En bref, le GNSO a la charge d’établir et de proposer au Conseil d’administration de l’ICANN les règles et politiques concernant les extensions génériques (gTLDs). Ainsi le programme de création des nouveaux gTLDs actuellement en cours d’élaboration a d’abord été “construit” par le GNSO sous forme de recommandations qui ont ensuite été soumises au Conseil d’administration.

Ce gros dossier continue d’occuper les membres du Conseil du GNSO, tous élus parmi les six collèges ou proposés par le NomCom (le Nominating Committee a comme mission de recruter les meilleurs candidats possibles pour certains postes de l’ICANN). Mais en parallèle, un autre sujet nous demande beaucoup de travail : la réforme du GNSO.

L’enjeu est de permettre d’ouvrir le GNSO encore plus afin de permettre au plus grand nombre de participer à son fonctionnement. Ainsi, là où aujourd’hui les pièces constitutives du GNSO sont les collèges, demain il y aura une structure plus fine.

En premier lieu, un format bicaméral a été proposé avec une “chambre” regroupant les entités n’ayant pas de contrat direct avec l’ICANN et une autre pour celles qui en ont (uniquement les registres et les registrars à l’heure actuelle). Ces chambres seront composées de “groupements d’intérêts”, ou “SG” puisque l’on parle de “stakeholder groups” en Anglais. Et à l’intérieur de chaque SG prendront place des collèges (”constituencies” toujours).

Cette nouvelle structure rend la création de collèges plus faciles. D’ailleurs, en amont de la mise en place de ce GNSO v2, si vous me passez l’expression, plusieurs propositions de création de collèges ont déjà été reçues par le secrétariat du GNSO. Quel type de collège les gens souhaitent-ils créer ? Un exemple, la dernière demande en date porte sur un collège des TLDs de villes qui prendrait place au sein du SG des registres.

Lors de la réunion de Sydney, il y aura beaucoup de discussions sur ces nouvelles opportunités de participer au GNSO, comme sur sa refonte en général. Que ce soit directement sur place, ou par Internet si vous ne pouvez pas venir, vous pourrez prendre part à ces discussions et donner votre avis sur ce que doit être l’avenir d’un des organismes de soutien clefs de l’ICANN.

Mexico City is no exception. Although this time, it is very much easier to get a quick overview of what is out for public comment by looking at the front page of the ICANN website (the third box down on the right).

Just to present you with another avenue to finding out about these public comment periods, there are all listed below with quick explanations of what they are and the dates when they close.

Open comment periods

1. GNSO Constituency Renewals. Closes 25 FEB
As part of the ongoing changes to ICANN’s main policy-making body, the GNSO, all the existing constituencies have put in submissions stating that they have followed the bylaws and so should be reconfirmed as valid constituencies. You are free to comment on these submissions.

2. IPv4 Global Policy. Closes 26 FEB
We are running out of IPv4 address space and so ICANN has been working with the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) to decide what system we follow as the addresses get more and more scarce. The policy here proposes that each RIR be allocated one “slash-8″ – equating to roughly 16.7 million IP addresses – as soon as they are only five blocks left. If you have a comment on this you can make it between now and 26 February.

3. Single and Two-Character .BIZ Domains. Closes 15 MAR
The company that runs the .biz registry, NeuStar, wants to make single and two-character domains available. Until recently, no registries were allowed to do this because of technical concerns. But those rules have relaxed over the past year or so. To be allowed to create, for example, i.biz, NeuStar has to change its contract with ICANN, and ICANN puts all contract changes out for public comment and review. So if you have an opinion about this, you can make it online.

4. Geographic Regions Working Group Charter. Closes 24 MAR
As an organization hoping to represent global stakeholders, ICANN has followed the common approach of splitting the world up into different regions in order to make things manageable. The problems is: where do you draw the lines? It may seem simple but the closer the issue is looked at, the more complex it becomes. So, in order to review what these regions are and who they include, ICANN has created a Working Group to go through all the issues and make recommendations at the end of it. The first step in that process is to create a charter for the group – outlining the scope and methodology that will be followed. This public comment period opens that charter up to public review.

5. Fast Track Proposed Solutions. Closes 6 APR
The Fast Track is the process by which governments and the managers of different countries’ registries will be able to apply for and receive versions of their country name in different languages scripts at the top-level of the Internet i.e. the part after the dot in a domain name. An example would be “China” in Chinese characters. These “internationalized domain names” or IDNs are being put out on the Internet for the first time as the technical issues that make it possible have only recently been resolved.

It is not a simple process by any means, so ICANN has been producing drafts of an “implementation plan” to make this process a reality. In this iteration, as well as the latest version of the Fast Track Implementation Plan, there will be three papers identifying specific issues that still need to be resolved. You can see all the papers in question and make comments about them now and until 6 April.

6. ALAC Review Final Report. Closes 17 APR
ICANN regularly reviews of its main supporting organizations and advisory committees to make sure they remain relevant and in the correct format. The At Large Advisory Committee or ALAC exists to represent ordinary Internet users and it has been under review for roughly a year and the process is drawing to a close. A final report of the working group created to carry out much of the review has been released for its final piece of public comment before being formally submitted to a Board Committee that then puts it forward to a vote by the whole Board. So if you want your say on how ordinary Internet users should be represented within the ICANN model, this is your last chance. Until the ALAC is reviewed again in a few years.

7. Operating Plan and Budget FY2010. Closes 30 APR
People are constantly asking how much money ICANN has and how it decides where to spend it. What few people recognise however is that those decisions are heavily influenced by the community itself. Every year, ICANN runs through a public strategic planning process that outlines what the organization needs to do in the next year. It then turns that into an Operating Plan and from that devises its budget. The community is invited every year to provide their feedback on the process of where ICANN spends it money. This is a comment period on the first version of the Operating Plan and Budget for ICANN’s 2010 financial year. The comments from this will be used to revise the plan and budget and it will then be put out a second time before being approved by the Board in June.

And that’s it for now. Much of the community will be focussed on the revised Applicant Guidebook for new generic top-level domains that will come out in the next day or so, but please do not forget these other public comment periods.

You can view all open and recently closed public comment periods on one page, as well as an archive of older comment periods: http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/.

During the Cairo meeting in general, ICANN together with Domaine.info produced a number of videos covering the main sessions and topics, with each video fronted by a member of either the staff or a chair of the relevant supporting organization or advisory committee.

You can find all of those videos posted on the Cairo site at http://cai.icann.org/video, and on the ICANN main site under the “Video” tab.

This video features consultant Patrick Sharry talking about the AC/SO session, which he helped moderate. This joint session will be repeated in Mexico City on the first day of the meeting with a slightly different format following feedback from the community on the first meeting.

Below is a transcript of the video and off to the right is the video itself.

