September 2, 2011 — Non-profit organization New Zealand Computer Society announced on Thursday its plans for the development of a Cloud Computing Code of Practice to inform the public about cloud computing issues. This announcement comes a day after New Zealand web hosting provider FlexiHost launched a NZ domain lookup and registration mobile app.

Vietnamese internet users in rural areas have taken to the Vietnamese language internationalised domain name, making up a large proportion of the 320,000 Vietnamese language domains that have been registered since 28 April. “Internet users in rural areas were especially fond of using Vietnamese-language domain names since they used Vietnamese almost exclusively on the internet. The meaning of Vietnamese domain names was also clearer and more understandable to Vietnamese users,” said Tran Minh Tan, deputy director of the VNNIC, part of the Ministry of Information and Communications. “The Vietnamese IDNs represent a concerted effort on the part of VNNIC and Dot VN to reach the whole of the Vietnamese population and not just those that reside in major cities. While many online services have focused almost exclusively on urban users in major cities, those users represent but a small fraction of the over 89 million people that make up the population of Vietnam.” said Dot VN President Lee Johnson. “We hope to be a leader in the development of services for the as yet underserved majority of existing and potential internet users. The Vietnamese IDN resonates with the whole of Vietnamese Society in a fundamental way and engages Vietnamese users in their native speech in a way that is far superior to standard Vietnamese domain names. We believe that it is this connection that will allow us to reach countless millions of new Vietnamese users with a depth and scope not yet achieved through the power of their native language. As VNNIC’s partner in the IDN project we will continue to dedicate ourselves to reaching all corners of Vietnam from the cities to the fields with the very best products and services.” Up until early this year, there were strict limitations on the allocation of .VN domain names. But on 10 January the regulations changed. To assist on their uptake, .VN domains are allocated to Vietnamese and foreign organisations and individuals on a first-come, first-served basis according to VNS report. The allocation of free .VN domains commenced on 28 April. To register your .VN domain name, check out Europe Registry here , although more information on .VN domains is available from dotVN here .

A Latin American law firm has established a division for policy advice and regulation of TLDs along with domain name issues and IP numbers in general. The practise was established by Iriarte & Asociados , based in Peru, but with wide connections throughout Latin America and the world more generally. Its principle, Erick Iriarte, has had a long engagement with domain names including being the General Manager of LACTLD (ccTLDs Association of Latin American), as well as a member of the Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group of the Internet Governance Forum, a member of Team Accountability and Transparency Review of ICANN, web editor of LatinoamerICANN Project and consultant for several ccTLDs in LAC. This new division will focus on ccTLDs and gTLDs assist directly in both the development of policies, Delegation Dispute Resolution and relationship with governments, private sector and civil society. In the same way, this division will generate reports on international trends in the different areas related to TLDs (internet governance, intellectual property, dispute resolution, law enforcement, among other topics). This division arose from the experience in Project LatinoamerICANN , the experience of active participation of Alfa-Redi in regional areas and global Internet governance and professional experience in the field of intellectual property, particularly a special dispute resolution of domain names. One of the first challenges that this division will face is the process of new gTLDs to ICANN and its implications, especially in regard to intellectual property and trademark law. As new trends in the international dialogue on the ownership of domain names. The law firm Iriarte & Asociados is a group of lawyers specialising in the interrelation between law and the Information Society, being the areas of policy and regulatory framework for information society, our main strength, along with the so-called right of new technologies and intellectual property. More Information: web: www.iriartelaw.com email: contacto@iriartelaw.com twitter: @ ialaw

