By Chuck Kisselburg
After submitting my last post regarding Senate bill 2661 (S. 2661), I couldn’t help but feel the message was not complete. There was another element that remained to be explored.
While the bill, as is, is definitely in its infancy and, if it survives, will continue through the process with many revisions made along the way. As the bill stands today I still feel it is a bad bill and leaves room wide open for misinterpretation, taking advantage of others by the “bad seeds†of the world and money wasted on MANY lawsuits ahead.
So knowing that there still is a long road ahead, something continued to bug me about my last post. While sipping an iced-tea in one of Portland’s MANY local coffee shops, it hit me.
“OPPORTUNITY!â€
There is no doubt that people and businesses are being harmed through phishing scams. Such scams are something we all hate. However, when you read the Anti-Phishing Working Group’s December 2007 report and the Brandjacking Winter 2007 report , you will find that the phishing community is alive and active. Based on such reports I can see the basis for the bill.
However, labeling an entire community by the actions of a small few is wrong. That’s like saying all Americans are loud and arrogant. Hmmmmm….. Perhaps that was a bad example, but I think you understand what I mean.
What “opportunity†do I see with this bill? As mentioned, there is no doubt that phishing is a problem and, just like domain tasting, needs to end. However the opportunity I see is this is a chance for various organizations to come together to work “together†on providing input to this bill. In my mind I would like to see Congress work with the following consortium:
The Internet Commerce Association, or ICA.
ICANN
Registrars
Registries
The ICA clearly needs to be present as this organization provides the voice for the Domainer community.
ICANN needs to be present as it is their policies that affect the Internet community on a global basis. ICANN is currently working in conjunction with other organizations to build in the policy to squelch domain tasting.
Registrars are the interface between the registries and the Domainer community.
Registries maintain the integrity of their respective TLDs, gTLDs or ccTLDs, live by the policies developed by ICANN and work with the Domainer/registrar community.
I feel it is necessary for ALL groups to be at the table to help provide input into the crafting of this bill.
If Senate bill 2661 never makes it to a vote, or is voted down, other bills will emerge.
So while organizations are busy working in their own respective communities, the “opportunity†is there for all parties to come to the “SAME†table, roll up their sleeves and provide constructive input. This also applies to Senator Snowe’s office. It also behooves members of their respective communities to provide their respective organizations with constructive input instead of expressing frustration or simply complaining. So, if a bill is to come about, and Senate bill 2661 may be that bill, the opportunity is there to educate each other and work together to craft a good bill.
And if people are thinking about an organization needing to make the first move, let me move us all beyond that barrier by saying ICANNWiki.org, this neutral organization for the overall ICANN “communityâ€, based in a Portland State University facility, will be more than happy to provide the stage, both physically as well as virtually, for this conversation or “opportunity†to occur.
March 17th, 2008
by Chuck Kisselburg
On February 25 of this year Senator Snowe, (R) of Maine, introduced Senate bill 2661. The bill, co-sponsored by Senators Ted Stevens, (R) Alaska, and Bill Nelson, (D) of Florida, is aimed at, “protecting Internet users“.
When you read the bill itself it seems pretty innocuous as it starts off talking about guarding against phishing that can result in the massive amounts of phishing e-mails we all receive. The bill states that 59,000,000 phishing e-mails are sent each day. That is STAGGERING! The bill further states that, “According to Gartner, Inc., between August 2006 and August 2007, roughly 3,500,000 United States computer users were victims of phishing scams, and suffered losses totaling $3,200,000,000.â€
However, if you keep reading what you will find are statements like, “Phishing operators utilize deceptive domain names for their schemes. They routinely register domain names that mimic the addresses of well-known online merchants, and then set up websites that can fool consumers into releasing personal and financial information.†As well as “Deceptive domain names, and the abuses for which they are used, threaten the integrity of domain name systemâ€. The bill also notes that “The World Intellectual Property Organization reported in April 2007, that the number of Internet domain name cybersquatting disputes increased 25 percent in 2006.†I couldn’t help but sense the “stage is being setâ€, but for what?
As I read the bill I find information to ensure the accuracy of the WHOIS database, meaning the information contained in WHOIS should be accurate and not contain information that hides the identities of others. OK, I get that. That makes sense, but I know that makes a portion of the domainer community nervous. (I say only a portion because I know a lot of domainers who don’t try to hide their identity.) However, when reading further I stumbled across the below verbiage in the bill:
(b) Deceptive or Misleading Domain Names-
(1) IN GENERAL- It is unlawful for any person to use a domain name in an electronic mail message, an instant message, or in connection with the display of a webpage or an advertisement on a webpage, if–
(A) such domain name is or contains the identical name or brand name of, or is confusingly similar to the name or brand name of a government office, nonprofit organization, business, or other entity;
(B) such person has actual knowledge, or knowledge fairly implied on the basis of objective circumstances, that the domain name would be likely to mislead a computer user, acting reasonably under the circumstances, about a material fact regarding the contents of such electronic mail message, instant message, webpage, or advertisement (consistent with the criteria used in enforcement of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 45)).
This is certainly “interesting” as, the way I read it, the portion that reads, “such domain name is or contains the identical name or brand of, or is confusingly similar to the name or brand name of a government office, nonprofit organization, business, or other entity†opens the door for anyone to go to a domainer and say that their domain name is “confusingly similar to their name or brand nameâ€. This, despite the fact that a domain owner may have taken the steps to work with a lawyer to ensure their domain names are not conflicting with any other domains or trademarks and have, themselves, trademarked their domain name(s). This bill is SOOOOOOO open that it basically allows business owners, no matter how upstanding, or lowstanding they may be, to go to a domainer, having the domainer turn over the domain name they have purchased and developed in good faith.