# ICANN and Domaine.info
# ICANN, CAIRO Egypt- November 3, 2008
# Open Joint Session, GNSO,ccNSO, GAC, ALAC Domain.Name.Space
# Hello, my name is Patrick Sharry
# Today I facilitated a very important meeting.
# For the first time at an ICANN meeting,
# we had the chairs of the SOs and ACs.
# organize themselves together for a joint meeting of those groups.
# There were two topics discussed, we talked about the President’s Strategy Committee and
# the Improving Institutional Confidence work
# and we also talked about new gTLDs, IDN ccTLDs, and the issues around those things.
# It was a meeting that ran very well,
# and not least because people recognized how important it was,
# to bring these groups together to talk about issues of such importance.
# During the PSC session. we started with a presentation by the chairman, Peter Dengate Thrush.
# Peter outlined the recent work that the President’s Strategic Committee had been doing,
# and ran through a few slides that talked about the relevant areas that we needed to consider.
# We then got some views from the Supporting Organization and Advisory Committee chairs
# who were seated at the top table.
# And from there, we began a conversation with the community as a whole with an open mike session.
# There were a number of comments on many different aspects of that work.
# As the conversation proceeded, I tried to capture on the white board, some of the key topics of those conversations.
# That list of topics, will then be presented to staff and to other parts of the organization for further consideration,
# as we move into the next phase of the improving institutional confidence project.
# In the second half of our session, we concentrated on new gTLDs, IDN ccTLDs and the issues that surround that.
# We began with comments from each of the Supporting Organization and Advisory Committee chairs,
# They told us what was important in these areas from their own SO or AC perspective,
# And also why those things should be of importance to the community as a whole.
# We interspersed conversations from the SO and AC chairs, with comments from the floor,
# and in particular, we had a particularly productive session at the end where we looked at the issue of geographic names.
# This conversation produced interesting interplay between a number of people in the ICANN community,
# about the issue of what was a gTLD and was a ccTLD
# How should the process run and who should be involved.
# Again, as we had this conversation, I collected on the white board the main topics that people were covering.
# This list will be put into the process of one of a number of items that have been collected this week,
# to help the team who are working on IDN ccTLDs and new gTLDs to further their work,
# as part of the community consultation that they are doing in order to come up with the next phase of that for our next meeting in Mexico.
# Thank you for listening to all of this. It was a very important meeting for the ICANN community,
# as we work forward, I’m sure that we’ll find better ways of running these meetings,
# and that means by the time we get to Mexico and beyond, we’ll actually have even more productive ways
# of bringing these important parts of the ICANN community together. Thanks again for your time. Bye bye.
# Copyrights Domaine.info 2008 All Rights Reserved
# Your comments and reactions are welcome Vos commentaires et reactions sont les bienvenues participate@icann.org

What was it?

ICANN’s 33nd international public meeting was the third held this year to conduct policy development and outreach. It was hosted by ICANN (the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) and the Government of Egypt.

The meeting was opened by Dr. Tarek Mohamed Kamel, Egypt’s Minister of Communications and Information Technology. There were 1,702 attendees from 144 different countries. The participants engaged in a wide range of discussions about the Internet’s domain name system and related issues.

Further information about the meeting, including presentations and transcripts, is available at http://cai.icann.org/. A number of videos summarizing the key parts of the meeting can be found at: http://cai.icann.org/en/video.

ICANN’s next international public meeting will take place in Mexico City, Mexico, beginning on 1st March, 2009.

What happened and what are the next steps?

Many meetings, workshops, public forums and informal discussions were held over eight days by the different stakeholders of the ICANN model:

• Business interests
• Civil society
• Governments and government agencies
• Internet service providers
• Registrants
• Registrars
• Registries
• The technical community

• New gTLDs
• IDNs and IDN Fast Track
• Improving Institutional Confidence
• Independent Reviews
• DNSSEC and Security
• Business Access Agenda
• Special guests: Dr Hamadoun Touré and Meredith Atwell Baker
• Other matters

A draft Applicant Guidebook was released a week before the meeting for those wishing to apply for a new generic top-level domain. A number of meetings and workshops were dedicated to explaining the guidebook and receiving input and feedback from the community on its contents.

The first were two introductory sessions on the Sunday before the meeting’s official opening, held in English and Arabic. That was followed by a dedicated hour-and-forty-five minute workshop in the main room on the opening day, Monday (http://cai.icann.org/en/video#tue). Further discussion on the subject took place at a joint session of the chairs of the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees in the afternoon.

Discussion and updates were then presented to different parts of the community, including the GNSO and its constituencies, ccNSO and GAC over the course of the following two days. A community-led discussion on “Additional Solutions for a Successful gTLD Launch” took place on the Wednesday afternoon.

Much of the two-part public forum on Thursday was taken up with comments and questions on the guidebook specifically and the new gTLD process generally, and an update on the process was given to the Board during its public meeting on Friday morning. Transcripts from most of these sessions are available on the Cairo meeting site (http://cai.icann.org/en/transcripts).

More information is available on ICANN’s new gTLDs page (http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtld-program.htm), including the draft Applicant Guidebook and accompanying explanatory memoranda, as well as an FAQ, and additional resources.

The new gTLD update provided to the Board can be found at: http://cai.icann.org/files/meetings/cairo2008/new-gtlds-06nov08.pdf

Next steps:

The draft Guidebook will be published in five additional languages. A public comment period on the guidebook will run until 8 December (http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new‐gtld‐comments‐
en.htm), after which public comment will be analysed and used to revise the implementation model.

In 2009, ICANN will procure evaluation services for certain aspects of the process, embark on a global communications plan to make as many people as possible aware of the new process and then launch the introduction of new gTLDs.

More information:

See the new gTLD webpage at http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtld-program.htm
An overview video of the Monday session can be found online at http://cai.icann.org/en/video#tue

Just prior to the meeting, the draft implementation plan for the IDN Fast Track was published. The Fast Track would allow a limited number of IDN ccTLDs to be introduced before the formal policy development process is finalized (IDN ccTLDs are country code, as opposed to generic, internationalized domain names at the top level of the Internet).

Public comments on the draft document are being received until 8 December (see http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-200812.html#plan-idn-cctlds).

In Cairo, the Fast Track document was the focus of much of the discussion related to IDNs. The issue of internationalized domain names that may be applied for through the new gTLD process (as opposed to the Fast Track or the subsequent ccTLD policy development process) was also a main topic of conversation. There was also some discussion about the timing and possible overlap of the two different tracks for IDN top-level domain applications.

There were also two introductory sessions (one in English and one in Arabic) on the subject of IDNs.

The Fast Track and the introduction of IDNs was also discussed in two joint sessions of the chairs of the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees on Monday afternoon and Thursday morning. Updates on both, as well as progress being made by the IETF on the IDNA protocol revision (an important step for the process) were provided to ICANN’s different bodies and constituencies over the course of the week.

An update on the process was provided to the ICANN Board at its public meeting on the Friday, complete with some discussion of the issues surrounding IDN implementation issues necessary for the Fast Track process to be implemented. Transcripts from most of these sessions are available on the Cairo meeting site (http://cai.icann.org/en/transcripts). See also: http://cai.icann.org/files/meetings/cairo2008/idn-pf-cairo-06nov08_0.pdf

A meeting of interested parties on the introduction of Arabic script at the top level of the Internet took place on the Saturday after the meeting.

Next steps:

The draft implementation plan for the Fast Track process is out for public comment until 8 December, when it will be evaluated with respect to the comments. At the same time, an IETF working group is finalizing an IDN protocol that ICANN hopes to see completed before the introduction of IDN top-level domains.

Outstanding issues remain including: the relationship between an IDN ccTLD operator and ICANN, both in the type of agreement or framework entered into and the provision of funds; the issue of contention between existing top-level domains and ones applied for through the new gTLD process; and a few technical requirements. Some of these issues will be addressed or resolved at the next ICANN meeting in Mexico in March 2009.

Staff will provide an updated version of the draft Fast Track implementation plan prior to the Mexico meeting, with a specific focus on these issues:

More information:
IDN index page: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/idn/
The Fast Track draft implementation plan: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/idn/fast-track/idn-cctld-implementation-plan-23oct08-en.pdf
An overview video of IDNs and new gTLDs can found online at: http://cai.icann.org/en/video#mon

The IIC consultation was formally launched at ICANN’s Paris meeting in June and has since been the subject of two public comment periods and a global outreach campaign. In Cairo, the meeting was used to give the community an update on the process and also to gather more feedback on the issues it has raised.

The IIC consultation is based on successive drafts of a set of three documents – an Improving Institutional Confidence in ICANN document; a Transition Action Plan; and a Frequently Asked Questions document. These documents have been updated to reflect community input from a special session in Paris,, the two public comment periods and a series of five public meetings in Montevideo, Christchurch, Geneva, Washington DC and Dakar between August and October 2008.

A special joint session of the chairs of the different Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees considered the IIC documents on Monday afternoon. A session dedicated to the consultation was also held on Thursday afternoon. Transcripts from these sessions are available on the Cairo meeting site (http://cai.icann.org/en/transcripts). The consultation was also one of the main topics discussed by the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) over the course of the week.

The consultation’s aim is for the community to discuss possible changes to ICANN in the lead-up to the completion of the JPA in September 2009. This work has been led by the President’s Advisory Committee (PSC) whose role is to provide advice to the Board.