The Generic Names Supporting Organization approved at its meeting on 21 July 2011 the recommendations on the Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery Policy Development Process (PDP). The resolution, which is pending for Board action, proposes: Define ‘Registered Name Holder at Expiration’ (RNHaE) as the entity or individual that was eligible to renew the domain name registration immediately prior to expiration. If the domain name registration was modified pursuant to a term of the Registration Agreement authorizing the modification of registration data for the purposes of facilitating renewal but not at the explicit request of the registrant, the RNHaE is the entity or individual identified as the registrant immediately prior to that modification. For at least 8 consecutive days, at some point following expiration, the original DNS resolution path specified by the RNHaE, at the time of expiration, must be interrupted1 by the registrar, to the extent that the registry permits such interruptions 1, and the domain must be renewable by the RNHaE until the end of that period. This 8-day period may occur at any time following expiration. At any time during the 8 day period, the Registered Name Holder at Expiration may renew the domain with the Registrar and the Registrar, within a commercially reasonable delay, will restore the domain name to resolve to its original DNS resolution path prior to expiration. Notwithstanding, the Registrar may delete the domain at any time during the Autorenew grace period. If at any time after expiration when the Registered Name is still renewable by the RNHaE, the Registrar changes the DNS resolution path to effect a different landing website than the one used by the RNHaE prior to expiration, the page shown must explicitly say that the domain has expired and give instructions on how to recover the domain. Wording in the policy must make clear that ¡°instructions¡± may be as simple as directing the RNHaE to a specific web site. The RNHaE cannot be prevented from renewing a domain name registration as a result of WHOIS changes made by the Registrar that were not at the RNHaE.s request. The registration agreement must include or point to any fee(s) charged for the post expiration renewal of a domain name. If the Registrar operates a website for registration or renewal, it should state, both at the time of registration and in a clear place on its website, any fee(s) charged for the post-expiration renewal of a domain name or the recovery of a domain name during the Redemption Grace Period. The registration agreement and Registrar web site (if one is used) must clearly indicate what methods will be used to deliver pre- and post-expiration notifications, or must point to the location where such information can be found. What destination address/number will be used must also be specified, if applicable. Registrar must notify Registered Name Holder of impending expiration no less than two times. One such notice must be sent one month or 30 days prior to expiration (+/- 4 days) and one must be sent one week prior to expiration (+/- 3 days). If more that two alert notifications are sent, the timing of two of them must be comparable to the timings specified. Unless the Registered Name is renewed or deleted by the Registrar, at least one notification to the RNHaE, which includes renewal instructions, must be sent after expiration. Notifications of impending expiration must include method(s) that do not require explicit registrant action other than standard e-mail receipt in order to receive such notifications. With the exception of sponsored gTLDs, all gTLD Registries shall offer the Redemption Grace Period (RGP). For currently existing unsponsored gTLDs that do not currently offer the RGP, a transition period shall be allowed. All new gTLDs must offer the RGP. As part of the implementation, ICANN Staff should consider the Technical Steering Group’s Implementation Proposal (see http://www.icann.org/en/meetings/bucharest/redemption-topic.htm ) If a Registrar offers registrations in a gTLD that supports the RGP, the Registrar must allow the Registered Name Holder at Expiration to redeem the Registered Name after it has entered RGP. A transfer of a domain name during the RGP should not be allowed. In the event that ICANN gives reasonable notice to Registrars that ICANN has published web content as described in PEDNR Recommendation #16: Registrars, who have a web presence, must provide a link to the ICANN content on any website it may operate for domain name registration or renewal clearly displayed to its Registered Name Holders at least as clearly as its links to policies or notifications required to be displayed under ICANN Consensus Policies. Registrars may also host similar material adapted to their specific practices and processes. Registrar must point to the ICANN material in a communication sent to the registrant immediately following initial registration as well as in the mandated annual WHOIS reminder. Note: Some of these recommendations may need special consideration in the context of existing provisions in the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), the proposed Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS) or exceptions due to fraud, breach of registration agreement or other substantive reasons and the GNSO Council, therefore, recommends that such considerations are taken into account as part of the implementation of these recommendations, once adopted. The GNSO Council recommends the following best practices for promotion by ICANN and the Registrar Stakeholder Group: If post-expiration notifications are normally sent to a point of contact using the domain in question, and delivery is known to have been interrupted by post-expiration actions, post-expiration notifications should be sent to some other contact point associated with the registrant if one exists. The notification