Sydney Meeting Reports Wednesday
- Laura Kolker
- matt.ashtiani
This page is for you to publish your reports of the meetings you attended during the third day of the ICANN Sydney meeting. Please log in with your email address and password ad use the "edit" button to add your report.
Reports from other days:
GNSO Council Open Meeting
Time: 08:00 - 12:30
Location: Ballroom A (L3)
At-Large Delegates: Alan, Andres, CLO, Hawa, Dessi, Olivier
Author: Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond
Mary Wong, who participated on the IRT, reminded everyone at the beginning of the meeting that she was acting in this position as an individual, and not as an NCUC member. This was confirmed by Kristina Rosette.Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery |
Organisational Reviews - Coordination
Time: 09:00 - 10:30
Location: Function 2 (L2)
At-Large Delegates: Seb, Adam
Author: Sébastien Bachollet
FrançaisLa coordination des revues des différentes SO et AC est à la fois importante et complexe. |
Workshop: Update Regarding ICANN's WHOIS data accuracy study
Time: 09:00 - 10:30
Location: Function 3 (L2)
At-Large Delegates: Beau, Wendy
Author:
Please write your report here |
Board Committee on Public Participation
Time: 09:00 - 10:30
Location: Function 1-2 (L4)
Author: Gareth Shearman
Board Committee on Public Participation2010 meetings - Nairobi, Europe, Latin America |
Workshop DNSSEC
Time: 09:00 - 12:30
Location: Function 1-2 (L4)
At-Large Delegates: Didier, Alan, Patrick
Author: Patrick Vande Walle
The meeting agenda and presentations are at http://syd.icann.org/node/3791Several ccTLDs shared their experience on their DNSSEC testbeds. A major concern that was raised was the relationship between the registrant, registrar and registry in the DNSSEC context. Currently, the registrant does not communicate directly with the registry. However, to insert DNSSEC keys in the zone file, it may be necessary to have a direct link between the domain signer ( the registrant) and the upstream key provider (registry). How this needs to happens in practical terms is not yet clear. What is the role of the registrar, especially if the latter does not provide DNS services to the registrant ? |
Overall, the issue of skill building WRT DNSSEC was widely echoed. Neither registrants or registrars have a good knowledge of DNSSEC right now. The possibility that something goes wrong is real, with the result that the domain signatures may be invalid. Hence, extra check should be put in place. On the short term, education efforts are needed.
Workshop: ALAC Review
Time: 11:00 - 12:30
Location: Function 1-2 (L4) | Action Items: ENGLISH, FRANCAIS, ESPANOL |
Workshop: Improving Institutional Confidence
Time: 13:00 - 14:30
Location: Ballroom A (L3)
At-Large Delegates: Adam, Seb, CLO
Author:
Please write your report here |
New gTLD Program - IRT and malicious behavior
Time: 13:00 - 18:00
Location: Function 1-2 (L4)
At-Large Delegates: Dessi, Patrick, Andres, CLO
Author: Patrick Vande Walle
I made the following comment during the meeting: |
The other question is that –
>>JEFF NEUMAN: Can we take it one at a time, just so we remember it?
Sorry, because I'm pretty slow, I guess.
On that question, look, I think you're asking a technical question
when you got a response from an I.P. attorney. So when he said it's
taking it down or diverting Web site, I understand the question you're
asking. The real answer is that the name servers will be redirected to
the name servers of the service provider who will display that page.
So all of those applications will be shut down.
So when they say – We're kind of talking past each other. But when
they say the content comes down, what they mean in technical terms is
that the name servers will be redirected to the name servers of the
service provider. So all of those, however many thousand applications,
will be – will be shut down, including e-mail.
>>BRUCE TONKIN: So, technically, so I'll just jump on it if we're
going to play technical games, what we're talking about, you're
redelegating the name. Right. That other provider could actually
intercept e-mail if it's set up MX records and things. So you do need
some controls on where it gets redelegated to and what that other
party's allowed to do.
>>PATRICK VANDE WALLE: That was one of my points, indeed.
