Tag Archives: GNSO

ICANN: Public Comment Invited on: Proposed Permanent Charter of GNSO’s Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group

ICANN logoToday, a Public Comment Forum is being initiated to seek community comments on the proposed permanent Charter of the GNSO’s Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG).

Consistent with the its oversight authority regarding GNSO Stakeholder Group Charters (see ICANN Bylaws Article X, Section 5.3), t he ICANN Board passed a resolution at its 18 March 2011 meeting directing Staff to post the proposed NCSG Charter in a Public Comment Forum for 30 days. The Board is seeking the community’s input concerning the Charter’s provisions and, in particular, the fundamental organizational structure proposed.

All members of the ICANN community are invited to review the document and share comments and observations with the Board and the wider community through 5 June 2011.

Background/Explanation:

As part of the comprehensive Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Improvements effort, last July the ICANN Board approved (see ICANN Board Resolution 2009.30.07.09) the Charters of four new GNSO Stakeholder Groups (SGs). These SG structures represent a new concept for the GNSO that was envisioned by the Board Governance Committee GNSO Review Working Group (BGC WG) on GNSO Improvements (see the BGC WG’s February 2008 Report here [PDF, 193 KB]).

The Charter [PDF, 60 KB] approved for the NCSG last July was “transitional” through the ICANN annual meeting in 2011. The Board expected the NCSG (see Sections 5 and 8) to develop a permanent Charter document that would take effect upon the expiration of the transition period. Over the past several months, NCSG members have been working with the Board’s Structural Improvements Committee and have developed a proposed permanent NCSG Charter [PDF, 179 KB].

All members of the ICANN community are invited to review the Charter and share comments and observations with the Board and the wider community through 5 June 2011.

Relevant Board Resolutions and Bylaws:

Document/Page Links:

The Process From Here:

At the end of this public comment forum period, the ICANN Staff will provide a summary/analysis of the community comments submitted regarding the NCSG Charter. That summary/analysis will be shared with the community and the Board. The Board will subsequently take action regarding the Charter document consistent with its GNSO SG oversight authority.

Deadline and How to Submit Comments:

At the direction of the ICANN Board, the Staff is opening a 30-day public consultation forum, from 6 May through 5 June 2011 and invites community input on this topic:

This ICANN announcement was sourced from:
icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-06may11-en.htm

Kieren McCarthy’s Guide To ICANN San Francisco Issues

ICANN logoFormer ICANN staffer and now consultant Kieren McCarthy has posted a guide to the ICANN San Francisco meeting currently underway. The guide lists the most important issues to be discussed in the meeting that ends this Friday.

The guide discusses issues, and why they are important, such as new gTLDs, the .XXX sponsored Top Level Domain, Accountability and Transparency, domain transfer policies and new GNSO constituencies.

The guide published on his .NXT site also gives added commentary, background and links to relevant resources.

The guide is available at news.dot-nxt.com/2011/03/13/icann-sf-rundown.

ICANN: Public Comment: Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part B Working Group Presents Proposed Final Report

ICANN logoNine (9) Recommendations for Community Consideration
The GNSO Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part B Policy Development Process Working Group was tasked to address five issues focusing on issues related to domain hijacking, the urgent return of an inappropriately transferred name and “lock status”. Following review of the public comments received on the Initial Report and further deliberations, the Working Group now presents its proposed Final Report which contains nine (9) recommendations to address the five charter questions it was tasked with. Before finalizing its report and submitting it to the GNSO Council for its consideration, the Working Group is asking for your input on the proposed Final Report, especially the proposed recommendations. Comments can be submitted until 31 March 2011.

For those interested, the IRTP Part B Working Group will present its report and proposed recommendations at the ICANN meeting in San Francisco (see http://svsf40.icann.org/sched-overview for further details).