Next Steps:

Work will soon begin on an implementation plan with details about the issues identified by the community as needing attention. That plan will be published in early 2009 in time for review prior to the next ICANN meeting in Mexico City in March.

In the meantime, two further outreach meetings, at Afrinic in Mauritius later this month (November 2008) and at the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Hyderabad, India in December will take place to build more awareness and gather feedback.

More information:

Full information about the documents, the public comment periods, the regional meetings and the consultation itself can be found on dedicated IIC webpages in ten languages at: http://www.icann.org/en/jpa/iic/
The update on the process, as given at the special IIC session on Thursday can be found online at: http://cai.icann.org/files/meetings/cairo2008/iic-workshop-06nov08.pdf

The independent review process requires each of ICANN’s Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees to undergo review every few years to make sure that the organization as a whole continues to serves the needs of the global Internet community.

There are several independent reviews currently underway or soon to be launched. The Board of Directors is also undergoing an independent review. The Cairo meeting saw a number of updates and workshops on the current reviews, and an update on the various reviews was also provided to the Board at its public meeting on Friday. A new staff member dedicated to overseeing the reviews process was also publicly introduced.

GNSO
The review effort to improve the structure, operations, communications and outreach of the GNSO has now moved into the implementation stage, but there are two outstanding issues still being considered by the ICANN Board: how the GNSO Council elects members of the Board; and the role of individual users within the GNSO.

Staff is actively soliciting input on the first issue, and the second has been put out to public comment until 28 November (see http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-200811.html#gnso-users).
In the meantime, charters and work plans are being developed for steering committees and operations work teams to enable the GNSO to move into its new two-house structure by June 2009, and to develop implementation proposals for a new policy development process as well as a new working group methodology for addressing policy issues.

Nominating Committee
Currently in “improvement stage”. The Board Governance Committee (BGC) is reviewing a report from a special BGC working group formed to review the independent report produced earlier in the year.

ALAC
Following discussion of the independent reviewer’s report at the Paris meeting in July, a working group on the ALAC review has produced a mid-point report on its findings so far and held several sessions in Cairo seeking input from the community. A final report is expected for the Mexico City meeting in March 2009.

Board of Directors
The independent reviewer’s report was published at the Cairo meeting and a special session held on the Monday evening. A special working group will seek input from the community and produce an initial report for the Mexico City meeting.

RSSAC
The independent reviewers started gathering information at a special session on the Wednesday morning. A draft report is expected for the Mexico City meeting in March 2009.

SSAC
The independent reviewers started gathering information at a special session on the Wednesday morning. A draft report is expected for the Mexico City meeting in March 2009.

Others
The ccNSO and ASO reviews are in their preparatory stages, with the terms of reference for the ccNSO to be published for public comment before the end of the year, and the terms of reference for the ASO expected in early 2009.

Next Steps:
The progress of each review can be followed online, with further details on each given in the staff update provided to the Board on Friday.

More information:
The independent reviews webpage can be found at: http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/
The presentation provided to the Board can be found online at: https://cai.icann.org/files/meetings/cairo2008/organizational-reviews-06nov08.pdf
Transcripts from most of these sessions are available on the Cairo meeting site at http://cai.icann.org/en/transcripts.

Following the issue of an exploit in the domain name system discovered by security researcher Dan Kaminsky, a number of security briefings on this issue and other related issues were given to ICANN’s various supporting organizations and advisory committees.

In particular, the DNSSEC protocol – long promoted by ICANN’s Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) – was explained and its use in closing down the Kaminsky hole outlined, alongside other short-term measures.

A special workshop on DNSSEC was held on the Wednesday, and an open meeting of the SSAC on Monday also covered the issue.

The SSAC meeting was also used for an experiment in improving remote participation. Through Adobe’s Connect software, participants were able to see and hear the meeting in progress (as well as view the live scribe feed), see the presentation slides as the presenters went through them, and ask questions in a dedicated chatroom.

More information:
DNSSEC Workshop full details and presentations: http://cai.icann.org/en/5nov08/dnssec-workshop

For the second time, a specific agenda and series of targeted meetings and discussions were held for business leaders in an effort to engage business more effectively within ICANN’s processes.

The agenda included briefings on the most significant topics facing ICANN at the moment, including new gTLDs and IDNs, and a meeting with board directors, including the Chair.

Two special guests visited the Cairo meeting on the Thursday.

Dr. Hamadoun Touré is Secretary-General of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), and Meredith Atwell Baker is Acting Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information at the US Department of Commerce and responsible for the relationship ICANN shares with the US government.

Both gave speeches and Dr. Touré answered questions from the audience. Dr Touré stressed the importance of collaboration between the ITU and ICANN and Acting Assistant Secretary Attwell Baker acknowledged ICANN’s institutional progress in the 10 years since its creation and stressed that proactive contribution from the community is vital to the organization as the Internet continues to evolve.

Both Touré and Atwell Baker then held a number of separate sessions with various members of the ICANN community.

More information:
Transcripts of both speeches can be found online at:
https://cai.icann.org/files/meetings/cairo2008/toure-speech-06nov08.txt and https://cai.icann.org/files/meetings/cairo2008/baker-speech-06nov08.txt respectively.

• ICANN signed an Exchange of Letters with the managers of .eg, Egypt’s country-code top-level domain (see a video of the occasion at http://cai.icann.org/en/video#sun.
• The .mobi and .coop registries were authorized to make single-letter domains available e.g. www.c.mobi.
• A new working group will study and review the issues related to the definition of the ICANN Geographic Regions, and submit proposals for community and Board consideration. The Board asked all interested Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees to nominate two individuals to serve on the working group.
• Sydney was chosen as the location for the June 2009 meeting and the Board asked Staff to review the possibility of Seoul as the host for the October 2009 meeting, with the European meeting deferred until a later date.
• Since it was ICANN’s annual meeting, the Board was reformed with new members Katim Touray (NomCom appointee), Thomas Roessler (TLG liaison) and Ram Mohan (SSAC liaison). Previous SSAC chair Steve Crocker became a voting member of the Board following his selection by the Nominating Committee.
• Peter Dengate Thrush was re-elected as chairman; Roberto Gaetano was re-elected as vice-chairman.

Toutes ces entités sont regroupées en collèges afin de leur donner une représentation officielle au sein de l’ICANN.

La pyramide organisationnelle de l’ICANN est ainsi faite : les collèges remontent vers des “organismes de soutien (le “SO”)” comme le GNSO (il y en a deux autres : le ccNSO regroupe les gestionnaires d’extensions nationales et l’ASO les registres d’adresses IP régionaux). Comme leur nom l’indique, ces organismes servent de soutien direct au Conseil d’administration de l’ICANN.

Un exemple concret : le programme des nouvelles extensions. Depuis plusieurs années, ces grandes lignes ont été développées par le GNSO. Une fois prêtes, elles ont été présentées au Conseil d’administration. En juin 2008, lors de la réunion internationale de Paris, il les approuvé. Depuis, les équipes de l’ICANN travaillent avec le GNSO et le reste de la communauté pour en peaufiner les modalités d’application.

Le GNSO est donc actuellement sous les feux de la rampe et c’est une période très intéressante pour rejoindre son Conseil. J’y ai été élu par le collège des registrars pour remplacer Tom Keller, en fin de mandat. Le collège des registrars a trois représentants au Conseil, un pour l’Asie Pacifique (Adrian Kinderis), un pour l’Amérique du Nord (Tim Ruiz) et un pour l’Europe (moi). Mon mandat, de deux ans, a commencé juste après la réunion internationale du Caire.

Alors qu’ai-je vu ou appris depuis un mois ?

En une phrase : être au Conseil du GNSO, c’est une charge de travail incroyable et une implication de tout instant. Il est sans doute utile de rappeler que les conseillers du GNSO sont des volontaires non rémunérés. Chacun a une vie professionnelle (et accessoirement personnelle) en dehors de l’ICANN. Bien souvent, ce sont leurs employeurs qui supportent la charge financière du travail qu’ils réalisent pour le GNSO, y compris les voyages.