I noticed with some relief that you will be sending out the
notifications through certified mail with a 14-day period for response.
But I would like to remind you also that certified mail takes time to
be delivered, and especially my personal experience is that certified
mail between the U.S. and Europe usually already takes five business
days to be delivered.
So either you use FedEx or a similar system if you want to be sure
that the notice gets on time, or – because you cannot just trust e-
mail. Currently, we – 97% of the e-mail we receive is spam,
especially if you're going to send out a notification in English to a
part of the world where English is not the main language, be sure that
it will be immediately directed to the spam folder, and you will get no
reply.
Furthermore, 14 days, while – I can figure out that someone who is
doing a business can be expected to read his e-mail on a daily basis
and be able to act on the e-mail when it is delivered.
But if you send me an e-mail notification mid-August and I'm on
vacation, sorry, but my domain name will be suspended but me even
knowing it.
So especially for these individual domain name registrants, there
should be a possibility to extend this delay. Because 14 days is just
unworkable.
Thank you.
.pre |
ICANN Security, Stability & Resiliency Plan Consultation
Time: 14:00 - 15:30
Location: Function 2 (L2)
At-Large Delegates: Hawa, Didier, Beau, Olivier
Author:
Please write your report here |
Workshop: Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery
Time: 14:00 - 16:00
Location: Function 5-6 (L2)
At-Large Delegates: Gareth, Alan, Vivek
Author:
Expired domain name problems - expired e-mail addresses etc.Some can be bought back |
Board Review: presentation final working group report
Time: 16:00 - 17:30
Location: Ballroom A (L3)
At-Large Delegates: Darlene, Adam, Seb
Author: Adam Peake
Presentation:http://syd.icann.org/files/meetings/sydney2009/presentation-board-review-gaetano-24jun09-en.pdfTranscripts: http://syd.icann.org/files/meetings/sydney2009/transcript-board-review-wg-24jun09-en.txt6 issues are considered finalized: |
- Fewer, longer Board meetings
- Consolidate Board Committees
- Broaden skills of the Board
- High performance culture
- Strengthen strategic focus
- Clarify Board accountabilities
Please see the presentation for details. The
workshop focused on 3 open issues, summary
follows:
1. Should the size of the board be reduced?
The reviewers suggested the current board of 21
(15, plus 6 liaisons) was too large and most of
the working group members supported a reduction.
-Business constituency comments to the process
supported this view, mainly (I think) for the
sake of efficiency. There were probably more
comments during the meeting- Most comments made
during the meeting and in written submitted
comments strongly supported the status
quo: that current board has many tasks, many
committees and significant and often much
appreciated work in managing the review
processes. Also noted that Directors require a
high level of ICANN specific knowledge, this
takes a time to acquire and with the transitions
of incoming/outgoing members if the size of the
board was reduced the skill set could be lacking
for some period of time.
2. Remuneration. Should directors be paid in
some way for their time. Was made clear that the
board review could only address the board, not
the chairs of the SOs and others volunteers.
There is a need to check to see if a remunerated
board has different/higher liability under CA
laws.
If introduced then accepting any fee (or not)
would be the choice of the individual director
concerned.
Also asked to consider the special situation of
the Chair, with an exceptionally high workload
should be treated differently, perhaps on a fast
track.
General support seems to be for remuneration in
some way. But there were a couple if quite
passionate and well founded comments about the
nature of ICANN as a volunteer organization,
about how the board has been populated with fine
people so far, so is it really a problem. Would
the profile of candidates change if remuneration
were introduced?
3. Time of appointment. NomCom appointed
Directors join at the end of the AGM, Directors
appointed by the SOs joins 6 months after the
AGM. Some think this optimal, some do not (I am
personally not sure why this is a concern!) |
ccNSO Council Mtg
Time: 16:00 - 17:00
Location: Function 4-5 (L2)
At-Large Delegates: Rudi, Hawa
Author: Rudi Vansnick
The monthly conference calls are replaced by a face-to-face meeting during the ICANN meetings. So was also this time.On the agenda : |
Workshop: Registrar Best Practices Regarding the UDRP
Time: 16:00 - 17:30
Location: Function 3 (L2)
At-Large Delegate: CLO
Author:
Please write your report here |
ICANN Security, Stability & Resiliency Plan Consultation
14:00 - 15:30
24 June 2009
Location: Function Room L2
Author: Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond
I only partially attended this session since I also spent some time in the ballroom on Level 3, New gTLD Consultation on Trademark Protection.