The Recommendations

Recommendation #1: The WG is considering recommending requiring registrars to provide an Emergency Action Channel (as described in SAC007 [PDF, 400 KB]). The WG recognizes that there are further details that would need to be worked out in relation to this proposal such as:

  • Within what timeframe should a response be received after an issue has been raised through the Emergency Action Channel (for example, 24 hours – 3 days has been the range discussed by the WG)?
  • What qualifies as ‘a response’? Is an auto-response sufficient?
  • Should there be any consequences when a response is not received within the required timeframe?
  • Is there a limited time following a transfer during which the Emergency Action Channel can be used?
  • Which issues may be raised through the Emergency Action Channel?
  • How/who should document the exchanges of information on the Emergency Action Channel?
  • Who is entitled to make use of the Emergency Action Channel?

The WG is requesting input from the ICANN Community on these questions and the recommendation itself, so this can be factored into the WG deliberations going forward.

Recommendation #2: The WG notes that in addition to reactive measures such as outlined in recommendation #1, proactive measures to prevent hijacking are of the utmost importance. As such, the WG strongly recommends the promotion by ALAC and other ICANN structures of the measures outlined in the recent report of the Security and Stability Advisory Committee on A Registrant’s Guide to Protecting Domain Name Registration Accounts (SAC 044). In particular, the IRTP WG recommends that registrants consider the measures to protect domain registrar accounts against compromise and misuse described in SAC044, Section 5. These include practical measures that registrants can implement “in house”, such as ways to protect account credentials and how to incorporate domain name registrations into employee or resource management programs typically found in medium and large businesses. It suggests ways that registrants can use renewal and change notifications from registrars as part of an early warning or alerting system for possible account compromise.

Recommendation #3: The WG recommends requesting an Issues Report on the requirement of ‘thick’ WHOIS for all incumbent gTLDs. The benefit would be that in a thick registry one could develop a secure method for a gaining registrar to gain access to the registrant contact information. Currently there is no standard means for the secure exchange of registrant details in a thin registry. In this scenario, disputes between the registrant and admin contact could be reduced, as the registrant would become the ultimate approver of a transfer. Such an Issue Report and possible subsequent Policy Development Process should not only consider a possible requirement of ‘thick’ WHOIS for all incumbent gTLDs in the context of IRTP, but should also consider any other positive and/or negative effects that are likely to occur outside of IRTP that would need to be taken into account when deciding whether a requirement of ‘thick’ WHOIS for all incumbent gTLDs would be desirable or not.

Recommendation #4: The WG notes that the primary function of IRTP is to permit Registered Name Holders to move registrations to the Registrar of their choice, with all contact information intact. The WG also notes that IRTP is widely used in the domain name community to affect a “change of control,” moving the domain name to a new Registered Name Holder. The discussions within the WG and with ICANN Staff have determined that there is no defined “change of control” function. Therefore, the IRTP-B WG recommends requesting an Issue Report to examine this issue, including an investigation of how this function is currently achieved, if there are any applicable models in the country-code name space, and any associated security concerns.

Recommendation #5: The WG recommends modifying section 3 of the IRTP to require that the Registrar of Record/Losing Registrar be required to notify the Registered Name Holder/Registrant of the transfer out. The Registrar of Record has access to the contact information for the Registrant and could modify their systems to automatically send out the Standardized Form for Losing Registrars (“Confirmation FOA”) to the Registrant.

Recommendation #6: The WG does recognize that the current language of denial reason #6 is not clear and leaves room for interpretation especially in relation to the term ‘voluntarily’ and recommends therefore that this language is expanded and clarified to tailor it more to explicitly address registrar-specific (i.e. non-EPP) locks in order to make it clear that the registrant must give some sort of informed opt-in express consent to having such a lock applied, and the registrant must be able to have the lock removed upon reasonable notice and authentication. The WG recommends to modify denial reason #6 as follows: Express objection to the transfer by the Transfer Contact. Objection could take the form of specific request (either by paper or electronic means) by the Transfer Contact to deny a particular transfer request, or a general objection to all transfer requests received by the Registrar, either temporarily or indefinitely. In all cases, the objection must be provided with the express and informed consent of the Transfer Contact on an opt-in basis and upon request by the Transfer Contact, the Registrar must remove the lock or provide a reasonably accessible method for the Transfer Contact to remove the lock within five (5) calendar days.

