At-Large Prague Meeting Reports

New GNSO Web Site

only 5 attendees, but informative presentation by Rob Hoggarth/Berry Cobb who talked about the design process
behind the GNSO website redesign and a walkthrough of the GNSO website.

The website design was split into 2 phases - Phase 1 to meet 80% of the design goals that could be done in 20% of the time (and the launch of the GNSO website) and Phase 2 which is ongoing which is tackling the harder 20% of design goals (largely related to the archive of GNSO materials that need to be re-catalogued for easier public review) and thus requiring more time and effort.

A similiar approach for the At-Large website redesign effort that's underway could be done.

Mikey asked how the public can track/observe/monitor the discussions of the numerious GNSO WG email lists - persons joining a list/group with read/write access are considered members of the group and thus have certain expectations of being a member of that group. RSS feeds for mailing lists is a consideration for Phase 2.
A similar ability for At-Large to more easily observe the discussions happening in ALAC, RALOs and At-Large WGs
would be helpful.

Large attendance, detailed slides and presentations by the 3 DRSPs handling the 4 objection grounds to new gTLD applications. Two takeaways:
- for the public interest and community objections, All parties have to make full payment of ALL costs when the ICC (the DRSP responsible for handling Public Interest and Community) publishes the estimates costs for the panels to hear the objection. Minus the non-refundable filing fee, the prevailing party or parties are refunded the costs at the end of the panel decision.
- the DRSP will publish a notice on their website on receipt of the filing fee (5000 euros for public interest and community objections) by the objector during the 7 month objection period. The notice has such information such as the objector, the applicant and date and time received, but NOT the text of the objection statement itself.

Yaovi Atohoun

AFRALO/ALAC

IPv6 SESSION on June 27, 2012 in CONGRESS II from 09:00 to 10:40

RIPE NCC Update: Statistics, Policy Developments and IPv6 Outreach Activities

Andrea Cima, RIPE NCC did the presentation:

- Allocation based on the policy in the region; RIPEness

- Outreach and Capacity building: capacity building important. There is ITU IPv6 Group (2009-2012) model. Availability of an “IPv6 Requirements in ICT Document”.

World IPv6 Launch 2012: What happened

Frededic Dong and Mat Ford gave general overview of what has happened and mentioned a great participation. http://ww.internetsociety.org/deploy360 for resources.

IPv6 Deployment: The Government Perspective

Maria Hall, Ministry of Enterprise, Energy and Communication, Sweden; Anders Rafting (PTS)

• Guidance document submitted to the Government by PTS www.pts.se/deployipv6

• Public authorities should have deployed IPv6 no later than 2013

ccTLDs and IPv6 Deployment

by Ondrej Filip

9 of 13 root servers are ready for IPv6

at least one Name server on IPv6 for TLDs

The Evolving Internet and IPv6

By Geoff Huston of APNIC: A presentation where he is convinced that Ipv6 is the only one future for the Internet to be “one Internet”.

URL for the session at http://prague44.icann.org/node/31803

Speakers included Kurt Pritz, Senior VP Stakeholder Relations ICANN, Margie Milam, Senior Policy Counselor ICANN, Rob Hall, NomCom Chair Elect, Samantha Eisner, Legal Counsel ICANN (and 2 others)

The purpose of the meeting was to review the main issues still being discussed in the negotiations and to get feedback from the community on those issues.  A draft of the updated RAA has been posted (along with other documents including the WHOIS specification) which does not represent either the ICANN or registrars’ position – it is there for discussion.

Background: the negotiations are based on the 12 recommendations made by the law enforcement agencies in the GNSO working group on the RAA. They cover   4 key areas:

• Validation and verification
• Retention of data
• Privacy and proxy obligations (noting that the LEA have agreed that privacy and proxy servers should be accredited)
• Abuse point of contact

Other issues raised in the GNSO working group included responsibility of affiliates and resellers for RAA requirements

Registrar proposals for the RAA negotiations:

• Align RAA amendments with the new gTLD agreement
• Remove Port 43 obligation for the thick Whois
• Align consensus policy with the ‘picket fence’ for new gTLDs
• Streamline accreditation for the new gTLs

ICANN proposals for the negotiations

• Improved compliance tools for repeated breaches including suspension and termination
• Streamline arbitration
• Requirement for IPv6, DNSSEC and IDNs
• Sunset revocation provision

There are three areas on which comments are being sought:

Whois data verification – including

• How is the verification to take place – by phone/email?
• How to deal with language issues
• Timing of verification: should it be pre or post when the name resolves (noting that if it is pre name resolution, it is contrary to existing customer expectations and raises technical issues)
• Should there be annual re-verification

Whois Data retention – what data and how long (law enforcement agencies want retention of data for 2 years

How to make the RAA negotiation outcomes enforceable on all registrars

In discussion, issues raised included:

• There must be obligations on privacy/proxy servers to do verification as well
• The agreement should cover all and take effect ASAP
• Privacy of data as an issue
• Questioning why the negotiations are bilateral when the outcomes affect the community
• From Law enforcement – the aim is to haave the data so that registrants doing bad things can be contacted – marginalise the bad guys
• From registrars’ perspective – is an issue operating under various versions of the RAA – possibly delay implementation until all registrars are covered