After reading this bill I couldn’t help but wonder several things…..
First of all, some people look at domainers as living in the “Wild West†, heading out on their own without boundaries and being reckless. After attending various domainer conferences I know that image is false. However, I can’t help but apply that “Wild West†description to this bill. Keep in mind ICANNWiki.org is neutral and listens to the entire ICANN “communityâ€, but in reading this bill the recklessness, for lack of a better term, is fairly obvious. Is Snowe’s office reaching out and working in concert with the community to try and curb phishing activity? Is Snowe’s office working with ICANN or are they off and running on their own? Is Snowe’s office working directly with the Internet Commerce Association? Or is Snowe’s office running on their own?
Yes, there are domain tasters and there are people who try to tie up domain names that may infringe on trademarks, but from what I have learned that is far more the exception than the norm. So labeling everyone in one community based on the actions of a few is, what I feel, not what this country is about. Regarding domain tasters, the community IS taking steps to bring tasting to a halt.
One of the many things I wondered about was the jurisdiction of this bill. If passed as is, would the teeth of this bill reach beyond the US shores? In dialing into the ICANNWiki.org community I found out that the answer is probably yes. On January 1, 2007 the US joined the Council of Europe Cyber Crime treaty. The purpose of the treaty “…provides for `mutual assistance and extradition among participating nations.’ ” While 30 countries signed the treaty when created in Budapest in 2001, the number of countries currently supporting the treaty today is not easily found. Also, from a jurisdictional perspective, how might this work with, or interfere with UDRP policies that have been established in various countries. For those countries that have not signed onto the Council of Europe Cyber Crime treaty, but have an established UDRP within their country, does this bill seek to work with such UDRPs?
Getting back to the statement, “ such domain name is or contains the identical name or brand of, or is confusingly similar to the name or brand name of a government office, nonprofit organization, business, or other entityâ€, how many times have you attempted to drive to a location only to stop and pause, thinking, “You know…. That looks familiar. Is that my destination?†With that in mind, should the same apply to land? If someone feels their land is confusingly similar to their piece of land does that mean you need to hand the title of your property over to the other person? No!
While this bill has understandably raised much concern by the community, one sage counselor in the ICANNWiki community reminded me that the bill is still in its infancy. One of the things to watch in a bill is if the bill is “partisan†or “bi-partisanâ€. Bills with a “bi-partisan†sponsorship tend to have a stronger chance of going forward. As we know, this bill has bi-partisan sponsorship. While it has been referred to the Commerce subcommittee, one should become more concerned if it winds up in either the Judiciary or Banking committees. Another good signal is to watch what is going on in the Center for Democracy & Technology site. Finally, if this bill progresses through the Senate it will not doubt receive edits like other bills. Also, a similar bill will need to make its way through the House. Bottom line is if the bill ever passes it has the opportunity go filter through both the Senate and the House, with various edits along the way before a single bill is decided upon for vote.
So, while reducing phishing is a good thing, this bill seems to be grabbing at anything associated with the “potential†of phishing. Remember the “Salem witch huntsâ€? That is what this bill reminds me of as it is lumping and affecting large groups of people who should not have to bear the “Scarlet Iâ€.
March 12th, 2008
By Chuck Kisselburg
NIXI (National Internet eXchange of India), is the registry for “.inâ€. With offices throughout India NIXI is the meeting point for all ISPs in India. NIXI facilitates the exchange of Internet traffic between peering ISP members. What better way to understand the impact IDNs will have on India than through a conversation with a member of NIXI?
Having just spent a week in New Delhi for the ICANN conference, I was fortunate to spend time in the community. My hotel, NOT one of the recommended hotels, seemed to cater less to those who spoke English and more to those from around India and Southeast Asia. In other words, I heard very little English. Most of those who worked at the hotel spoke very little, to no English. As such I could not help but see how useless today’’s Internet is to a group of people. Now, expand my little microcosm to the world and the number of people who can’t really use today’s Internet is, well, HUGE!
As Director of ICANNWiki.org, I am VERY pleased to have had this conversation with Rajesh Aggarwal, the Additional CEO for NIXI. Rajesh provides insight regarding the impact IDNs will have on one of earth’s most populated countries, India. With 22 “official†languages, and countless local languages and dialects, India stands to benefit greatly from the use of IDNs.
What does having IDNs mean to you?
More than a billion Indians do not understand English. We are going for Indic language operating systems, applications and web content. Having URLs also in the Indian language will be a good step to include for all of these people.
Will IDNs have an impact in your area?
It will generate positive vibes, or feelings, in the sense that Internet administrators are concerned about non-English speaking people.
How might IDNs hinder your geographic region?
There are still issues in typing Indian characters in browsers- this however will be covered by plug-ins. We have to be careful about phishing, etc. as many Indian characters and conjuncts can be confusingly similar. There are multiple ways of writing the same word.
How might IDNs help businesses in your geographic region?
Many small businesses, especially catering to rural areas, may register IDNs and create websites in Indian languages.
Which group will benefit most from IDNs in your area and why?
