Public participation site

After opening ICANN’s new engagement office in Singapore, my first opportunity to attend a regional conference and engage with stakeholders was constructive and inspiring.

The Asia Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum (APrIGF) took place from 4-6 September 2013 in Seoul, South Korea as a platform for discussion and collaboration toward advancing our ideals of Internet governance across the region. It was empowering to work alongside Fadi as we unveiled ICANN’s plan to build an Asia Engagement Strategy.

CEO Fadi with APrIGF hosts

Invoking the Forum’s theme, “Towards a Better Internet: A More Secured, Convenient, Vibrant, Equivalent, and Desirable Internet,” Fadi delivered the keynote address during which he reinforced ICANN’s commitment to the region. Fadi cited the opening of our Singapore hub office, and that we are working to engage and listen to our stakeholders in the region to develop an Asia Pacific Engagement Strategy as examples.

ICANN Workshop – ICANN engagement with the Asia Pacific Community

Since we started the Asia Hub, a key preoccupation was to meet and listen to the needs and concerns of our stakeholders. This is still work in progress; but we reported our findings at our workshop on “ICANN engagement with the Asia Pacific Community” at the APrIGF. The time we took to listen to the needs and concerns of the region were very well received. Many stakeholders expressed their appreciation and offered their views as well as help for us to better engage the region, including:

• working with regional organizations in language localization projects, so that the diverse stakeholders in the region can participate in our ICANN processes
• working to partner with existing networks and forums, not only for training, but to contribute to feedback on the ICANN PDP process
• communicating to the region on what ICANN is
• consider holding smaller ICANN meetings within the APAC communities so as to ensure greater participation and the diversity of regional voices
• enhancing government participation through working with our Government Advisory Council (GAC) representatives to advocate for a stronger representation by APAC governments at ICANN meetings
• continue to share our findings regarding our shareholders’ needs and concerns, and to share them with the community. Through this, we can identify common needs and interests and develop collaborative activities. A suggestion was to arrange the feedback we received thematically, and to discuss them at the Bali IGF this October,

Fadi closed the workshop by emphasizing the need for sustainable engagement through tools such as ICANNLabs to build a more inclusive model of engagement.

Youth IGF – CEO Fadi with the energetic Youth IGF participants, held concurrently with the APrIGF

On the sidelines of the APrIGF, it was inspiring for us to sit and speak with Youth leaders about getting involved in Internet governance. We held an interactive session as a part of the Youth Internet Governance Forum (YIGF), where we introduced ICANN and the multi-stakeholder model to the participants. What was most exciting was to hear participants agree with Fadi on the importance of a one, united and open Internet for the world. They were really engaging, asked thoughtful questions, and were very passionate about the multi-stakeholder model. We hope to further engage participating youth in future ICANN programming and related forums.

The APrIGF in Seoul proved a constructive experience and I’m proud to say ICANN effectively fostered promising dialogue. I look forward to building on this initial engagement as we move forward with our work in the APAC region.

20 September 2013 Forum Announcement: Comment Period Opens on Date: 20 September 2013 Categories/Tags: Policy Processes Purpose (Brief): The Generic Names Supporting Organization ("GNSO") Policy Development Process Working Group is tasked with addressing the issue of Protecting the identifiers of certain International Government Organizations ("IGOs") and International Non-Governmental Organizations ("INGOs") in all gTLDs and they have published its draft Final Report for public comment. Public Comment Box Link: http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/igo-ingo-final-20sep13-en.htm

20 September 2013

What is the Fellowship Program?

The Fellowship Program has demonstrated success in its mission to build capacity in the ICANN multistakeholder environment through focused interactive engagement between newcomers to ICANN and community members at each of the ICANN meetings. The program seeks to identify members of the Internet community who either have not previously been able to participate in ICANN processes or constituent organizations, or those who require further exposure to the Internet community and its work but cannot travel and attend a meeting without financial support. This outreach program seeks participants from developing regions and countries of the world, in order to help create a broader base of knowledgeable constituents who will become the new voice of experience in their regions and beyond.

Applications to become an ICANN Fellow are assessed for each meeting by an independent selection committee. Priority is given to applicants who: meet minimum program requirements; are current residents of developing and least developed nations; and are interested in participating in the ICANN multistakeholder process and its supporting organizations, advisory committees or stakeholder groups. An effort will be made to include participants from the region in which the ICANN meeting is being held.

All confirmed fellowship participants must comply with the terms and conditions of the Fellowship program, as outlined at http://www.icann.org/en/about/participate/fellowships/terms-conditions. As stated within these terms and conditions, ICANN is a California non-profit public benefit corporation and must therefore comply with all the laws and regulations of California and the United States. Fellows are responsible for obtaining all travel visas once accepted into the program. ICANN will purchase tickets for Fellows after all necessary documentation has been obtained and Fellows demonstrate that they have obtained all necessary travel visas.

Once all of the requirements for travel are met, the Fellowship program arranges for and covers the costs for airfare and hotel, as well as providing a stipend to assist with some meeting and subsistence costs. The stipend is provided after each selected candidate successfully completes the requirements of the Fellowship program, Recipients will be expected to actively participate in and contribute to ICANN processes during and after the meeting. As always, registration for ICANN meetings is free for anyone wanting to attend.