method explanation should include the registrar’s email address from which notification messages are sent and a suggestion that registrants save this email address as a ‘safe sender’ to avoid notification emails being blocked by spam filter software. Registrars should advise registrants to provide a secondary email point of contact that is not associated with the domain name itself so that in case of expiration reminders can be delivered to this secondary email point of contact. The GNSO Council recommends that ICANN, in consultation with Registrars, ALAC and other interested parties, will develop educational materials about how to properly steward a domain name and how to prevent unintended loss. Such material may include registrant responsibilities and the gTLD domain life-cycle and guidelines for keeping domain name records current. (PEDNR Recommendation #16). ICANN Compliance is requested to provide updates to the GNSO Council on a regular basis in relation to the implementation and effectiveness of the proposed recommendations, either in the form of a report that details amongst others the number of complaints received in relation to renewal and/or post-expiration related matters or in the form of audits that assess if the policy has been implemented as intended. The GNSO Council shall convene a PEDNR Implementation Review Team to assist ICANN Staff in developing the implementation details for the new policy should it be approved by the ICANN Board. The Implementation Review Team will be tasked with evaluating the proposed implementation of the policy recommendations as approved by the Board and is expected to work with ICANN Staff to ensure that the resultant implementation meets the letter and intent of the approved policy. If the PEDNR Implementation Review Team identifies any potential modifications to the policy or new PEDNR policy recommendations, the PEDNR Implementation Review Team shall refer these to the GNSO Council for its consideration and follow-up, as appropriate. Following adoption by the ICANN Board of the recommendations, the GNSO Secretariat is authorized to issue a call for volunteers for a PEDNR Implementation Review Team to the members of the PEDNR Working Group. You are invited to submit your comments on these recommendations until 15 September before final consideration by the ICANN Board. Section II: Background At the ICANN Meeting in Cairo in November 2008, the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC), voted to request an Issues Report on the subject of registrants being able to recover domain names after their formal expiration date. The ALAC request was submitted to ICANN policy staff and the GNSO Council on 20 November 2008. The Issues Report on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery [PDF, 422 KB] was submitted to the GNSO Council on 5 December 2008. The GNSO Council initiated a PDP on 7 May 2009 and tasked a Working Group to answer the following charter questions: Whether adequate opportunity exists for registrants to redeem their expired domain names; Whether expiration-related provisions in typical registration agreements are clear and conspicuous enough; Whether adequate notice exists to alert registrants of upcoming expirations; Whether additional measures need to be implemented to indicate that once a domain name enters the Auto-Renew Grace Period, it has expired (e.g., hold status, a notice on the site with a link to information on how to renew, or other options to be determined); Whether to allow the transfer of a domain name during the RGP. The Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery (PEDNR) PDP Working Group started its deliberations in July 2009. The WG published an Initial Report [PDF, 1.02 MB], a Proposed Final Report [PDF, 972 KB] and submitted its Final Report [PDF, 999 KB] to the GNSO Council on 14 June 2011. The GNSO Council unanimously approved all the recommendations contained in the Final Report at its meeting on 21 July 2011. Section III: Document and Resource Links GNSO Council Resolution on the Adoption of the PEDNR Final Report and Recommendations PEDNR Final Report [PDF, 998 KB] PEDNR PDP Proposed Final Report [PDF, 972 KB] PEDNR PDP Initial Report [PDF, 1.02 MB] Comment Period Deadlines Open Date: 15 August 2011 Close Date: 15 September 2011 Important Information Links Public Comment Box To Submit Your Comments (Forum) View Comments Submitted This ICANN announcement was sourced from: www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-15aug11-en.htm

