As of 00:00 UTC today – 4 days after the launch of the Fast Track Process we have new requests coming in.

The total number is 10 requests. They spread over 5 different languages.

Details about the process is at: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/idn/fast-track/

Please keep asking questions. Is there is anything we can explain better? The FAQ will be updated shortly to include everything you ask here as well.

The launch went smoothly. We have since monitored the system and everything is working.

As of 10pm Pacific time (15 November 2009) we have received:

- 6 requests from countries/territories
- representing 3 different languages

Following the IDN ccTLD Fast Track Final Implementation Plan, no additional details will be reported by ICANN – that is, until requests has been successfully processed.

That said, we will be providing additional stats (as the above) updates in regular time intervals.

No countries or territories has reported problems using the system, at this time.

All details for participants and access to the system is available directly from http://www.icann.org or directly at: http://icann.org/en/topics/idn/fast-track/

Inquiries for the system are to be submitted to idncctldrequest@icann.org

A quick note to participants:

When uploading supporting material, please note that each file must be limited to 10MB. If you have larger files, please indicate that in the text box provided, and send the files to idncctldrequest@icann.org We will try to find a better solution to this soon.

We are very much looking forward to receiving additional requests and processing everything, to make IDN ccTLDs a reality for Internet users around the world!

Instead I have decided to post the letter below. Samira is a real person She is a little girl from a village in a developing country. She has one thing in common with many others – she has no access to the Internet (they do have radio). But while her Internet problems start at a different place than IDNs, I am confident that IDNs at some point soon will make it easier for her to learn about the Internet and also make it easier for her to use it. Samira will have to wait for the postal delivery of this letter – but then there is nothing like getting that kind of mail too

Other than that I just like to say that I hope the Fast Track launch goes smoothly, and that it will work favorable for all participants. But most of all I hope that we with this launch will treat IDNs carefully and with the respect it deserves, and that we will continue to work together across time-zones and cultures, because afterall, what is the Internet if it does not work well for many years and users to come.

————————————-
Dear Samira,
Tomorrow is BIG BIG day for many people around the world and I decided to share it with you.

I know you have not seen the Internet yet, but as you grow up and you do, maybe you will recall this letter and an exciting time. What is the Internet? Well, it’s like this big box of information, pictures, games – you can read and also write about anything you like. it could be about peasants, your favorite food, toy, and you know what? You can even listen to the radio on the Internet. Only your imagination sets a limit for the Internet. Have you ever looked under water? It’s like an entire new world down there, so different than on land. The Internet is kind of like that – a different world – only bigger and it has information about under-water and land in it….anything you can imagine

And every page on this Internet has an address. You know, just like you know how to explain where you live. It is made that way so that I can tell you an address and you can then go to that address and read my letter to you, or look at a picture I placed there for you to see. All these addresses have only been able to be written in the Roman alphabet….yes sounds a little weird, but that is just all those letters you see me write here.

Guess what happens tomorrow? Countries around the world – your country too – will be able to get a new address on the Internet. The most exciting thing is that this new address can be in almost any letters you like. So you can use your own language for an address for you. Then your friends and family can use that address and see what you are putting on the Internet. So it will be easier for you and everyone you know to remember that address. I think you will be excited when you see how it works.

I know that even though you already know more than one language, you are soon going to begin learning English. English is the language I used to write this letter to you. Languages are so exciting and they change all the time. Sometimes it can be hard to keep up with, but I will tell you more about it in my next letter. Learning another language is amazing and it will help you communicate with people around the world. I have made so many friends around the world who all have helped make the Internet change the way I tried to describe to you. They have all taught me something important about life that I will never forget. But it would not have worked if we did not speak a little bit of the same language. So I really hope that you will be enjoying learning a new language.

You know how you can write your language both by using the Roman alphabet, and also the Arabic one? Well, this Internet change is almost the same thing – now these addresses can be in either alphabet too! And the coolest thing about it is that there is only one to decide which alphabet to use, and that it YOU! It is your choice for you and you alone!

But please keep that in mind when you start using the Internet. Let me know when that is and I will help you get your own address to a place on the Internet, in your language. But remember that I am not able to read or write your language (although I wish) so it may be a little bit difficult for me in the beginning and I will need your help.

With the very best wishes to you and many many others in the next generation of Internet users. I know I am together with many people around the world when I say that I can’t wait to see what you will use it for and how you will change it over time too….

Sections are:

• JPA/Affirmation
• Applicant Guidebook/new gTLDs
• Fast Track/IDNs
• Public comment periods
• Seoul meeting
• And the remainder

JPA/Affirmation
Last Wednesday, 30 September 2009, the Joint Project Agreement with the US government ended and in its place a new Affirmation of Commitments was signed.