Recommendation #7: The WG recommends that if a review of the UDRP is conducted in the near future, the issue of requiring the locking of a domain name subject to UDRP proceedings is taken into consideration.

Recommendation #8: The WG recommends standardizing and clarifying WHOIS status messages regarding Registrar Lock status. The goal of these changes is to clarify why the Lock has been applied and how it can be changed. Based on discussions with technical experts, the WG does not expect that such a standardization and clarification of WHOIS status messages would require significant investment or changes at the registry/registrar level. The WG recommends that ICANN staff is asked to develop an implementation plan for community consideration which ensures that a technically feasible approach is developed to implement this recommendation.

Recommendation #9: The WG recommends deleting denial reason #7 as a valid reason for denial under section 3 of the IRTP as it is technically not possible to initiate a transfer for a domain name that is locked, and hence cannot be denied, making this denial reason obsolete. Instead denial reason #7 should be replaced by adding a new provision in a different section of the IRTP on when and how domains may be locked or unlocked. The WG recommends that ICANN staff is asked to develop an implementation plan for community consideration including proposed changes to the IRTP to reflect this recommendation.

Background

The IRTP Part B Policy Development Process (PDP) is the second in a series of five PDPs that address areas for improvements in the existing Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy. The 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 should they wish to do so. The policy also provides standardized requirements for registrar handling of such transfer requests from domain name holders. The policy is an existing community consensus policy that was implemented in late 2004 and is now being reviewed by the GNSO.

Deadline and how to submit comments

Comments are welcome via e-mail to irtp-b-proposed-final-report@icann.org until 31 March 2011.

Access to the public comment forum from which comments can be posted can be found at: http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201103-en.htm#irtp-b-proposed-final-report

An archive of all comments received will be publicly posted at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/irtp-b-proposed-final-report/

Further information

IRTP Part B PDP Proposed Final Report [PDF, 734 KB]
IRTP Part B PDP Proposed Final Report – Executive Summary only [PDF, 320 KB]

IRTP Part B PDP Initial Report [PDF, 765 KB]

Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP)

This ICANN announcement was sourced from:
icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-21feb11-en.htm

ICANN – Public Comment: GNSO Council Requests Your Input on Proposed GNSO Working Group Guidelines

ICANN logoAs part of the GNSO Improvements Process, which has as its objective to improve the structure and operations of the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO), the Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC) has now submitted to the GNSO Council the proposed GNSO Working Group Guidelines (see gnso.icann.org/improvements/gnso-working-group-guidelines-final-10dec10-en.pdf [PDF, 626 KB]). Prior to considering the proposed GNSO Working Group Guidelines, the GNSO Council is seeking your input. Comments on the proposed GNSO Working Group Guidelines [PDF, 626 KB] can be submitted until 8 February 2011 (see details below). Following the public comment period, the GNSO Council will review the comments received and determine whether additional modifications need to be made to the document or whether the document is ready for adoption following which it will be incorporated in the GNSO’s Operating Procedures and become applicable to all new GNSO Working Groups.

Background

In the past, the GNSO decided policy mainly through small legislative bodies called “Task Forces.” Intentionally, it is moving towards a more inclusive, representative model where key parties tackle an issue together as a “Working Group”. This Working Group Model should become the focal point for policy development and enhance the policy development process by making it more inclusive and representative, and – ultimately – more effective and efficient.

The PPSC tasked a Working Group Work Team (WG WT) to define this new Working Group model. The WG WT prepared a first draft that was put out for public comment, following which it reviewed the comments and modified [DOC, 188 KB] the document accordingly. In addition, the PPSC identified a number of issues that were subsequently addressed [DOC, 48 KB] by the WG WT.