Twelve Leading Industry Stakeholders Sign Letter of Intent to Use Technical Measures to Protect Copyright Online Twelve leading associations from the content industry and online services industry today signed a Letter of Intent committing them to work together to combat online content theft using through the use of technical measures. The Letter of Intent was signed at the Fourth ISP Symposium in Macao by the following stakeholders: Organization         Representative DotAsia Organisation (DotAsia) Mr. Edmon Chung, CEO Hong Kong Internet Service Providers Association (HKISPA) – Mr. York Mok, Chairman Hong Kong Motion Picture Industry Association Limited (MPIA) – Mr. Brian Chung, Chief Executive Hong Kong Theatres Association Limited (HKTA) – Ms. Fanny Lam, Executive Officer Hong Kong Video Development Foundation Limited (HKVDF) – Ms. Clera Chu, Vice Chairman International Federation Against Copyright Theft (Greater China) (IFACT-GC) – Mr. Sam Ho, Executive Director and General Manager International Federation of Creativity and Technology (IFOCAT) – Mr. Paul Fung, President International Intellectual Property Protection Centre (IIPPC) – Mr. Johnny Ho, Director Movie Producers and Distributors Association of Hong Kong Limited (MPDA) – Mr. Tony Shu, Executive Secretary Internet Society Hong Kong (ISOC-HK) – Mr. Charles Mok, Chairman Online Service Providers Alliance (OSPA) – Mr. Joe Lam, Chairman Sun Network (Hong Kong) Limited (Sun Network) – Mr. David Wong, General Manager The Letter of Intent was signed: In order to provide a healthy platform for legitimate online business and strengthen copyright protection in the digital environment, we jointly agree to apply appropriate and enforceable technical measures to drive out infringing content from the Internet, with a balance towards protecting freedom of expression and fostering creativity on the Internet. The Symposium is the fourth annual gathering of stakeholders involved in providing online services and content and focused this year on “Community, Content Protection and Co-operation”, discussing online user behaviour, technology developments, and cooperative technological measures for online content protection. A 2010 report on The Economic Contribution of the Hong Kong Film and Television Industry commissioned by the IFACT-GC confirmed that in 2008 the industries employed more than 32,000 people helping contribute HK$33 billion in gross output and an additional HK$6 billion value-add to Hong Kong’s economy. The report is the first of its kind to comprehensively measuring the direct, indirect and induced economic impacts made by one of Hong Kong‘s major creative industries – the film and television industry – and underscores the importance of protecting the creative industry’s IPR content generated from online theft. “IPR content like movies entertains us and is a major economic driver, creating wealth and jobs,” said Sam Ho, Executive Director and General Manager of the IFACT-GC. “IPR content is worth protecting and this alliance provides the framework for three of the main stakeholders – Hong Kong’s content industry, the ISPs /OSPs, and Internet users – to engage and cooperate, to the benefit of all, to curb online content theft.” “This alliance provides a new, innovative approach to curbing the online theft of copyrighted works,” said York Mok, Chairman of the HKISPA. “It provides a framework where the interests of consumers, the legitimate online service providers and content creators can all win through the development of successful, competitive business models to deliver legitimate creative content online.” “DotAsia is committed to the continued positive development of the Internet in Asia. The alliance represents a new strategy for an industry-led effort to curb online copyright and intellectual property rights infringement,” said Edmon Chung, CEO of the DotAsia. “This also builds on DotAsia’s continued joint efforts in international and local initiatives to increase public awareness of Internet issues such as piracy, and to work with Computer Emergency Response Teams, enforcement agencies and other authorities to enhance the security and stability of the Internet in Asia.” “By encouraging consumers and users to use and engage with legitimate digital content platforms this alliance will help ensure that the content creators rather than criminals enjoy the benefits of the hard work, creativity and financial risk that goes into all successful content,” said Clera Chu, Vice Chairman of the HKVDF. Charles Mok, Chairman of the ISOC-HK said “We are confident that the initiatives arising from this alliance will reduce the availability of pirated content and encourage consumers to access copyrighted content from legitimate sources online, while at the same time provide the necessary balance to encourage creative activities by all users.” Joe Lam, Chairman of the OSPA said “I believe that this alliance can protect our intellectual property rights in the digital environment, balancing and ensuring freedom of expression and creativity on the Internet and will not hinder the development of Internet services in Hong Kong.” “While this alliance will reduce the availability of stolen content online it will also level the playing field for many other legitimate content providers who just can’t compete with business models that get content free through theft,” said Vicky Wong, Chairman of the HKTA. “And that is good for the digital economy and for all legitimate stakeholders.” # # # About the DotAsia: The DotAsia Organisation (DotAsia) is the Sponsoring Organisation and Registry Operator for the .Asia Sponsored Generic Top Level Domain. DotAsia is a not-for-profit, community-based organisation incorporated in Hong Kong. Asia has developed into a global force in the international commercial, political and cultural network and the .Asia domain aspires to embrace this dynamism in the Asia Century to become a nucleus, intersection and breeding ground for Internet activity and development in the region. To learn more about