Find out more about applying »

I’m pleased to report on the successful conclusion of two registrar outreach sessions in Los Angeles, USA and Xiamen, China.  Representatives of the registrars’ Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) negotiating team and I, along with a small handful of ICANN staff members, spent a day and half in each city answering questions and helping educate registrars about the new provisions in the 2013 RAA and new consensus policies.

The new RAA contains several important changes intended to promote a strong, healthy domain name space and help registrants make informed decisions when purchasing services from registrars. Realizing that these changes might require significant implementation efforts, registrars and other community members called on ICANN to conduct a proactive program to help registrars understand their new obligations and discuss needs required for compliance with the new agreement. These outreach sessions — the first of four currently planned — focused largely on the operational impact of the new agreement and offered registrars a platform to collectively solve complex challenges.

Some of the key topics at our outreach sessions included:

• dealings with resellers
• new Whois obligations
• abuse complaint handling
• data retention requirements (and the procedure for requesting a waiver)
• new consensus policies

Our outreach sessions in Los Angeles and Xiamen were well attended and seem to have been well-received. Close to 40 registrar representatives attended the Los Angeles session in-person, with another 20 or so participating remotely. Sixty registrar representatives from China, Hong Kong, South Korea, and Taiwan attended the event in Xiamen. (Real-time Chinese-English / English-Chinese translation services were provided.) Our next session will be held in Berlin, Germany next week.

Thanks go to all of the dozens of registrars who have attended or plan to attend these meetings, with special thanks to James Bladel (GoDaddy), Jeff Eckhaus (eNom), and Matt Serlin (MarkMonitor), who each participated in one or both of the sessions on behalf of the registrars’ RAA negotiating team.

The presentation materials from the first meeting are available here:

• 2013 RAA Registrar Training Overview [PDF, 227 KB]
• Reseller Obligations [PDF, 173 KB]
• Privacy Proxy and Disclosure and Abuse Requirements [PDF, 190 KB]
• Data Retention [PDF, 235 KB]
• Compliance Presentation [PDF, 276 KB]
• New Whois Obligations [PDF, 239 KB]
• Consensus Policy Implementation Update [PDF, 211 KB]
• GNSO Update [PDF, 1.52 MB]
• TMCH [PDF, 347 KB]
• URS [PDF, 233 KB]

The World Economic Forum is a helpful partner in ICANN’s global stakeholder engagement efforts, convening leaders from business, government and civil society to address global issues.  YC Kuek and I represented ICANN at last week’s “Summer Davos” in Dalian China, participating in a number of sessions on ICT sector challenges.  

In addition to government ministers from places as diverse as Ireland, Vietnam and Azerbaijan, corporate executives from HTC, Qualcomm, Facebook, Salesforce, BT, Mozilla, Thomson Reuters, Google, Microsoft, CA, Macquarie and LIPPO all were in attendance. The Internet Society is also a regular WEF participant.

I was struck by how many of these leaders were not only aware of ICANN’s work, but also appreciative of its role as steward and coordinator of the Internet’s system of unique identifiers. They were also supportive of ICANN’s increasing international presence and impressed by tools and processes that enhance transparency and foster deeper engagement with stakeholders.

Internet and Internet governance issues are rising to the top of the agenda at WEF. Sessions included: The Partnership for Cyber-resilience, Strengthening Civil Society Partnerships, Seismic Shifts in the Digital Ecosystem and Protecting the Digital Economy. More information, and content from the public sessions can be found here.

Of course many of the concerns raised (privacy, spam, content, neutrality, etc.) fall outside ICANN’s remit.   We did not opine on these topics, but were frequently asked to explain in detail how ICANN’s multistakeholder model works to coordinate Internet naming and addressing resources – both what works well and what is hard to accomplish.  This led some to explore whether similar models could be deployed to address contentious issues.

Government representatives complained of conflicting guidance on how (or whether) to react to serve their public’s interests.  Business leaders, on the other hand, voiced alarm at a trend toward regulatory fragmentation along national and regional borders.

All in all, we worked to raise awareness of the multistakeholder model generally and of ICANN’s unique role in the Internet ecosystem specifically.  Given the appreciative reception we received, I believe we can be very proud of the ICANN model.

Christopher Mondini
VP, Stakeholder Engagement
North America and Global Business

By David Olive, Vice President for Policy Development Support

Cross Community Working Groups (CCWGs) play an important role within the ICANN framework. We have seen over time, that the ICANN community has created such groups as a useful mechanism to organize activities across two or more ICANN communities.

One example of such cooperation structures was the working group formed to enable the introduction of top-level Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs), which resulted in a fast track process for allocating a limited number of IDN top-level domains in the country code space. Another example is the DNS Security and Stability Analysis Working Group.

Some CCWGs have been less successful and in fact caused confusion and misunderstandings across the different participating Supporting Organizations (SOs) and Advisory Committees (ACs). Nevertheless, increased collaboration between different SOs and ACs, as well as a realization that certain topics are of interest to more than one SO or AC has resulted in a stronger focus on cross-community working groups.