Registrars will have a new area opening up. Bloggers, Indian language Newspapers, and small businesses will be the first ones to go for these addresses.
Do you foresee any challenges with which applications will be able to support IDNs?
Yes. Operating System and browser issues are still there. In many cases characters are still not represented the way they should be.
How do you hope IDNs are NOT used?
I hope they are not used for purposes of phishing and cyber squatting. We have to be very careful about this.
What is your biggest hope for IDNs to accomplish?
My biggest hope for IDNs is that they generate interest in Indian languages, resulting in the creation of many more websites and blogs in local languages; more than are available today.
Thank you, Rajesh!
March 3rd, 2008
DotAsia’s First Day of Landrush
By Chuck Kisselburg
I recently had a brief chat with Edmon Chung, CEO of DotAsia regarding DotAsia’s first day of Landrush. There was no doubt why Edmon was upbeat as DotAsia reported 266,663 applications received on the first day of DotAsia’s Landrush program. 266,663!!!! That is double what Edmon was expecting! This brings the total of applications received for domain names since Pre-Sunrise, Sunrise, the Pioneer Programs and the first day of Landrush up to 298,861 applications received.
Since fall of last year I have been hearing a small but persistent undercurrent from the domainer community that the domains will mainly be from North America and Europe, thus “basically†nullifying the true reason of DotAsia; being a gTLD that will happen to foster business and development within the rather expansive and diverse Asian region. While 40% came from North America and 24% came from Europe, over 35% of the applications came from Asia. Rough calculations show that over 93,000 applications were received from Asia alone – ON THE FIRST DAY! With respect to that small amount of skepticism, my thought is imagine the number of Asia-region-based applications that would have arrived had IDNs been in use. As mentioned in a previous blog post of mine, “.asia†IS a social networking goldmine; especially with the eventual rollout of IDNs.
So my congratulations to continued success of the DotAsia team. You can read more about DotAsia’s first day of Landrush through their recent press release.
February 25th, 2008
by Chuck Kisselburg
Edmon Chung, CEO of DotAsia, and his staff have been working at developing community around the new .Asia TLD. With the .Asia community encompassing a varied collection of countries and cultures, I felt Edmon’s insight towards IDNs would prove to be a valuable discussion. It should also be noted that today is the first day of DotAsia’’s Land Rush program. What follows is my discussion with Edmon.
What does having IDNs mean to you?
Being a pioneer of IDN technologies and having been promoting its adoption since before the turn of the millennium, having IDN means a lot. It means the end of a long struggle and the beginning of a truly global Internet. Direct navigation is still the most consistent method for surfing the web. IDN makes the Internet accessible and associable for the rest of the world. Domain names today are no longer simply a command line on the technical infrastructure of the Internet, but also part of the social and identity fabric of the online world. Having IDN become a natural part of the Internet is a vision me and many of my colleagues who have worked very hard on the issue over the years have.
Will IDNs have an impact in your area?
Yes. Asia is probably the region that will benefit the most from the full deployment of IDN. Many languages in Asia are not expressed in the Latin script (i.e. ASCII), IDN will allow for a native experience on the Internet. Imagine perhaps that the Russians invented the Internet and we all have to learn Cyrillic to navigate to different websites, how inconvenient it would be. That is the reality for the majority of the online population today.
What impact will it have in your area?
I believe that it will open a new era of Internet usage in Asia. IDN will be a platform that will bring corporations, shops and local stores online. For the first time, these operations will find its own voice and identity online. The Internet is as much about global communications as facilitation of local communities. IDN will allow Asia’’s local communities to further flourish in cyberspace and to find linkage around the world through Asians overseas.
How might IDNs help your geographic region?
As mentioned, Asia will probably be the region that will benefit the most from IDN. From the Arabic west Asia, the Sino east Asia to the Indic South Asia and other South East Asia languages, IDN would help different language communities find their voice on the Internet. IDN is not content, but neither is it simply a command line. IDN provides a platform for development of the Internet in Asia.
How might IDNs hinder your geographic region?
Development on the Internet will be hindered without the full deployment of IDN.
How might IDNs help businesses in your geographic region?
IDN will give businesses, especially local and small and medium sized enterprises the opportunity to represent themselves the way they are known to their customers. The value of a name and brand is clear to understand. Being able to reflect that online means facilitation of business.
How might IDNs affect the people in your geographic region?
IDN will allow for a native experience for navigating the Internet.
Which group will benefit most from IDNs in your area and why?
Ultimately, end users will benefit the most from IDN.
Do you foresee any challenges with which applications will be able to support IDNs?
As we have seen through the nearing ten years of work on IDN, there will be many challenges as applications deploy IDNs. Phishing issues, policy issues, languages issues and forward and backward compatibility issues are just a collection of a few of them. Nevertheless, I do not believe any of these should be prohibitive for the full deployment of IDN. Another important area that requires our continued hardwork is email addresses.
What do you foresee as the negative aspect to IDNs?
There has been talk about IDN causing problem for anglo-centric or Latin-based language users to be unable to connect to parts of the Internet. I do not think the characterization of such situation is correct. As the non-English speaking community today navigates through the Internet utilizing search or clicking on links for which mean little to them, in the future, those not speaking a particular language will still be able to search and click to IDN sites and content. Similarly, today there is already a significant amount of content on the Internet that is non-English, does that mean that content causes the fracturing of the Internet for its legacy users?
How do you hope IDNs are NOT used?
I hope IDN will not be un-used.
