This page is for you to publish your reports of the meetings you attended during the third day of the ICANN Sydney meeting. Please log in with your email address and password ad use the "edit" button to add your report.

Reports from other days:

Sunday, 21 June

Monday, 22 June

Tuesday, 23 June

Thursday, 25 June

Friday, 26 June

GNSO Council Open Meeting

Time: 08:00 - 12:30
Location: Ballroom A (L3)
At-Large Delegates: Alan, Andres, CLO, Hawa, Dessi, Olivier
Author: Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond

Mary Wong, who participated on the IRT, reminded everyone at the beginning of the meeting that she was acting in this position as an individual, and not as an NCUC member. This was confirmed by Kristina Rosette.Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery
After a short description of the proposed charter, Alan Greenberg (ALAC) asked for wide participation in the working group. The vote taking place was solely on the Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery Charter.
The charter was voted unanimously (pending absentee vote from Jordi Iparraguire).
Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part B
Staff update on issues report Background: The IRTP is a consensus policy that was adopted in 2004 to provide a clear and transparent way on how registrants can transfer their domain names between registrars.
"Are there more areas that needed further work?"
Issue 1: should there be an expedited handling of fraud? The issue was also further discussed in SSAC hijacking report which suggested that such a process should be developed & complement the transfer dispute resolution procedure (TDRP).
Issue 2: should there be additional provisions for undoing inappropriate transfers?
Issue 3: should there be special provisions for change of registrant near a change of registrar?
Issue 4: would registrants benefit from greater standardization?
Issue 5: clarification of the "reason for Denial Number 7" required or not?
Should issue 4 & 5, both about registrar lock status, be grouped together?
Comments from the floor: it has taken a long time (between 7 to 10 years, depending on participants) to reach this point. But this document needs to be written in such a way that it remains usable.
Motion voted in favour unanimously (pending absentee vote from Jordi Iparraguire).
Resolved, the GNSO Council approves the charter and appoints Tim Ruiz, confirmed as the GNSO Council liaison, to the IRTP policy development process Part B working group. Work to start within 14 days after the approval of the motion.
Comments from the floor: the work supported there could have been included in IRTP-A. Also asked, was a clear listing of the material that the working group will be reviewing.
IDN Update - Edmon Chung http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/idng-wg-charter-draft-23jun09.pdfEdmon Chung reported that there was concern among the IDN community that the IDN gTLD & IDN ccTLD should both be introduced at the same time. The concern is that introducing them at different times might introduce problems, possibly promoting the one first introduced, to the detriment of the other. Clearly, the two are linked since they potentially serve a similar purpose.
end of reporting due to participation at the ALAC session
[ from transcripts, no vote was expected on this motion ]

Organisational Reviews - Coordination

Time: 09:00 - 10:30
Location: Function 2 (L2)
At-Large Delegates: Seb, Adam
Author: Sébastien Bachollet

FrançaisLa coordination des revues des différentes SO et AC est à la fois importante et complexe.
La présentation se trouve au lien suivant :http://syd.icann.org/node/4158Je vous encourage à la consulter. La page 6 sur les interrelations entre les revues est indispensable.
Mais il nous faut noter que la question principale est (voir à partir de la page 8) autour de la possible élection de membres du Conseil d’Administration de l’ICANN par At-Large/ALAC et les conséquences sur la taille du CA et de la composition du Comité de nomination.
Une des suites de cette réunion est l’organisation d’un BOF sur les questions de l’évolution des By-Law de l’ICANN.
Espanol
La coordinación de las diversas revistas de SO y AC es a la vez importante y complejo.
La presentación está disponible en:http://syd.icann.org/node/4158Le animo a consultar. Página 6 sobre las relaciones entre las revistas es esencial.
Sin embargo, debemos señalar que la cuestión principal (ver en la página 8) en torno a la posible elección de los miembros de la Junta de la ICANN por At-Large/ALAC y las consecuencias sobre el tamaño de la Junta y la composición del Comité de Nominación.
Uno de los resultados de esta reunión es la organización de un BOF sobre las cuestiones de la evolución de los By-Law de la ICANN.
English
The coordination of the various reviews of SO and AC is both important and complex.
The presentation is available at:http://syd.icann.org/node/4158I encourage you to consult it. Page 6 on the interrelationships between the journals is essential.
But we must note that the main question is (see on page 8) around the possible election of members of the Board of ICANN by At-Large/ALAC and consequences on the size of Board and the composition of the Nomination Committee.
One result of this meeting is organizing a BOF on the questions of the evolution of By-Law of ICANN.
Seb