Many in the community recognize the value that CCWGs can bring to the debate, but at the same time, questions and concerns have been raised regarding the principles and processes by which these working groups operate.

CCWGs are a working group of willing volunteers from different SO/ACs who come together to deal with a particular topic or area of interest, which potentially impacts more than one key stakeholder group within the ICANN structure.1 CCWGs are chartered by two or more SO/ACs and have a formal mandate outlined in their approved charter.

Why CCWGs?

CCWGs are tasked with providing advice and feedback to their chartering SOs and ACs within the ICANN structure. The respective SOs and ACs are then typically expected to evaluate the CCWGs recommendations and consider whether or not to submit it formally to the Board of Directors.

It is important to distinguish any potential informal communication from formal mandates, and that their charter provides a clear scope in which these groups will operate. For example, the charter should foresee what happens in case an SO/AC does not support the CCWG recommendations or wants to make changes.

CCWGs may be best utilized when dealing with topics that would benefit from cross-community input and dialogue, while keeping in mind that they can never replace a formal policy development process. CCWGs typically invite all community members across the SO/AC groups to provide insights, input, and solutions to ICANN community-wide issues. While CCWGs are diverse, representing and considering many interests and disciplines, they also provide opportunities to produce a common direction.

Currently, this is taking place with the ccNSO’s approach regarding the framework of interpretation of current policy for the delegation and re-delegation of country code operators. By definition, this issue is within the scope of ccNSO policy development. However, the ccNSO opted for a CCWG as an alternate path—recognizing that this will not result in formal policy recommendations—in order to provide greater clarity to the existing policy and to ensure input and involvement from the Governmental Advisory Committee and other interested key stakeholder groups.

Questions to ponder, issues to solve

With that in mind, CCWGs should not be mistaken for a new way of developing “consensus policy” or as a vehicle to overtake the existing roles of the SOs and ACs. CCWGs should be seen as an additional mechanism to foster cross-community dialogue and understanding of topics that reach across SO/AC boundaries.

It is important that at the outset, the remit and operations of CCWGs are clear, so that expectations are clearly managed in a transparent and predictable manner. To this end, the GNSO developed a set of proposed principles that—from its perspective—should underpin any and all CCWG efforts. These principles were shared with the broader community, and based on the feedback it received from the ccNSO, the GNSO will now undertake further work in this area in cooperation with other SOs and ACs.

Hopefully, this work will result in a common set of principles for CCWGs. With a defined structure and scope, more CCWGs may emerge over time further breaking down SO/AC silos and further enhancing the multi-stakeholder model.

ICANN continues to explore ways to better define and use CCWGs to ensure meaningful contribution, while maintaining respect for each SO and AC and enhancing our bottom-up, multi-stakeholder policy development process. I urge you to share your thoughts and input on this topic by commenting on this blog post and by following the progress of the Accountability and Transparency Review Team 2′s recommendation on this matter 2. Active community participation will ensure that conversations about cross-community work move forward in a constructive and efficient manner.

1 Cross-Community Working Groups within the ICANN Framework: An ICANN GNSO Discussion Document [PDF, 149 KB]

2 Recently, I was asked to speak with the ATRT2 about this subject. My remarks are available here: ATRT2 Discussion [PDF, 105 KB]

17 September 2013

Volunteers needed by 15 October 2013

ICANN is revising its previous call for volunteers to clarify that:

1) The actual Affirmation of Commitments (AoC) review of Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice (CCT) will not occur until the AoC requirement has been met ('If and when new gTLDs … have been in operation for one year, ICANN will organize a review that will examine the extent to which the introduction or expansion of gTLDs has promoted competition, consumer trust and consumer choice, as well as effectiveness..")1; and

2) That the current metrics and data gathering advice for which volunteers have been requested, will be separated from a future call for volunteers to serve on a CCT Review Team, which will give volunteers more certainty regarding the timing of their commitment.

The group of volunteers to be convened this year will serve for a limited duration and scope—focusing exclusively on evaluating the proposed metrics for data gathering to support a future AoC review. As this will be a precursor to help inform the future review, the volunteer team for this initial activity will be referred to as the "Implementation Advisory Group for Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice."

The Implementation Advisory Group for CCT is expected to conduct its work December 2013 – July 2014 (estimated time). The Affirmation of Commitments CCT Review Team will be organized "If and when new gTLDs … have been in operation for one year," and the dates have not yet been established. Similar to previous AoC reviews, a call for volunteers will be issued for the CCT Review at the appropriate time and individuals who served on the CCT Independent Advisory Group are welcome to apply; they are not obligated to participate.

The CCT Review, as stipulated by the AoC, "will examine the extent to which the introduction or expansion of gTLDs has promoted competition, consumer trust and consumer choice, as well as effectiveness of (a) the application and evaluation process, and (b) safeguards put in place to mitigate issues involved in the introduction or expansion." The work of the Implementation Advisory Group for CCT, and the subsequent data gathered, will help inform the review, along with other relevant research and data gathering that the review team deems useful.

