ICANN Policy Forum

Washington DC6 February 2009

2

ICANN Structure

Generic Names Supporting Organization

County Code Names Supporting Organization

Intellectual property ISPs Registrars Businesses Registries Non-Commercial

ccTLD Registries .us, .uk, .au, .it,.nl, et al.

Address Supporting Organization

Regional Internet Registries ARIN LACNIC APNIC AfriNIC RIPE NCC

GNSO CCNSOASO

GAC ALAC

ICANN Board of Directors

RSSAC SSAC

3

ICANN Policy Staff

• Denise MichelDenise Michel - Vice President, Policy Development (California, USA)

• Liz GassterLiz Gasster - Senior Policy Counselor (GNSO) (California, USA)

• Margie Milam -Margie Milam -Senior Policy Counselor (GNSO) (California, USA)

• Robert HoggarthRobert Hoggarth - Senior Policy Director (Washington, DC, USA)

• Marika Konings - Marika Konings - Policy Director (GNSO) (Brussels, Belgium)

• Glen de Saint GéryGlen de Saint Géry- Secretariat (GNSO) (Cannes, France)

• Bart BoswinkelBart Boswinkel - Senior Policy Advisor, ccNSO (Netherlands)

• Gabriella SchittekGabriella Schittek - Secretariat (ccNSO) (Warsaw, Poland)

• Nick Ashton-HartNick Ashton-Hart - Director for At-Large (Geneva, Switzerland)

• Heidi Ullrich Heidi Ullrich - Manager At-Large Regional Affairs (California, USA)

• Mathias Langenegger Mathias Langenegger - Secretariat (At-Large) (Geneva, Switzerland)

• Dave PiscitelloDave Piscitello - Senior Security Technologist (SSAC) (S. Carolina, USA)

• Marilyn VernonMarilyn Vernon - Executive Assistant (California, USA)

Review and Discussion of Selected Policy Issues

WHOIS Internationalized Domain Name (IDNs) Transferring Domain Names Between Registrars E-Crimes (upcoming workshop; issues of

interest) Registration Abuse Policies Domain Name Tasting & Add Grace Period Other Ongoing Activities Improving & Restructuring the GNSO

WHOIS StudiesWHOIS & Directory Services

Impact of IDNs on WHOIS Display

Washington DC6 February 2009

WHOIS: Policy Background and Update

WHOIS is the data repository containing registered domain names, registrant contacts and other critical information. Questions persist concerning the use and misuse of this important resource.

Oct. 2007 – GNSO Council decided that a comprehensive, objective understanding of key facts on WHOIS will benefit future policy development and initiated steps to determine what studies should be done.

Public input was solicited; roughly 24 proposals were received from the public.

In April the GAC submitted roughly 15 additional study proposals

WHOIS Studies: Recent Activities

GNSO Constituencies and Council are discussing which studies, if any, should be assessed for cost and feasibility. Key areas include: Extent to which WHOIS data is misused to generate spam or other illegal or

undesirable activities; The use of non-ASCII character sets in WHOIS records; Extent to which proxy and privacy services are being used for abusive

and/or illegal purposes; Extent to which proxy and privacy services respond to information requests; Registrations by natural persons vs. legal persons or for a commercial vs.

non-commercial purpose. The Council will vote on a set of initial studies to evaluate

Staff will provide cost estimates/feasibility assessments; Council and Staff will then consider what data gathering and

studies should be pursued.

WHOIS: Recent SSAC Work

SSAC has noted that a secure and reliable WHOIS can only be achieved thru a combination of policy development and adoption of a uniform directory service that provides authentication, confidentiality, accuracy and integrity services.

Issued reports last year: SAC 027 (7 February 2008) SAC 033 (20 June 2008)

Recommendations include: Establish requirements for the administration of registration info; need

studies on uses and abuses of registration info, access requirements, and role-based access control models for WHOIS

Adopt an Internet standard directory service; need studies on protocols Work w/ all TLD operators to develop a timeline and transition plan to move

to a successor service Report enumerates how WHOIS is used today; identifies

WHOIS accuracy concerns and issues with stale contact info

WHOIS and IDNs

IDN standards only apply to domain name composition and do not cover how registration information is collected, stored and displayed in WHOIS. This is left as a local matter for registrars and registries.

Are there general principles that registries and registrars could adopt to minimize any potential negative impact on WHOIS?

Should the ICANN community consider a successor to WHOIS that can better accommodate the anticipated needs of the community and IDN TLDs?

