Page History

Attended day long NCUC session at the Royal York, Photographed session see pictures

Video produced on history of NCUC

The entire session was LIVESTREAMED

A Report on SSAC Meetings which I attended remotely is posted on the SSAC Liaison Page:

ICANN Meeting 45 Toronto October 2012 – SSAC Liaison Report.

Garth Bruen
(NARALO)

Yrjö Länispuro
(APRALO) 

The need for a ”Senior” 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 “Senior” GAC meeting 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.

15-Oct-2012

07:00

Annalisa Roger
(NARALO) 

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.

15-Oct-2012

11:00-12:30

15-Oct-2012

11:00-

12:30

15-Oct-2012

14:00-15:30

15-Oct-2012  

14:00-16:45

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.

15-Oct-2012

14:30-13:30

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.

15-Oct-2012

15:00-16:45

Fatimata Seye Sylla
(AFRALO)

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

15-Oct-2012

17:15-18:30

Ogi Mitev
(NARALO)

15-Oct-2012

19:00-21:00

Glenn McKnight
(NARALO) 

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.

16-Oct-2012

07:00-09:00

16-Oct-2012

09.45-11:15

16-Oct-2012

13:00-15:00

16-Oct-2012

14:00-15:30

16-Oct-2012

19:30-21:30

A representative of Business Constituency (an attorney) attended. He was there to listen. Tried not to say much, but did listen.

• topic of what compliance issues should be in this version of the RAA. Special attention paid to whis entries and how they should be verified – and, again, what should be in RAA.

• No reference made to SSAC055, but some to SSAC054. Seems that some people view this as a definitive paper.

• A general agreement to listen. No-one said much, though, except Evan and Garth.

• A much more interesting conversation in the halls during the two hours after, though, including the idea that WHOIS is not likely to be one store. Likely one set in the EU, following their rules, another, perhaps, for China

  • note that agreements for information exchange for law enforcement already exist.

• WHOIS has been going for 20 years and more. My opinion - time to re-visit along the lines of SSAC055

• THICK WHOIS

  • a PDP is in force. There should be someone on this from ALAC.

    • There was a remark that it “might” be bogged down or delayed – my question: by SSAC055?

R3 PAPER AND FUTURE CHALLENGES

• Question of how the R3 paper should go out to journalists, for example

• should the R3 paper be a cross-constituency WG

• while we're at it, should we re-organize constituency groups across ICANN

• the paper needs to be re-written

  • note, however, that this is not yet and ICANN document. Cross-constituency consensus is not there yet.

• The R3 paper was passed to my ALS (GTALug). One of the committees is taking an interest in it and some discussion is expected.

LEGACY IP SPACE

• this session was divided in two topics:

  • whether ICANN is the right place to be even talking about this (PERSONAL COMMMENTE – Oh, COME ON!)

  • What do we want to talk about, anyway.

• Many questions. No attempt to organize a way to address the answers. Some venting.

• Many people seemed to go away satisfied. Did not include me.

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
participants. The challenges of African registrars and the implications for other
countries around the world were thought-provoking."
 

Our members also attended sessions on IPV6 issues, DNSSEC and, of course the Public Forum.   I'm waiting for the observations of those attendees.

15-Oct-2012

14:00-15:00

Avri reviewing status of new gTLD application process, comments, objections, problems, etc.

15-Oct-2012

14:00-15:30

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

15-Oct-2012  

14:00-16:45

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.

15-Oct-2012

14:30-13:30

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.

15-Oct-2012

15:00-16:45

Fatimata Seye Sylla
(AFRALO)

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

15-Oct-2012

17:15-18:30

Ogi Mitev
(NARALO)

15

16-Oct-2012

19:00-21:3000

See Report prepared by Jean-Jacques Subrenat

Glenn McKnight
(NARALO)

Early meeting with the BGC in the morning and Public meeting on NOMCOM

Afternoon ALAC meetings

no update of RG Statements of Interest (SOIs)
Seth Reiss expressed his opinion regarding the comments by InternetNZ and IT for Change, India
support for proposal to extend deadline for comments from At-Large from November 7 2012 to November 14 2012
 

17-Oct-2012

07:00-09:00

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.