What is your biggest hope for IDNs to accomplish?
My biggest hope, then when I first started working on IDN technologies as now, is for IDN to eventually become a natural part of the Internet and a taken-for-granted part of Internet navigation. When people do not consider IDNs “IDN” is when IDN is truly successful. Perhaps then people would not believe that in the beginning domain names were only acceptable in English alphanumeric characters.
February 20th, 2008
By Chuck Kisselburg
With ICANN’’s conference in New Delhi behind us now (February 10th – 15th) the topic of IDNs was one of the hot topics of this conference. In fact, New Delhi was a great place to showcase the progress of IDNs for several reasons.
1). India has 22 “official†languages.
2). India is part of a dynamic region, a region with MANY languages (portions of the Middle East, Southern Asia as well as Southeast Asia.). Not only does this region support a large number of varied languages, it has an even greater number of diverse cultures.
Being that IDNs will prove to have a significant impact to the whole global Internet community, my next couple of posts will focus around IDNs and what it means to members of the ICANN “communityâ€. As such I have asked a couple of members of our “community†about their thoughts on the subject.
Through my previous writings you know that I am keenly in favor of IDNs since I see the value this can bring to the local “communityâ€. In other words, I see IDNs bringing a whole new social aspect to users of the Internet, helping to increase this global community. While some feel IDNs are a way for registrars, and ICANN, finding a way to obtain more money, and others feel IDNs dilute the very reason of the Internet, that being bringing people together, what I appreciate most about IDNs is the impact this will have in preserving cultures. Who better to be aware of the many cultures of this globe than this community of ours?
Then there are applications. Will applications be IDN “aware� For more information on this, please visit my previous blog post on practical implications of IDNs.
I approached my first ICANN conference in LA with great enthusiasm about IDNs. I had a great time meeting members of this global community and enjoyed listening to what they had to say. When it came to IDNs, however, it is an understatement to say I received an ear full, especially when talking about IDNs being on ICANN’s “fast trackâ€.
The topic of IDNs is not new. In fact, this is something people within our global community have been working towards for years. There is no doubt that much needs to be considered when moving forward with IDNs, but on the “fast track� At the LA conference ICANN was demoing concepts of how IDNs can work. This is not a fast track?
As mentioned earlier, when I talked with people at the conference (regular attendees as well as sitting committee members) I received an earful about the topic of “IDNs†and “fast trackâ€. It seems the same word kept coming up in each conversation: “Chinaâ€.
What I learned was China has been working on an initiative to bring Internet connectivity to as many residents of China as possible – even down to the small towns throughout the country. When you think of China’s population, our global online community will thus be expanding at an unprecedented rate. What impact would this have on the stability of the root servers? Hmmmmm…… In fact, as I continued to listen to those at the LA conference, China was moving forward, even if it meant they would manage and own their own root servers, with or without ICANN’s involvement. So it appears that what “fast track†movement on IDNs we have seen from ICANN appears to be due to China’s initiative and progress. If China moves forward on its own with its own root server(s) would it send today’s root servers into a state of imbalance? What if China refuses to sign ICANN’s “Mutual Responsibilities Agreement†outlining mutual responsibilities on the operation of root servers; as ICANN recently entered into with the Internet Systems Consortium? What impact would this have on ICANN if China moved forward on its own and operated a version of the Internet that was not under the authority of ICANN? What would this do to ICANN and mean for the current global online community?
February 19th, 2008
By Chuck Kisselburg
I am excited to take this opportunity to share with you the future of ICANNWiki.org. In fact much of the future is hear, Today!
In our efforts to create for an easier, more interactive involvement from our growing community, while still preserving aspects over which people have voiced appreciation, the wiki has been restructured. Not only will this allow people to navigate the wiki and find information easier, it sets the foundation for allowing greater growth and participation.
Is this “the way it isâ€? Not at all. In fact I look at it as “this is only the beginningâ€!
The wiki will now sport destinations where members of our diverse ICANNWiki.org community can communicate, debate and discuss with like- twisted minded individuals. Such “Targeted Interest Groups†will cater to those whose interest deals with the Domainer community. Another group will cater to those whose interest is in Policy and Governance. I expect other groups to evolve as the wiki continues to evolve.
Also, in keeping with our support of the Open Source community, you will have a greater, and easier way to view AND contribute to the pulse of the community. To do so I have brought in “Pibb†and “Jyteâ€, both technologies developed by JanRain.
Jyte allows you to make a claim for others to easily approve or disapprove, thus allowing the community to express their opinion. You will find Jyte sprinkled throughout the wiki. Also, Jyte is open to others outside of the wiki. So if you wish to get the pulse on your claims, not only will your claims be seen by those on ICANNWiki, but the entire Jyte community. You may learn more about “claims†by visiting http://icannwiki.org/Community_claim.
Also sprinkled throughout the wiki are various channels of Pibb. Pibb allows for an easy way to have an ongoing conversation with the ICANNWiki community. Pibb channels have been set up to cater to specific topics.