Interested in volunteering?

Individuals interested in serving on the Implementation Advisory Group for CCT are encouraged to email iag-cct@icann.org by 15 October 2013. The work of this group is detailed below and involves developing recommendations for the set of metrics to be collected by ICANN in preparation for a future review relating to New gTLDs1. Once the proposed metrics are delivered to the Board, the Implementation Advisory Group's work will be concluded. As directed by the Board, ICANN will develop the systems and collect the metrics approved through this process.

The Implementation Advisory Group for CCT will be responsible for:

1. Evaluating the feasibility, utility and cost-effectiveness of adopting the recommendations of the GNSO Council [PDF, 203 KB] and the At-Large Advisory Committee [PDF, 491 KB] (ALAC) with respect to the metrics to be used in conducting the review;

2. Evaluating other inputs, including historical data regarding metrics used to evaluate earlier rounds of new gTLDs (2000, 2004);

3. Engaging in outreach with the GNSO, ALAC and other interested ICANN stakeholders on the proposed metrics;

4. Evaluating the staff analysis to be delivered to the CCT Implementation Advisory on the feasibility and utility of each of the proposed metrics, and whether the implementation costs are reasonable in light of the value of the information to be revealed;

5. Proposing to ICANN a set of metrics to be compiled by ICANN in advance of the AoC review of the New gTLDs, if and when such review team is to be convened.

Where the Implementation Advisory Group's proposed metrics differ from those recommended by the GNSO Council or the ALAC, the Group is expected to consult with the GNSO and ALAC to share its rationale, and determine whether the collective set of metrics recommended by the Group sufficiently address the goals of the GNSO and the ALAC.

In line with these requirements, ICANN invites interested individuals to volunteer to serve on the Implementation Advisory Group for CCT by sending an email to iag-cct@icann.org by 15 October 2013. The Advisory Group will be conducted in a public, transparent manner and membership is open to any interested Community member. The work of the Implementation Advisory Group is expected to be conducted via conference calls and emails.

1 Affirmation of Commitments, 9.3: "ICANN will ensure that as it contemplates expanding the top-level domain space, the various issues that are involved (including competition, consumer protection, security, stability and resiliency, malicious abuse issues, sovereignty concerns, and rights protection) will be adequately addressed prior to implementation. If and when new gTLDs (whether in ASCII or other language character sets) have been in operation for one year, ICANN will organize a review that will examine the extent to which the introduction or expansion of gTLDs has promoted competition, consumer trust and consumer choice, as well as effectiveness of (a) the application and evaluation process, and (b) safeguards put in place to mitigate issues involved in the introduction or expansion. ICANN will organize a further review of its execution of the above commitments two years after the first review, and then no less frequently than every four years."

By Mary Wong, Senior Policy Director

I’m excited to share with you some preliminary findings from one of the GNSO Council’s Whois studies of interest to all of us in the ICANN community. This study – one of several initiated by the GNSO Council to examine various aspects of the Whois system – was commissioned to measure the hypothesis that: “a significant percentage of the domain names used to conduct illegal or harmful Internet activities are registered via privacy or proxy services to obscure the perpetrator’s identity”.

In 2012, ICANN selected the National Physical Laboratory (NPL) in the United Kingdom, led by Dr. Richard Clayton of the University of Cambridge, to perform the study. For the purposes of the study, the phrase “illegal or harmful” describes online activities that violate criminal or civil law, or which harm their targets (such as email recipients or website visitors). Such online activities can range from unsolicited commercial bulk email (“spam”) and cybersquatting to phishing, hosting child abuse sexual images, advanced fee fraud (also known as “411 scams”), and online sale of counterfeit pharmaceuticals. NPL was charged to gather a representative sample of illegal or harmful incidents across the top five gTLDs – .biz, .com, .info, .net and .org – to measure how often privacy or proxy services are abused by perpetrators (alleged and confirmed).

A previous study commissioned by ICANN and performed by NORC at the University of Chicago had concluded that 20% of registered domains across the top five gTLDs used privacy or proxy services. In NPL’s more detailed study on the use of privacy or proxy services across these five gTLDs, they found a statistically significant, above-average rate of privacy/proxy use for domains engaged in illegal or harmful online activities. Notably, NPL extended this aspect of the study in two ways that yielded additional useful data. First, NPL compared the rate of use of privacy/proxy services for domains used for selected lawful and harmless activities (e.g. banks and legal pharmacies) chosen to mirror the studied illegal/harmful activities. Secondly, the team also looked at WHOIS details for domain name registrants who did not use privacy or proxy services, to determine whether they could in fact be contacted at apparently valid telephone numbers.

