If you have logged-in and are unable to edit this page, please email firstname.lastname@example.org to ask for authorisation
|Meeting||Date and Time||Assignee and RALO||Report|
|NCUC Conference||12-Oct-2012||Glenn McKnight|
Attended day long NCUC session at the Royal York, Photographed session see pictures
Video produced on history of NCUC
The entire session was LIVESTREAMED
|SSAC Meetings||14-19-Oct-2012||Julie Hammer|
A Report on SSAC Meetings which I attended remotely is posted on the SSAC Liaison Page:
|GAC High Level Meeting||15-Oct-2012||Marta Morgan|
Associate Deputy Minister, Industry Canada
|Future Challenges WG||15-Oct-2012|
|JJ and Evan on the R3 White paper, updates of acceptance...|
|GAC High Level Meeting||15-Oct-2012|
The need for a GAC High Level Meeting has been discussed back and forth since many years. The idea was resurrected in the ATRT recommendations that directed the Board to work with GAC to establish a process to determine when and how ICANN engages senior government officials on public policy issues on a regular and collective basis to complement existing GAC process.
The idea to have a GAC High Level Meeting in Prague (June 2012) didn’t work out, and it finally happened inToronto, Monday 15, 2012.
The lead time for the meeting as rather short, so the the meeting was less “senior” that some had hoped for. You don’t move ministers at a few weeks notice. In Toronto, many participants of the “senior” meeting were actually the same GAC representatives as in any other meeting, but in some cases there were representatives a notch or two higher than usual.
In spite of this, the first attempt to have a “senior” GAC in connection with an ICANN meeting can be deemed at least a moderate success. Timing was exactly right.
Participants were in a positive mood after the upbeat performance of Fadi Chehadé, the new ICANN CEO in the morning. At the very least, a “senior” GAC didn’t do any harm, and it can be argued that it did some good.
Every speaker endorsed the multistakeholder approach, many of course with the qualification that the role of the governments needs to be strengthened (which Chehadé himself had demanded). Many speakers presented their domestic multistakeholder Internet Governance models. Brazil suggested that various MSH models from various cultures and environments should be studied and compared.
The implementation of most of the 27 ATRT recommendations was positively assessed. There was discussion on what issues should be taken up for evaluation in the second ATRT review. Issues most often mentioned early opportunities for GAC interventins in PDP’s on SO level and ICANN finances – not only revenue from new gTLDs but finances of the whole organization.
Internationalization/globalization was another big theme of the discussion, reflecting what Mr Chehadé had said in his speech in the morning. China and Russia came with relatively constructive contributions. China had its own list for the topics of the next ATRT (Enhancing government role in ICANN,governance issues, IANA, new gTLDs. Russia sugested making the ”senior” GAC a regularly repeatec feature for strategic issues, since GAG is now bogged down in operational matters.
On the whole, the meeting played its role in engaging (Chehadés favorite verb) governments on a slightly higher level than usual, which perhaps can lead to a better coordination within governmental structures.
role in ICANN, governance issues, IANA and review of new gTLD experience.
|Women in the DNS Meeting|
The Women in the DNS met alongside ICANN North American meetings in Toronto. A breakfast room filled by 7 a.m. Monday morning, October 15, just prior to ICANN's opening meeting with enthusiasm to support each other, to network, and to reach out to local business women. Founder Karla Valente and the original advisory group met later in the week to further develop the mission and ability to serve its growing membership, which will include a website. The group was founded at the March 2009 meeting in Mexico and has met every ICANN meeting since then, growing in number.
The Toronto breakfast was sponsored by Uninett, DotGreen, and Neustar. Local Canadian Joan Kerr, Director of FBSC.org in Canada, gave an inspiring address about her own experience developing programs that unite women to support their achievements and others. The event provides an opportunity to meet and connect early in the week, promoting further dialogue in other Law and Policy Forums during the ICANN assembly. The meeting is an integral and popular way for women, typically outnumbered in the industry, to make connections and deepen their interaction with the ICANN community.
The next meeting of the DNS will be Monday morning of ICANN in Beijing, China. For more information, visit LinkedIn (http://www.linkedin.com/groups/DNS-Women-3838635) and Facebook.com/DNSWomen.
|WHOIS Working Group|
|Garth Bruen (NARALO)||Carlton chairing continuous discussion of the analysis of WHOIS policy, problems, abuses. Much of the conversation concerned compliance, recommendations in discussion. Much of this is "what next", we know where the issues are, what do we do to move forward with effective solutions.|
|WHOIS Working Group|
A representative of Business Constituency (an attorney) attended. He was there to listen. Tried not to say much, but did listen.
