1. Policy Update Registrar Stakeholder Group Meeting Policy Department, 15 March 2011

2. Topics covered Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (Marika Konings) Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery (Marika Konings) New GNSO Policy Development Process (Marika Konings) RAA (Margie Milam) UDRP Issue Report (Margie Milam) WHOIS (Liz Gasster) 2

3. Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part B PDP WG 3

4. Why is it important? Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Straightforward process for registrants to transfer domain names between registrars Currently under review to ensure improvements and clarification IRTP Part B PDP Working Group – second in a series of five PDPs 4

5. Charter Questions Should there be a process or special provisions for urgent return of hijacked registration, inappropriate transfers or change of registrant? Registrar Lock Status (standards / best practices & clarification of denial reason #7) 5

6. Recent Developments Publication of Initial Report on 29 May 2010 WG reviewed public comments, continued deliberations and updated report accordingly WG published proposed Final Report for public comment on 21 February 2011 containing 9 recommendations incl.: Registrar Emergency Action Channel Issue Report on ‘Thick’ Whois Issue Report on ‘Change of Control’ function Modification of denial reason #6 & #7 Clarifying WHOIS status messages in relation to Registrar Lock Status 6

7. Next Steps Public comment forum open until 31 March – please provide your feedbackhttp://www.icann.org/en/public- comment/public-comment-201103- en.htm#irtp-b-proposed-final-reporthttp://www.icann.org/en/public- comment/public-comment-201103- en.htm#irtp-b-proposed-final-report WG to review comments received and finalize report for submission to GNSO Council

8. Further Information IRTP Part B PDP Proposed Final Report - http://gnso.icann.org/issues/transfers/irtp- b-proposed-final-report-21feb11-en.pdf http://gnso.icann.org/issues/transfers/irtp- b-proposed-final-report-21feb11-en.pdf IRTP Part B Public Comment Forum - http://www.icann.org/en/public- comment/public-comment-201103- en.htm#irtp-b-proposed-final-report http://www.icann.org/en/public- comment/public-comment-201103- en.htm#irtp-b-proposed-final-report IRTP Part B PDP WG Workspace - https://st.icann.org/irtp-partb/ https://st.icann.org/irtp-partb/ 8

9. Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery WG 9

10. To what extent should registrants be able to reclaim their domain names after they expire? Issue brought to the GNSO by ALAC PDP initiated in June 2009 PEDNR WG examines five questions relating to expiration and renewal practices and policies WG is expected to make recommendations for best practices and / or consensus policies Why is it important? 10

11. Initial Report Published in May 2010 – did not include any recommendations WG reviewed public comments and continued deliberations Published proposed Final Report on 21 Feb containing 14 recommendations Public comment forum open until 7 April Recent Developments 11

12. Total of 14 recommendations, including amongst others: Provide a minimum of 8 days after expiration for renewal by registrant All unsponsored gTLDs and registrars must offer Redemption Grace Period (RGP) Fees charged for renewal must be posted At least two notices prior to expiration at set times, one after expiration Website must explicitly say that registration has expired and instructions on how to redeem Development of education materials about how to prevent unintentional loss Proposed Recommendations 12

13. Presentation of the Report and recommendations to the Community in SFO (see http://svsf40.icann.org/node/22107)http://svsf40.icann.org/node/22107 Public comment forum open until 7 April WG will review comments received and finalize report for submission to GNSO Council How do I get involved & Next Steps 13

14. Public comment forum open until 7 April Please participate: http://www.icann.org/en/public- comment/public-comment-201104- en.htm#pednr-proposed-final-report http://www.icann.org/en/public- comment/public-comment-201104- en.htm#pednr-proposed-final-report WG will review comments received and finalize report for submission to GNSO Council Next Steps 14

15. Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery Proposed Final Report - http://gnso.icann.org/issues/pednr/pe dnr-proposed-final-report-21feb11- en.pdf http://gnso.icann.org/issues/pednr/pe dnr-proposed-final-report-21feb11- en.pdf PEDNR Public Comment Forum - http://www.icann.org/en/public- comment/public-comment-201104- en.htm#pednr-proposed-final-report http://www.icann.org/en/public- comment/public-comment-201104- en.htm#pednr-proposed-final-report Further Information 15