The following are several key findings likely to be of interest to the ICANN community. Please note, however, that these figures should be read both in the context of the original terms of reference of the study (see http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-proxy-abuse-study-18may10-en.pdf [PDF, 321 KB])as well as some of the conditions and limitations described by NPL in the full study. NPL’s findings include:

• 55% of sampled unlicensed pharmacies used privacy/proxy-registered domain names;
• 46% of sampled advanced fee fraud cases used privacy/proxy-registered domain names;
• 28% of sampled websites hosting illegal child abuse sexual images used privacy/proxy-registered domain names;
• By comparison, just 9% of licensed pharmacies and 13% of law firms studied by NPL used privacy/proxy services; on the other hand, 44% of lawful websites hosting adult content and 28% of legitimate banks studied by NPL used privacy/proxy-registered domain names;
• For domains used for illegal or harmful activities that were not registered using privacy/proxy services, very few calls to Whois-provided telephone numbers (derived from a list of those that appeared valid enough to call) were answered. Registrants of apparently lawful and harmless domains could not be reached 25-55% of the time, but the rate rose to 83-93% for domains engaged in harmful or illegal activity.

Based on these findings, NPL was able to conclude that the hypothesis for the study is true, and that the percentage of domain names used to conduct illegal or harmful Internet activities that are registered via privacy or proxy services is significantly greater than those used for lawful online activities. They also found that the outcomes were consistent regardless of the method used to avoid providing viable contact information.

I hope that you’ll take the opportunity to read the full study when it’s published shortly, and provide your comments. Look out also for the webinar that will be scheduled at that time with Dr. Clayton and his colleagues, when they will present and discuss their findings with the ICANN community.

UPDATE: The study has now been published for public comment. To review the full study and provide your feedback, go to http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-24sep13-en.htm

Today marks the beginning of year 2 of the new ICANN season. On this day, a year ago, I took the official plunge into the ICANN ocean.

To celebrate, I took the day off and rested with my family in a small country house in the hills. I sought the chance to listen quietly to the sounds of last year.

What I heard was actually beautiful. Our community grew more in concert. Our global posture is shaping up. Our operations are growing in quality and efficiency. Our justified confidence is felt around the world.

We still have much to accomplish together. In the next year, we shall give birth to many gTLDs and watch them grow. We will also evolve ICANN through the lens of the new strategies our community is shaping.

As I share this special anniversary with my family, I sincerely thanked them and also thank each one of you for giving me the chance to serve on the remarkable and inspiring ICANN mission. I made mistakes and you all remained patient; I crossed some subtle community lines, and you all forgave my ignorance; I pushed hard and you all indulged me with courage and determination.

Today, as I pause and observe, I see more green on the dials of the ICANN dashboard. We are soaring ahead. Inevitably, the forecast includes some storms. But in unity, we will continue this journey – wiser, higher, and steadier.

Yours,
Fadi

12 September 2013

The ICANN Board New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC) met on 10 September 2013 and, among other things, reached a decision regarding the GAC's further advice on new gTLDs. The GAC conveyed its advice to the NGPC in its Durban Communiqué [PDF, 103 KB], issued on 18 July 2013. Applicants submitted responses to the advice on 23 August 2013.

At its most recent meeting, the NGPC adopted the Durban Scorecard, available at Annex 1 [PDF, 119 KB], disposing of all of the GAC's further advice with one exception – the NGPC indicated it would take action on the advice concerning the .amazon string at a future meeting.

The NGPC also discussed the remaining open items from the Beijing Communiqué. These include the advice pertaining to protections for IGO names and acronyms; Category 1 Safeguard advice; and Category 2 advice with respect to exclusive access registries. The NGPC and staff are working with the GAC to identify a time and place for further dialogue on these items.

The NGPC will next meet on 28.09.2013 and will provide a further update following that meeting.

The New gTLD evaluation and objection processes remains on track while the NGPC continues its deliberations. The NGPC is prioritizing its work in order to allow the greatest number of applications to move forward as soon as possible. We will continue to provide updates on the NGPC's progress in responding to the GAC Beijing and Durban Advice.

The multi-stakeholder model, bottom-up model is central to the way ICANN operates, and always will be. It’s a model designed to get those interested in internet policy and governance to share, discuss, collaborate and contribute. And, as such, it’s been a little strange that we haven’t made the most of the technology of the industry we work in to make that process easier.

Hence we’ve launched ICANNLabs. It’s to act as a digital space for experimentation and innovation. We’re already showcasing ideas around proposed digital tools and assets which we need you, the community, to feed back. On the basis of that information we’ll continue to improve, or even ditch, the tools, and continue that loop of build-feedback-iterate until we have useful tools that we can use in the community and on ICANN.org.

The first round of experiments has begun:

The Conversation track: This is intended to tackle the tools used for public comment and find software and design solutions that increase the depth and usefulness of digital conversations on policy. The first experiment – the roundtable – focuses more, however, on the possibilities for increasing the diversity of dialogue, but this is the one we’re wrestling with most- there’s lots to chew on with the digital mechanics of public comment and this will exercise us the most, perhaps . Follow the progress of the conversation track, and get involved, here.

The Education track: There are people on the fringes of the ICANN community who have much to contribute but hold back due to a lack of understanding of ICANN itself and the issues it deals with. If we can help those people gain a deeper knowledge, they can become more engaged members of the community. The first experiment is based on the idea of peer mentorship: Join in with the Education track here.

