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.

L.root-servers.net, operated by ICANN, became the seventh of the root servers to have it’s IPv6 address records (AAAA) added into the DNS root-zone. The addition of IPv6 service is part of ICANN’s ongoing commitment to act as a leader in enabling IPv6 services throughout the DNS.

The new IPv6 address is 2001:500:3::42

To access this service DNS operators should update their hints files. In fact checking that you have the latest hints file on a regular basis is always good operational practice.

The latest hints files are available at the following URLs:

ftp://rs.internic.net/domain/named.root
ftp://ftp.internic.net/domain/named.root

The root servers currently answering on IPv6 are:

A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET 2001:503:ba3e::2:30
F.ROOT-SERVERS.NET 2001:500:2f::f
H.ROOT-SERVERS.NET 2001:500:1::803f:235
J.ROOT-SERVERS.NET 2001:503:c27::2:30
K.ROOT-SERVERS.NET 2001:7fd::1
L.ROOT-SERVERS.NET 2001:500:3::42
M.ROOT-SERVERS.NET 2001:dc3::35

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 where is IPv6 deployment most evident? It?s a very difficult thing to measure. It is difficult to measure the amount of IPv6 traffic as so much of it is tunneled inside of IPv4. And anyway, tunneled traffic is probably from end users rather than ISPs, but we need ISPs to deploy IPv6 to allow the Internet to grow. So how can we see where ISPs are deploying IPv6 in their networks?

One possible measure of IPv6 deployment in ISPs is the number of IPv6 address blocks (prefixes) seen in the routing table in comparison with the the number of autonomous systems (ASs – roughly equivalent to ISPs) in a region. Geoff Huston has a regional breakdown of advertised ASs on his web site and the SixXS project has a regional breakdown of the IPv6 address blocks visible per region on its web site.

AfriNIC, the Regional Internet Registry for Africa and parts of the Indian Ocean, has a higher proportion of networks in its region announcing IPv6 addresses than the others. Africa also has a smaller deployed base but IPv6’s size is designed to support exactly the kind of network growth that highly populated areas, like Africa and Asia will see as their deployed base grows in the next few years.

Proportion of ASs in RIPE NCC service region announcing IPv6 prefixes

Proportion of ASs in APNIC service region announcing IPv6 prefixes

Proportion of ASs in ARIN service region announcing IPv6 prefixes

Proportion of ASs in LACNIC service region announcing IPv6 prefixes

Proportion of ASs in AfriNIC service region announcing IPv6 prefixes

The event in Seoul was the largest gathering to date with more than 68 participants representing 26 registrars and six registries. And, of the 56 registrar participants, 54% reported that they had not previously attended an ICANN meeting. Also, for the first time since the inception of the gatherings, presentation materials were provided in Chinese, Japanese and Korean. Additionally, clean and red-lined versions of the RAA and proposed changes were provided in the same languages.

Topics presented at the gathering included a summary of the outcomes of the recent Paris meeting, proposed amendments to the RAA, protection of registrants (registrar data escrow/interim terminated registrar transition plan and registry failover), IDNs, new gTLDs, compliance/UDRP, GNSO policy items, IPv4/IPv6, and recent Board actions around the Add Grace Period (AGP).

The event was supported through generous contributions from DotAsia, Afilias and NeuStar.

For further information about this event, please contact Craig Schwartz or Tim Cole.

Duane Wessels of The Measurement Factory analysed DNS queries for evidence of how unallocated IPv4 addresses are being used and presented them at the last OARC meeting, last month. The results cannot give a complete view of what is happening, as it does not see what is happening in private, behind closed firewalls. Nonetheless, these are useful data.

We will be using these data to help plan for the last few IPv4 allocations to the RIRs.

ICANN’s 32nd international public meeting was one of three held annually to conduct policy development and outreach. It was hosted by ICANN (the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) and Agifem, a non-profit organization made up of several French Internet companies and organizations.

The meeting was opened by the Eric Besson, France’s Minister of State for forward planning, assessment of public policies, and development of the digital economy.

1,672 people participated from 166 different countries, making this ICANN’s biggest ever meeting. 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://par.icann.org/.

ICANN’s next international public meeting will take place in Cairo, Egypt, beginning on 3rd November, 2008.

What happened and what are the next steps?

Many meetings, workshops, public forums and informal discussions were held over six 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

Several key issues and themes evolved over the course of the meeting. They are summarized below.