WHOIS: Links & References for More Information

GNSO WHOIS activities: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/

GAC WHOIS study recommendations of 16 April: http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karlins-to-thrush-16apr08.pdf

Priority ratings of WHOIS studies from constituencies: https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?whois_discussion

Current draft working definitions of terms for WHOIS studies: https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?whois_references

SSAC Document 027 (7 February 2008): http://www.icann.org/en/committees/security/sac027.pdf

SSAC Document 033 (20 June 2008): http://www.icann.org/en/committees/security/sac033.pdf

Internationalized Domain Names

(IDNs)

Washington DC6 February 2009

IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process The ICANN Community has recommended development

of a process for introduction of a limited number of IDN ccTLDs that: Are associated with the ISO3166-1 list Will meet near term demand for ready territories / countries Preserve stability of the DNS and are non-contentious Do not preempt the long-term ccNSO process for developing a

global policy on IDN ccTLDs Are not based on characters from the Latin script

The ICANN Board asked Staff to provide a detailed, proposed implementation plan for community/Board consideration, based upon recommendations of a community working group (IDNC WG Final Report)

IDN Fast Track Draft Implementation Plan

Public comment through 7 January 2009

Staff review of received comments

Staff revision of implementation plan

Revision to be issued prior to Mexico Meeting, including proposed solutions for Module 7

IDN ccNSOPolicy Development Process

The ccNSO Council is in the early stages of considering a comprehensive long-term policy development process for IDNccTLDs (referred to as the IDNcc PDP).

The ccNSO Council is exploring the policies, procedures, and Bylaws that should be reviewed/revised.

More information is posted at:http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/idn-pdp-process-time-table-02dec08.htm

Transferring Domain Names Between

Registrars

Washington DC6 February 2009

Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy

ICANN’s Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) aims to provide a straightforward procedure for domain name holders to transfer their names from one ICANN-accredited registrar to another.

The GNSO has identified 20+ potential areas for clarification/improvement; 6 policy development processes (PDPs) will address specific categories.

Questions relating to the exchange of registrant e-mail information, the potential for including new forms of electronic authentication, and potential provisions for "partial bulk transfers” – are examples of items being addressed.

E-Crimes Workshop

Washington DC6 February 2009

E-Crime Forum in Mexico City

E-Crime and Abuse of the DNS: Forum Wed. 4 March Follow-up to E-Crime update in Cairo which attracted

broad interest/ demand for continued discussion Forum will include E-Crime introduction, landscape and

trends, criminal attacks and abuse response, role of ICANN community and Staff.

ICANN serving as a facilitator for this debate – not all issues discussed fall under ICANN’s remit

Bring different stakeholders together to discuss way forward and gain better understanding of what ICANN’s role and obligations are in relation to E-Crimes

Registration Abuse Policies

Washington DC6 February 2009

Registration Abuse Policies

The GNSO Council will take a closer look at registration abuse provisions in registry and registrar agreements.

A working group is scheduling a public discussion at ICANN’s March Mexico City meeting on this topic

An initial Issues Report on this topic provides overview of registration abuse provisions in registry and registration agreements

Report finds that there is no uniform approach by registries & registrars to address abuse; no universally accepted definition of what constitutes abuse

Domain Name Tastingand

Add Grace Period

Washington DC6 February 2009

Add Grace Period (AGP)

Last year the GNSO Council, and then the Board, approved policy to curb abuse of the “add grace period” (AGP) for domain tasting

Board also approved the draft budget for FY 2008-09, included language to curb domain tasting

Provides transaction fee (currently US$0.20) for AGP deletes 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.

AGP Delete Statistics

Prior to AGP Budget/Policy Provision May 2008: 18.4M June 2008: 17.6M

Since AGP Provision July 2008: 2.8M August 2008: 2.1M

AGP Limits Policy will likely result in few AGP deletes subject to the excess deletion fee

Other Ongoing Policy Initiatives

Fast Flux Hosting – public comment period open: http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-26jan09-en.htm

Post Expiration Domain Name Recovery – calling for drafting team volunteers

Improving and Restructuring ICANN’s

gTLD Policy Making Body (GNSO)

Washington DC6 February 2009

GNSO ImprovementsBackground and Key Objectives

Like all ICANN structures, the GNSO is subject to periodic independent review

Current review began in February ’05 Key objectives of GNSO review during this period have

been: Maximizing the ability for all interested stakeholders to participate; Ensuring recommendations can be developed on gTLD

"consensus policies" for Board review, and that the subject matter of "consensus policies" is clearly defined;

Ensuring policy development is based on thoroughly-researched, well-scoped objectives, and are run in a predictable manner that yields results that can be implemented effectively; and

Improving communications and administrative support for GNSO objectives.

Based on input from the independent reviews, a Working Group of the ICANN Board Governance Committee (BGC-WG) identified these areas for improvement.

27

28

Current GNSO Structure

One-House, 24-person Council Six Unique Constituencies with 3

representatives each (Business, IPC, ISP, NCUC, Registry, Registrars)

Contracted Parties hold 12 votes; Non-Contracted Parties hold 12 votes

Three voting Nominating Committee Appointees

Three non-voting Liaisons

Legend: { } Voting; ( ) Non-Voting

GAC ALAC

Voting NCA Voting NCA

31

Under Board Review

Board Approved

Key Compromises

GNSO Improvements More Information/Volunteers/Input

For more information about the effort (background and the latest developments) see the GNSO Improvements Information Page at:

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

Community Volunteers for the GNSO Improvements Implementation Work Teams can contact:

gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org

How to Keep Up-To-Date and Participate?

Sign up for the monthly Policy Update: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/

Submit public comments and participate in Working Groups:http://gnso.icann.org/announcements/

Check the ICANN web site on a regular basis:http://www.icann.org

Check the GNSO Calendar for upcoming meetings: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/

Thank You!Questions/Comments

Welcomepolicy-staff@icann.org

Washington DC6 February 2009