16-Oct-2012

07

17-Oct-2012

08:00-09:00

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):

• Marilyn Cade (Business community) remarked a view of "the global landscape" was necessary to determine future structures.
• Stéphane van Gelder (outgoing GNSO Chair) underlined the need for a balanced approach, especially with the expected formation of new applicant groups (brands, IDNs...); more time will be necessary to come up with the appropriate structures.
• Tony Holmes (ISP) suggested that in order to properly address the issue, it is necessary to have a clearer view of the threats.
• Alain Berranger (NPOC) observed that there is a need for a neutral forum where Internet governance issues can be thoroughly addressed: could this be ICANN's role?
• JJS (ALAC) made 2 points:
  
  • although it was distributed at this breakfast meeting as one of several responses to BdlC's initiative on the "Impact of new gTLDs on ICANN structures", the ALAC White Paper "Making ICANN Relevant, Responsive and Respected" (R3) was not drafted for this purpose. R3 was initiated much earlier than BdlC's topic, was therefore not a response to BdlC's request, and had a much broader purpose. BdlC acknowledged these points publicly.
  • More specifically on the impact of new gTLDs, the ALAC calls for a fair balance, both in structures and in process. Status and roles of ACs and SOs must be addressed globally, and ICANN should therefore avoid amending one or another of its components without a global view. ALAC also considers IDNs of special importance, including as a means of furthering diversity.
• Jeff Newman (incoming GNSO Chair): the expected increase in the number of gTLDs will create a need for much more operational impact on the part of ICANN, and not only on matters of governance or policy.
• Lyman Chapin (SSAC) suggested that new arrivals would provide new talent, and asked how this could be properly tapped?
• Milton Mueller (NCUC) pointed out that this is really about political and economic power. The announced new arrivals would be a new disruptive force, requiring a new balance. In creating new structures, it will be important to decouple the structures from the power game.
• Olof Nordling (Staff) suggested that, in a complex configuration with new actors, resilience would be of the essence.
• Ray Plzak (Board), in summing up, remarked that, in ICANN, issues usually followed the dividing lines of constituencies. There will be a strong impact on structures and methods. The approach taken by the SIC is deliberate, not driven by a sense of urgency, and aims at achieving a consensus. It fits into ICANN's Strategic planning.
• Bertrand de la Chapelle (Board) made the following points, specifically in response to questions from JJS on the way forward:
  
  • before ICANN-46 in Beijing, the community-wide consultation will continue, with the idea of arriving at a consensus position;
  • if this is anything to go by, here is a list of key words noted during this meeting: balance, evolution (rate of -), taxonomy, resilience, time (we have -), consensus, structure AND process AND mindset, systemic, IDNs, users, compliance, operational.

17-Oct-2012

11:00-13:00

17-Oct-2012

13:30-14:45

16-Oct-2012

09.45-11:15

16-Oct-2012

13:00-15:00

16-Oct-2012

19:30-21:30

16-Oct-2012

19:00-21:30

See Report prepared by Jean-Jacques Subrenat

Glenn McKnight
(NARALO)

Early meeting with the BGC in the morning and Public meeting on NOMCOM

Afternoon ALAC meetings

no update of RG Statements of Interest (SOIs)
Seth Reiss expressed his opinion regarding the comments by InternetNZ and IT for Change, India
support for proposal to extend deadline for comments from At-Large from November 7 2012 to November 14 2012
 

17-Oct-2012

07:00-09:00

17-Oct-2012

08:00-09:00

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):

• Marilyn Cade (Business community) remarked a view of "the global landscape" was necessary to determine future structures.
• Stéphane van Gelder (outgoing GNSO Chair) underlined the need for a balanced approach, especially with the expected formation of new applicant groups (brands, IDNs...); more time will be necessary to come up with the appropriate structures.
• Tony Holmes (ISP) suggested that in order to properly address the issue, it is necessary to have a clearer view of the threats.
• Alain Berranger (NPOC) observed that there is a need for a neutral forum where Internet governance issues can be thoroughly addressed: could this be ICANN's role?
• JJS (ALAC) made 2 points:
  