The Communication track: A multi-stakeholder model is nothing without stakeholders. The Communications track is based on the belief that better news and information distribution can drive new awareness of DNS issues and bring new stakeholders. The first idea involves the concept of curated conversations to achieve that end. Follow that and the other ideas of the Communications track here.

The Discovery track: The world of ICANN is a complex one and some kind of personalization can help people make sense of policies which affect governments, businesses, NGOs and non-profits, law enforcement agencies – and everyone else. Personalization and discovery service can help people find the relevant content to make sense of it all. The first experiment, the ICANN Passport, is signing new users up now. Follow that, and the rest of the Discovery track here.

So get yourselves involved – without feedback and contributions, it will be nigh-on impossible to make the sort of progress we’re hoping for – and that feedback can take the projects into places we hadn’t considered, which is the beauty of the feedback loop beloved of agile development processes. The next steps are tricky to predict, but they won’t happen without you.

10 September 2013 Forum Announcement: Comment Period Opens on Date: 10 September 2013 Categories/Tags: Top-Level Domains Purpose (Brief): A consultation on User Instructions and Source of Policy for Delegation and Redelegation of a Generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD). Public Comment Box Link: http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/gtld-drd-ui-policy-10sep13-en.htm

9 September 2013

On 27 June 2013, the ICANN Board approved the proposed amendments of the Internationalized Domain Names (IDN) country code Top-Level Domain (ccTLD) Fast Track Process Final Implementation Plan (FIP). The amendment implements a two-panel process for string similarity review in the IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process, and was proposed following the conclusion of the IDN Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO) Policy Development Process (PDP) and the request from the ccNSO to implement the string similarity review process in the Fast Track Process as recommended in the PDP. The ccNSO work has taken into account the experiences and reviews of the IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process as well as the Governmental Advisory Committee advice on the matter. Following extensive public consultations, the ccNSO Council adopted in April 2013 [PDF, 118 KB] the Final Report on the IDN ccNSO PDP [PDF, 376 KB]. In time, the proposed policy is expected to replace the IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process.

The amendment to the FIP addresses multiple inputs from the community, in particular the call for additional transparency and consistency of the string similarity evaluation for IDN ccTLDs. Through the amendment, ICANN will implement a two-panel process for string similarity evaluation in the IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process. The first string similarity review will remain a function of the DNS Stability Panel, as is currently implemented in the IDN ccTLD Fast Process, while adding an optional second review panel, called Extended Process Similarity Review Panel (EPSRP), which provides a second and final review of the string. The amended process will also allow all pending Fast Track IDN ccTLD string requests, including those whose string was considered not valid according to the current string similarity review, to request a final review of their string by the EPSRP.

The implementation of the two-panel string similarity review process is currently underway, including: finalizing the updates to the IDN ccTLD Fast Track FIP, defining the scientific-based evaluation methodology for the second panel as proposed, and constructing the panel and the procedure used to reevaluate eligible requests. Once completed, the methodology to be used by the second panel will be made public by ICANN.

The two-panel process for string similarity evaluation in the IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process will be effective once the Extended Process Similarity Review Panel appointment is announced by ICANN. The community should take note that, until the appointment of this second panel is announced, requests under the IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process will continue to be processed according to the version of the IDN ccTLD Fast Track FIP [PDF, 887 KB] published on 4 June 2012.

The IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process Implementation Plan [PDF, 498 KB] was approved by the ICANN Board at its meeting in Seoul, Republic of Korea in October 2009. ICANN has conducted two annual reviews of the IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process between its implementation in October 2010 and July 2012. Summary and analyses of each public comment process are available here.

9 September 2013 Forum Announcement: Comment Period Opens on Date: 9 September 2013 Categories/Tags: Top-Level Domains Purpose (Brief): A consultation on User Instructions and Source of Policy for Delegation and Redelegation of a Country-Code Top-Level Domain (ccTLD). Public Comment Box Link: http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/cctld-drd-ui-policy-09sep13-en.htm

Patrick Jones, on behalf of the ICANN Security team

In the wake of high-profile hacking attacks against the New York Times, Twitter, Huffington Post, and others, we thought it would be useful to re-post the blog from November 2012 written by Dave Piscitello, ICANN’s Senior Security Technologist on What You Should Learn from the Diigo Domain Hacking incident. The post describes a set of practical steps that anyone who has a domain name registration can take to protect against domain hacking and related attacks.

Be aware that social engineering attacks may occur. Educate those who are responsible for maintaining domain name registrations and your web presence on the potential for attacks. Establish procedures for registering and maintaining domain names (and ensure that those procedures are followed). Use two-factor authentication. Ask your registrar about registrar locks, and use registry locks if offered by your registry operator.

These measures do not cover everything one can do to protect against attacks. We do suggest using the lessons from recent events to look at your existing practices and ask about additional measures one can take.

What You Should Learn From the Diigo Domain Hacking Incident

 

6 September 2013

ICANN is pleased to announce that the Internationalized Domain Names (IDN) Variant Top Level Domain (TLD) Program has completed the selection of the Integration Panel for the IDN Root Zone Label Generation Rules (LGR). We received many applications from well-qualified individuals and we thank all the applicants for their interest in the IDN Variant TLD Program. The Integration Panel is a vital component in the implementation of the Procedure to Develop and Maintain the Label Generation Rules for the Root Zone in Respect of IDNA Labels [PDF, 1.39 MB] (the Procedure), and its success depends on having Integration Panel members with the right skills to perform the substantive work.

