Registrars Constituency Registrars Constituency Policy UpdatePolicy Update

Denise Michel, VP PolicyLiz Gasster, Senior Policy Counselor

Margie Milam, Senior Policy Counselor

October 2009

Items AddressedItems Addressed

• Explanation of new GNSO structure• GNSO reform update (OSC / PPSC)• GNSO workload / prioritization• Whois Misuse study• Registrant rights/responsibility• Board request re: TM protection implementation

plan

New GNSO StructureNew GNSO Structure

October 2009

Key GoalsKey Goals• Adopting a Working Group Model– Focal point for policy development– More inclusive, representative, effective

• Revising the PDP– More effective and responsive to policy

development needs

• Enhancing Constituencies– Procedures, operations to be more transparent,

accountable and accessible.

October 2009

Key Goals cont.Key Goals cont.

• Improving Communication and Coordination– With ICANN Structures – Including the Board.

• Restructuring the GNSO Council– Smaller, more focused strategic entity– Strengthened management and PDP oversight.

October 2009

“Contract”Party House [6+1]

“Non-Contract”Party House [12+1]

Voting NCA

Voting NCA

GNSO Council[21 members — 20 votes]

(1 Non-Voting NCA) ALACALAC11ccNSOccNSO22

RegistryStakeholderGroup [3]

RegistrarStakeholderGroup [3]

–Registries–Others

–Registrars–Others

CommercialStakeholderGroup [6]

Non-CommercialStakeholderGroup [6]–Business

–IntellectualProperty

–Internet Svc Prov.–Others

–Non-Comm’l Users–Others

Legend: [ ] Voting; ( ) Non-Voting1 Non-Voting Liaison – counted as a member2 Observer – not counted as a member

New GNSO Council StructureNew GNSO Council Structure

Current Status and Next StepsCurrent Status and Next Steps

• New Bylaws and Stakeholder Group charters are in place

• Council representatives have been determined (8 new)

• GNSO Council has approved Implementation Transition Plan

• Nominations for Council were held, have closed; elections to happen in Seoul

October 2009

Current Status and Next StepsCurrent Status and Next Steps

• New Council Procedures recommended – Public comments closed 16 October– To be voted on in Seoul

• Policy and Operations Work Team efforts will continue after Seoul on key aspects– Creating new Policy Development Process – Creating new Working Group Model

October 2009

GNSO Policy Process & GNSO Policy Process & Operations Operations

Steering CommitteesSteering Committees

October 2009

GNSO Participation & GNSO Participation & WorkloadWorkload

October 2009

IntroductionIntroduction

Working Groups/Teams AnalyzedWorking Groups/Teams Analyzed

Note 2: Data assumptions and technical notes are contained in the Report Appendix; the summary and raw data are included in an accompanying Excel workbook.

Note 1: The periods of attendance/participation data vary by group with some having records starting in early 2008 and a few having data as late as September 2009.

GROUP A: Working Groups Acronym UsedPost-Expiration Domain Name Recovery Working Group PEDNRFast Flux Working Group FFInter-Registrar Transfer Policy-Part A Working Group IRTP-ARegistration Abuse Polices Working Group RAPInter-Registrar Transfer Policy – Part B Working Group IRTP-B

Group B: GNSO Improvement Work Teams Acronym UsedCommunications and Coordination Team CCTConstituency and Stakeholder Group Team CSGGNSO Council Operations Team GCOTPolicy Development Process Team PDPTWorking Group Team WGTRestructure Drafting Team RDT

Question: What is Group B’s percentage attendance at conference calls/meetings counting any participant from each Constituency?

GROUP A Percent Attendance by Constituency#GROUP A Percent Attendance by Constituency#

Note: As long as any participant from that Constituency was present at a session, no absence was counted. Conversely, if no one from that Constituency was present, an absence was recorded.

(*) Includes At-Large, Nom-Com Appointees, GAC, Individuals

(#) At least one person attended each meeting/conference call from the Constituency

GROUP A RrC RyC BC IPC ISPC NCUC Others*

PEDNR 92% 54% 77% 38% 0% 23% 85%

FF 100% 93% 63% 17% 0% 37% 100%

IRTP-A 100% 79% 93% 82% 0% 0% 61%

RAP 94% 100% 94% 88% 0% 0% 82%

IRTP-B 100% 100% 100% 100% 0% 0% 100%

Group A Avg Attendance… 98% 85% 81% 56% 0% 33% 82%

Question: What is Group B’s percentage attendance at conference calls/meetings counting any participant from each Constituency?