Workshop: Update Regarding ICANN's WHOIS data accuracy study

Time: 09:00 - 10:30
Location: Function 3 (L2)
At-Large Delegates: Beau, Wendy
Author:

Please write your report here

Board Committee on Public Participation

Time: 09:00 - 10:30
Location: Function 1-2 (L4)
Author: Gareth Shearman

Board Committee on Public Participation2010 meetings - Nairobi, Europe, Latin America
Calendar planning - a challenge with all the regional and national holidays.
This will all be published.
Document deadlines and translation issues
simple national language documents are required
meeting frequency and locations agendas earlier.
inaccessible documents (too many acronyms)
barriers for consumer groups
North America meeting? first meeting in 2011
How many meetings per year is a question
passport issues
Public Comments process - positive and negative needed.
How do remote participation people get to participate?
electronic tools -
what improvements are needed?
remote meeting centres?
bandwidth limitations
Can we really handle 3 meetings a year?
(Gareth Shearman)

Workshop DNSSEC

Time: 09:00 - 12:30
Location: Function 1-2 (L4)
At-Large Delegates: Didier, Alan, Patrick
Author: Patrick Vande Walle

The meeting agenda and presentations are at http://syd.icann.org/node/3791Several ccTLDs shared their experience on their DNSSEC testbeds. A major concern that was raised was the relationship between the registrant, registrar and registry in the DNSSEC context. Currently, the registrant does not communicate directly with the registry. However, to insert DNSSEC keys in the zone file, it may be necessary to have a direct link between the domain signer ( the registrant) and the upstream key provider (registry). How this needs to happens in practical terms is not yet clear. What is the role of the registrar, especially if the latter does not provide DNS services to the registrant ?

Overall, the issue of skill building WRT DNSSEC was widely echoed. Neither registrants or registrars have a good knowledge of DNSSEC right now. The possibility that something goes wrong is real, with the result that the domain signatures may be invalid. Hence, extra check should be put in place. On the short term, education efforts are needed.

Workshop: ALAC Review

Time: 11:00 - 12:30
Location: Function 1-2 (L4) | Action Items: ENGLISH, FRANCAIS, ESPANOL |

Workshop: Improving Institutional Confidence

Time: 13:00 - 14:30
Location: Ballroom A (L3)
At-Large Delegates: Adam, Seb, CLO
Author:

Please write your report here

New gTLD Program - IRT and malicious behavior

Time: 13:00 - 18:00
Location: Function 1-2 (L4)
At-Large Delegates: Dessi, Patrick, Andres, CLO
Author: Patrick Vande Walle

I made the following comment during the meeting:
.pre
>>PATRICK VANDE WALLE: Thank you. I'm Patrick Vande Walle from ALAC,
speaking in a personal capacity right now. Just wanted to ask a few
questions regarding the URS, and especially its implementation.
Because you mentioned that suspended domain will be redirected to a
standard Web page hosted by the third-party provider. That's fine for
the Web. But I'd like to remind you that there are 65,534 other ports
allowed by the TCP/IP protocol. So I'm wondering, are you going to
deal with this? Because – and especially, are you going to deal with
incoming e-mail for the suspended domain? Because it's a crucial
privacy issue, and because it could lead to interception of e-mail, et
cetera.