DotAsia, please visit: http://www.registry.asia. About the HKISPA: The Hong Kong Internet Service Providers Association (HKISPA) was formed in 1989 and has as its membership the majority of ISPs in Hong Kong. The mission of the HKISPA includes: acting as a discussion forum on Internet related matters, the promotion of Internet development in Hong Kong, the promotion of fair competition and codes of practice, and working with government agencies and the public on Internet related issues. More information can be obtained at www.hkispa.org.hk. About the MPIA: The Hong Kong Motion Picture Industry Association (MPIA) was established in July 1986, to promote and protect the rights and interests of the Hong Kong motion picture industry by aggressively combating intellectual property right infringements, representing members’ view on matters of interest to the industry, and representing members in their dealings with the Hong Kong SAR Government and government authorities in other countries. About the HKTA: The Hong Kong Theatres Association Limited (HKTA) was established in 1950 to represent Hong Kong movie theatre owners. The Association’s primary objectives are to lobby the Government on matters such as film classification, copyright, fire safety and venue licensing, to formulate industry rules and to otherwise advance its members interests. In 2006, the Association launched the “International Box Office Essentials”, an on-line system providing real-time Hong Kong box office data, film analysis reports and information on international reported grosses from over 35 countries worldwide. About the HKVDF: The Hong Kong Video Development Foundation Limited (HKVDF) is a non-profit organization aimed at promoting the Hong Kong video industry. It was formed in March 2003 with 10 video distribution companies as members. With the video industry maturing, products and formats becoming more diversified and new business opportunities opening up, the Foundation plays a role as a network and contact point for industry members. Through positive action and input, the Foundation seeks to nurture a sustainable and profitable business environment and strengthen the interest and dedication of its members and other players in the industry, developing video entertainment to new heights. About the IFACT-GC: The International Federation Against Copyright Theft – Greater China (IFACT-GC) was established in 2006 by the Motion Picture Association to protect the film industry in the Greater China region from the adverse impact of copyright theft. In 2008, the film and TV industry in Hong Kong contributed HK$33 billion and generated a total of HK$6 billion value-add to the local economy creating more than 32,000 jobs in 1,170 businesses. IFACT-GC works closely with its supporters, government and enforcement authorities to protect the Greater China film and television industry, retailers and movie fans. For more information about the IFACT-GC, please visit www.ifact-gc.org. About the IFOCAT: The International Federation of Creativity and Technology (IFOCAT) was established in May 2010 is a non-profit organization composed of the elites from IT, education, legal, music, movie, animation, comic, design, manufacturer and enterprise industries. IFOCAT provides a legally protected exchange platform for innovation through participation, interaction, observation and education, to unite the elites and related enterprises from the creative and technological industries around the world to develop creative opportunities for the next generation. For more information about the IFOCAT, please visit www.ifocat.org. About the IIPPC: The International Intellectual Property Protection Centre (IIPPC) was established in October 2001 to provide a comprehensive range of services to protect the interests of audio-visual media rights owners by acting as the rights owners’ authorized representative and working closely with interested stakeholders including chambers of commerce, rights owners associations and law enforcement agencies. The IIPPC is committed to maximizing synergy, effectiveness and value for money in detecting and fighting piracy and counterfeiting activities by ensuring effective enforcement action against infringers. IIPIA’s focus is on fast, effective investigations by proactively encouraging the exchange of tactical and strategic intelligence amongst all stakeholders, reducing costs and maximizing synergy by encouraging cooperative investigations, and minimizing the time required for the investigation and prosecution process. About the MPDA: The Movie Producers and Distributors Association of Hong Kong Limited (MPDA) was founded in 1979 as a non-profit making association and has members in over 95% of Hong Kong SAR and mainland China motion picture and audio visual companies. The major professional services provided include representing members’ interests and concerns, assisting members protect their intellectual property rights particularly against the copyright infringement, and issuing certificates of copyright ownership and distribution rights to members. About the ISOC-HK: The Internet Society Hong Kong (ISOC-HK) is the local chapter organization of the Internet Society (ISOC), a professional membership society with over 20,000 individual members