This is obviously of enormous significance to ICANN, so it currently sits front and center on the ICANN front page. We have an announcement, the Affirmation itself, a video of CEO Rod Beckstrom explaining its significance, and reaction from the community. The Affirmation has been signed but obviously there is much that the community now needs to discuss, and that conversation will start in Seoul.

Applicant Guidebook / new gTLDs
The third version of the Applicant Guidebook was released today. It’s all out for public comment, as we have done twice before. We are gradually moving forward with the overarching issues and, again, Seoul will be place to have more discussions.

It is worth pointing out that today, Monday 5 October, is the document deadline for Seoul (15 working days before the start of the meeting), which is why so much stuff has appeared in the past few days. The idea is that everyone will now have plenty of time to read the documents and so be in a position to talk about their contents at Seoul.

The full rundown of documents can be found at http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/comments-3-en.htm, including red-lined versions so you can see what has changed.

Fast Track
This is the process for introducing internationalized domain names (IDNs) into the root – but only those that related to territories i.e. ccTLDs. The Fast Track final implementation plan was published last week for public comment, and the plan is to have the Board authorize it at the Seoul meeting (end of this month).

So, this is the last chance to have a look and have your say before it actually happens. You can find all the information you should need for that process at http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-30sep09-en.htm.

Public comment periods
As usual in the build-up to a meeting, we have a raft of public comment periods. Ignoring the ones for the Applicant Guidebook and Fast Track, both of which are mentioned above, we have also opened comment periods on:

• A root-scaling study by TNO
• The use of proxy services for domain registration i.e. people paying to ensure their personal details do not appear publicly as the owner of a particular domain name
• Board review final report i.e. the changes to be made to the Board itself as part of the ongoing independent review process
• SSAC review report – same as Board report above but not as far along in the process
• NomCom review report – same as SSAC above

Seoul meeting
Why we have this glut of material is, of course, the upcoming Seoul meeting at the end of October.

With respect to the meeting itself, there are several other pieces of information:

• The agenda is live - check it out to see what is going on, when and who will be speaking
• If you can’t attend, you can ask questions in the public forum online
• If you haven’t see it yet, the meeting has its own website at http://sel.icann.org

And the remainder
And there’s still more:

• Nairobi fellowship applications
• A new process for registry security requests
• A bulk transfer advisory

Hopefully that helps breaks down the work into manageable chunks. If you still have queries, please add them as a comment below.

We have put that document out in a radically different public comment period to allow for as much community discussion and collaboration as possible.

The comment period uses Jive software which allows for simple interaction and discussion between community members. It is an experiment we are running from now until 24 September. You can view everyone’s responses, clearly broken down into different areas, and if you register post your own thoughts and responses. As well as vote in polls, write blog posts, and so on.

The AC/SO summary drew out six main issues as well as seven suggested solutions to fix those issues. The top two issues were frustration and exhaustion at the huge volume of work, and the lack of visibility of the impact of volunteer input on decision-making.

The top three suggested solutions were: prioritization of the workload; better scoping of issues at the start of policy processes; and improving accessibility to issues by providing summaries.

Now we need you as the community to flesh out these broad points into specific ideas and suggestions.

The discussion space will be shut down after 30 days as the experiment closes and a report will then be written covering what happened as well as the feasibility of using Jive or similar software for future community discussions.

So if you want to make your voice heard not only about how ICANN can improve but the ways in which those improvement discussions are held, then please login on today and start interacting.

You can log-on to the collaborative space at: https://jive.dev.icann.org/community/acso.

ICANN’s staff is currently producing implementation plans for both the IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process and the New gTLD Process. What guides that process for the topic of variants, is three things:

1. Following the direction of policy advice already provided
2. Taking broader community needs into consideration, and
3. Ensuring the continued stability of the DNS and the namespace in general

In the course of doing this for the issue of variant TLDs there were two different proposals.

1. Reserve desired variants & block all other variants; and
2. Delegate desired variants & block all other variants

Following public comment periods on both proposed implementation methods (none were agreeable across the community), it was decided during the Sydney meeting this June that ICANN staff would seek implementation assistance from the community. This is usually the case on policies that have technical implications and hence are difficult to implement.

As a result a small team has been asked to volunteer their time (you can read more about that team and another issue the team is looking at in the post Solving the remaining IDN issues).

Community discussion on this topic is very important as we strive to reach a conclusion that works for all involved. Variant TLD management is especially important to make the introduction of IDNs work well for the end-users. The IDN Tables that hold and define the character variants are the most important piece of the management of variants, as these tables are developed to reduce the potential for confusion to end users by the introduction of IDNs.

In the most recent paper [pdf] published on this topic, a variant is defined as follows:

“Variant characters are two or more characters that are similar in appearance and result in two domain names to be visually confusing.

As such the resulting “variant strings” that are obtained by replacing the original characters with the variant characters, are visually indistinctible and, if used for separate purposes, could create user confusion. In some cases this could result in visually similar strings having the same meaning.