  • although it was distributed at this breakfast meeting as one of several responses to BdlC's initiative on the "Impact of new gTLDs on ICANN structures", the ALAC White Paper "Making ICANN Relevant, Responsive and Respected" (R3) was not drafted for this purpose. R3 was initiated much earlier than BdlC's topic, was therefore not a response to BdlC's request, and had a much broader purpose. BdlC acknowledged these points publicly.
  • More specifically on the impact of new gTLDs, the ALAC calls for a fair balance, both in structures and in process. Status and roles of ACs and SOs must be addressed globally, and ICANN should therefore avoid amending one or another of its components without a global view. ALAC also considers IDNs of special importance, including as a means of furthering diversity.
• Jeff Newman (incoming GNSO Chair): the expected increase in the number of gTLDs will create a need for much more operational impact on the part of ICANN, and not only on matters of governance or policy.
• Lyman Chapin (SSAC) suggested that new arrivals would provide new talent, and asked how this could be properly tapped?
• Milton Mueller (NCUC) pointed out that this is really about political and economic power. The announced new arrivals would be a new disruptive force, requiring a new balance. In creating new structures, it will be important to decouple the structures from the power game.
• Olof Nordling (Staff) suggested that, in a complex configuration with new actors, resilience would be of the essence.
• Ray Plzak (Board), in summing up, remarked that, in ICANN, issues usually followed the dividing lines of constituencies. There will be a strong impact on structures and methods. The approach taken by the SIC is deliberate, not driven by a sense of urgency, and aims at achieving a consensus. It fits into ICANN's Strategic planning.
• Bertrand de la Chapelle (Board) made the following points, specifically in response to questions from JJS on the way forward:
  
  • before ICANN-46 in Beijing, the community-wide consultation will continue, with the idea of arriving at a consensus position;
  • if this is anything to go by, here is a list of key words noted during this meeting: balance, evolution (rate of -), taxonomy, resilience, time (we have -), consensus, structure AND process AND mindset, systemic, IDNs, users, compliance, operational.

17-Oct-2012

11:00-13:00

Whois Update

Murray Kucherawy, Co-Chair IETF WEIRDS Working Group (Website Extensible Internet Registrant Data Service)

17-Oct-2012

11:00-12:30

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 willingness and ability of relay/reveal request originators, privacy/proxy providers and registrars to participate in a full study
• Assess the availability of data and conditions under which it would be shared
• Sample regional limitations

The outcomes were:

• Tangible results may not align with the study goals
• Participation would drop if the study is perceived as identifying ‘bad actors’ – noting that it may highlight that the practices of most participants weregood
• Participation might improve with adequate confidentiality and privacy guarantees
• Most actors would only be able to provide anonymised data

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:

• No uniform data model exists for domain name registration data
• The Whois protocol has no standard capacity for handling non ASCII text
• Are looking for a replacement protocol

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

• Whois Policy Review Team – Final Report
• SSAC 055 – commenting on the Final Report
• ALAC statement on the Final Report
• Thick Whois PDDP – being chartered by the GNSO
• Whois Technical Survey

17-Oct-2012

13:30-14:45

17-Oct-2012

15:00-17:00

17-Oct-2012

15:30-16:45

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.

17-Oct-2012

15:00-17:00

17-Oct-2012

19:00-20:00

Yaovi Atohoun
(AFRALO)

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:

• Hold the first meeting of the year in two cities in Asia Pacific.
• Hold the second meeting of the year in two cities in Europe.
• Rotate the third meeting of the year through North America (2014), Africa (2015) and Latin America/Caribbean (2016). These will be the Annual General Meetings for each year."

The Powerpoint Presentation during the session is more clear

• Hold the first Meeting of the year for 2014, 2015 and 2016 in Asia Pacific
• Hold the second Meeting of the year for 2014, 2015 and 2016 in Europe
• Rotate the third Meeting of the year through: North America - 2014        Africa - 2015                   Latin America/Caribbean - 2016

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

First meeting for 2013 NOMCOM

Discussion recommendations for improvement of NOMCOM

18-Oct-2012

07:00-08:00

18-Oct-2012

08:00-09:00

18-Oct-2012

09:00-10:30

18-Oct-2012

10:30-11:30