NEW gTLDs

ICANN’s Board of Directors took a significant step forward on the introduction of new generic top-level domains (new gTLDS – extensions to the domain name system in addition to, for example, .COM or .INFO). The Board approved the policy recommendations on new gTLDs developed by the GNSO, ICANN’s policy development arm for the generic name space. The Board directed ICANN staff to further develop and complete a detailed implementation plan.

New generic top-level domains were a featured topic of conversation during the meeting. The week began with a dedicated two-and-a-half-hour interactive session where experts from different industries and sectors around the world shared a diversity of views about the potential changes to the Internet as the New gTLD Program is launched. The workshop was presented with MARQUES, the Association of European trademark owners, which represents trademark owners’ interests before EU and other international bodies.

ICANN staff updated the community on how new gTLDs may be implemented, including a timeline and recent steps taken to address potential disputes. Similar updates were presented to the various stakeholders including the GNSO Council.

New gTLDs were also discussed at the Public Forum, later in the week. During the meeting, a number of suggestions for new gTLDs also emerged. The discussions on new gTLDs were the subject of worldwide and widespread press coverage including by BBC, CNN, NBC, Les Echos, Business Week, Le Monde, Liberation, The Times of London, the Financial Times, and other media outlets all over the world.

More information is available on ICANN’s new gTLDs page (http://www.icann.org/topics/new-gtld-program.htm). This web page includes a factsheet on the topic written in plain language and accessible to a general audience.

Next steps:
The Board approved the policy recommendations on new gTLDs, drawn up by the GNSO, and directed ICANN staff to further develop and complete a detailed implementation plan.

Before the new gTLD introduction process is launched, the Board will be given a final version of the implementation proposals of the proposed process after a community review.

More information:
More information can be found online at: http://www.icann.org/topics/new-gtld-program.htm

IDNS AND IDN FAST TRACK

Much of the discussion about Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) during the Paris meeting centered on the work of the IDNC Working Group (IDNC WG). The IDNC WG was chartered by the Board at its November 2007 meeting. Its participants were appointed by the following supporting organizations and advisory committees of ICANN: the Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO), GNSO, Government Advisory Committee (GAC), At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) and Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC).

The group has been working on the issue of an accelerated introduction of IDNs (the “fast track”) where specific, non-controversial country-code top-level domains in non-Latin scripts could be approved and added to the Internet’s root without having to wait for the full approval process to be finalized.

The IDNC WG released its draft final report on the feasibility of this approach for public comment two weeks prior to the Paris meeting. The report provided a number of high-level recommendations and received broad approval from the ccNSO and the GAC.

On the broader topic of IDNs, the Director of the IDN Program, Tina Dam, gave updates to the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees, describing progress on technical and other IDN implementation issues. IDNs were discussed at the Public Forum, and a progress update was also given on the final day of the meeting.

Of particular interest was how finalization of the IDNA protocol revision would impact top-level IDN domains, in particular when and how they will be introduced.

Next steps:
The Board asked the IDNC WG final report to be posted for public comment and asked staff to produce a detailed report on implementation issues, following consultation with the community, in time for the next meeting in Cairo in November 2008.

More information:
More information can be found online at: http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/idnc-charter.htm and at http://icann.org/topics/idn

IMPROVING INSTITUTIONAL CONFIDENCE

The Paris meeting saw the release of three documents from the President’s Strategy Committee (PSC) outlining a new “Improving Institutional Confidence” public consultation.

This 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 PSC whose role is to provide advice to the Board.

The three documents – Improving Institutional Confidence in ICANN, Transition Action Plan and Frequently Asked Questions – were used as the basis for a two-hour discussion session. During a public meeting on the issue, the PSC explained how the consultation would work and how people could find out more information at each stage. The issue was also given a dedicated timeslot in the Public Forum.

The documents are currently out for public comment (closing on 31 July).

Next Steps:
The consultation process outlined in the Transition Action Plan will be followed. The entire community is encouraged to read the documents and send their comments in before 31 July.

The documents will then be revised and put out for additional comment in September 2008 in preparation for further discussions at the Cairo meeting in November. A final report by the PSC will be provided to the Board in December.

More information:
More information is available online at: http://icann.org/jpa/iic

INDEPENDENT REVIEWS

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 in 2008. The Paris meeting saw a number of updates on the current reviews.