As such, the term “variant” designates orthographic equivalence on the character level, such as that between “æ” and “ae” in “encyclopædia” and “encyclopaedia”, but not in the broader sense that pertains to the variant spelling of words, as “encyclopaedia” vs. “encyclopedia” or “color” vs. “colour”. The IDN Tables that define variant characters are useful because they enable TLD registries to develop registration policies that will reduce the potential for confusion that could result from typographic similarities in domain names.

Recent discussions have suggested that the definition might be better if more technical stringent (for example by following the definition in the JET Guidelines: “One conceptual character can be identified with several different Code Points in character sets for computer use”) and then add various examples of variants, where some are confusingly similar visually and others are not.

The same paper proposed the following way of managing IDN TLD variants:

“ICANN understands the need expressed in the community for enabling allocation of variant strings, in particular for locations where some users will key in one string and other users will key in the variant string when accessing for example a website. ICANN urges the community to continue to discuss and develop a technical solution that will enable the allocation of variant strings in the root zone in a stable manner. Until then IDN ccTLD Fast Track requesters will need to select one string per script or language only or alternatively wait until a technical solution has been found.

“In order to reserve the possibility of allocating variant strings to the appropriate entities, ICANN will ensure that all variant strings are reserved or blocked for allocation for now. Blocked strings will be considered as “existing strings” when incoming requests are checked for conflicts with existing TLDs. Therefore, any later request for the same string will be denied.”

The reservation of desired variants was thought to be the safest way of securing adequate variant management until a solution has been found on how to manage them at the top level. The community response to the temporary solution was mixed. There is a concern in certain regions that a blocking of variants will disfranchise certain user communities. However, at the same time the response received stated that solving this problem should not in any way slow down the Fast Track introduction.

While we continue work on the subject with the industry experts, one thing seem to be clear: variant TLDs will be identified using of the IDN Tables that are required in either a Fast Track request or an IDN gTLD application.

This means that for the sake of the end-users, the usability of IDNs globally, and therefore the adoption of IDNs across applications on the Internet, we better get these tables right!

I have previously blogged about what could be the worst case scenario. We really want to avoid this. We are in the last step of making IDN TLDs a reality for users globally which will be an amazing step for all involved.

For example, current practice dictates that gTLDs contain at least three characters – two-character Latin TLDs are reserved for country-code top-level domains (ccTLDs). However, in certain languages (you probably can think of more than one) one or two characters commonly express a complete word – and they would not be confused with present-day ccTLDs.

Prohibiting the registration of names of less than three characters in certain languages may hobble IDN use in certain languages but it is difficult to fashion a uniform set of rules to govern a potential relaxation of this requirement that works universally.

ICANN’s approach to this issue is similar to its approach on many issues regarding implementation of the policy for the introduction of new gTLDs.

1. Get expert advice on the matter. The use of experts allows ICANN to obtain experience and skill economically outside its core competencies and develop material for public discussion in a timely manner.
2. Use that advice to formulate some sort of model.
3. Then conduct public discussion on the issue (the discussion is clarified by existence of a model).
4. Iterate the model and hold another round of public discussion.
5. Iterate the model, and so on.

This process has been used effectively thus far in the new gTLD implementation. ICANN has consulted with: technical, DNS, risk management and linguistic experts, dispute resolution providers, and others.

In this case of character limits and IDNs, ICANN is engaging a small team to evaluate this problem and provide expert advice from both sides of the problem: that IDNs must be effectively engender regional participation and that the rules must provide stability, i.e., that the domain name system (DNS) work in a way predictable to users.

Given the importance of the issue, we saw a large number of volunteers – all of them competent to take part – but from which only a few of which were chosen for the team so initial advice could be developed relatively quickly.

That not to say that those not in the team can’t participate effectively now and in the future. Right now, there are a number of comments on the issue but no jointly developed advice or model. The small working group is intended to move the discussion forward — but not conclude it. Rather, it will provide additional material for all those who are interested in ensuing discussion in ICANN meetings and public comment fora.

Again, that process for reaching implementation: identify issues, get expert advice, create a model for public discussion, discuss, iterate the model, and so on.

The idea is that the experts crystalise the discussion in a timely way and therefore encourage meaningful participation.

We are at step number two of this process that will include all interested parties. The process for developing a preliminary set of assumption will be publicly reported so the ensuing public discussion can be informed and timely.

Everyone at ICANN appreciates the comments made on this particular issue and other IDN issues – all going toward an effective way to increase effective regional participation in the Internet.

The networks using these officially unallocated addresses are intended to be private, not visible to the global Internet. Nonetheless, their use can be detected when the private parts of networks connect to their public Internet facing connections, such as the connections to their service providers. The addresses leak in e-mail message headers, DNS queries and other random traffic. In some cases, this unofficial use can cause operational problems.