The proposed GNSO Working Group Guidelines, as approved by the PPSC, bring together all the different elements of the Working Group process; it addresses what should be considered in creating, chartering, staffing, and instructing/guiding a WG to accomplish the desired outcome, and; secondly, what guidance should be provided to a WG on elements such as structure, decision-making, tasking, reporting, and delivering the outcome(s) as chartered.

Background documents / links

Staff responsible: Marika Konings

Deadline and how to submit comments

Comments are welcome via e-mail to gnso-wg-guidelines@icann.org until 8 February 2011.

Access to the public comment forum from which comments can be posted can be found at icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201102-en.htm#gnso-wg-guidelines.

An archive of all comments received will be publicly posted at forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-wg-guidelines/.

This ICANN announcement was sourced from:
icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-18jan11-en.htm

ICANN: Public Comment: Community Comment Invited on Petition To Form A New GNSO Not-for-Profit Organizations Constituency

ICANN logoThe ongoing GNSO Improvements process has created significant community interest in the formation of new GNSO constituencies and several groups have stepped forward to begin the process of forming a new GNSO constituency. The ICANN Board has now received its fifth formal petition – from the prospective Not-for-Profit Organizations Constituency (NPOC). The NPOC proponents propose to join the Non Commercial Stakeholders Group of the GNSO.

All members of the ICANN community and the public are now invited to review the petition and charter of the NPOC and share comments with the Board and community through 23 January 2011.

Background and Explanation:

In June 2008, the Board of Directors endorsed a series of recommendations on how to improve the GNSO’s structures and operations. One of the significant drivers of those recommendations was an interest in maximizing participation in the GNSO and its policy development processes. Among the various recommendations endorsed by the Board was that ICANN take steps to clarify and promote the option to self-form new constituencies.

The current ICANN Bylaws provide that any group of individuals or entities may petition the Board for recognition as a new or separate constituency, in accordance with Section 5(4) of Article X. Such a petition must explain (1) why “the addition of such a Constituency will improve the ability of the GNSO to carry out its policy-development responsibilities” and (2) why “the proposed new Constituency would adequately represent, on a global basis, the stakeholders it seeks to represent.” Despite those Bylaw provisions, it has been many years since the organization has had formal requests for a new constituency. Since the Board action in June 2008, however, the ICANN Staff has received inquiries from several interested parties about how to form a new GNSO constituency .

The ICANN bylaws do not provide specific procedural guidance for how interested parties should submit the petitions contemplated in Article X. Mindful that explicit steps, formats, and/or processes for expansion would take some time for the community to develop in the implementation of the improvements recommendations, the Board directed ICANN Staff to provide the community with some initial guidance, a structure and a specific procedural path for potential new constituencies to follow. At its 1 October 2008 meeting, the Board acknowledged Staff’s development of a “Notice of Intent” document for potential new constituencies and directed Staff to develop a formal petition and charter template to assist new constituency applicants in satisfying the formative criteria (consistent with the ICANN Bylaws) to facilitate the Board’s evaluation of petitions to form new constituencies.

The process subsequently developed by the Staff required interested groups to first submit a Notice of Intent to Form a New Constituency (NOIF). The NPOC proponents completed that first step on 15 June 2010. The second step of the process is development of a New Constituency Petition and Charter. The NPOC proponents completed that effort on 2 November 2010.

Relevant Board Resolution, Bylaws and Constituency Submissions:

The Process From Here:

At the end of this Public Comment Forum period, the ICANN Staff will provide a summary/analysis of the comments submitted regarding the NPOC petition and charter. That summary/analysis will be shared with the community and the Board. The Board will ultimately make the decision on whether to authorize the new constituency.

Deadline and How to Submit Comments:

The Staff is opening a public consultation forum, from 1 December 2010 through 23 January 2011, and invites community comments on this matter.

