ICANN Policy Forum

1. ICANN Policy Forum Washington DC 6 February 2009

2. ICANN Structure Address Supporting Organization Generic Names Supporting Organization County Code Names Supporting Organization • Regional Internet Registries • ARIN  LACNIC • APNIC  AfriNIC • RIPE NCC • Intellectual property • ISPs Registrars • Businesses  Registries • Non-Commercial • ccTLD Registries • .us, .uk, .au, .it,.nl, et al. CCNSO ASO GNSO ICANN Board of Directors GAC ALAC RSSAC SSAC

3. ICANN Policy Staff • Denise Michel - Vice President, Policy Development (California, USA) • Liz Gasster - Senior Policy Counselor (GNSO) (California, USA) • Margie Milam -Senior Policy Counselor (GNSO) (California, USA) • Robert Hoggarth - Senior Policy Director (Washington, DC, USA) • Marika Konings - Policy Director (GNSO) (Brussels, Belgium) • Glen de Saint Géry- Secretariat (GNSO) (Cannes, France) • Bart Boswinkel - Senior Policy Advisor, ccNSO (Netherlands) • Gabriella Schittek - Secretariat (ccNSO) (Warsaw, Poland) • Nick Ashton-Hart - Director for At-Large (Geneva, Switzerland) • Heidi Ullrich - Manager At-Large Regional Affairs (California, USA) • Mathias Langenegger - Secretariat (At-Large) (Geneva, Switzerland) • Dave Piscitello - Senior Security Technologist (SSAC) (S. Carolina, USA) • Marilyn Vernon - Executive Assistant (California, USA)

4. 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

5. WHOIS StudiesWHOIS & Directory ServicesImpact of IDNs on WHOIS Display Washington DC 6 February 2009

6. 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

7. 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.

8. 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

9. 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?

10. 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

11. Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) Washington DC 6 February 2009

12. 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)

13. 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

14. 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

15. Transferring Domain Names Between Registrars Washington DC 6 February 2009

16. 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.

17. E-Crimes Workshop Washington DC 6 February 2009

18. 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

19. Registration Abuse Policies Washington DC 6 February 2009

20. 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

21. Domain Name TastingandAdd Grace Period Washington DC 6 February 2009

22. 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.

23. 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

24. 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

25. Improving and Restructuring ICANN’s gTLD Policy Making Body (GNSO) Washington DC 6 February 2009

26. 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.

27. GNSO ImprovementsFive Main Areas of Improvement • Based on input from the independent reviews, a Working Group of the ICANN Board Governance Committee (BGC-WG) identified these areas for improvement.

28. GNSO Implementation Planning Team Structure

29. 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

30. New GNSO Council Organization: June 2009 GAC ALAC Voting NCA Voting NCA Legend: { } Voting; ( ) Non-Voting

31. Key Compromises Board Approved Under Board Review

32. 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

33. 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/

34. Thank You!Questions/Comments Welcomepolicy-staff@icann.org Washington DC 6 February 2009