Having been allocated a 90 minute slot, the meeting was over in 45 minutes due to the conciseness of Greg Rattray's presentation.
Since I missed part of the session, some parts of this report were written from listening to the session's MP3 recording.
Presentation by Greg Rattray, Chief Internet Security Advisor.
ICANN has written a plan describing what ICANN does and does not do in the stability and security fields.
This plan is ultimately going to be part of the ICANN strategic plan.
It does not present any new initiatives, but is just one unified document describing ICANN's initial foundation
including its role in the above fields.
ICANN's mission includes: "to ensure stable and secure operation of the Internet's unique identifier systems"
ICANN does not act as a policeman in operationally combatting criminal activity on the Internet.
ICANN does not have a role regarding use of the Internet for cyber-espionage and cyber war.
ICANN does not have a role in what constitutes illicit content on the Internet.
Other key personnel in Greg's team: John Crain, Youri Ito, Geoff Bickers. Yes, they are just 4 people altogether. But they are not alone since other staff operate the IANA functions, ICANN contract compliance, etc. The Security, Stability and Resiliency Plan provides a high level comprehensive description of the activities of each committee.
Section 5 of the plan describes an articulation of what ICANN is currently doing in the following fields:
(cut/paste from the plan to explain the scope of ICANN's Security, Stability and Resiliency group)
5.1 Core DNS/Addressing Security, Stability and Resiliency
5.1.1 IANA Operations
5.1.2 DNS Root Server Operations
5.2 TLD Registries and Registrars Security, Stability and Resiliency
5.2.1 gTLD Registries
5.2.2 New gTLDs and IDNs
5.2.3 gTLD Registrars
5.2.4 Whois
5.2.5 Contractual Compliance
5.2.6 Protecting gTLD Registrants
5.2.7 ccTLDs
5.2.8 IANA Technical Requirements
5.2.9 Collaborative Response to Malicious Abuse of Domain Name System
5.2.10 Enabling Overall DNS Security and Resiliency
5.3 Engaging with Number Resource Organization (NRO) and Regional Internet Registries (RIRs)
5.4 ICANN Corporate Security and Continuity Operations
5.5 Activities of ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees
5.6 Global Engagement to Enhance Security, Stability and Resiliency
5.6.1 Global Partners and Activities
5.6.2 Regional Partners and Activities
5.6.3 Working with Governments
Greg Rattray went through each of these sections explaining ICANN's commitment to security in each of these cases.
Section 6 of the document describes future activity, specifically, how ICANN will enhance security and continuity operations.
Of particular importance is the fact that a Board level Risk Management committee is being created which will be able to perform full Corporate Risk Assessment.
Risk mitigation across the full range of risks will take place in FY 11.
Questions/Comments from the floor
Comments emphasized the fact that in the immediate term, security compliance will be asked specifically for new gTLDs but not for existing gTLDs.
A: for existing gTLDs it would involve modifying existing contracts and that may come later.
My own view:
Sadly, the comment period had closed a couple of days prior to the plan being explained in Sydney, so no written feedback was possible after this meeting.
However, since this initiative is ongoing, I feel that there will be plenty of opportunities to provide feedback in the future, especially since, I repeat, this plan does not describe new initiatives, but is only a summary of all security and stability activities across ICANN.
Presentation on:http://syd.icann.org/files/meetings/sydney2009/presentation-ssr-plan-rattray-icann-24jun09-en.pdf
Full ICANN Security, Stability & Resiliency Plan Consultation plan:http://www.icann.org/en/topics/ssr/ssr-draft-plan-16may09-en.pdf
contributed by guest@socialtext.net on 2009-08-04 15:31:20 GMT