To move forward you will need to use your OpenID to utilize Jyte and Pibb. OpenID is the next, evolutionary step for single sign-ons. In other words, the OpenID you use to log into ICANNWiki can also be used by any other site that supports OpenID. While ICANNWiki has supported OpenID for quite some time, other organizations, such as Yahoo, Google, AOL, Microsoft, among others, are working to add support for OpenID. You may learn more about OpenID by going to http://icannwiki.org/AboutOpenID.
iNames is the more secure aspect of the OpenID movement. Through compliments of Neustar and 1id, ICANNWiki is pleased to provide you with your own ICANNWiki Community iName. If you do not yet have an OpenID, secure either your personal iName or your complimentary ICANNWiki community iName today by going to http://icannwiki.org/Iname. Remember, you will be able to use your iName where ever OpenID is supported.
In the short time that I have been with ICANNWiki, I continue to hear how valuable ICANNWiki.org is for general networking. I am pleased to begin moving ICANNWiki to the next level for the ICANN “community”.
This is only the beginning!
I continue welcoming your feedback and ideas as it is through your participation, use of and sponsorship that we, together as a community, bring this resource to you.
February 3rd, 2008
|
|
|
October 2007
In this issue:
- Who will be the next chairman of ICANN?
- What will happen to the GNSO and the Nominating Committee?
- What did you tell us about the information ICANN provides?
- Why is there a glut of public comment periods?
- News from around the world, the CEO and much more…
|
|
|
| Welcome to the latest issue of ICANN’s monthly magazine. Each issue will cover the latest news and events, plus outline how you can interact with the organization.
ICANN is making decisions that directly affect all those that use the Internet, whether governments, businesses or individual Net users.
We help coordinate the names and numbers that are vital to producing one globally interoperable Internet. Our decision-making processes are open to all and we welcome all those equally passionate about how the Internet evolves.
If you have any questions, comments or queries please feel free to contact ICANN’s general manager of public participation: kieren.mccarthy@icann.org.
|
| Policy Matters |
Independent review
One of the most important outcomes from a restructure of ICANN a few years ago was it was recognised that, due to the ever-changing nature of the Internet, ICANN itself would have to undergo change in order to act most effectively.
As a result, a process of independent review of ICANN’s different supporting organisations and advisory committees, as well as the Board itself, was put in place. The earliest and most significant review has been that of the Generic Names Supporting Organisation (GNSO) - the body that devises much of the organisation’s policy.
That review was completed in September 2006 and proposed GNSO improvements have been developed and discussed since then. A working group of the Board Governance Committee will finalise its recommendations in time for the Los Angeles meeting, and a special workshop will take place at the meeting to discuss their proposed improvements. The Board is expected to consider public input and vote on GNSO improvements after the Los Angeles meeting.
In the meantime, a number of other reviews have begun.
The terms of reference for both the At Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) and the Board have been posted and put out for public comment. The Board Governance Committee (BGC) is expected to select an independent reviewer for the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) review during the Los Angeles meeting, and a BGC working group will be created to help manage this review.
Terms of reference for review of the Root Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC) are expected to be posted for review before the Los Angeles meeting.
Review of the Nominating Committee has been carried out by Interisle Consulting Group which has submitted its report [pdf] to the Board. The report has also been posted for public comment and Interisle will present their findings at a special meeting in Los Angeles.
That leaves review of the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC), country code Names Supporting Organisation (ccNSO), and the Address Supporting Organisation (ASO) remaining. They have estimated start dates of: January 2008, July 2008 and December 2008, respectively.
For more information on all of the reviews, current and future, please visit the dedicated webpage to independent review found at http://www.icann.org/reviews/.
Key dates:
- 29 Oct - 2 Nov: Public discussion of GNSO Improvements and the Nominating Committee review results; potential posting of the RSSAC draft Terms of Reference; potential announcement of an ALAC reviewer, and public status reports on all independent reviews.
ICANN staff contact(s): Denise Michel
Accountability and Transparency
ICANN is improving its mechanisms to become more accountable and transparent. As a part of that, the organisation has embarked upon a series of organisation-wide changes, most significantly the creation of a number of frameworks and principles.
The frameworks and principles cover everything from information disclosure to translation of materials to financial accountability. A single document containing all of them was produced and put out for public comment, both online and at a special public meeting in San Juan.
The feedback from that process was used to create a summary and analysis of comments. Following that, a final version was created and put out for a final period of public review and comment, as well as a second special meeting at the upcoming Los Angeles meeting.
Once feedback from those two input points is compiled and incorporated, the frameworks and principles will be put to the Board.
Although this document represents the most formal response of ICANN to the issues of accountability and transparency, the organisation continues to press ahead with changes that make the organisation more easily accessible. They include: newsletters; blog posts; better Board minutes; expanded public comment; greater translation of material; and others, including the public and multilingual Strategic Plan process outlining ICANN’s future plans.
Key dates:
- 31 Oct: Public meeting on frameworks and principles
- 12 Nov: End of public comment period on frameworks and principles
- 16 Dec: Possible framework review by Board
ICANN staff contact(s): Paul Levins
Ombudsman
The Ombudsman role was filled in December 2004 in order to deal with issues that members of the community had with ICANN, in particular if they felt that the organisation had treated them unfairly.
As such, the Ombudsman acts as the first line of accountability in ICANN’s processes (the others being review by the Board Governance Committee, and Independent Review by a third-party arbitrator).
The Ombudsman’s work is largely confidential, although he has the power to make reports public if he feels it is warranted. That power was most recently used in February with the publication of a report outlining concerns in the choice of At-Large Structures. There is also an Ombudsman blog.
The work of the Ombudsman office is outlined at each ICANN meeting and then summarised in an annual report, which will be published this week and presented at the Los Angeles meeting.