R3 PAPER AND FUTURE CHALLENGES
LEGACY IP SPACE
Other sessions attended by other GTALug delegates included the "newbies" session. from which the following observation:
"The newbie stream was informative. Especially the questions from the
Our members also attended sessions on IPV6 issues, DNSSEC and, of course the Public Forum. I'm waiting for the observations of those attendees.
|At-Large new gTLD WG|
|Garth Bruen (NARALO)|
Avri reviewing status of new gTLD application process, comments, objections, problems, etc.
|At-Large New gTLD Working Group Meeting|
|Glenn McKNight (NARALO)|
Intensive session dealing with moving forward issues and protocols. Issue brought up that the monthly meeting schedule. As an outsider on this process it is a bit daunting to keep informed. Need to catch up the reading.
Monday night celebration See video
|At-Large Future Challenges Working Group Public Workshop|
The public presentation of the paper MAKING ICANN Relevant, Responsive an Respected.
Invitation to have public feedback on document The point about creating a special funding window and I would be happy to volunteer with a working group on this issue.
|Study Group on the Use of Names for Countries and Territories|
|Eduardo Diaz (ALAC/NARALO)|
The meeting was mostly informative since the working group is waiting for the results of an UNESCO survey sent to a sub-set of their membership. The survey will provide important information to the working group that will help in understanding/validating some of the names that these countries are generally known by. An example of this is Holland (tourist name) which in reality is Netherlands.
The Study Group's goal is to provide the ccNSO Council, ccTLD community and other interested stakeholders, including the GAC and GNSO Council, an overview of the scope and issues associated with the use of Country and Territory names as TLD strings.
Please CLICK here to get a copy of the meeting transcript.
|The ICANN African Strategy Working Group meeting (ASWG)|
Fatimata Seye Sylla
The ASWG, a multistakeholder group including African representatives of all the ICANN constituencies, initiated during the Prague meeting, worked hard to draft an ICANN 3-year strategic plan for Africa. The group presented the work done in consultation with the African community.
All the attendees appreciated this draft strategy and more importantly the fact that, once finalized, it is to be included into ICANN strategic plan as a whole. Inputs from the community are still welcome. The final draft is expected by December 2012 and an implementation plan by the Beijing meeting.
Note: Tijani is a member of the ASWG, representing At-Large
|DNSSEC for Everybody - A Beginner's Guide|
|Great session. Learned the basics of how DNSSEC works and some of the implementation challenges|
|NARALO Outreach Event: An Evening with At-Large: Honoring the RALOs|
|Great presentations. Had the opportunity to meet with Naralo members.|
|ALAC: Policy Discussion - Part I||16-Oct-2012||Garth Bruen (NARALO)||See: At-Large Meetings - Tuesday, 16 October 2012|
|NARALO Outreach Table||16-Oct-2012|
|Outreach table for new ALS, running out of brochures.|
|ALAC Meeting with the ICANN Board||16-Oct-2012||Garth Bruen (NARALO)||Multi-topic, top-level discussion with the Board|
|Various NOMCOM short presentations||16-Oct-2012||Glenn McKnight|
NCUC, Registrars, ALAC, Non Profit User Group,
Short summary roadshow on the NOMCOM year and introduction to the new Chair and Chair Elect which are both ALAC.
|NARALO Capacity Building Session 2||16-Oct-2012||Garth Bruen (NARALO)||See At-Large Meetings - Tuesday, 16 October 2012|
|Fellowship Morning Meetings|
|Learned about the ICANN structure|
|Commercial Stakeholder Group (CSG)|
|Talked about new gTLDs|
|Meet with Veni Markovski|
|Talked about the structure of ICANN and how I can help|
|Met with event participants|
|ISOC Member & Chapter Meeting|
|Meeting with ISOC leadership and chapter members, talked about the strategy for the next 12 months how to improve|
|Impact of new gTLDs on ICANN structures" (Board SIC + AC & SO Chairs)||17-Oct-2012||Jean-Jacques Subrenat|
See Report prepared by Jean-Jacques Subrenat
|NOMCOM Public Meeting||17-Oct-2012|
Early meeting with the BGC in the morning and Public meeting on NOMCOM
Afternoon ALAC meetings
|At-Large new gTLD Review Group Meeting||17-Oct-2012||Dev Anand Teelucksingh|
no update of RG Statements of Interest (SOIs)
|Naralo Capacity Building Session 3|
|Got to meet the Naralo team|
|ALAC reporting: "Impact of new gTLDs on ICANN structures" (Board SIC + AC & SO Chairs)|
|Jean-Jacques Subrenat|| |
A breakfast meeting, called by Board members Bertrand de la Chapelle (BdlC) and Ray Plzak (RP), was attended by AC and SO Chairs or their representatives (Chair of ALAC was represented by JJS). The CEO spoke at the beginning of the meeting. BdlC suggested the discussion be centered on 2 questions: how should the discussion on "impact of new gTLDs on ICANN structures" be conducted in the coming months, and how should this be articulated with ICANN's review process?
