appropriate, to the public comment process or to
the Board of ICANN.
The first three products of this new process effort are already making their
way through the process. They are:
* ALAC Statement on the Proposed Travel Policy for Volunteers
* ALAC Statement on the Operating Plan and Budget Framework for FY
2008/2009
* ALAC Statement on GNSO Improvements
Additionally, the worldwide At-Large Calendar has been improved to include a
community comments window to make it easier for the public to keep track of
comments.
Also, thanks to new simultaneous interpretation capabilities and a new
teleconference service the African Regional At-Large Organisation (AFRALO) and
the Latin America and the Caribbean Islands Regional At-Large Organisation
(LACRALO) are now holding monthly teleconference meetings.
Staff Contact: Nick Ashton-Hart, Director for At-Large
15. AT-LARGE - NEW WEBSITE/PORTAL LAUNCHED
Recent Developments: At-Large's new website went live in March. The new site
is built upon a state-of-the-art, open-source content management system -
Drupal. The result is a framework which can be duplicated and used by other
parts of ICANN. The new site provides an array of new features which the
static html-based old site could not, including:
* Two-way links between forums on the site and the community's mailing
lists - with new postings soon to be automatically visible;
* Dynamically updated content;
* Standardised multilingual support built into the site's architecture
* Multilingual calendaring and events, including support for multilingual
documents and time zone support.
More Information: At-Large < http://atlarge.icann.org>
Staff Contact: Nick Ashton-Hart, Director for At-Large
# # #
_______________________________________________
ALAC mailing list
ALAC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________
ALAC mailing list
ALAC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org