The formal Public Comment Forum Box is located here: icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201101-en.htm#npoc-petition-charter

To submit comments: npoc-petition-charter@icann.org

To view comments (including the various constituency submissions): forum.icann.org/lists/npoc-petition-charter/

This ICANN announcement was sourced from:
icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-01dec10-en.htm

ICANN: Public Comment: Community Working Group Report on Implementation of GNSO New gTLD Recommendation Number 6

ICANN logoThe Cross Community Working Group (CWG) on GNSO Recommendation 6 has published its Report on Implementation of GNSO New gTLD Recommendation No. 6. The Report describes various recommendations that were supported by a consensus of CWG members to improve the implementation plan for Recommendation No. 6. This Report [PDF, 1.06 MB] (CWG Report) is now posted for public comment.

The public comment period ends on 22 October 2010.

Background:

ICANN is in the implementation planning stage of defining the processes for adding new generic top – level domain name to the Domain Name System. The policy recommendations to guide the introduction of new gTLDs were created by the GNSO over a two year effort. Among these GNSO policy recommendations is Recommendation 6, which states that:

Strings must not be contrary to generally accepted legal norms relating to morality and public order that are recognized under international principles of law.

A cross-community effort involving members of the GAC, GNSO, and the At Large Community has resulted in the publication of the CWG Report that addresses concerns that have surfaced from the ICANN Community regarding the proposed implementation of Rec6. This Report describes the results of this bottom-up process, and includes recommendations proposed by the CWG for improving the implementation plan proposed in the Draft Applicant Guidebook-v4 related to procedures for addressing objectionable strings, while protecting internationally recognized freedom of expression rights.

This public comment forum is an opportunity to comment on any of the proposed recommendations that are described the Report. The Report will be posted for a public comment period that closes on 22 October 2010. Comments can be sent to cwg-report-rec6@icann.org and reviewed at forum.icann.org/lists/cwg-report-rec6/.

Additional Information:

  1. To review the proposed implementation plan for Recommendation 6 in the Draft Applicant Guidebook, version 4, please refer to Module 3: icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/comments-4-en.htm
  2. For information on the GAC’s concerns regarding Recommendation 6, please refer to the letter dated 4 August 2010: icann.org/correspondence/gac-to-dengate-thrush-04aug10-en.pdf [PDF, 235 KB]
  3. The ALAC Statement on Morality and Public Order, 4 March 2009 is posted at: atlarge.icann.org/files/atlarge/correspondence-05mar09-en.pdf [PDF, 344 KB]

This ICANN announcement was sourced from:
icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-22sep10-en.htm

ICANN: Public Comments Requested on Interim Paper on Policy Aspects Regarding Introduction of Single Character IDN TLDs

ICANN logoThe joint ccNSO and GNSO IDN working group (JIG) is pleased to announce the publication of the working group’s Initial Report [PDF, 192 KB] on the introduction of Single Character IDN TLDs. This Report is intended to be a stocktaking of the policy issues regarding the introduction of Single Character IDN TLDs and some viewpoints on possible policy implementations that could address those issues. The JIG solicits input and comment from the community on these policy issues and viewpoints. The working group identifies the following policy issue area’s:

  1. Possible confusion with reserved single character ASCII TLD strings
  2. Whether special financial considerations should be considered
  3. Whether due to the relatively smaller pool of possible names that special allocation methods should be considered
  4. Whether due to the relatively shorter string, it may be easier for users to make mistakes, and that special policies should be considered
  5. Whether additional criteria should be introduced to qualify a Single Character IDN TLD as an IDN ccTLD or IDN gTLD
  6. Whether special policies are required to address usability of Single Character IDN TLDs given existing application environments

To be most helpful you are kindly requested to submit your comments by 9 September 2010 at: http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201009-en.htm#jig-initial-report

An archive of all comments received will be publicly available.