The other question is that –

>>JEFF NEUMAN: Can we take it one at a time, just so we remember it?

Sorry, because I'm pretty slow, I guess.

On that question, look, I think you're asking a technical question
when you got a response from an I.P. attorney. So when he said it's
taking it down or diverting Web site, I understand the question you're
asking. The real answer is that the name servers will be redirected to
the name servers of the service provider who will display that page.

So all of those applications will be shut down.

So when they say – We're kind of talking past each other. But when
they say the content comes down, what they mean in technical terms is
that the name servers will be redirected to the name servers of the
service provider. So all of those, however many thousand applications,
will be – will be shut down, including e-mail.

>>BRUCE TONKIN: So, technically, so I'll just jump on it if we're
going to play technical games, what we're talking about, you're
redelegating the name. Right. That other provider could actually
intercept e-mail if it's set up MX records and things. So you do need
some controls on where it gets redelegated to and what that other
party's allowed to do.

>>PATRICK VANDE WALLE: That was one of my points, indeed.

I noticed with some relief that you will be sending out the
notifications through certified mail with a 14-day period for response.
But I would like to remind you also that certified mail takes time to
be delivered, and especially my personal experience is that certified
mail between the U.S. and Europe usually already takes five business
days to be delivered.

So either you use FedEx or a similar system if you want to be sure
that the notice gets on time, or – because you cannot just trust e-
mail. Currently, we – 97% of the e-mail we receive is spam,
especially if you're going to send out a notification in English to a
part of the world where English is not the main language, be sure that
it will be immediately directed to the spam folder, and you will get no
reply.

Furthermore, 14 days, while – I can figure out that someone who is
doing a business can be expected to read his e-mail on a daily basis
and be able to act on the e-mail when it is delivered.

But if you send me an e-mail notification mid-August and I'm on
vacation, sorry, but my domain name will be suspended but me even
knowing it.

So especially for these individual domain name registrants, there
should be a possibility to extend this delay. Because 14 days is just
unworkable.

Thank you.
.pre |

ICANN Security, Stability & Resiliency Plan Consultation

Time: 14:00 - 15:30
Location: Function 2 (L2)
At-Large Delegates: Hawa, Didier, Beau, Olivier
Author:

Please write your report here

Workshop: Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery

Time: 14:00 - 16:00
Location: Function 5-6 (L2)
At-Large Delegates: Gareth, Alan, Vivek
Author:

Expired domain name problems - expired e-mail addresses etc.Some can be bought back
There is now a marketplace
Here is the report:
tinyurl.com/post-exp
2004 ICANN attempt to regularise - the field is constantly shifitng.
The implemented procedures are now more or less irrelevant.
It is now a policy development proposal.
We are looking for 2 things - if a domain name expires there should be a mechanism to retrieve it in some reasonable fashion
What happens to e-mail?
We are talking about a relative modest number of days.
The RGP - Redemption Grace Period
The registrant must contact the registrar to retrieve it.
RGP is not a right - it is not consistent how this works
Registrars have been audited for compliance but not resellers.
What are the reseller obligations - the RAA will have something to say about this.
redemption grace period and pending delete phase the domain does not resolve
auto renew grace period - dramatic changes recently
Registrar grace period and redemption grace period
Typically transfers are no longer possible after expiry
"registrar silos"
secondary market is now the primary market
most registrars will keep a domain working.
The key question is who is the registrant at any given time.
contributed by guest@socialtext.net on 2009-06-25 21:27:01 GMT

Board Review: presentation final working group report

Time: 16:00 - 17:30
Location: Ballroom A (L3)
At-Large Delegates: Darlene, Adam, Seb
Author: Adam Peake

Presentation:http://syd.icann.org/files/meetings/sydney2009/presentation-board-review-gaetano-24jun09-en.pdfTranscripts: http://syd.icann.org/files/meetings/sydney2009/transcript-board-review-wg-24jun09-en.txt6 issues are considered finalized:

