Category Archive

The GNSO Council has just voted to pass (Contracted parties 100% Non-contracted parties 84.6%) a motion in relation to the Final Report of the IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms Working Group, it RESOLVED:

1. The GNSO Council approves, and recommends that the ICANN Board adopt, Recommendations 1, 2, 3 & 4 of the PDP Final Report. The GNSO Council directs ICANN staff to prepare a Recommendations Report for delivery to the ICANN Board in accordance with the process outlined in the ICANN Bylaws.
2. The GNSO Council does not approve Recommendation 5 of the PDP Final Report and directs the Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDs (RPM) PDP to consider, as part of its Phase 2 work, whether an appropriate policy solution can be developed that is generally consistent with Recommendations 1, 2, 3 & 4 of the PDP Final Report and:
   1. accounts for the possibility that an IGO may enjoy jurisdictional immunity in certain circumstances;
   2. does not affect the right and ability of registrants to file judicial proceedings in a court of competent jurisdiction;
   3. preserves registrants’ rights to judicial review of an initial UDRP or URS decision; and
   4. recognizes that the existence and scope of IGO jurisdictional immunity in any particular situation is a legal issue to be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction.
3. The GNSO Council intends to amend the charter for the RPM PDP Working Group to reflect this new instruction accordingly.
4. The GNSO Council affirms that it will take into account its approval of Recommendations 1, 2, 3 & 4 in considering the recommendations it receives from the RPM PDP Working Group.
5. The GNSO Council thanks all the members of the IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms PDP for their hard work in completing this PDP.

Explanatory Note/Rationale:

• The GNSO Council is of the opinion that Recommendations 1, 2, 3 & 4 do not constitute substantive policy recommendations, in the sense that they neither create new policies nor amend existing ones (including Consensus Policies). However, the GNSO Council acknowledges that Recommendation 1(a) and 1(b) propose that “no specific new dispute resolution procedures are to be created” and the Council’s approval of this recommendation should be taken into account when considering the final recommendations it receives from the RPM PDP Working Group.
• The GNSO Council recognizes that Recommendation 3, if approved, may be interpreted as precluding any potential changes being made to the UDRP and/or URS. The GNSO Council wishes to clarify that, in its view, Recommendation 3 is concerned with ways to avoid jurisdictional immunity problems and does not address the specific issue of jurisdictional immunity; viz., the respective Rules for the UDRP and URS, as currently worded, require a complainant to submit to the jurisdiction of a national court, which may be incompatible with the jurisdictional immunity that some IGOs may enjoy in certain circumstances.
• The GNSO Council does not approve Recommendation 5 of the PDP Final Report as it believes that approving this recommendation will effectively result in: (a) a substantive amendment of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) and the Uniform Rapid Suspension procedure (URS), both of which are under review by the GNSO’s Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDs PDP; and (b) a potential reduction of the existing level of curative protections currently available to IGOs notwithstanding the fact that the PDP had been chartered to determine “whether to amend the UDRP and URS to allow access to and use of these mechanisms by IGOs and INGOs …or whether a separate, narrowly-tailored dispute resolution procedure at the second level modeled on the UDRP and URS that takes into account the particular needs and specific circumstances of IGOs and INGOs should be developed”

The Greater Washington DC Chapter of the Internet Society (ISOC-DC) is holding a panel discussion on Tuesday, May 10 from 3:30 – 5:00 pm US EDT (UTC-4). Panelists will discuss the different types of Internet fragmentation, their associated technical, economic, and political impacts and when fragmentation may be desirable or problematic. Additionally, the panelists will examine how these should be taken into consideration in policy making.

The kinds of questions the panel are hoping to explore include:

• Is the global, open Internet moving away from a network of networks that is universally interoperable to a series of networks fragmented along policy, technical or economic lines?
• What about the increasing use of DNS and content filtering?
• As some governments pass laws related to data localization and restriction of cross-border data flows, what will the impact be?
• What other factors have the potential for causing fragmentation?

A Live video stream is to be recorded and made available for viewing after the event.

Lawrence Strickling the Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information and NTIA Administrator is urging all parties with an interest in the IANA transition to review the proposals to transition IANA functions away from US Control and provide feedback to the working groups.

This is the best way to make your voice heard and make a difference. It is particularly important that stakeholders everywhere evaluate whether these plans meet the criteria that we have said must be part of the transition.

IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal (.pdf)

In recent days both the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) and the Cross Community Working Group (CCWG) on Enhancing ICANN Accountability have posted their proposals for review and final public comment. Comments are due September 8, 2015, for the ICG’s proposal and September 12, 2015, for the CCWG’s proposal.

ICG – IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal: Call for Public Comment

CCWG – Enhancing ICANN Accountability

ICANN had commissioned a technical study from Bond Internet Systems SL to look at the impact of using DNAME resource records [RFC2672] in the root zone of the the Domain Name System (DNS).

The study concludes –

All the tests performed in this study indicate that the introduction of DNAME records as a means of creating isomorphic TLDs does not prevent name resolution using software in common use today.

The observed behaviour of DNS servers varies in the handling of the DNAME record and the caching properties of the synthesised CNAMEs but this does not affect the outcome of the resolution process.

Differences in caching behaviour may generate different load profiles in the DNS servers but do not prevent resolution completion.

…

Finally, while hard to quantify without well known query patterns for the potential new TLDs (popularity, etc) the introduction of DNAME in the root zone is highly unlikely to generate any significant impact in the load of root servers.

 
ICANN Announcement here

The Internet Society in hosting a very interesting conference in New York on the 14th June 2011 with an exceptional line up of keynotes and speakers.

Sir Tim Berners-Lee
Vint Cerf
Lawrence E. Strickling
Brad Burnham
Chris Libertelli
David A. Gross
David Solomonoff
Eben Moglen
Gigi B. Sohn
Hunter Newby
Jonathan Cannon
Leonard L. Gordon
Leslie Daigle
Link Hoewing
Lucy Lynch
Lynn St. Amour
Markus Kummer
Rachel Sterne
Rebecca Wright
Stephanie Mehta
Stephen Hughes
Nick Gall

Registration is currently available here.