GROUP B Percent Attendance by Constituency#GROUP B Percent Attendance by Constituency#

Note: As long as any participant from that Constituency was present at a session, no absence was counted. Conversely, if no one from that Constituency was present, an absence was recorded.

(*) Includes At-Large, Nom-Com Appointees, GAC, Individuals

(#) At least one person attended each meeting/conference call from the Constituency

GROUP B RrC RyC BC IPC ISPC NCUC Others*

CCT 73% 93% 100% 20% 7% 0% 0%

CSGT 69% 92% 23% 100% 46% 54% 92%

GCOT 29% 100% 76% 0% 94% 18% 18%

PDPT 100% 100% 53% 47% 67% 27% 87%

WGT 90% 50% 10% 80% 30% 40% 100%

RDT 80% 80% 60% 100% 40% 80% 100%

Group B Avg Attendance… 71% 89% 57% 62% 51% 37% 72%

Final ThoughtsFinal Thoughts

WHOIS STUDIES UPDATEWHOIS STUDIES UPDATE

October 2009

WHOIS - DefinitionWHOIS - Definition

• WHOIS -- provides public access to contact information for Registered Name Holders

• Requirements are in ICANN agreements • Required data (thick WHOIS) – nameservers and

DNS configuration data, registrar, start date, expiration date, and registrant contact information, technical contact and administrative contact.

• Thin WHOIS -- only data sufficient to identify the sponsoring registrar, status of the registration, and creation and expiration dates for each registration.

Sample WHOIS record:Sample WHOIS record:Registrant: ICANN 4676 Admiralty Way Suite #330 Marina del Rey, California 90292 US Phone:+1.3103015817

Administrative Contact:ICANN4676 Admiralty Way Suite Marina del Rey, California, 90292 Phone:+1.3103015817 / FAX:+1.3108238649 Email:domain-admin@icann.org

Technical Contact:ICANN4676 Admiralty Way Suite Marina del Rey, California, 90292 Phone:+1.3103015817 / FAX:+1.3108238649

Email:domain-admin@icann.org

18

Domain servers in listed order:NS.ICANN.ORG A.IANA-SERVERS.NET C.IANA-SERVERS.NET B.IANA-SERVERS.ORG D.IANA-SERVERS.NET

Registered Through GoDaddy.com, Inc. Domain Name: icann.orgCreated on: 14-Sep-1998 04:00:00 UTC Expires on: 07-Dec-2012 17:04:26 UTC Last Updated on: 13-Aug-2009 15:10:10 UTC

Why are WHOIS studies important? Why are WHOIS studies important? • WHOIS policy has been debated for many years• Many competing interests with valid viewpoints:– Law enforcement, IP owners, others want easy access to

accurate contact information– Individuals and privacy advocates are concerned about

privacy protection and abuse of public info– Governments want their legal regimes to be followed– Providers are reluctant to absorb new costs, Registrars

earn revenue from privacy services

• Few policy changes to WHOIS (prohibition against use for marketing, conflicts procedure)

Goals of WHOIS studiesGoals of WHOIS studies• No PDP underway now• GNSO Council hopes that study data will provide an

objective, factual basis for future policy making• Variety of topic areas selected are targeted at

informing key policy issues of concern – providing information such as possible causality in increasing spam and other harmful acts; useful info about registrants; use of proxy and privacy services, etc…

• Technical consideration of alternatives, especially in light of the growing number of international registrations

WHOIS StudiesWHOIS StudiesOverviewOverview

• The GNSO Council has identified several broad WHOIS study areas

1. Misuse of public WHOIS data 2. Registrant identification study (previously

“misrepresentation”)3. WHOIS proxy and privacy services study

4. Display of non-ASCII character sets in WHOIS5. Compilation of current and potential WHOIS

service requirements

1. Misuse Studies1. Misuse Studies• Will study extent of misuse of public WHOIS data to

generate spam or for other illegal or undesirable activities. Two approaches:

1. Descriptive Study – will survey registrants about specific acts they have experienced that they believe occurred using WHOIS contact data; survey registrars about how WHOIS can be queried; and survey others about reported incidents from cybercrime, research and law enforcement organizations.

2. Experimental Study – will measure a variety of harmful acts by classifying messages sent to test domains registered by a representative sample of registrars. Will compare harmful acts associated with public vs. non-public addresses and examine impact of public WHOIS and anti-harvesting measures.