Bien entendu, le temps que ces conseillers passent à s’occuper du GNSO est autant de temps qu’ils ne donnent pas à leurs employeurs. De combien de temps parle-t-on ? J’ai voulu l’évaluer “au doigt mouillé”, juste pour me faire une idée. En un mois, c’est un petit millier d’emails dans ma boîte de réception en rapport avec le GNSO. Disons 10 minutes de traitement par email en moyenne, cela donne presque 7 jours de travail ! Voilà qui s’ajoute à ma fonction “officielle”, celle de gérer l’entreprise dont je suis l’un des fondateurs.

Mais lire des emails ne suffit pas. Il faut aussi comprendre les très nombreux sujets sur lesquels l’ICANN et sa communauté se penchent. Car pour être efficace et prendre les bonnes décisions, un conseiller se doit non seulement de maîtriser les dossiers directement en rapport avec son propre “SO”, mais aussi ceux des autres. Jetez un rapide coup d’œil à la une du site de l’ICANN et vous verrez parmi les sujets en cours : les relations registres/registrars, les nouveaux TLDs, les IDNs, le WHOIS, les activités du NomCom ou encore le plan stratégique de l’ICANN !

Il y a aussi les comités et groupes de travail sur lesquels un conseiller peut se retrouver. Un exemple rapide : une réforme importante du GNSO est en cours. Pour la mener à bien, deux comités de pilotages ont été créés. Je représente le collège des registrars sur l’un d’entre eux, l’OSC (pour “Operations Steering Committee”). A la clef, une réunion téléphonique de deux heures toute les semaines, un plan d’action à construire, des groupes de travail à constituer… tout cela s’ajoutant déjà aux réunions téléphoniques du Conseil, du bureau exécutif du collège des registrars, des séances d’information organisées par le GNSO ou l’ICANN directement…

Mais être au Conseil du GNSO ce n’est pas que du temps passé en réunions. C’est aussi être au contact de personnes dont le niveau de connaissance et de compréhension des processus de l’ICANN est tout simplement époustouflant. Alors que j’ai encore du mal ne serait-ce qu’à comprendre les règles de fonctionnement du Conseil, je suis entouré de personnes qui maîtrisent le moindre détail de dossiers allant du contrat des registrars ICANN aux règles d’application des régions géographiques utilisées pour nommer les nouveaux membres du Conseil d’administration.

Il y a là de quoi être impressionné, voir même intimidé.

Alors qu’ai-je appris en un mois au Conseil du GNSO ? Pour résumer : à respecter toujours plus ceux qui, dans toutes les différentes structures de l’ICANN, du plus petit groupe de travail jusqu’au Conseil d’administration, donnent sans compter pour faire avancer l’Internet.

A PDF version of this document is available at: http://www.icann.org/en/participate/cairo-public-forum-response.pdf

Note from the Chairman:

One of the most significant features of ICANN meetings is the Public Forum, where members of the ICANN community are able to present their views on issues of concern to them to the ICANN Board, in public session. The fact that we rotate meetings through each of the geographic sectors of the world enhances the opportunity that people from every region to present their views to the ICANN Board, in the presence of Staff and the whole ICANN community.

As a long-time participant from the floor presenting views, in my case from the ccTLD community, I am well aware of the time, effort and expense that goes into the preparation of such statements. As a board member, I have valued hearing those submissions, from individuals, governments and constituencies. I am determined as Chair to continue this tradition, and to maximise the opportunities for information sharing it represents.

I have been concerned, however that we have not always captured the inputs from these sessions, so in Cairo I asked Staff to review the comments made in the open microphone sessions of the Public Forum, and to provide responses to comments, and answers to questions that, in the interests of hearing from everyone wishing to speak, were not given on the day.

Those comments and answers are given below. I hope members of the community find this a useful process, and one which is worth continuing, after future Public Forums.
Thank you to those who contributed in Cairo. Please accept the Staff invitation to continue to contribute through the mechanisms they identify in the paper below.

Peter Dengate Thrush
Chairman, ICANN
15 December 2008

CONTENTS

COMMENTS

• Applicant Guidebook
  • Don’t delay process
  • Registry fee is too high
  • Application fee is too high
  • Scoring in Module 4.3
  • Independent string approach will cause problems
  • Start awareness campaign earlier
  • International Chamber of Commerce wrong for deciding morality claims

• IDNs and IDN ccTLDs
  • Government "control" over ccTLD IDNs
  • Three-letter rule wrong for IDNs

• Policy
  • Policy based too much on opinion

• IPv6
  • No consensus on what to do for IPv6 transition

• Board Review
  • Set CEO term limits
  • Board members should be compensated

• ICANN meetings
  • Take travel time into account when deciding on location
  • Uphold transparency and regional diversity when deciding on location

• General
  • Difficult to get ITU to recognize civil society
  • Country code manager should listen to their individual Net users
  • A lot of mistrust and suspicion at ICANN meetings
  • The organization needs more international staff
  • The organization should stay out of operational areas
  • Concern over a .companyname top-level domain
  • More representative groups needed in GNSO
  • Public comment should be a greater priority at ICANN meetings
  • Increase geographic mix of participants at ICANN meetings
  • Thanks to ICANN Staff

QUESTIONS

• Applicant Guidebook
  • Who will be the panelists?
  • Will IDNs and gTLDs be available at the same time?
  • How much will the refunds be and when will they be given?

• Improving Institutional Confidence
  • How can ICANN get over the legal obligation it has that it cannot trade with states identified by the US government?

SUGGESTIONS

• If a new registry makes under $1million it should be waived the annual fees under the Applicant Guidebook
• Allow non-profits to pay a percentage of the annual registry fee for the first two years of running a new gTLD
• Create a special cross-constituency working group to identify what ICANN could do to promote IPv6 update
• Lower the scoring in Module 4.2.3 of the Applicant Guidebook from 11 out of 12 to 10 out of 12
• Move Guidebook awareness campaign forward to January 2009
• Fund an outreach effort to reach groups such as families, consumers, victims of cybercrime to encourage them to form new constituencies in GNSO
• Fix more time for public comment into the meeting schedule
• Introduce metrics for ICANN Staff performance

RESPONDENTS

The forum took place on Thursday 6 November 2008 and came in two parts: between 12pm and 1.15pm; and between 2.45pm and 3.30pm.

This summary seeks to capture the comments made during the public forum and, where possible, provide answers to questions raised. You can view the full transcripts of both sessions on this website at:

http://www.icann.org/en/participate/cairo-public-forum-transcript.html

Or on the Cairo meeting dedicated website at the two following addresses:

http://cai.icann.org/files/meetings/cairo2008/public-forum-open-discussion-06nov08.txt
http://cai.icann.org/files/meetings/cairo2008/psc-public-forum-06nov08.txt

Input can be broadly split into three different areas:

A majority of the input during the forum came in the form of Comments. This input is summarized according to subject area with those individuals who raised the comment identified through their initials and a key at the end of the document.

Second, a number of clear Questions were raised and those questions are restated below, with answers provided where possible. And lastly, a number of Suggestions were made. Where appropriate, feedback on these suggestions has also been included.

While every effort has been made to capture people’s comments as accurately and fully as possible, the production of a workable summary that can be responded to will inevitably see the loss of some of the finer points of argument. ICANN Staff begs the community’s understanding and forgiveness for any resulting oversights.

COMMENTS

SUBJECT AREA: Applicant Guidebook

Explanation: The Cairo meeting saw the release of a draft form of the “Applicant Guidebook” for those interested in applying for new generic top-level domains (gTLDs). The draft was drawn up by Staff following the approval of the process itself by the Board in Paris in July 2008 (and following a number of years of policy work and implementation planning). The community was invited to comment, following the normal ICANN consensus-building procedures, on the draft guidebook in preparation for a revised version.

For more information and to post comments on the Guidebook, please visit: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/comments-en.htm.

ICANN Staff response: While we understand the frustration of many in the community who have been following this process for a number of years, as many of you will also appreciate, it is a very complex task, made all the more complex by issues raised during the policy development process and the Internet’s increasing importance in global economies.

