This page is for you to publish your meeting reports from non-At-Large sessions for Wednesday, 28 October 2009. Please log in with your email address and password ad use the "edit" button to add your report.

Reports from other days:

Monday, 26 October 2009 Tuesday, 27 October 2009 Thursday, 29 October 2009*

GNSO Council Open Meeting

Time: 0800 - 1230
Location: Crystal A (L2)
Author: Alan

Please add your report here

ICANN Strategic Planning Consultation

Time: 0900 - 1030
Location: Crystal B (L2)
Author: Adam, Gareth, Dave, Carlos

The new CEO seems determined to avoid charges of insularity in the planning process. He gave a clear outline of what the corporate thinking is, the context of the process - AOC being top of mind - and how he would wish the community to engage. They were well-prepared to accept feedback on the fly.Carlton
ICANN's focus: Preserve DNS Stability & Security;Promote Competition,Trust..;Excel in IANA Operations; Maintain longterm role in Internet Eco-system.
ICANN's Strategic Projects: DNSSEC, Monitor Root Scaling, DNS CERT, IDNs, New TLD, IPv4/IPV6, internalize -governance structure & operationss, policy
Majority votes on removing the "Bridging the Digital Divide" from the list of strategic priorities for 2010-2013 Strategic Plan.
ICANN's strategic priorities in a simple online survey:

Please add your report here

Workshop: DNSSEC

Time: 0900 - 1230
Location: Sapphire 4 (L3)
Author: Patrick, Darlene, Hawa

Please add your report here

ccNSO Members Meeting

Time: 0900 - 1530
Location: Emerald (L2)
Author: Adam

Please add your report here

Review of the Nominating Committee: presentation of the WG report

Time: 1100 - 1230
Location: Garnet (L37)
Author: Wolf, Sébastien, Evan, Dave

4 Main recommendations (out of 19) to be discussed:Criteria for Outreach and Selection

  • Recruiting should be separate from the selection
  • Candidate requirements – board identifies and communicates needed skills
  • Are they accessing an adequate candidate pool? Gender balance does not happen so what else are they missing? (There are no female NomCom Directors to the Board.)
  • Comments: Perhaps it’s such an onerous process that we are setting up barriers for getting a wider pool of candidates. However, although diversity is important, quality must be the overriding concern.

Chairman Succession

  • How is the Chairman brought into the Nominating Committee?
  • Currently, there is a chair, an associate chair (who is selected by the chair to do the heavy lifting) and an advisor (out-going past chair). They are suggesting that it be flipped so that the incoming chair works as a kind “vice-chair” for the first year so as to learn the job and then in the second year becomes chair. The job of associate chair wouldn’t change. The change is suggested because sometimes you get people that have no experience chairing a nominating committee and need to be brought up to speed.
  • Questions: Since the chair is then a two year position, what happens if the incoming chair spends the first year learning and then leaves the position? There needs to be a backup position. Also, what happens if the “experienced” chair leaves mid-term?

Committee Debrief

  • Not discussed

Committee Composition

  • Drivers for change:
    • Review
    • GNSO Reform
    • At Large Director
  • The current nominating committee has the following balance of voting positions: 7 from GNSO, 5 from ALAC, and 1 each from ccNSO, ASO, Academic Society, IETF and TLG. Non-voting contingents are the Chair, Past Chair, RSSAC, SSAC, GAC and Assistant Chair. Two other balances were suggested.
  • The question is that of size and balance. Should the committee be smaller or larger? Some thought that room needs to be kept for the wide diversity of stakeholder groups. Some thought “if it isn’t broken, don’t fix it.” There doesn’t seem to be much of a concrete reason to change it. It was suggested to see how things play out before making any changes. Several people from At-Large spoke up to defend our 5 spaces on the NomCom. We need the regional diversity.