Most recent has been the release of the ICANN Office of the Ombudsman Evaluation guide.
Key dates:
- 26 Oct: Release of Ombudsman annual report
ICANN staff contact(s): Frank Fowlie
To be covered in the next newsletter:
- Contractual compliance
- New registry services
- Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA)
|
|
|
ICANN Board
|
Recent Board meetings
The Board have met three times since the last edition.
On 11 September, the Board: approved the terms of reference for a review of the Board itself (which have subsequently been through a public comment period); chose ex-Board member Hagen Hultzsch to acting as the next Nominating Committee chairman; approved Delhi as the site for the February 2008 ICANN meeting venue; and discussed the notion of regular “regional meetings”.
The Board also considered a number of delegations and redelegations. The North Korean .kp top-level domain was delegated (effectively, created) for the first time. The same was true in the creation of a .me and a .rs TLD acting for Montenegro and Serbia and replacing the existing the Yugoslavian .yu. The former .yu will be slowly phased out.
A series of registry contract changes for .post, .museum and .aero were considered. And finally an update on the Whois process was provided.
The Board met next at a special meeting, not designated an official meeting, in Frankfurt on 4 October. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the issue of Vint Cerf as departing chair.
The new Board members had been decided by the Nominating Committee, and those chosen were invited to meet their new colleagues prior to taking their seats officially on 2 November.
No decisions were made, although extensive discussions took place over the role of chairman. The votes on who becomes the new chairman and vice-chairman will take place on 2 November.
Lastly, the Board met on 16 October.
A redelegation of Bermuda’s TLD was approved; whereas Western Sahara’s was put on hold. There was discussion of a suggested amendment to Telnic’s registry contract for .tel covering the Whois service. Some financial details, including expenditure on travel, office leases in Sydney, and payment in currency other than dollars, were also discussed.
Other business outlined a number of upcoming issues.
Future meetings
The Board will next meet - twice - on Friday 2 November. There will be two Board meetings: one with the existing Board, and then a second with the new Board member, where the new chair and vice-chair will be chosen.
On the agenda of the first meeting is:
- ICANN’s Strategic Plan
- An update on Internationalized Domain Names
- Changes to the GNSO structure
- Review of Independent Reviews
- ALAC bylaws changes
- And others, including Whois, new gTLDs and contract changes
The second meeting cover election of the chair and vice-chair, as well as election of ICANN’s executive officers.
You can view all past, current and future Board meetings, along with minutes and agenda on one webpage on the ICANN website at http://www.icann.org/minutes/.
|
Interview with the CEO
|
The President and CEO of ICANN, Dr Paul Twomey, answers a few questions about Vint Cerf, ICANN’s future and the Los Angeles meeting.
ICANN’s 30th meeting is next week in Los Angeles and the big news is that Vint Cerf is leaving as chairman. What impact do you think this will have on ICANN?
I think it’s both a time for celebration - for Vint’s pretty amazing contribution to ICANN - but also about an ICANN where you can move on without a Vint.
Since he became chairman [in 1999] he has been a great leader. He’s a unique individual: he brings his own technical history but also he’s been so involved with the administration - the funding, the business models and the business of the Internet - for the past 30 years and because of that he has a unique place.
I know he gets very embarrassed by the phrase “Father of the Internet” because he quite rightly points out it was a group initiative, but I think the great thing about Vint is that he has been committed at those stages where it has been necessary to build the administrative and institutional frameworks that have helped cement the Internet.
ICANN’s been a part of that and he’s played a key role as chairman: leading the organisation through review, an evolutionary reform process, a lot of difficult days when faced with multiple lawsuits, and at other times where there have been a number of very significant challenges to the model. And he’s seen it through and now it’s bedded down and quite stable.
At the same time though, no organisation should be focused on one particular individual and I think it will be a good thing for the organisation to move on to where it is not quite so dependent on one individual but moves to a Board leadership that has a different style, a different approach.
To a degree, the testament to Vint having done a great job of chairman is that he can leave and the organisation continues running smoothly.
Is the ICANN model now set then?
I think the model is reasonably set; it has worked and ICANN is here to stay.
I do think a piece of genius in the ICANN constitutional make-up is the regular review of the supporting organisations and advisory committees - and of the Board itself. It’s written into the bylaws and I can’t think of any other international or domestic entity that has an ongoing review process put into them.
For example, this past 12 months there has been a lot of talk about United Nations reform but that hasn’t gone very far. Partly because these organisations have charters that don’t allow for regular review and evolution and so get stuck in some timeframe. So we have quite purposefully ensured we’ve got this ongoing review. I think that makes a huge difference to the stability and accountability of the organisation as it goes forward. And allows it to remain relevant to its mission.
Who’s going to be the new chairman?
Well the Board hasn’t decided yet - and it won’t be decided until the first meeting of the new Board that takes place after the annual general meeting on the Friday of the Los Angeles meeting.
But whoever ends up being chairman of the new Board will bring different things to the organisation. The Board has spent a long time talking about what it expects from the leadership of the Board and I have to say the Board is probably the most collegial that I have ever seen it. There is a sense of common purpose and the need to work together as a Board which I think is a very positive place for us to be at this stage.
Internationalised Domain Names (IDNs) is a crucial expansion of the domain name system. What is ICANN doing to make sure it is understandable to the rest of the world, i.e. those people that will be registering these new domains?