ICANN is committed to promoting competition in the domain name system and as such has been moving forward with the new gTLD program as quickly as possible. However, the organization is duty-bound to consider other aspects alongside competition when expanding the top level of the domain name system.

Most dominant among these are: the need to ensure the security and stability of the Internet; and the need to move forward through consultation with all of ICANN’s stakeholders.

During the course of the new gTLD program, a multitude of other issues, from trademark and sovereignty rights, to dispute resolution procedures, to technical barriers have arisen. ICANN Staff has sought to work through these as efficiently as possible. The result has been that initial estimates for when applications will be accepted have been put back several times.

While our expectation is that there will be changes to the current draft Applicant Guidebook, we plan to analyse the comments made and make any such changes in an efficient manner. The comment process itself has become an accepted and highly valued part of ICANN’s processes that its work is put out to public comment and review before being put before the Board.

Although the advantages to opening up applications as soon as possible (i.e. by starting the four-month communication process early) were clearly and persuasively articulated at the public forum, it is the view of ICANN Staff that the risks involved in not following the process as outlined through to completion may outweigh the advantages.

The public comment process has both a pragmatic and organizational advantage. Pragmatically, it allows many thousands of eyes to go through the application process to pick out any potential future conflicts and issues. The value of this review cannot be underestimated.

Second, ICANN is a multistakeholder organization where the Staff acts as a facilitator of the consensus view. Without a clear, transparent and open public comment process, the ability of the community to both check on the Staff’s work and to provide implicit approval of the process is lost.

There is also the fact that public comment periods and broader communications bring with them greater awareness of ICANN’s work beyond the small number that follow ICANN closely. In the case of new gTLDs, this awareness will be crucial to the project’s success.

For this reason, it is the Staff’s view that the process needs to continue on its current path, even though that will mean that applications for new gTLDs will not be accepted until the third quarter of 2009.

Staff will continue to update the timetable on the process as it continues.

The $75,000 annual registry fee outlined in the Applicant Guidebook is too high (MF, DK, R1, SR, RA, AP, MB, JB, AM, IA, TH)*. It may have the effect of restricting applicants (MF, DK, R1, SR, AP, IA)*; the costs will be passed onto consumers (RA, AM, TH)*; and it does not account for smaller communities (SR, JB)* or non-profits (TH)*.

ICANN Staff response: The current assumption in the Applicant Guidebook is that a new registry will pay $75,000 or five percent of transaction revenue to ICANN, whichever is higher.

That fee would cover the support ICANN provides to registries: such things as compliance, registry liaisons, and possible increased registrar activity. Currently every registry pays such a fee and this approach provides a highly valued level of stability to the system. It also recognizes the fact that every new registry added to the Internet comes with an associated and ongoing cost.

In the explanatory memorandum to the pricing issue in the guidebook (download it from: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/cost-considerations-23oct08-en.pdf), it is twice noted (in section 3.5) that there may need to be some flexibility in this fee. First it recognizes there will be “a variety of different models for new gTLDs” and secondly it draws reference to “community or other limited registration uses” that may have different requirements. However, it still suggests the full $75,000 fee for all applicants.

We clearly heard a number of voices during the public forum saying that they felt this figure, although not the notion of such a figure, was too high. One or two suggestions were also put forward, such as allowing smaller fees to be paid for the first two years while a new registry stabilized itself.

This is the purpose of the public comment period: for the community to question and test the assumptions made in the production of the Applicant Guidebook.

The level of the annual registry fee has clearly been flagged as an issue, and as such we urge and encourage the community to now go beyond raising the issue and to provide greater information from which ICANN Staff can define a way forward.

Does the $75,000 level genuinely risk disrupting people’s plans for legitimate gTLDs? Or is it simply a large sum of money that looks foreboding at the start of the process? Can you supply real-world figures to back up the argument?

Are you uncertain that it costs ICANN $75,000 per registry to cover its services? Would a breakdown explanation of those costs alleviate your concerns? Do you have possible solutions that may help young registries find their feet, while maintaining stability across the registry system?

ICANN welcomes all such input. You can email your comments on this issue directly to: gtld-intro@icann.org.

ICANN Staff response: We outlined the reasoning behind the $185,000 application fee in quite some depth in an explanatory memorandum (download it here: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/cost-considerations-23oct08-en.pdf).

Broadly speaking, we arrived at the figure by:

• Calculating out how much it has cost the organization so far in arriving at the new gTLD process and guidebook
• Using the two previous gTLD rounds to arrive at a cost per application
• Estimating the additional costs and risks associated with the application process this time around
• Dividing a fixed cost figures by the number of applications we estimate will be received – in this case, 500

This approach was taken because it was determined during the policy making process of this project that the whole thing should be “revenue neutral” i.e. that the application fee should cover the costs of the project.

We should note as well that this wasn’t just ICANN Staff drawing up these figures – we hired the services of the world’s third largest insurance broker and risk consultant, Willis Enterprise & Risk Finance (WERF), who looked very carefully at risk aspects of the process and came up with a figure that we adopted.

Of course, we have no way of knowing how many applications there will actually be, but this is the best estimate we have. If there are more than 500 applications, ICANN may have a surplus of money; if there are fewer, a deficit. Either way, the figures will be made publicly available and the community will be consulted about the best path forward once we have a firmer idea of what those figures actually are.

It is also worth noting that the issue of fees, possible reductions and grants was extensively reviewed in the creation to the guidebook. The guidebook notes: “No practical method of ICANN financial assistance or fee reductions was identified for the first round of new gTLD applications, though an appropriate mechanism might be defined for subsequent rounds. If Staff is able to identify sources for potential grants, financial assistance or match-making opportunities for applicants from qualified developing nations, and indigenous and minority peoples in need, the results will be made publicly available.”

So, while we recognize the community concern expressed during the public forum about the application fee, Staff remain confident that the $185,000 application fee is the best figure that we can arrive at, given the decision by the ICANN community much earlier in the process that the whole thing should be revenue neutral.

That said, we welcome review of the assumptions we have made in arriving at that figure. The Board will be reviewing the assumptions, including the extent of past years’ costs to be recovered, and there may well be some changes made in the final guidebook, dealing with, for example, applicants for multiple TLDs.

As time progresses, it may also be possible that more precise figures, for example on the number of applications, become available. As mentioned above, we would also welcome information and suggestions on sources for potential grants, financial assistance or match-making opportunities.

It is possible that ICANN Staff and WERF accidentally overlooked something that may have an impact on the pricing. If so, please let us know as soon as possible.

If you feel you are able to provide this kind of valuable feedback into the process, we strongly encourage you to do so. You can email your comments on this issue directly to: gtld-intro@icann.org.

ICANN Staff response: Thankyou for this input. The main reason behind the public comment process is for the community to question and test the assumptions made in the production of the Applicant Guidebook.

We note that the individual that made this comment at the public forum has gone into greater depth on this issue in an email to the public comment period, and we thank him for that. That email will form part of the review of all comments submitted in the first comment period for the Applicant Guidebook.

We would also encourage any others who would to make their views known on this issue to make them directly into the public comment process by sending an email to: gtld-string@icann.org.

ICANN Staff response: As anyone who has followed this process will no doubt be aware, the issue of related strings, or confusingly similar strings, the issues of trademark rights and usage rights, and the unique issues of internationalized domain names have all been extensively reviewed and debated for a number of years, both in the policy-making and in the implementation planning.

There exists no system or solution that will solve all – or even most – of the issues and problems associated with creating new top-level registries on the Internet.

As a result, the solution arrived at to deal with the multitude of potential issues was to devise a flexible dispute resolution process handled by third-party experts. In this way, ICANN can concentrate on its core functions while providing outside expert decision-making facilities where needed. Or, put another way, ICANN Staff has no desire to become a referee in a dispute over potential ownership of a gTLD.

That said, while the input provided on this point is unlikely to change the dispute resolution systems that the Applicant Guidebook outlines, such feedback may prove valuable to those organizations that will act as the arbitrators of future disputes.

ICANN Staff will see to it that the third-party experts it retains for dispute resolution are made aware of all of this feedback in order to help them devise appropriate systems and solutions and provide them with insight into the intricacies of this work.