Here are just a few of the points made (this does not purport to be a full verbatim report):
|Discussions around DNSSEC implementation challenges|
Murray Kucherawy, Co-Chair IETF WEIRDS Working Group (Website Extensible Internet Registrant Data Service)
RFC 3912 (Whois Protocol Specification) has never been internationalised, and Whois has no data framework, no standard for expressing dates, phone numbers, etc. It is now difficult to give particular clients (e.g., LEA, security) privileged access.
WEIRDS – the protocol being developed, will standardise a data framework, be a simple, easy to use protocol supporting internationalised registration data, based on client authorisation.
RESTFUL (Representational State Transfer) – existing protocol, uses HTTP, is stateless, layered and cacheable. Some RIRs now receive more queries on Whois to RESTFUL than to Port 43 Whois.
The Working Group is scheduled to complete its work by December 2013.
Report on Whois Survey Results – GNSO Council Study
The study, authorised by the GNSO Council, was to look at the feasibility of a Whois study, looked at
The outcomes were:
Steve Sherry SSAC – on the SSAC 055 Response to the Whois Policy Review Team Final Report
Reviewed the SSAC response to the Whois Final Report – looking at the technical issues, including:
University of Chicago – NORC
Whois Registrant Identification Study
The project looked at Whois variables, domain user variables and domain content variables. The draft analysis was presented, looking at domain user type differences, registrant differences and potential commercial activities. The intent of the study was to understand domain users and registrants – who uses Whois – natural or legal persons, who are the registrants – privacy/proxy, natural persons or legal persons and potential commercial activities involved. The slides on the ICANN website show the range of findings including, for apparent registrant type, 38.6% were legal persons, 32.8% were natural persons and 20% used privacy/proxy servers.
The statistics are on the ICANN website for the Toronto meeting. The issues for ALAC here are what can be shown (or not) about the users who appear to be privacy/proxy servers, and what we can know about them
Briefing on other ICAN Whois Activity
|Great talk on IPv6, mostly the current state in Canada|
|Multi-Stakeholder Discussion: Legacy Internet Protocol (IP) Numbers in the Current Policy Environment|
|Great talk about the legacy IPv4 space. Participated in the panel.|
|Contractual Compliance – Audit Strategy|
Timetable for the compliance strategy:
Began in 2011 – with assessment and the beginning of implementation. In 2012, built up staffing, including outsourcing for audit skills, and development of an audit plan (where we are now). (While the audit function will be undertaken by the outsourced company, it is being managed within ICANN.)
In the compliance pyramid, at the bottom is self assessment, on top of that preventive activities (including monitoring, audits, education and outreach - where we are now), followed by informal resolution and on top, formal resolution.
The aim of the audit is to proactively identify deficiencies and manage the remediation process.
The three year audit plan will have a consistent approach over three years, where all contracted parties (registries and registrars) will be audited, based on IANA numbers. The presentation included a list of clauses in the RAA on which compliance will be audited (including clauses on resellers, contact information and clause 3.7.8) plus clauses in the ICANN/Registry agreement.
The audit will be done over a three year period, with a random sample of one third of the registries/registrars the first year, a second third the next year and the final third in the last year. New gTLDs will be rolled into the audit plan.
In questions, when asked what happened to self assessment the response was that self assessment doesn’t validate the accuracy of the response and audits are needed for public confidence in compliance AND the results of audits will be published – to ensure public confidence in the audit process.. On privacy concerns, ICANN will go back to the registry/registrar first – but the outcomes will be published.
On auditing registrars with multiple contracts, it will be enough to show compliance by demonstrating operations once that are consistent across the whole customer base.
Depending on findings, registries/registrars may be audited more than once, as necessary.
The Audit Plan will be published soon, and comments welcome. (NB – are using the 2009 RAA clauses, but will also look at the 2001 as well.
|Met with event participants|
This meeting was organized by the Public Participation Committee to inform the community about the Consolidated meetings strategy proposal. It was also intended to hear from the community
The Board Member Sebastian Bachollet opened the session leaded by Filiz Yilmaz. During the questions/answers period I pointed that the document indicated on the public comment page is not clear to me regarding a paragraph:
"Consolidated Meetings Proposal for 2014, 2015 and 2016:
The Powerpoint Presentation during the session is more clear
Most of the participants who had the opportunity to speak after the presentation seem not to be in favour. The comment period will close on Novermber 16, 2012
|NOMCOM Private Meeting||18-Oct-2012||Glenn McKnight|
First meeting for 2013 NOMCOM
Discussion recommendations for improvement of NOMCOM
|Naralo Capacity Building Session 4|
|Fellowship Morning Meetings|
|Met with Lesley Cowley|
|IANA Business Excellence Workshop|
|IANA asking for feedback on how to do better|
|ICANN Strategic Plan Community Update|
|Presented the strategy map and metrics|