16. The new GNSO Policy Development Process 16

17. Objective The PDP-WT is responsible for developing a new GNSO policy development process that incorporates a working group approach and makes it more effective and responsive to ICANN’s policy development needs. The primary tasks are to develop: 1.Appropriate principles, rules and procedures applicable to a new policy development process; and 2.An implementation/transition plan

18. Approach PDP-WT formed in February 2009 Initial Report published in May 2010 outlining 45 recommendations, identifying ‘open issues’ and an outline of the proposed new PDP WT has reviewed public comments and continued deliberations on open issues WT has now published proposed Final Report for Community Consideration, which includes recommendations, proposed by-law changes and language for PDP Procedure Manual YOUR INPUT NEEDED!!!!!! PUBLIC COMMENT FORUM OPEN UNTIL 1 APRIL

19. Stages of the new PDP 1.Planning and Request for an Issues Report 2.GNSO Council Review of the Issues Report and Initiation of the Policy Development Process 3.Working Group 4.Voting and Implementation 5.Policy Effectiveness and Compliance

20. Recommendations Some codify existing practices Some recommend a new approach Some recommend changes to the by- laws (less flexible - need board approval) Some elements to be moved to the PDP Procedure Manual which is to become part of the GNSO Operating Rules (more flexible - can be adopted by the GNSO Council, without requiring Board approval, but with Board oversight)

21. Further Information Public Session on Wednesday from 12.00 – 13.00 (See: http://svsf40.icann.org/node/22177) http://svsf40.icann.org/node/22177 Proposed Final Report - http://www.icann.org/en/announcemen ts/announcement-3-21feb11-en.htm http://www.icann.org/en/announcemen ts/announcement-3-21feb11-en.htm

22. Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) Margie Milam 22

23. Background of RAA Discussions Mar 2007Comprehensive review of the RAA initiated 2008 - 2009 New Form of RAA developed Mar 2009 GNSO approved 2009 form RAA with agreement in the community that the RAA be further analyzed June 2009ICANN Board approves new form of 2009 RAA May 2010Joint GNSO/ALAC DT Report Released for Public Comment Oct 2010Final Report on Improvements to the RAA published http://gnso.icann.org/issues/raa/raa-improvements-proposal-final-report-18oct01-en.pdf

24. List of High Priority Amendment Topics to be considered by the GNSO Item No.Description 1Prohibition on registrar cybersquatting 2Malicious conduct – registrar duty to investigate 3 Designation and publication of a technically competent point of contact on malicious conduct issues (available 24/7 basis) 4 Disclosure of privacy/proxy services made available by registrar; Responsibility of registrar for compliance by such services 5 Obligations of privacy/proxy services made available by registrar re: Data escrow; Relay function; Reveal function 6 Registrar responsibility for cancellation of registrations made by other privacy/proxy services for noncompliance with Relay and Reveal

25. Item No.Description 7 Define circumstances under which registrar is required to cancel registration for false Whois data and set reasonable time limits for registrar action 8. Require PCI compliance in registration process 9 Define “reseller” and clarify registrar responsibility for reseller compliance 10 Require greater disclosure of registrar affiliates/multiple accreditations 11 Require greater disclosure of registrar contact information, information on form of business organization, officers, etc. 12 Clarification of registrar responsibilities in connection with UDRP proceedings List of High Priority Amendment Topics to be considered by the GNSO (continued)

26. Medium Priority Amendment Topics to be considered by the GNSO  Spell out registrar “verification” process after receiving false Whois data report  Require links to Whois Data Problem Reporting System on Whois results pages and on registrar home page  Service Level Agreement on Whois availability  Registrar to disclose resellers and vice versa  Expand scope of authority to terminate accreditation  Require registrars to report data breaches  Streamline arbitration process in cases of dis-accreditation  Streamline process of adding new gTLDs to accreditation  Registrar responsibilities for acts of affiliates  Staff to draft registrar code of conduct if registrars fail to do so by time certain