GNSO
The GNSO’s review has been completed and it is now in the implementation stage. The Board approved all but one of the recommendations developed by a special Board working group to improve the effectiveness of the GNSO’s policy activities, structure, operations and communications. Recommendations to be implemented include:
• use of a working group model for future policy development
• a revised policy development process
• enhancements to the different constituencies that make up the GNSO
• improved communications.

The Board deferred its final decision on one recommendation – restructuring the GNSO Council – and decided to give the GNSO one last chance to submit a consensus recommendation on how to structure the Council before it makes its final decision in the next few weeks. The Board requested that the GNSO convene a small working group to submit a consensus recommendation on Council restructuring no later than 25 July. The group is to include one member from each constituency, one of the current Nominating Committee appointees, and one member from each liaison-appointing advisory committee (if that advisory committee so desires).

In a related development, the GNSO Council postponed a vote on a top-level GNSO Improvements Implementation Plan and called for a 21-day public comment forum on the document. That open public comment forum closes on 18 July 2008.

ALAC
Two public sessions and two informal sessions were held to discuss a report from the ALAC’s independent reviewers. The Board’s ALAC review working group held its first sessions. The draft report is currently out for public comment.

Board of Directors
The Boston Consulting Group was selected as the consultant to perform the independent review of the Board of Directors.

Nominating Committee
A working group created by the Board Governance Committee is working on recommendations following the independent evaluators’ report on the Nominating Committee.

Others
The Board established three working groups to review future independent review reports. They will cover: the Board, the DNS Root Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC), and the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC).

Next steps:
The reviews will continue to progress through each step in the review process. Updates will be provided at the Cairo meeting in November.

More information:
More information including links to each of the reviews and public comments pages can be found online at: http://www.icann.org/reviews/

REGISTRAR ACCREDITATION AGREEMENT

More progress was made on improvements to protections for registrants provided through the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA – the contract ICANN holds with companies that register domain names on behalf of registrants).

15 revised changes and amendments were published in a report currently out for public comment (the comment period closes 4 August 2008). The amendments were outlined in meetings with individual Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees, as well as a dedicated one-and-a-half-hour public workshop. RAA amendments also had a specific timeslot for discussion during the Public Forum, and were further outlined at the final day’s report session.

There are four categories of amendment to the RAA:

• Enforcement tools, including graduated sanctions, liability and audit provisions
• Protections for registrants, including possible improvements to data escrow and the ability to make resellers comply with RAA obligations
• A more stable registrar marketplace, including training for registrar operators
• Modernizing the agreement, bringing it up to date with changes in the use and reuse of domain names

Next steps:
The amendments will be revised following input during the public comment period and then shared with the Board, who will determine the next steps.

More information:
More information can be found online at: http://www.icann.org/topics/raa/

MEETINGS REVIEW

A paper covering possible changes to ICANN meetings themselves was put to the community in a number of different sessions, including several Supporting Organization and Advisory Committee meetings, the opening day public forum, mid-week Public Forum, and the closing-day reports session.
There were two main recommendations in the paper:

• that ICANN move from three to two meetings a year; and
• that one of those meetings be held in a “hub” city.

There was a broad range of views and discussion on both points, as well as discussion of the change to the Paris schedule which saw the meeting end a day earlier on Thursday, rather than on Friday.

Next steps:
The meetings paper is out for public comment until 10 July and will be revised following feedback from the community.

More information:
More information can be found online at:
http://www.icann.org/public_comment/#meeting-consultation-2008

IPv6

A number of information sessions on the new Internet Protocol were held in order to the make community more aware of support issues and to outline ways forward.

The ALAC, ccNSO, Registry and Registrar constituencies were also addressed by experts on this topic during their own meetings. Business leaders were given an overview as part of the Business Access Agenda. IPv6 was also discussed during the Public Forum.

The GAC heard from several individuals and organizations, including the OECD and the Names Resource Organization, about current trends and the challenges to IPv6 deployment worldwide.
More information:

A factsheet written in plain and clear language has been produced: “IPv6 – The Internet’s vital expansion – October 2007”. It explains the protocol upgrade to a non-technical audience and is available here: http://www.icann.org/announcements/factsheet-ipv6-26oct07.pdf

BUSINESS ACCESS AGENDA

For the first 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, IDNs and IPv6, and a meeting with the Board of Directors. It was organized in cooperation with the E-Business, IT and Telecoms Commission of the International Chamber of Commerce.