The Procedure defines a two-pass process for the creation of IDN label generation rules (LGR) for the root zone. These rules are used to determine sets of potential "variants" of a given label that may be afforded specific treatment in the various root zone processes.

ICANN published the Call for Subject Matter Experts for IDN Root Zone LGR Integration Panel and Advisors to All Panels on 6 June 2013. In response, ICANN received 22 eligible submissions and utilized the following selection process:

1. ICANN reviewed the candidates' submissions against the predefined criteria. The selection criteria were shared with the candidates and candidates were given the opportunity to provide any additional information in support of their candidature:
   • The selection criteria for members of the Integration Panel included at least one area of primary expertise in Unicode, Linguistics and Writing Systems, Domain Name System (DNS) and IDNA.
   • The selection process also took into account secondary experience the candidates had in those same areas of expertise.
   • In addition, the selection criteria required demonstrable ability and experience to perform systematic and detailed analysis of large data sets and to produce accurate and comprehensive results, have prior work experience, and demonstrated ability to advocate positions and build group consensus.
2. Each selection criterion was assigned a score. The evaluation team ranked each candidate's submission in relation to the selection criteria. The process allowed the evaluation team to identify the candidates who best satisfied the selection criteria.
3. Based on the scores for each of the candidates, the evaluation team arrived at a list of the most suitable candidates. For each area of expertise, the evaluation team reviewed the top candidates and made the final selection based on the aggregate expertise of the panel to ensure that all areas had appropriate representation.

Selected panel members are listed below:

• Marc Blanchet
• Asmus Freytag
• Michel Suignard
• Nicholas Ostler
• Wil Tan

Integration Panel members are expected to serve an initial term through June 2014. Responsibilities of the Integration Panel members are stated in the Procedure and the call for subject matter experts. The decisions by the integration Panel are required to be unanimous.

Expert advisors are available to the Integration Panel to aid its deliberations. These advisors aid the Integration Panel by lending their subject matter expertise, based on specific requests from the Panel. Using the same selection criteria as used for Panel members, the following advisor has been selected:

• Michael Everson

The selected Advisor will serve an initial term through June 2014. Additional advisors may be added at a later time as requested by the Panel and as specified in the Procedure.

The Integration Panel will undertake the work through periodic conference calls and face-to-face meetings. The first face-to-face meeting is planned for early October 2013. Initial work includes preparing the maximal set of code points and default whole label variant evaluation rules for the root zone. This will serve as a starting point for the community Generation Panels, the second part in the two-pass process.

For more information on the IDN Variant TLD Program, please visit http://www.icann.org/en/resources/idn/variant-tlds.

The Contact page at ICANN.org has a new look along with new ways of reaching us! The page reflects ICANN’s global expansion and our commitment to regionalizing operations. It now includes contact information for our Hub and Engagement offices.

There are three ICANN Hub offices – Singapore (Asia Pacific), Istanbul (Europe, Middle East and Africa) and Los Angeles (Americas). Together, the Hubs provide 24-hours of service to the ICANN community.

Engagement offices are another key piece of our effort to better address the needs of our stakeholders. To make the best use of our resources, we have closed our Palo Alto, California office and recently relocated our office in Washington DC office to a new, better-designed “green” building. In addition to the office in Brussels, we also have now opened Engagement offices in Montevideo, Uruguay and in Beijing.

For the full list of ICANN offices and how to reach them, please visit http://www.icann.org/en/contact.

By Elise Gerich, VP, IANA & Technical Operations Department

Following four years of applying the EFQM principles of continuous improvement, our IANA and Technical Operations Department was recognized for their Commitment to Excellence. In August we received the Commitment to Excellence recognition from EFQM, the international not-for-profit membership foundation that develops the EFQM Excellence Model, which is used by over 30,000 organizations around the world.

The quest for excellence is an elusive target as the bar measuring excellence is always moving due to the ever changing environment and the evolution of services.

We are currently gathering feedback on our services through a series of consultations on performance standards and documentation. Based on the input from the consultations, we will be creating new performance reports and enhancing the online documentation. In addition, within the next couple of months, we will be conducting our second Customer Survey to gauge the community’s overall satisfaction with the services we provide. The responses to the survey will help our department to target areas for future enhancements.

Our journey towards excellence has been a key component of our regular IANA Activities Updates and has been reported at ICANN meetings in Seoul and Toronto. Some of our customers who also follow the EFQM model for excellence have shared their experiences with us and we have reciprocated. We’d like to engage the community in more discussion about business excellence and plan to schedule a session on this topic for the Buenos Aires ICANN meeting in November 2013.

4 September 2013

The 2013 Nominating Committee (NomCom) is pleased to announce the selection of Jordi Iparraguirre as a member to the ccNSO Council.