27. Recent Developments & Next Steps Final Report describes priority amendments and procedures for producing new RAA GAC Brussels Communiqué- Law Enforcement RAA proposals endorsed RAA issues explored in the GAC/Board Brussels consultations http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/gac- board-law-enforcement-due-diligence- recommendations-21feb11-en.pdf http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/gac- board-law-enforcement-due-diligence- recommendations-21feb11-en.pdf GNSO to consider next steps 27

28. Issues Report Overview Current State of the UDRP 28

29. GNSO Council Resolution 29 RESOLVED, the GNSO Council requests an Issues Report on the current state of the UDRP. This effort should consider- How the UDRP has addressed the problem of cybersquatting to date, and any insufficiencies/inequalities associated with the process. Whether the definition of cybersquatting inherent within the existing UDRP language needs to be reviewed or updated. The Issue Report should include suggestions for how a possible PDP on this issue might be managed.

30. Issues Regarding PDP Scope 30 GNSO Council resolution unclear whether to address issue narrowly- i.e.- definition of cybersquatting or more broadly- to include process improvements and other aspects of the policy If broader, scope of issues raised by Community (as highlighted in this presentation) require extensive time and resources (volunteer and staff) to conduct PDP, compared to PDP with narrower focus

31. WHOIS Update Liz Gasster 31

32. Agenda: WHOIS Studies WHOIS Service Requirements Report 32

33. Goals of WHOIS studies WHOIS policy has been debated for many years Many competing interests with valid viewpoints GNSO Council hopes that study data will provide objective, factual basis for future policy making Council identified several WHOIS study areas to test hypotheses that reflect key policy concerns Council asked staff to determine costs and feasibility of conducting those studies Staff used an RFP approach to do so

35. Inventory of WHOIS Service Requirements ICANN Meeting, San Francisco, USA

36. Background 1.May 2009 -- The GNSO Council requested that Policy Staff collect and organize a comprehensive set of requirements for the WHOIS service policy tools. These requirements should reflect not only the known deficiencies in the current service but should include any possible requirements that may be needed to support various policy initiatives that have been suggested in the past. 2.The synthesis of requirements should be done in consultation with the SSAC, ALAC, GAC, the ccNSO and the GNSO and a strawman proposal should be prepared for these consultations. 36

37. Goals & Non-goals Collect and organize a set of technical requirements for community consideration: Current features identified as needing improvement Features to support various past policy proposals Features recommended by ICANN SOs, ACs, community NOT gathering policy requirements NOT recommending policy 37

38. Status of the report Released draft Report in March 2010, sent report to ALAC, SSAC, ASO, GNSO, CCNSO for input Received input from RySG (GNSO), ALAC, and a group of technical experts (SSAC) Incorporated comments and released Final Report on 29 July 2010 38

39. Compilation includes: Mechanism to find authoritative Whois servers Structured queries Standardized set of query capabilities Well-defined schema for replies Standardized errors Quality of domain registration data Internationalization Security Thick vs. Thin WHOIS Registrar abuse point of contact 39

40. General Comments ALAC: The At-Large supports all the requirements expressed in the document, and believes there is a consensus in the community on these. RySG: “expresses appreciation for what we believe is very constructive report. We believe that it provides an excellent basis for additional definition of WHOIS service requirements for the future.” 40

41. Comments on Next Steps “we recommend that any standards work that may be needed be identified and steps taken to initiate the any needed standards development work as soon as possible so as to avoid possible delays later when additional WHOIS policy work may occur” (RySG) 41

42. Comments on Next Steps “we recommend the community discuss what services / protocols would satisfy these requirements and how to move forward to make these changes.” (Technical experts from SSAC) “The At-Large would like to see a clear roadmap and a timeline with milestones for the implementation of the above requirements.” (ALAC) 42

43. For more information On WHOIS studies: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/ http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/ On the Technical Evolution Discussion: https://community.icann.org/display/TEwhoisService /Technical+Evolution+of+WHOIS+service+wiki+page https://community.icann.org/display/TEwhoisService /Technical+Evolution+of+WHOIS+service+wiki+page 43

44. Questions? Thank You! 44

45. Thank you Questions? Subscribe to the monthly Policy Update: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/ Contact us at policy-staff@icann.org