A question came up about recall of the NomCom members that are selected for ALAC. Is there any mechanism in place? It doesn’t sound like any criteria have been set in this regard and this needs to be looked into.
Report made by Darlene Thompson
Majority of members in favor of keeping the NomCom size as it is currently.
Report for Public Comment until 22 November 2009 -

PLEASE feel free to make any updates you would like! |

Tutorial on New 2009 Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA)

Time: 1100 - 1230
Location: Crystal B (L2)
Author: Beau

Please add your report here

Board review: presentation of the draft final report of the review WG

Time: 1230 - 1400
Location: Sapphire 4 (L3)
Author: Adam, Sébastien, Hawa, José

Please add your report here

Trademark Protection and new gTLDs

Time: 1230 - 1400
Location: Crystal A (L2)
Author: Patrick, Evan, James, Olivier, Carlton, Carlos, José, Dave

Kathy kleiman mentioned that the trademark validation for clearinghouse should be regional, since Trademark laws are local.The clearinghouse is simply a database of information.It's not intended to extend a common law U.S right into another country
Please add your report here

Root Scaling Study Results

Time: 1330 - 1500
Location: Crystal A (L2)
Author: Gareth, James, Hawa

Root Scaling
The root scaling study looked at the potential impact of the various changes that are being contemplated.
More studies need to be done, however, as there is not enough data available.
Each introduction would cause a "step change" impact on the root. No one contemplated change is projected to cause significant problems. Trying to introduce them all at once, however, is seen to be problematic. The changes need to be co-ordinated.

The extent of the load placed on the system needs to be monitored carefully. If very large numbers of IDN TLDs are introduced within short time periods this could also cause problems. If the amount of data to be transferred to the root servers daily gets too large some of the servers with lower speed connections may not be able to keep up.

Gareth |

Registration Abuse Policies Working Group

Time: 1400 - 1530
Location: Sapphire 4 (L3)
Author: Beau, José, Andrés, Wolf, Vivek

Rudi : I attended the meeting a bit later, with Beau and Vivec. There was low attendance. As I perceived the discussion I would say there are a lot of talks and less of actions. The abuse aspects are wellknown, however they delay the report and as a result of that block somehow the fact of moving forward in helping to clean up the domain name space from abuse.vivek:
The working group presented the issues of spam/phishing and malware. The salient features of the meeting are:

  1. The group observed that domain names are used for spam/phishing and malware practices and setting up this campaign can be identified during registrations.
  2. It was observed that one cannot speculate the intent at the time of registration and policing the same is not possible 100%
  3. It was also pointed out that in Sweden and UK there is requirement for certain categories of registration such as banks to give some kind of proof of the company activities when people try to register to understand the intent.
  4. However there were observations that some amount of caution can be exercised and this needs education to registrars but to be cautious as it could turn out loosing customers
  5. The group said it will be ready with a report on this by the Nairobi meeting. Further issues of finding whether correlation between these activities as well as proxy registrations were discussed. |

SSAC review: presentation of the draft report of the review Working Group

Time: 1400 - 1530
Location: Garnet (L37)
Author: Sébastien

Please add your report here

Board Committee on Public Participation

Time: 1430 - 1600
Location: Crystal B (L2)
Author: Alan, Sébastien, Cheryl, Dave

Reviews under Affirmation of Commitments:Accountability & Transparency
Security,Stability & Resiliency
3 C's - Competition,Consumer Trust, Consumer Choice

Please add your report here |

Internationalising Registration Information (Whois data)

Time: 1500 - 1630
Location: Crystal A (L2)
Author: James

Please add your report here

ccNSO Council Meeting

Time: 1600 - 1700
Location: Emerald (L2)
Author: Rudi

First short report from the council meeting : the proposed project at ALAC which was forwarded by my colleague in ccNSO Ron Sherwood seems to be well received by the ccNso members. No question were asked which may reflect the fact they well understood the background of this proposal. Ron told me he had some talks with a few members and they seamlessly are pleased with the ALAC helping to outreach and undertake some survey on the collaboration among ALS and ccTLDs.No special comments on the meeting itself, went smoot and quickly and well in time as scheduled.

Board (SIC) Forum on GNSO Improvements/Restructuring

Time: 1600 - 1730
Location: Crystal B (L2)
Author: Gareth

There was quite an interesting question to the panel from Jean-Jacques; he asked them to imagine the near future; 5-10 years was his definition. I think he was probing to see if they had a sense of how AOC might turn out. One respondent imagined the future by looking back and opined that the so many changes over the past decade will only accelerate and be more multifaceted in the next decade. Another see internationalization taking root and increased civility resulting. This gentleman - Jean-Jacques - is really smooth.....clearly a deep thinker with panoramic headspace.Carlton Samuels
Please write your report here

ICANN Whois Data Accuracy Study

Time: 1600 - 1730
Location: Sapphire 4 (L3)
Author: Olivier, Dave

Many domains used solely for emails, thus having only MX records; assumption that domain with no A record is inactive is badStudy based on odd assumptions
Please add your report here

  • No labels