  • Fewer, longer Board meetings
  • Consolidate Board Committees
  • Broaden skills of the Board
  • High performance culture
  • Strengthen strategic focus
  • Clarify Board accountabilities

Please see the presentation for details. The
workshop focused on 3 open issues, summary
follows:
1. Should the size of the board be reduced?
The reviewers suggested the current board of 21
(15, plus 6 liaisons) was too large and most of
the working group members supported a reduction.
-Business constituency comments to the process
supported this view, mainly (I think) for the
sake of efficiency. There were probably more
comments during the meeting- Most comments made
during the meeting and in written submitted
comments strongly supported the status
quo: that current board has many tasks, many
committees and significant and often much
appreciated work in managing the review
processes. Also noted that Directors require a
high level of ICANN specific knowledge, this
takes a time to acquire and with the transitions
of incoming/outgoing members if the size of the
board was reduced the skill set could be lacking
for some period of time.
2. Remuneration. Should directors be paid in
some way for their time. Was made clear that the
board review could only address the board, not
the chairs of the SOs and others volunteers.
There is a need to check to see if a remunerated
board has different/higher liability under CA
laws.
If introduced then accepting any fee (or not)
would be the choice of the individual director
concerned.
Also asked to consider the special situation of
the Chair, with an exceptionally high workload
should be treated differently, perhaps on a fast
track.
General support seems to be for remuneration in
some way. But there were a couple if quite
passionate and well founded comments about the
nature of ICANN as a volunteer organization,
about how the board has been populated with fine
people so far, so is it really a problem. Would
the profile of candidates change if remuneration
were introduced?
3. Time of appointment. NomCom appointed
Directors join at the end of the AGM, Directors
appointed by the SOs joins 6 months after the
AGM. Some think this optimal, some do not (I am
personally not sure why this is a concern!) |

ccNSO Council Mtg

Time: 16:00 - 17:00
Location: Function 4-5 (L2)
At-Large Delegates: Rudi, Hawa
Author: Rudi Vansnick

The monthly conference calls are replaced by a face-to-face meeting during the ICANN meetings. So was also this time.On the agenda :
1. Confirmation of Approval of Minutes and Actions from Council call 9th June 2009
2. Working Group Update
2.1 Delegation and Redelegation Working Group
2.1.1 Confirmation of Working Group members
2.2 Strategic and Operational Planning Working Group Update
2.2.1 SOP Survey
2.3 ccNSO-GAC Liaison Working Group
2.4 Technical Working Group
2.4.1 Charter
2.4.2 Call for new members
2.5 Meeting Programme Working Group
2.6 Geographic Regions Working Group
3. Establishment of Ad-Hoc Working Group for draft Emergency response plan
4. Geographic names discussion
5. IDN Fast Track conclusions
6. Approval of .al ccNSO membership application
7. Liaison Update
7.1 Update from GNSO Liaison
7.2 Update from ALAC Liaison
8. Resolution for Demi Getschko and Mike Silber
9. AOB
On point 7.2 I may comment here already : Ron Sherwood, ALAC liaison, reported on the ALAC meetings of the previous days. He stated and I quote :
"Many of the subjects and issues discussed are the same as those discussed at ccNSO meetings, and often present similar or identical opinions, although sometimes from a different point of view.". Ron dropped the questions we have been talking about during our meeting in the group. Answers will come probably at the next Council meeting.
As the participation of both liaisons in these meetings was rather a unique event, a plan will be worked out to get closer to each other, meeting was scheduled for Thursday noon with both chairs and liaisons.

