This month’s episode discusses ICANN’s Registrar Accreditation Agreement. If you’re not familiar with it, perhaps you should be — more than 900 ICANN registrars have signed it, making it one of ICANN’s most foundational documents. Though it has seldom been revised in ICANN’s history, currently, a Working Group contemplates amending it.

Advocates for changing it include individual domain name holders, seeking a “Registrant Rights” charter; and numerous law enforcement agencies have focused on the RAA in hopes of gaining an edge in their fight against cybercrime. To learn more, listen to (or read) Senior Policy Counselor Margie Milam’s briefing in our latest episode of the podcast, entitled simply, “RAA.”

Could RAA amendments unveil cybercriminals? Or might they harm privacy?

If you missed last month’s episode, it’s also well worth your time. Leo Vegoda, Manager of Number Resources, delivered an outstanding orientation on almost every issue related to the fast-approaching shortage of Internet addresses. Whether or not you feel geeky enough to understand IPv4, IPv6, and the differences between them, Leo will help you understand all the ramifications of a worldwide Internet address shortage, what’s being done about it, and how the problem will affect you. If you’ve ever wondered at all about IPv6, check out Episode 5, “What Does IPv6 Mean?”

If you feel you learn better (or faster) by reading rather than listening, I’m pleased to announce that as of this month, every ICANN Start episode now has its transcript sitting right next to it. We’re continuing our effort to make the podcast a useful starting point when you want to understand an ICANN issue that is new to you. The ICANN community has responded, with the number of downloads during the podcast’s second month soaring north of 1,000. Thank you for your support!

What else would you like to hear a basic orientation about? Send an email to start@icann.org, where we’re watching for your input.

• A new registrars contract

After two years of work, a new contract covering the relationship between ICANN and registrars was approved by the Board.

The contract contains no less than 17 amendments and was the first overhaul of the contract since it was first approved in 2001. Read more in the official announcement: http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-29may09-en.htm.

The review came about after the collapse of registrar RegisterFly back in April 2007. It was clear then that there needed to be greater protections for those registering domains, and to have a system that would work better in the case of a future registrar collapse.

So ICANN did what it does and went to the broad Internet community to ask what changes to make and how to make them. The end result is something that everyone has signed up to and should strengthen the domain name system as a whole.

• Document Deadlines

A frequent complaint in the community for years has been the fact that documents for ICANN meetings often arrive just a few days before they are due to be discussed, which doesn’t give people enough time to review them.

This issue was picked up by the new Public Participation Board Committee and the idea of introducing document deadlines was raised at the Mexico City meeting in March. Everyone agreed that it would be a good idea, with the GAC even asking for a 15-working-day deadline in its official communiqué.

So, the Public Participation Committee worked on the proposal and recommended to the Board the introduction of such a deadline, which the Board approved and is now in place.

Since Sydney was so close however, two deadlines were created: one of 15 working days for material that the GAC would be expected to review, and a second one of 10 working days for everything else.

The first deadline is actually today (1 June 2009) – which is why so many documents were published over the weekend and are now available on the front page. The second deadline is next Monday.

The intent for the next meeting (Seoul in October) is that there will be a single deadline of 15 working days, although that will depend on what happens with Sydney and what the community makes of the approach (you’ll be able to discuss the matter at the Public Participation Committee’s public meeting on Wednesday).

Something that the community does need to understand however is that while the deadline provides much more time to review documents (which can only be a good thing), it also comes with a cost.

The time available to do the actual work of ICANN is growing shorter. With the community also asking for longer public comment periods, and for there to be more translation of documents, it becomes increasingly difficult for both staff and community to make sufficient progress on documents in between meetings.

The most obvious solutions – and one that has been put forward twice before over the past three years – is to move to two meetings a year rather than three. Another solution is to hold different types of meetings. Another, to increase the time between meetings. Or the community may need to decide what it will work on at the next meeting and what it will not so resources can be allocated in the right places.

In the meantime, everyone should be able to enjoy having more time to review documents for Sydney.

• Internet user seats on the Board?

It has long been a bone of contention that the “At Large” community i.e. average Internet users do not have voting seats on the Board.

The original intent in ICANN’s formation was that representatives of average Internet users would have a significant number of Board seats, but following public elections in 2000 and then a long and rancorous restructure, ICANN ended up with a Nominating Committee and an ALAC structure with Regional At Large Organizations (RALOs).

As part of the ALAC review started last year, it was recommend that the broad Internet community again be given the right to choose voting Board members. The review is still ongoing but a Board Committee recommended that the Board agree “in principle” at this stage with the idea of allowing ALAC to choose voting Board members.

The result of that discussion was that the Board noted it was not opposed to the principle of having civil society given a voting voice on the Board, but it wanted to know more about how it would be done before actually approving it.

So the Structural Improvements Committee was asked to come back with “detailed scenarios and options” and ways to implement them.

• ccNSO review

The ccNSO review was kicked off with the production of the review’s “terms of reference” for public comment. Here’s a very brief and incomplete rundown of what happens from this point:

• After the community has a change to review the terms, bidders for the review are sought out.
• Reviewers are hired, and they interview a wide variety of relevant people
• The reviewers produce a report that is put out for public comment and reviewed at the next ICANN meeting
• This report goes through iterations as needed and ends up with a variety of recommendations
• The report is typically given to a Working Group which then tries to turn the recommendations into reality

The ccNSO is one of the last ACs and SOs to go through this process. It all started with the GNSO – which is now coming to a close. Also going through review at the moment are: the ALAC, Board, Nominating Committee, SSAC and RSSAC.

• Faster, simpler UDRP filing.

The Czech Arbitration Court (CAC) has been running a pilot project to allow UDRP filings to be done online. UDRP is the system for deciding domain disputes.

It has had no reported problems so the Board approved the CAC’s request to implement the pilot. This means that documents in disputes will be able to be sent and – crucially – signed electronic and online.

This should speed up and simplify the process.

Other quick highlights of the Board’s May meeting:

• Nairobi, Kenya was chosen as the location for the Africa 2010 meeting
• The introduction of one and two-character domains under .biz were approved
• A paper outlining lessons learnt from the independent reviews of ICANN’s structure, complete with a few suggestions for changes to the system, will be published for public comment
• The recommendations of the working group looking at review of the Board will be published for public comment
• The charters outlining the four stakeholders groups within the GNSO will be published for Board review and action in Sydney
• There will be a US Congressional hearing regarding ICANN and the Joint Project Agreement on 4 June in Washington. CEO Paul Twomey will represent ICANN.

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.

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.