We encourage all community members to send their reflections on this issue to: gtld-string@icann.org.

ICANN Staff response: We understand that for many members of the ICANN community, having an awareness campaign for a process that they have closely followed for several years may appear to be a waste of valuable time.

However, the rationale for such a campaign stems from the fact that the ICANN community comprises of only a few thousand people while the introduction of this round of new gTLDs has the potential to impact hundreds of thousands, even millions of people. Press interest in the new gTLD program at the ICANN Paris meeting was so significant and global that we recognized there was a clear need to explain the process and the application procedure globally before we embarked on the actual applications.

The reality is that it is not possible to run such an awareness campaign until the details are finalized. It would be self-defeating for ICANN to be in a position where it ran an awareness campaign that either did not contain all the information, or where the information subsequently changed. As such, the campaign can only begin properly once the guidebook has been through the full public comment process.

Why four months? First, that period was suggested by the GNSO as implementation advice. Second, based on the advice and expertise of a number of communications professionals, four months was seen as the shortest period of time in which ICANN could effectively get the message out.

It is perhaps worth pointing to the positive effects that such an awareness campaign will likely have: the Internet has become the extraordinary force it is today because its open structure has enabled people with ideas to try them out with far lower overheads than were previously possible through any other medium.

While the ICANN community is an extraordinary collection of individuals, no one will claim that we have a collective monopoly on insight into the domain name system’s potential. An awareness campaign will not only make it more likely that the people with the next revolutionary idea hear about the new gTLD process, but it will also bring in new participants to the ICANN model – something that everyone can also agree is a good thing for the organization and for the Internet as a whole.

ICANN Staff response: On the surface, it may appear odd that the International Chamber of Commerce be used to decide issues of morality and public order.

However, the way morality and public order decisions are actually made in this context is through accepted legal norms recognized under international principles of law. In that respect – looking at these issues through legal eyes – the arbitration division of the International Chamber of Commerce is ideally suited and has a wealth of experience and expertise in dealing with these situations.

If the community has recommendations for an alternative dispute resolution provider for this element of the process (or the other two elements: string confusion, and legal rights) then ICANN Staff will review that recommendation.

For any and all input on this issues and related dispute resolution issues, please email directly into the public comment process by using the following email address: gtld-dispute@icann.org.

Giving governments control over ccTLD space may stifle competition (R1, R2)*

ICANN Staff response: We are aware of the concerns that people have regarding the IDN Fast Track – where a limited number of internationalized domain names (IDNs) are approved before a full policy is developed by the country-code names supporting organization (ccNSO).

However, with respect to the fears raised about governments having some form of control over this space, we believe this stems from a misunderstanding of what ICANN is doing with regard to internationalized domain names.

First off, it should be noted that IDN applications will be accepted as part of the new gTLDs process. That means that anyone following the gTLD Applicant Guidebook requirements will be able to apply for a top-level domain in their script or language.

There are additional criteria that need to be considered for IDNs (all of which are outlined in the Applicant Guidebook). However, applications for IDNs will be accepted and will be introduced at the same time as other gTLDs.

The ccTLD Fast Track on the other hand covers a very specific type of IDN – namely, those domain names that represent the name of a country or a territory.

During the course of the policy processes that the community has gone through over the past year or more, both governments (through the Governmental Advisory Committee, or GAC) and country-code managers (through the ccNSO) expressed their concerns about people applying for new top-level domains that represent the names of their countries or their existing top-level domains.

It has long been a rule that new generic top-level domains must be made up of at least three letters. One-letter TLDs are held back for technical reasons; and two-letter TLDs are reserved for use by the countries of the world i.e. .de for Germany; .jp for Japan; .us for the United States (and are based on an international standard).

The addition of TLDs in other languages and scripts complicates this system. Firstly, in some scripts whole words can be produced using a single character. Secondly, taking Japan’s ccTLD as an example, .jp is an ASCII representation for Japan, but Japan has its own script that does not use “j” or “p”. The countries of the world are justifiably proud of their own ccTLDs – many of which represent the Internet itself to their peoples – and so they have asserted that they have a right to have their language equivalent of their ccTLD.

In the same vein, many governments are concerned that individuals or companies will register top-level domains that represent the country. To use Japan again as an example, something like “.japan” or the equivalent of .japan in Japanese script.

It is for these reasons that the ccNSO is embarking on a policy development process to decide how to resolve such applications. Since this process will take some time, and because of the significant demand that has built up for TLDs in other scripts, the ccTLD Fast Track was created to allow for the creation of IDN TLDs that both the GAC and the ccNSO could agree would not be challenged (it should be noted, incidentally, that The Fast Track is based and builds upon the current IANA practices for the delegation of ccTLDs).

This means that those IDNs that come through the Fast Track will, by design, need the endorsement (or non-objection) of the relevant public authority, which in many cases will be a government department. At the same time, it must also meet the need of that particular community and the community must demonstrate that they are ready to implement the IDN ccTLD.

That is very different from saying that governments will have controls over IDNs or even IDN ccTLDs, however. Although it is true that IDNs that denote a specific country will be unlikely to make it through the new gTLD application process (as they are likely to be considered part of the ccTLD Fast Track), the whole world of top-level domains in different scripts is open to those that wish to apply.

So while a Japanese organization will not succeed with an application for .japan, or .jp in Japanese script, it will be able to apply for something that has meaning to Japanese Internet users in their own language. So, for example, cartoons are extremely popular in Japan. If an organization felt there would be sufficient interest in a whole area of the Internet dedicated to cartoons, it could apply for .cartoon in Japanese script.

So the ccTLD Fast Track is not stifling competition at the ccTLD level any more than current practices. While at the same time, the new gTLD process will hugely increase the opportunities for competition for Internet users across the world and in their own languages by allowing IDNs.

ICANN Staff response: Thank you for this feedback and for highlighting the disparity that can be created by applying English-language rules and assumptions onto other scripts and languages.

The example given in the public forum of “.cat” being represented by a single character in Chinese but also being represented by many more than one character in the domain name system itself (all domains in non-ASCII scripts being represented a the technical level by the ASCII prefix “xn--“) was a helpful illustration.

Please be assured that ICANN will carefully review whether and how the three-character rule can be applied with regard to IDNs. As always with IDNs, however, the fact that there are many thousands of different scripts, each with its own attributes, means the issue is likely to be complex.

If it is indeed possible to waive the three-character rules for IDNs, or certain types of IDN, without detrimental impact elsewhere, ICANN will follow that path. As it currently stands, single-letter characters will not be allowed for technical reasons and two-character domains are held back because of the traditional use of the ISO list for defining country-code TLDs. We are waiting on further public comments to guide final recommendations.

So, what is ICANN doing for Whois compliance? Here is a recent survey of activities:

1. A Whois Accuracy Study to Assess the Accuracy of Registrant Data in the Whois Database
Understanding the Whois environment is important. The GNSO is considering, and the GAC has called for, various Whois-related studies. You may or may not know that there has been study work underway, and some new work is just starting. There has been a long-running and challenging effort underway to statistically answer the question “How accurate is Whois data?” After multiple starts on such a study, an initial study/contract phase has just been completed with the National Opinion Research Center (associated with the University of Chicago) to design such a study. NORC recently provided ICANN with a proposed methodology for selecting a representative sample of domain names and a proposed methodology for verifying the accuracy of Whois data. ICANN is analyzing this information and we’re optimistic that this will turn into an executable study plan within the next few weeks.

2. A Registrar Privacy/Proxy Registration Services Study to Assess the Extent to Which Registrants Are Using Privacy/Proxy Registration Services
ICANN has initiated a study of Proxy/Privacy Registration Services. The purpose of this study is to determine the extent to which registrants are using privacy and proxy registration services and to obtain information regarding the business models used to provide such services. As part of this study, ICANN will send a survey to all ICANN-accredited registrars requesting that they provide, among other things, information regarding the number of registrations they manage that currently use privacy or proxy registration services. The survey is being finalized and it is anticipated that registrars will receive ICANN’s survey before the end of 2008.