Workshop: Registrar Best Practices Regarding the UDRP

Time: 16:00 - 17:30
Location: Function 3 (L2)
At-Large Delegate: CLO
Author:

Please write your report here

ICANN Security, Stability & Resiliency Plan Consultation

14:00 - 15:30
24 June 2009
Location: Function Room L2
Author: Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond

I only partially attended this session since I also spent some time in the ballroom on Level 3, New gTLD Consultation on Trademark Protection.
Having been allocated a 90 minute slot, the meeting was over in 45 minutes due to the conciseness of Greg Rattray's presentation.
Since I missed part of the session, some parts of this report were written from listening to the session's MP3 recording.

Presentation by Greg Rattray, Chief Internet Security Advisor.
ICANN has written a plan describing what ICANN does and does not do in the stability and security fields.
This plan is ultimately going to be part of the ICANN strategic plan.
It does not present any new initiatives, but is just one unified document describing ICANN's initial foundation
including its role in the above fields.

ICANN's mission includes: "to ensure stable and secure operation of the Internet's unique identifier systems"

ICANN does not act as a policeman in operationally combatting criminal activity on the Internet.
ICANN does not have a role regarding use of the Internet for cyber-espionage and cyber war.
ICANN does not have a role in what constitutes illicit content on the Internet.

Other key personnel in Greg's team: John Crain, Youri Ito, Geoff Bickers. Yes, they are just 4 people altogether. But they are not alone since other staff operate the IANA functions, ICANN contract compliance, etc. The Security, Stability and Resiliency Plan provides a high level comprehensive description of the activities of each committee.

Section 5 of the plan describes an articulation of what ICANN is currently doing in the following fields:

(cut/paste from the plan to explain the scope of ICANN's Security, Stability and Resiliency group)

5.1 Core DNS/Addressing Security, Stability and Resiliency
5.1.1 IANA Operations
5.1.2 DNS Root Server Operations

5.2 TLD Registries and Registrars Security, Stability and Resiliency
5.2.1 gTLD Registries
5.2.2 New gTLDs and IDNs
5.2.3 gTLD Registrars
5.2.4 Whois
5.2.5 Contractual Compliance
5.2.6 Protecting gTLD Registrants
5.2.7 ccTLDs
5.2.8 IANA Technical Requirements
5.2.9 Collaborative Response to Malicious Abuse of Domain Name System
5.2.10 Enabling Overall DNS Security and Resiliency

5.3 Engaging with Number Resource Organization (NRO) and Regional Internet Registries (RIRs)

5.4 ICANN Corporate Security and Continuity Operations

5.5 Activities of ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees

5.6 Global Engagement to Enhance Security, Stability and Resiliency
5.6.1 Global Partners and Activities
5.6.2 Regional Partners and Activities
5.6.3 Working with Governments

Greg Rattray went through each of these sections explaining ICANN's commitment to security in each of these cases.

Section 6 of the document describes future activity, specifically, how ICANN will enhance security and continuity operations.

Of particular importance is the fact that a Board level Risk Management committee is being created which will be able to perform full Corporate Risk Assessment.
Risk mitigation across the full range of risks will take place in FY 11.

Questions/Comments from the floor
Comments emphasized the fact that in the immediate term, security compliance will be asked specifically for new gTLDs but not for existing gTLDs.
A: for existing gTLDs it would involve modifying existing contracts and that may come later.

My own view:
Sadly, the comment period had closed a couple of days prior to the plan being explained in Sydney, so no written feedback was possible after this meeting.
However, since this initiative is ongoing, I feel that there will be plenty of opportunities to provide feedback in the future, especially since, I repeat, this plan does not describe new initiatives, but is only a summary of all security and stability activities across ICANN.

Presentation on:http://syd.icann.org/files/meetings/sydney2009/presentation-ssr-plan-rattray-icann-24jun09-en.pdf

Full ICANN Security, Stability & Resiliency Plan Consultation plan:http://www.icann.org/en/topics/ssr/ssr-draft-plan-16may09-en.pdf

contributed by guest@socialtext.net on 2009-08-04 15:31:20 GMT

  • No labels