The position became vacant following the recent resignation of council member Mary Wong, selected by the 2012 NomCom. Jordi Iparraguirre will take up his position with the ccNSO Council immediately and will serve for the remainder of the term vacated by Ms. Wong, ending at the conclusion of the 2015 ICANN Annual General Meeting.

Yrjo Lansipuro
Chair, 2013 Nominating Committee

Jordi Iparraguirre

Jordi Iparraguirre Computer Science engineer (Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona), Master in Business Administration (ESADE) and DEA on Information and Knowledge Society (UOC/Internet Interdisciplinary Institute). He speaks Catalan, English, French and Spanish.

Since he started in France in 1993, Jordi worked at Hewlett Packard until 2006 in different countries and positions, from technical to management. In his last role at HP his team was responsible and succeeded to redefine and migrate all technical and support training content and delivery on HP's Commercial products from face to face into eLearning.

From 2006 to 2013 at the .cat gTLD, he first was its Operations manager during .cat Sunrise, then its director/CEO until January 2013. Under his leadership .cat won an ever increasing market share, a solid reputation amongst the Catalan and also ICANN's communities, being repeatedly praised as a success case and an example for the new gTLDs to come.

During his tenure .cat has been totally self-funded and profitable year after year since day one. On the technical side .cat offered IDN and IPv6 at its Sunrise and was DNSSEC ready in March 2010. The .cat Registry managed to negotiate amendments to its ICANN contract to hide Whois' individual user's public data, and to to become a registrar. The Registry also presented 3 new gTLD candidatures.

Being .cat a gTLD mostly perceived as a ccTLD .cat also joined and actively participated in CENTR (Council of European National Top Level Domain Registries) and LACTLD (Latin-American and Caribbean TLD association), hosting a CENTR General Assembly and the first ever LACTLD-CENTR joint meeting.

Jordi has also served at ICANN's GNSO Council as a Registry Constituency counselor (2007-2009)

Member of the Internet Society (ISOC) since 1996, he is currently President of ISOC-CAT (ISOC's Catalan Chapter) since November 2012 and its representative in ICANN's EURALO (European At-Large Organization).

As member of the Board of the Catalan professional association of Computer Science Engineers he has participated in the drafting of the Catalan Digital Agenda.

He is currently working on bringing Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) to children and persons with autism, popularizing why privacy matters and how to reduce and control our digital footprint, and advising and offering Business Intelligence services to TLDs.

The Internet Governance Forum and Preparatory Meeting for Latin America and the Caribbean (LACIGF) was held from August 27 to 29, 2013. This is a regional meeting space for multistakeholder policy debate where different stakeholders representing governments, the private sector, the technical community, academia and civil society organizations share and discuss their views.

With the support of APC, LACNIC, NIC.br, Internet Society, Google and ICANN, the local host Ageia Densi, part of the ICANN structure as ALS (At Large Structure) in the LACRALO, was in charge of this sixth edition, where officials and industry professionals met to address five thematic sessions organized around the issues identified as priorities by the community. It is worth noting that since last year, the LACIGF program committee has made a call to develop a collaborative agenda in which everyone has a voice.

Although some question the expected results of the LACIGF and the impact of its influence since it is not a decision making forum, the fact that discussion topics are identified by the community, legitimizes the exercise and concretely offers the possibility to put the issues on the agenda. The multiplicity of actors involved in this meeting edition turned it into an ideal place to discuss politically sensitive and complex issues while it also favored the formation of interest groups.

APC: Frank La Rue

This meeting is key to ICANN activities to ensure a safe and stable Internet while promoting a multistakeholder Internet governance model. Our regional team had a strong presence with Albert Daniels as a resource person for the session on “Enhanced cooperation” and Rodrigo de la Parra as moderator of the session on “Principles of multistakeholder participation.” Precisely, in relation these issues, one of the central concerns was the use of a definition shared by all. Rodrigo de la Parra stated that the concept of multistakeholderism means a systemic and endemic participation of various actors and consensus in decision-making, not just community consultations. Albert Daniels for his part, stressed that if the multistakeholderism works well, this will result in tangible instances and examples of Enhanced Cooperation.

With themes such as Human Rights, freedom of expression, security, and privacy and considering the latest events (PRISM / Snowden cases), it is not surprising that this edition was the most successful in terms of participation, with 200 people from 26 countries in the room and more than 2000 people connected remotely on the first day. On the Human Rights and Freedom of Expression issues, we should highlight the participation of Frank La Rue, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression of the United Nations Human Rights Council.

Far from generating a defeatist climate, recent events made ??the Internet more alive than ever, adding new players to the debate and multiplying the eyes that now look with great interest the discussions on Internet Governance.

The Regional Preparatory Meeting for the Internet Governance Forum is an effort of several organizations. ICANN has supported this initiative since the first edition in 2008.

Rodrigo de la Parra, ICANN VP for Latin America and the Caribbean and Andrés Piazza, LACNIC Public Affairs Officer, in an interview with local television

Our efforts in terms of communications also were rewarded by the continued participation of about 10 local journalists whom informed that ICANN and the global Internet community will return to Argentina in November this year, this time in Buenos-Aires, for ICANN 48.