IANA staff has tried to research which /8s are being used in this way. In 2008 we sponsored research by Duane Wessels into which /8s see the most use. He reported on his research at OARC’s DNS Ops meeting and I wrote about it on this blog. Based on this work, we think the /8s with the most unofficial use are:

1, 2, 5, 14, 23, 39, 42, 100, 101, 107, 175 and 176

Duane Wessels’ research was part of a number of presentations that were part of an awareness campaign we worked on. This included talks at network operator groups and articles in industry journals and in some cases discussions with the users of the unallocated space where we could identify them. While we have discussed the issue with some of these network operators, we haven’t been able to speak directly to everyone making unofficial use of this address space because they tend to do so in private networks.

We know that newly allocated IPv4 /8s can be difficult for assigned users to use at first because old filters which block unallocated addresses are slow to be updated with new allocation information. There might be some extra operational difficulties with these particular /8s if unofficial users of the addresses try to communicate with the newly assigned official users of the same addresses.

The longer-term solution to this problem is for network operators to switch to IPv6 and to stop using the unallocated blocks entirely.

Over the next two years we will continue to allocate from these /8s when making allocations to the RIRs. The RIRs use about one /8 per month and so over the next couple of years we know that all of these /8s will be allocated.

One of the more interesting insights involved looking at network diversity. We want top-level domains to keep functioning no matter what is happening — any conceivable disaster shouldn’t knock a top-level domain off-line. One thing we ask is that top-level domains’ name servers be hosted in at least two distinct networks, so it is guarded against a failure (be it a technical failure, or some other business failure event).

Here is a map of all the country-code top-level domains, and one possibly measure of diversity — the number of “autonomous systems” their name servers are hosted in. Countries marked red are reliant on a single network, and if that network failed it could be disastrous for its users without alternatives. Those orange through green have increasing amounts of diversity in the networks that host their name servers:

If we take a minimum of two networks as our baseline requirement, we can look at how TLDs have met this criteria over a period of time — say the last five years:

The blue line shows IPv4 connectivity and it is pretty good, and rather consistent. But if we judge IPv6 connectivity against the same diversity requirement, shown as the green line, not even 50% of ccTLDs have this level of diversity. If we look at TLDs with any IPv6 it is a little better, but there is still about a third of all ccTLDs with no IPv6 connectivity at all!

The good news is the IPv6 trend lines are heading in the right direction, with the growth of IPv6 deployment even accelerating a little recently. Lets hope this continues so that these critical resources are stable not just for existing Internet users, but for future Internet users as well.

Well, they are probably aware now.

For many of us at ICANN it can come as a shock – where the new gTLD process has been a part of everyday life for more than two years – to suddenly be reminded that despite all the discussions, the meetings, the public comment periods, the sessions across the world, and the seemingly endless documents, the whole process of opening up the domain name space has until recently gone largely unnoticed by the wider world.

From my perspective, a number of reporters “buried the lead” when they reported on this new study commissioned by British registrar Gandi. What they buried or didn’t report at all is that of 100 UK businesses surveyed, 81 percent say the gTLD expansion will be innovative, and 75 percent say it will be advantageous.

This is especially significant since nearly all the coverage up to now has focused on the struggle to find solutions to the remaining overarching issues such as trademark protection.

Gandi also commissioned Futurelab to survey 1,000 consumers (on top of the 100 businesses) about new gTLDs. Not surprisingly, the survey revealed that businesses are concerned the costs of a new gTLD, while many consumers are simply concerned that the Internet might become more cluttered and not be as navigable as it is today.

So the survey provides a spot check on where attitudes are today, but it also underscores a critical fact: that gTLD expansion is literally a work in progress and the application process won’t be opened up until the concerns are addressed.

We still have at least one more round of public comments on the next draft of the Applicant Guidebook. The most concerning aspect about this from the staff perspective, however, is that people will either not hear about the process in time or – worse – hear about it but do not become aware that they can have an impact and express their views – that ICANN is building a broad consensus view about how to move forward with the greatest ever expansion of the domain space.

The Implementation Recommendation Team (IRT) is a case in point. When we heard the concerns expressed about trademark, the concerned community was asked to come up with solutions to be fed back into the ICANN process. Now the IRT final report is published and out for public comments and our Sydney meeting later this month will give everyone else in the community the chance to say what they think about those solutions.

Undoubtedly, the Gandi study will fuel more discussion surrounding gTLD expansion at Sydney. Great, we welcome it. The most dangerous voice is the one not heard.

We have already set aside several months of awareness building after the Applicant Guidebook is finished and published; the earlier people become aware of the process, not only does it mean we have to reach fewer people but also more people learn about the fact that they can get involved in ICANN’s processes.

If you can’t attend the Sydney meeting we urge you to take part remotely.