OTHER ISSUES

• The Board approved a recommendation by the GNSO to tackle “domain tasting”.
• The FY09 ICANN operating plan and budget of $57.1m were adopted by the Board.
• Approval was given to a plan by PIR (the Public Interest Registry) to add the security protocol DNSSEC to the .org registry.
• An “At Large Summit” was approved to enable representatives of Internet user groups (At-Large Structures) to meet together within the next year, most likely at the Mexico City meeting in March 2009.
• The SSAC published a number of new reports and survey results relating to security and stability of the Internet. (http://www.icann.org/committees/security/)
• A number of policy development processes were started or advanced at the GNSO including Fast Flux and inter-registrar transfers.
• The GAC reiterated its strong support for a number of studies into the use and abuse of Whois data, and asked for clarification from the Board on whether studies would depend on the outcome of the GNSO Council’s decision. The GNSO Council created a working group to review recommendations for Whois studies.

Unfortunately, even when production quality IPv6 transport and network infrastructure are available it is not always possible to deploy a completely IPv6 accessible network. One problem is the difficulties domain name registrants have when they ask their domain name registrar to include their IPv6 glue in the DNS. Not many domain name registrars support glue registration for IPv6 addresses. This limits their ability to provide an IPv6 DNS service.

The problem was discussed during Registries and Registrars’ IPv6 workshop on the last day of the ICANN meeting in Paris. Raúl Echeberría explained the problems that LACNIC has experienced in registering the glue they need for ns.lacnic.net.

Mohsen Souissi of AFNIC then explained that IPv6 support in domain name registries is no longer the hard work it once was. Most of the tools that are needed already support IPv6 very well and have done so for some time. He was followed by Jean-Claude Michot of BookMyName who explained that introducing support for IPv6 glue was not a complicated process and was done very quickly.

It is possible for a registrar to provide support for IPv6 glue registration without running IPv6 on their network at all and deploying an IPv6 network is now far less painful than it once was. Michele Neylon from Blacknight described a generally positive experience.

We hope that more domain registrars will start offering IPv6 glue registration, which will make it easier for domain name registrants to go ahead and deploy their own IPv6 networks.

My landlord isn’t the only ISP providing an Internet connection using private IPv4 addresses. As mentioned at the last AfriNIC meeting, there are many millions of connections sitting behind hierarchies of IPv4 NATs.

But this week I was inspired to look at deploying IPv6 alongside my NAT. This has been done very successfully in the IPv6 hours at NANOG 42, APRICOT 2008 and this week’s IETF 71. I wanted to see if I could get IPv6 connectivity to my laptop despite not having a unique address to terminate a tunnel. I did and it took me less than five minutes.

If your ISP doesn’t provide a native IPv6 service you can get an IPv6 tunnel from an ISP that provides IPv6 tunnels. An IPv6 tunnel is just a way of putting IPv6 packets inside IPv4 packets for the IPv4 portion of the journey over the Internet. I can’t use the popular 6to4 tunnelling method because they can only run between two hosts with unique addresses and I don’t have a unique address on my home network.

Fortunately, Teredo (also known as Miredo) lets me tunnel IPv6 packets past my NAT, giving me what the IETF have called “IPv6 access of last resort”. Windows Vista computers have Teredo support built in but my OS X machine does not. But just 30 seconds with a search engine showed me that “deep darc” has published an implementation of Miredo for OS X. In less than a minute it was downloaded and installed.

There was no need to change any of the settings because the defaults worked fine. On visiting the IANA web site I saw that my browser was using IPv6 (see image at the top).

Teredo/Miredo will give the users of NATed connections access to unique IPv6 addresses, making it easier for them to use any services blocked by NATs in their ISP’s network.

We made other changes, too. The IPv4 registry used to report that a lot of /8s were allocated to “Various Registries”. That wasn’t very helpful to anyone; it was a bit like saying “we don’t know”. In fact, the RIRs have been providing DNS and Whois services for addresses in these /8s but the IANA IPv4 registry didn’t indicate which RIR to consult because addresses in each of these /8s are often used by organisations in different RIR regions.

The RIRs and ICANN staff worked together to provide a more useful registry. Each of these /8s is now shown as “Administered by” one RIR. That RIR manages the reverse DNS for the /8 and provides a Whois service with a referral to the appropriate RIR when necessary.

We hope it’s much more useful and transparent than before.