Background and Next Steps

The ccNSO and GNSO Councils recognized there may be topics and/ or issues related to the introduction of IDN TLDs which are of common interest to both the GNSO and ccNSO, and which are preferably addressed in a collaborative effort through the GNSO and ccNSO. For that matter the Councils established a joint IDN working group. The charter of the working group can be found at: http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/jiwg.htm.

According to its charter the purpose of the joint working group is to identify and explore issues and topics of common interest, if any, and of relevance to both the cNSO and GNSO, report on such an identified issues to the ccNSO and GNSO Councils and propose a methodology to address the issue. To date the JIG identified the following areas of common interest:

  1. Single Character IDN TLDs
  2. IDN TLD Variants
  3. Universal Acceptance of IDN TLDs

After closure of the comment period, the working group will finalise the Initial Report taking into account the public comments and input and publish a Final Report to be submitted to the ccNSO and GNSO Councils for their consideration. During the public comment period the Working Group will continue its work on the other topics identified by the working group as of common interest to both the ccNSO and GNSO.

This ICANN announcement was sourced from:
icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-27jul10-en.htm

ICANN: Proposed GNSO Working Group Guidelines Published; WG-WT Publishes its Report

ICANN logoAs part of GNSO Improvements, which has as its objective to improve the structure and operations of the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO), a Working Group (WG) Work Team (WT) was tasked with developing a Working Group Model. The Working Group Model should become the focal point for GNSO policy development and enhance the policy development process by making it more inclusive and representative, and – ultimately – more effective and efficient. To this end, the WG WT has developed a document, entitled ‘GNSO Working Group Guidelines’, which brings together two different elements of the Working Group process; on the one hand it addresses what should be considered in creating, purposing, funding, staffing, and instructing/guiding a WG to accomplish the desired outcome (the chartering process), and; secondly, what guidance should be provided to a WG on elements such as structuring, norms, tasking, reporting, and delivering the outcome(s) as chartered (the working group process). Following review of public comments on an earlier version of the proposed GNSO Working Group Guidelines, the WG WT has now finalized its recommendations and will submit the proposed GNSO Working Group Guidelines to the Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC) for its review.

Background

In the past, the GNSO decided policy mainly through small legislative bodies called “Task Forces.” Intentionally, it is moving towards a more inclusive, representative model where key parties tackle an issue together as a “Working Group,” then make recommendations to the GNSO Council. The WG WT was tasked to define the new Working Group model, including guidelines, checklists, and other materials to speed the process of creating, chartering, naming, funding, staffing, and guiding a GNSO Working Group.

Further Information

This ICANN announcement was sourced from:
icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-3-31may10-en.htm

ICANN Seeks Independent Researchers to Respond to Request for Proposal on WHOIS Privacy and Proxy Abuse Study

ICANN logoThe Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) is responsible for developing and recommending to the ICANN Board substantive policies relating to gTLDs. The GNSO Council is now exploring several extensive studies of WHOIS and has asked ICANN to estimate the cost and feasibility of conducting several studies proposed by members of the ICANN community and ICANN’s Government Advisory Committee.

This particular area of study focuses on the extent to which domain names used to conduct illegal or harmful Internet activities are registered via privacy or proxy services to obscure the perpetrator’s identity. ICANN is seeking to engage independent research organizations to undertake this study. The WHOIS Privacy and Proxy Abuse Study Cover Letter [PDF, 99 KB] illustrates the scope of work and the criteria for selection. This Cover Letter should be read in conjunction with the Terms of Reference for the WHOIS Privacy and Proxy Abuse Studies RFP [PDF, 321 KB]. Read together, these two documents provide the materials necessary to respond to this Request for Proposals (“RFP”) for the WHOIS Privacy and Proxy Abuse Studies.

More information about WHOIS may be found at: gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/

By 20 July 2010, interested applicants should submit proposals by email to rfpwhois@icann.org to the attention of Liz Gasster, Senior Policy Counselor, ICANN Policy Department. A confirmation email will be sent for each proposal received.

This ICANN announcement was sourced from:
icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-18may10-en.htm