• RFP released 27 September – responses due in 60 days

1. Misuse (cont’d)1. Misuse (cont’d)• 2 types of studies may compensate for

limitations inherent to each:– Can’t measure % of all queries that lead to

misuse– Difficult to track harmful acts. Was WHOIS data

exploited?– Difficult to reliably assess anti-harvesting

measures– Difficult to trigger or measure harmful acts in

experiments

Registrant Identification StudyRegistrant Identification Study• * previously “misrepresentation”• Looks at how registrants are identified in WHOIS• Will study extent to which domains used by legal

persons or for commercial purposes:1. Are not clearly identified as such in WHOIS; and2. Are correlated to use of privacy and proxy services

• Also using RFP approach, posted 23 October, responses due 22 December

Registrant Identification cont’dRegistrant Identification cont’d

• Review sample of domains looking for names or organizations that are either patently false, appear to identify a natural person, an organization engaged in non-commercial activities or a privacy or proxy service – for further analysis.

• Results will quantify domains registered to natural vs. legal persons and domains used for commercial vs. non-commercial purpose, distributed by gTLD, geo region and proxy/privacy use.

• Failure to clearly identify as a legal person

Registration Identification cont’dRegistration Identification cont’d

• Challenges:– Study can only provide empirical data, there is

still debate about what uses are impermissible (e.g. use of proxy services by legal persons)

– Difficult to identify licensees of domains registered by proxy services

– Large numbers of ambiguous owners (legal vs. natural persons) could skew results

– Disagreement re: commercial use

WHOIS Proxy and Privacy ServicesWHOIS Proxy and Privacy Services

• Study the extent to which privacy and proxy services are abused to:

1. Obscure the source of illegal or harmful communication or activity; and

2. Delay source identification

• Plan to pursue a similar RFP approach• TOR drafting not yet begun• Hope to complete by end of year

4. Display of non-ASCII character sets4. Display of non-ASCII character sets

– Proposal recommended examination of various client interfaces to assess implications for the accuracy and readability of WHOIS contact information

– A new SSAC-GNSO Technical Working Group will consider display specifications for internationalized registration data (WG tasking may pre-empt WHOIS display study)

5. WHOIS Service Requirements5. WHOIS Service Requirements

• May 2009 request from GNSO Council• Staff tasked to collect and organize a

comprehensive set of requirements for the WHOIS service policy tools

• Intended as an accurate and neutral compendium to help Council consider alternatives

• Status and update will be covered in Part II of this presentation.

Next steps and ways to get involvedNext steps and ways to get involved

• Attend the Internationalized Registration Data (IRD) workshop in Seoul on Wednesday 28 October at 15.00

• Contribute to the SSAC-GNSO IRD Working Group just being convened

• Staff will release study information as analyses are complete – several months

• The GNSO Council and staff will then consider which studies to conduct

Additional InformationAdditional Information• GNSO Council Resolution in Mexico City, March 2009

https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?04_mar_2009_motions• WHOIS misuse RFP announcement:

http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-28sep09-en.htm• WHOIS registrant identification RFP announcement:

http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-23oct09-en.htm• GNSO Council Resolution on WHOIS Service Requirements

https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?07_may_motions• ICANN Board Resolution regarding display and usage of internationalized

registration data, 26 June 2009http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun09.htm#6

• Updated cross reference table for Whois studies under consideration http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-requested-studies-chart-25sep09-en.pdf

• Internationalized Data Registration Working Group charter http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/internationalized-data-registration-wg-draft-charter-27sep09.pdf

Registrant Rights Charter & Registrant Rights Charter & Additional ResponsibilityAdditional Responsibility

October 2009

Background on the RAA Amendments Background on the RAA Amendments

• March 2009- the GNSO Council approved a set of amendments to the RAA

• May 2009- ICANN’s Board of Directors approved the RAA amendments

• Sept 2009- the GNSO Council created a joint GNSO/ALAC drafting team to conduct additional work related to the RAA to:– Develop a Registrant Rights Charter– Identify Topics on which further amendments may be

desirable

October 2009

Drafting of Registrant Rights CharterDrafting of Registrant Rights Charter

Section 3.5 of the RAA:“In the event that ICANN gives reasonable notice to Registrar that ICANN has published a webpage that identifies available registrant rights and responsibilities, and the content of such webpage is developed in consultation with registrars, Registrar shall provide a link to the webpage...”

October 2009

Next StepsNext Steps

• Drafting Team to develop the charter using the information contained in the Summary of Registrant Rights Document

• Drafting Team to identify topics on which further amendments may be desirable

Deadline of 9 November for Suggestions

• Drafting Team Meeting in Seoul: Wednesday 28 October 2009 - 17:30 - 19:00 Sapphire 4 (L3)

October 2009

Board Request on Board Request on Trademark Protection Trademark Protection Implementation PlanImplementation Plan

October 2009

Thank YouThank You

감사합니다 .