That’s a very good point. First and foremost obviously we are doing the test of the different strings at the moment - that’s getting a lot of interaction, a lot of feedback. We’ve just finished a regional workshop in North East Asia on a number of topics including IDN and its implementation so we are engaging parts of the world where this is important.
But I do think we will see a change in the participants in the ICANN process both at the staff level and the community level as we begin to see people that are interested in gTLDs that are in internationalized domain names. We tend to see that part of the community almost within the country code space, but other parts of the organisation are going to start looking more like the ccNSO in that they will have people from different parts of the world attending.
I think part of that means we have to do more support both for translation of documents and also interpretation during ICANN meetings. At the staff level, we are preparing to recruit more registry/registrar support staff - and other staff, legal staff and others - who have got languages skills in the languages we expect will be important, particularly in Asia-Pacific and Asia generally.
We’ve been preparing for more time-zone support and we’ll begin increase staffing with those particular skills come the New Year.
What’s going to be the big issues at the Los Angeles meeting?
This is a very intense meeting this one. The new gTLD policy review that will go on for six or seven hours on Monday afternoon is very important. It will allow the whole community to really hear all the thinking that has gone into that policy work.
I think the Registration Accreditation work is going to continue - I think that’s very important. We’ll have more updates on where we are on IDNs. We have got the Strategic Plan draft that is now out for public consultation - and for consultation in multiple languages.
At this meeting we will have interpretation available in all the UN languages except for Arabic, I believe - in English, Spanish, French, Russian and Chinese. And this is part of our continued commitment to make ICANN’s processes available to all.
Also I will be reporting on quite a number of important issues we’re hearing around security and stability, issues facing the ICANN community as a whole. There’s a lot of work to be reported on.
Getting back to the issue of independent review of ICANN structures, there is the GNSO review final report and also the Nominating Committee review due to be discussed at LA…
Yes. ICANN needs to keep evolving and so in that respect these reports are important. But in some respects it is also business as usual.
The GNSO review has been through an orderly process and it is now out for comment. The NomCom review is following the same model. The next one will be the Board review - which has attracted surprisingly little comment from the community.
And I think there is something very important happening here. Namely that these reviews are being handled with maturity. Going back a few years, we would have had a vast array of perspectives on changes, without a common sense of the objective. Now I think people are far more pragmatic.
ICANN is structured to remain noisy, and all the interests will continue to argue about policies, but I see a pattern - a very positive step, I think - in that things are now much more consensus-oriented. And outcome oriented.
|
| You told us what you thought: online survey |
In last month’s magazine, we published details of an online survey aimed at eliciting responses from the community about the information that ICANN provides. We are very grateful to the 82 people that went to the trouble of voting, as well as leaving comments. The results will be used to inform our approach to providing future information on ICANN and its work. Here’s a brief summary of what you told us:
A not-bad 39 percent of you were “satisfied” overall with the information ICANN provides; 24 percent were “not happy”, and 18 percent “happy”. Considering the fact that provision of information has been a consistent complaint in the past, we have taken this to mean: “You’re on the right road but still have work to do.” Which is precisely our view as well.
In terms of the information outlets that people use, the website front page came a clear top with 68 percent of you saying you read it. We don’t think this is high enough - not for an online organisation - and only reinforces our belief that the front page needs to be made more user-friendly.
It ain’t what you do…
News alerts came next with 58 percent and the blog third with 52 percent - both of which seem pretty reasonable. At the bottom came the public comment page, and this magazine, with 38 and 35 percent respectively. This is too low in our view but since both are relatively new, we’ll watch and wait to see if they pick up. What was interesting is that clearly different people are using different methods to keep in touch with what ICANN is doing. So there appears to be some value in providing different outlets for information.
You told us that the material ICANN provides was “sufficiently technical” (equal numbers - just over 10 percent - felt it was both too technical and not technical enough). So that is a positive sign. Unfortunately, 30 percent of people specifically chose the option that the material is “difficult to understand” - and that view was expressed across the organisation (ALAC, ccNSO, GAC, GNSO). So clearly we have to focus on that.
Interestingly, while 26 percent felt the material was “poorly organised and presented” another 23 percent felt it was “clearly organised and presented”. This discrepancy is most likely because different supporting organisations provide information in different ways. The ccNSO came out of this well but otherwise it was a fairly clean split. This warrants further investigation.
Meeting meetings
In terms of actual interaction, ICANN meetings came top (60 percent) - which is what we would have expected. Otherwise what would be the point of spending huge amounts of resources on having three meetings a year? Emailing ICANN staff came second with 59 percent. Interestingly, 40 percent of people claimed to have responded to a public comment period and 35 percent to have posted a comment on the public participation site. We’re not so certain this is true, but at least it shows a willingness to engage with these formats so there is clear room for improvement in these areas.
In terms of the information you want more of, there were two very clear frontrunners: policy decisions with 80 percent, and ICANN processes (the way ICANN works) with 76 percent. This has been duly noted and we will focus our attention on these two areas. What was also useful was the “Ways that ICANN policies affect the general public” option that 46 percent of people voted for, and the “Benefits of participation in the supporting organisations” that 16 percent of people voted for.
The reason these two are interesting is that they were options added by those taking part in the survey (an interesting feature made possible by the polling software we use). It is clear that a need has expressed itself there, so we will get on it.