3. ICANN’s Whois Data Problem Report System (WDPRS) is Undergoing a Redesign to Improve Functionality and Meet Community Needs
The Whois Data Problem Report System (WDPRS), implemented in 2002 to assist registrars in complying with their obligation to investigate Whois inaccuracy claims, is undergoing a system redesign. ICANN frequently receives thousands of Whois inaccuracy claims through this system per day. The redesigned software system (to be completed in November), will include components that allow for better, hands-on analysis of actual problem reports and processing of bulk Whois inaccuracy claims. I’m happy to note that there has been consultation with high volume submitters and representatives from the Intellectual Property and Registrar constituencies regarding the system redesign (these high volume submitters account for about 80% of inaccuracy complaints filed through the WDPRS.)

A demonstration of the redesigned WDPRS will be provided at the Cairo meeting as well as information regarding ICANN’s findings relative to our manual reviews of Whois inaccuracy claims. This work should result in quality improvements for users of the WDPRS and system improvements that allow ICANN to better monitor Whois accuracy compliance. Moreover, we anticipate the use of the redesigned WDPRS to lead to a better understanding of the environment: How long does it take to go from an inaccuracy complaint to resolution of that complaint? How many complaints are successfully resolved the first time?

4. Recent Whois-Related Enforcement Action – Notices of Breach
The community may have noted that in October two registrars, Joker.com and DNS.com.cn, were sent breach notices regarding insufficient follow-up on complaints of Whois inaccuracy. Inaccuracy investigation, per the RAA, is a requirement and it is important that this requirement be taken seriously.

ICANN analyzed both registrars’ responses to ICANN’s notices of breach and found that Joker.com appeared to take reasonable steps to investigate the Whois inaccuracy claims provided. Conversely, DNS.com.cn was found non-compliant, as it failed to take reasonable steps to investigate the Whois inaccuracies indentified by ICANN.

Consistent with RAA requirements, DNS.com.cn cured the cited breach within 15 days to avoid termination by ICANN. However, in an effort to ensure that DNS.com.cn complies with the registrar Whois accuracy requirements set forth in Section 3.7.8 of the RAA, ICANN developed a remediation plan that requires DNS.com.cn to provide monthly reports identifying, among other things, exactly what steps were taken to investigate each Whois inaccuracy claim sent to DNS.com.cn via the WDPRS. DNS.com.cn has agreed to remain on ICANN’s remediation plan for six months.

5. Whois Data Inaccuracy Audit – Ongoing
ICANN has conducted a Whois Data Inaccuracy Investigation Audit, and will continue to do this in the future. Thirty ICANN-accredited registrars were part of the audit. Each of these 30 registrars was asked to provide specific information on 10 domain names randomly selected from the WDPRS. From the selected sample, 187 domain names were included in the audit. Registrars took action on 89 of them, and as of 12 June 2008, registrars report they are currently investigating an additional 26 domain names.

6. Whois Data Reminder Policy Audit – Ongoing
The Whois Data Reminder Policy Compliance Audit has been ongoing. In the first half of 2008, reports showed 850 of 901 registrars responded, and 98% of responders were found in compliance. (Follow-up action has been taken with non-respondants.) This means that the vast majority of gTLD registrants are contacted at least annually regarding updating their Whois records.

Conclusion
ICANN will continue to broaden its efforts to enforce the Whois provisions of the RAA and study trends that impact Whois accuracy, but I thought it would be useful to review the plans for future Whois compliance action and the Whois compliance actions underway right now.

For current information regarding ICANN’s Whois-related compliance activities, community members are encouraged to read and subscribe to the monthly ICANN Compliance Newsletter (see
http://www.icann.org/en/compliance/newsletter/). In almost every issue, you’ll find some update on Whois compliance actions.

Or, as Associated Press put it “preliminary guidelines for the introduction of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of alternatives to ‘.com’ in the first sweeping changes to the network’s 25-year-old address system.”

A huge amount of thinking and work has gone into this, as anyone who reads the six-module guidebook and the accompanying explanatory memoranda will realise. But because it is such a complex issue – opening up the Internet like never before – we need more eyes on it than the GNSO representatives and the ICANN staff that have got it to this point.

That’s why the whole thing is out to public comment. And because it is a big document, we have set up different comment areas for each module (as well as one for the guidebook as a whole in case people prefer to comment that way).

Alot of people have raised concerns about expanding the namespace over the past few years, and those comments have been listened to and taken into account. ICANN has said “wait until we produce the draft RFP, then if you still have concerns, let’s talk”.

Well, that time has come. The documents are out in English; soon they will be out in Arabic, Chinese, French, Spanish and Russian. We will have a large number of sessions on them in Cairo in two weeks; we have a 45-day comment period open. We will have more sessions and more comment periods before this is finalised.

So, if you want to help guide the future evolution of the Internet, now’s the time to download a few documents, read them, give it some thought and then share with both the community and the world your thoughts on how we do this right. ICANN looks forward to hearing from you.

Please visit the specific public comment page set up for supplying your feedback at: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtld-comments-en.htm

Update: I’ve just been told that our first correction is in. George Kirikos has noticed a discrepancy on the issue of price controls on previous new gTLDs, so we have added a clarifying note. Thanks George, please keep ‘em coming.

You can download the Guidebook and its modules (all pdf files) at the links below:

• The Full Guidebook

Individual modules:

• Module 1: Introduction
• Module 2: Evaluation
• Module 3: Dispute Resolution
• Module 4: Contention
• Module 5: Transition
• Module 6: Terms and Conditions

Après la réunion du Conseil du GNSO le samedi 1er novembre, plusieurs ateliers sont prévus dès le dimanche, notamment des sessions d’explications sur deux des sujets phares du moment : les nouveaux gTLDs et les IDNs.

Cette 33e réunion ICANN sera officiellement ouverte le lundi 3 novembre avec la cérémonie d’accueil, suivie de la présentation par le président de l’ICANN de son rapport. Un atelier est également prévu à 11h15 pour expliquer le projet d’appel à candidatures pour la création de nouveaux gTLDs.

La gouvernance sera le sujet principal mercredi, avec des ateliers liés aux aspects de gouvernance de l’Internet et aussi le “PSC” (President’s Strategy Committee, c’est-à-dire le Comité Stratégique du Président, dont la fonction est de travailler sur les moyens de renforcer le modèle multi-acteurs de l’ICANN).

Le jeudi 6 novembre sera la journée du forum public durant lequel chacun peut s’exprimer librement et échanger avec les membres du Conseil d’administration de l’ICANN. La réunion se terminera le vendredi 7 novembre par la réunion du Conseil.

• Two new Board members
• Two members of the ALAC
• One member of the ccNSO Council
• One member of the GNSO Council

In total, 78 individuals applied (13 female and 65 male). The geographic split saw 27 apply from Europe, 20 from North America, 15 from Africa, 14 from Asia-Pacific and 8 from Latin America and the Caribbean.

All the successful applicants, introduced below, will take up their positions at ICANN’s 33rd international public meeting in Cairo, starting on 2 November. We wish them all the best in their new roles.

Board of Directors

The ICANN Board makes all final decisions pertaining to ICANN’s work. It comprises 21 members – 15 voting and six non-voting. The Nominating Committee chooses eight of the voting members, a majority, over a three-year period.

In addition, each of the three supporting organizations within ICANN chooses two voting members each, and the president (also the CEO) makes up the final voting member. The non-voting members are liaisons from each of the six advisory committees.

The successful applicants will serve a three-year term on the Board and they are:

Steve Crocker (USA, North America)

Dr Steve Crocker has served on the ICANN board as a non-voting liaison representing the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) since 2003. He is the CEO and co-founder of Shinkuro, a company focused on dynamic sharing of information across the Internet. He has also served on the board of the Internet Society (2003-06).

Dr Crocker has been involved in the Internet since its inception. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, he was part of the team that developed the protocols for the Arpanet and laid the foundation for today’s Internet. He organized the Network Working Group, which was the forerunner of the modern Internet Engineering Task Force, and initiated the Request for Comment (RFC) series. He remains active in Internet standards work through the IETF and IAB. For this work, he was awarded the 2002 IEEE Internet Award.

Dr Crocker’s experience includes research management at DARPA, USC/ISI and The Aerospace Corporation, and co-founder of CyberCash and Longitude Systems. He earned his BA in mathematics and PhD in computer science at UCLA, and he studied artificial intelligence at MIT.

“I’ve thoroughly enjoyed my time as SSAC chair and liaison to the Board. But I’ve done it for long enough and I think for the health of the organization, we should have a transition.

“The organization is going through maturation and I want to be a part of helping it evolve while making sure that the technical aspects run smoothly with the organizational aspects.”

Katim S. Touray (Gambia, Africa)

Dr Katim S. Touray is an independent development consultant based in Gambia. A follower of the early Internet, he is a well-known advocate for the network and its uses across a range of media and to a wide variety of audiences for over 15 years.

With a B.Agric, an MS, and PhD degrees in Soil Science (from the universities of Nigeria, Montana State and Wisconsin-Madison, respectively), Dr Touray worked for a number of years for Ministry of Agriculture in The Gambia, and serves as Chairman of the National Agricultural Development Agency (NADA). He has also conducted consultancies on the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), the media, HIV/AIDS, and other subjects for non-governmental organizations, as well as government and UN agencies.

Dr Touray has significant experience as a producer and host of African music, educational, and public affairs programs on community radio and TV in the US, and national radio in Gambia. He has written a number of articles about the Internet and ICT, and helped found the Consumer Protection Association of The Gambia (CPAG). Dr Touray is self-educated about the Internet and ICT in general. He is also a free and open source software enthusiast and advocate, and serves on the Council of the Free Software and Open Source Foundation for Africa (FOSSFA).

“I’m really excited and looking forward to working in ICANN. It’s a privilege to have been chosen and I see it as a challenging opportunity.

“I hope to be an active representative of Africa on the Board of ICANN, representing not just the the middle classes but also those in villages who a lot of people don’t see as users but for whom the Internet will have a lot of benefit. I think I can also be an active member in helping to build bridges between the various interest groups, and ensure that the greater good is taken care of.”

At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC)

The At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) represents the interests of individual Internet users within ICANN.

The Committee comprises 15 members – three from each of ICANN’s five geographic regions. Two members are chosen from each region by its Regional At Large Organization (RALO) and the third in each case is selected by the Nominating Committee. A chair is selected annually by the members.

Two of the five NomCom places were filled this year and the successful applicants will serve two-year terms. They are:

Alan Greenberg (Canada, North America)

Alan Greenberg has forty years of experience with computing and networking technologies. For much of his career, he worked for McGill University in Montreal, Canada, covering software design and development, education technology support, and management and policy development. He has taught courses in computer architecture and design, as well as managed Internet Society workshops which taught personnel from 150 developing countries how to build, support, manage and use the Internet in their countries.

Since retiring as Director of Computing and Telecommunications at McGill, he has served as an independent consultant focusing on the effective use of technology in developing countries. More recently he has worked with several donor countries providing guidance on how they should focus their technology-related support of developing and least-developed countries.

He has been a Nominating Committee appointee to the ICANN At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) since 2006, also acting as liaison to the GNSO.

Mr Greenberg holds a BSc degree in Mathematics and Physics, and an MSc in Computer Science, both from McGill University.

“I am delighted to have been re-appointed to the ALAC. When I was first appointed two year ago, it was to the Interim ALAC, with 10 of its members appointed by the Board and five by the NomCom. Now all five RALOs are functioning and the ten Board-appointed members have been replaced by those selected within their own regions. I look forward to continuing to work with the ALAC, helping to ensure that it truly represents user issues and needs within ICANN.”

Adam Peake (UK, Europe)

Adam Peake has been involved in ICANN since its creation in 1998, most recently as Associate Chair of the Nominating Committee in 2006 and 2007.

He was an early member of the non-commercial users constituency, a founding member of the .ORG Advisory Council (to May 2006), and a member of the NAIS Project that in 2000-2001 contributed to the review of the At-Large elections and public representation and participation in ICANN.

Mr Peake is currently a senior researcher at the Center for Global Communications (GLOCOM), International University of Japan, where he works on telecommunications, Internet and broadband policy, performs follow-up activities for the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) and teaches a short course on Internet policy for MBA students. He has been involved in Internet policy-making activities since the mid-1990s.

Mr Peake was co-coordinator of the WSIS Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus from 2003 to 2006, and a member of the UN Secretary-General’s Advisory Group on the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) between 2006 and 2008. He is a UK citizen and currently lives in Japan.

“Having been a member of the Nominating Committee for a number of years, I’m very pleased to be able to add myself to the list of volunteers that I have seen go before me.

“ALAC is an essential part of ICANN’s multistakeholder model, and a great deal of effort has been put in to create the RALOs, but as yet we’re not managing to get voices coming through. So I hope I’ll be in a position to help with that essential user voice.”

ccNSO Council

The Country Code Names Supporting Organisation (ccNSO) develops policy and makes recommendations relating to country-code top-level domains within ICANN. Its decisions are made by the ccNSO Council.

The Council comprises 18 members – three from each of five geographic regions, plus three chosen by the Nominating Committee. Members of the ccNSO from each region select their three representatives. A chair is selected annually by the members.

One of the three NomCom places was filled this year and the successful applicant will serve a three-year term. That person:

Jian Zhang (China/USA, Asia-Pacific/North America)

Jian Zhang is the director of International Business and Policy Development department at CNNIC.
She has over 10 years of experiences in ICT and networking, having also worked at GTE Internetworking, Nextel Communications and Cisco Systems. At CNNIC, Ms Zhang has worked on both domestic and international policy areas, including policy analysis and development strategy. She is on the Board of the Asia Pacific Top Level Domain Association (APTLD) – an organization for ccTLD registries in the Asia-Pacific region.

Ms Zhang has an MS in Information Systems from Northeastern University, Massachussets. She has hands-on experience with Internet technology and management as well as valuable skills in cross-cultural communications.

“I am quite honored by the Nominating Committee and I thank them for giving me the opportunity to contribute to the Internet society.

“As a Council member I hope to make a contribution to the work that is going on, particularly with respect to international TLDs.”

GNSO Council

The Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) is the main policy development arm of ICANN. Its decisions and recommendations are made by the GNSO Council.

There are 18 members of the GNSO Council, comprising three members from each of the GNSO’s six constituencies, plus three chosen by the Nominating Committee. There are also two non-voting liaisons and a chair chosen from the Council members.

The Nominating Committee 2008 chose one new Council member, who will serve a two-year term:

Terry Davis (USA, North America)

Terry Davis has over 30 years’ experience in large-scale systems and network design, security, implementation, and operations. Heralding from the aviation industry, he is currently in charge of Aircraft Network and Security Architecture & Strategy for Boeing and was previously the Chief Network Engineer for Connexion by Boeing, the in-flight Internet service.

Mr Davis has also been Vice-President of Professional Services for ViaLight, a fiber to the home company; a Technology Leader for Internet security company Adario; and Senior Corporate Security Architect for the Boeing as well as an aircraft simulation designer, network engineer, and system programmer.

An active contributor to and participant in the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) since 1992 and he is also a member of the North American IPv6 Task Force (NAv6TF). In addition, he has served his city and county governments for almost 20 years as a commissioner for Land Use and Development, Basin Water, and Cable TV.

Mr Davis holds a BS in Civil Engineering from Oklahoma State University and an MS in Strategic Planning for Critical Infrastructure from the University of Washington. He is a Boeing Technical Fellow, a member of the IEEE and the American Society of Civil Engineers, and is a registered professional engineer in Oklahoma, Colorado, and Washington. He and his wife Jennie have been residents of Issaquah, Washington for over 20 years.

“I’m extremely honoured to have been selected – it surprised me very much. As to what I want to accomplish in the role, I think the domain name space is one of the most critical things going forward – we have some real challenges in TLDs as well as with security.

“The aviation industry, for example, is just beginning to make planes Internet capable, and there is lots of activity around aircraft naming and addressing. This is going to provide some real challenges.”