And lastly, in terms of the format you wanted to get future information in, a remarkable 72 percent of you chose “factsheets” - again a pretty clear signal. Next was “interactive forums” with 49 percent - something that we believe demonstrates the fact that ICANN’s interactivity is still too one-way, particular the public comment forums. Online meetings also came out high with 46 percent, so we shall spend some time experimenting with them to see how they could fit in with ICANN’s work.
Groucho club
In terms of respondents, there was an overwhelming number of people - nearly half - that said they were not a member of any supporting organisation. There are a number of possible explanations for this. The most worrying is that people are not being pulled into the ICANN system sufficiently and so sit outside the official bodies. But it is equally possible of course that those already within supporting organisations don’t feel the need to respond to an information survey because they’re happy with what they’ve got. Or it could just be a case of Internet economics, where a glut of people somewhere out there all decided to take the survey and so have provided a false view of representativeness. We’ll ask some questions of people over the coming months to see if we can pin down if there is an issue at the heart of this statistic.
As for the extra comments that people made: there was a wide range of views and some quite detailed comments on different areas. The general feeling what that people were pleased with the survey itself. There was also a surprising amount of praise and a surprising lack of criticism given the robust nature of the Net community when it comes to ICANN. What stood out clearly however was a sense that ICANN was not focused enough on individual registrants. This is something that ICANN is already working on; but then it also represents the fact that the majority of respondents to the survey were themselves individual registrants.
Thankyou
So that’s the summary. We’ll get to work right away focusing on what you’ve told us. If anyone has any comments they’d like to make, please do email ICANN’s general manager of public participation, Kieren McCarthy, at kieren.mccarthy@icann.org.
Â
|
| Participation |
PUBLIC COMMENT
There is a large number of public comment periods open at the moment, seven of them opened in the week before the Los Angeles meeting in order to provide time for people to review the material prior to public discussions.
You can view full details, as ever, on the public comment webpage, plus closed forums are available on the September and October archive pages.
Among those comment periods open are: a registry failover plan; the Strategic Plan; management operating principles; changes to the GNSO; independent review of the Nominating Committee; and a request for suggestions on how to allocate single-letter domains.
Among those forums that have closed since the last magazine are: an issues paper for the Strategic Plan; Board review terms of reference; amendments to contracts for .museum and .post; and a request for information on domain name tasting.
BLOG
The blog has been particularly lively in the past month, with a number of posts covering different aspects of Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs); reviews of Russia’s approach to the Internet; a review of the redelegation process for country-code top-level domains; a guide to the work ICANN is doing between the San Juan and Los Angeles meetings; and another episode of the South American Internet podcast series by ICANN regional manager Pablo Hinojosa.
Debate has also been lively, particularly with respect to the rules and theories behind delegations, and over the issue of IDNs. There has also been some back-and-forth discussions about participation within ICANN’s processes and what can be done to improve it.
More details on participating with ICANN can be found at: http://icann.org/participate/
|
| Other News |
Taipei meeting: ICANN kicked off the first of what may become regular “regional meetings” that focus on particular topics of importance to individual regions in Taipei.
Titled Toward the New Era of Internet, the three-day meeting broadly covered a different topic each day: security, IDNs, and IPv6. A number of ICANN staff including the CEO Paul Twomey and Board member Steve Crocker attended, as well as a number of notable Asian scientists and academics.
You can find out more on the Taipei meeting website at http://taipei2007.icann.org.
L-root: ICANN runs one of the Internet’s 13 root servers - L-root. As part of ongoing efforts to improve the resilience and performance, ICANN is now also serving from a new, additional system in Florida.
The system is a copy of the large cluster that operates from the Los Angeles area, and the addition of the Miami system has effectively doubled the capacity of L-root while also allowing ICANN to peer directly with many ISPs in the Latin America and Caribbean, directly improving service to those regions.
The addition has also seen the introduction of “Anycast” technology - fitting alongside many of the other root operators.
Nominating Committee: The Nominating Committee has announced who it selected to fill a large number of roles within the ICANN model since the last edition of this magazine.
We produced a special edition to cover the choices in full, providing the names, brief biographies, pictures and quick quotes from the individuals involved which you can see in full here.
In the meantime, here are just the names:
ICANN Board of Directors
* Harald Tveit Alvestrand (Norway, Europe)
* Dennis Jennings (Ireland/UK, Europe)
* Jean-Jacques Subrenat (France, Europe)
GNSO Council
* Avri Doria (USA, North America)
* Olga Cavalli (Argentina, Latin America & Caribbean)
At-Large Advisory Committee
* Vanda Scartezini (Brazil, Latin America & Caribbean)
* Fatimata Seye Sylla (Senegal, Africa)
* Nguyen Thu Hue (Vietnam, Asia/Australia/Pacific)
ccNSO Council
* Nashwa Abdel-Baki (Egypt, Africa)
|
|
| The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is an internationally organized, non-profit corporation that has responsibility for Internet Protocol (IP) address space allocation, protocol identifier assignment, generic (gTLD) and country code (ccTLD) Top-Level Domain name system management, and root server system management functions. These services were originally performed under U.S. Government contract by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) and other entities. ICANN now performs the IANA function.
As a private-public partnership, ICANN is dedicated to preserving the operational stability of the Internet; to promoting competition; to achieving broad representation of global Internet communities; and to developing policy appropriate to its mission through bottom-up, consensus-based processes. |
|
|
Interview with Avri Doria
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
ICANN | 4676 Admiralty Way | Marina del Rey | CA | 90292
|
October 27th, 2007