in over 180 countries, providing leadership in all issues confronting the current and future Internet. ISOC-HK was formed in 2005 by local veteran Internet professionals with the mission of improving the practice of Internet governance and online civil society in Hong Kong. About the OSPA: The Online Service Providers Alliance (OSPA) is a platform to bring together policy makers, professionals from related fields, and stakeholders from the community, to advise on and promote methods for achieving the goal of providing better online services to society. OSPA is also active in setting up mechanism for OSPs to combat Internet problems including defamation, copyright infringement, and inappropriate and illegal content provided by third parties while balancing the need to ensure freedom of expression and the development of Internet services in Hong Kong. OSPA was formed in 2010 by the Internet Professional Association (iProA) and ten founding member web sites, major trading websites: Baby-Kingdom.com, FoodEasy.com, HKGolden.com, Qooza.hk, sina.com.hk, TradeDuck.com, Travellife.org, 28hse.com, 28phone.com and the Hong Kong operation of the international trading web site eBay.com.hk. About the Sun Network: The Sun Network (Hong Kong) Limited (Sun Network), an Information Technology services company, was established in 2006. It focuses on providing a premium network to help its customers grow their businesses. By servicing global clients’ data, the Sun Network delivers product choices, expert services and superior support. The Sun Network has applied innovative solutions to improve efficiency, and maximize performance to increase enterprise agility and proactively addresses its customers’ needs. In order to provide a healthy platform for legitimate online businesses and strengthen copyright protection in the digital environment, Sun network is committed to work closely with content providers and to fight against online content theft. For more information about the Sun Network, please visit www.sun.net.hk. This DotASIA news release was sourced from: dot.asia/pressreleases/IFACT-GC_Release_Jul14_2011_3C Symposium.pdf

( Third proposal for handling recovered IPv4 address space) Purpose of this document This document provides a background report on the progress of an active Global Policy proposal, “Global Policy Proposal for Post Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation Mechanisms by IANA”. It is intended as a background briefing for the ICANN Board and the wider community. Introduction Global Internet Number Resource Policies are defined by the ASO MOU – between ICANN and the NRO – as “Internet number resource policies that have the agreement of all RIRs according to their policy development processes and ICANN, and require specific actions or outcomes on the part of IANA or any other external ICANN-related body in order to be implemented”. Attachment A of this MOU describes the Development Process of Global Internet Number Resource Policies, including the adoption by every RIR of a global policy to be forwarded to the ICANN Board by the ASO 1 , as well as its ratification by the ICANN Board. In this context, the ICANN Board adopted its own Procedures for the Review of Internet Number Resource Policies Forwarded by the ASO for Ratification. Among other features, these Procedures state that the Board will decide, as and when appropriate, that ICANN staff should follow the development of a particular global policy, undertaking an “early awareness” tracking of proposals in the addressing community. To this end, staff should issue background reports periodically, forwarded to the Board, to all ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees and posted at the ICANN web site. At its meeting on 21 April 2011, the Board resolved to request tracking of the development of a “Global Policy for post exhaustion IPv4 allocation mechanisms by the IANA”, under discussion in the addressing community. The status overview presented below is compiled in response to this request and will be further updated as developments proceed, for information to ICANN entities and the wider community. This is the second background report on this proposal. Status Overview The purpose of the proposal is to enable IANA to allocate returned IPv4 blocks to RIRs. IANA would place IPv4 blocks returned by the RIRs in a Recovered IPv4 Pool. This Pool would be declared active when one RIR has less than half its last /8 left. IANA would then allocate an “IPv4 allocation unit” (minimum size /24) to each RIR, if the Pool size so permits. If the space available in the Pool is too limited, allocation would be deferred in 6 month intervals until space is available. Following list discussions over slightly different draft versions early in 2011, the second version of this global policy proposal was first formally introduced in the APNIC region on 20 February 2011 and has since been introduced on the policy mailing lists of all the other RIRs. The proposal has been adopted in APNIC and is in discussion in the other RIRs. Process history On 3 February 2011, the ASO AC 2 recognized the proposal as fulfilling the formal requirements as a candidate for a Global Policy. Once the proposal has been adopted in all RIRs, i.e. AfriNIC, APNIC, ARIN, LACNIC and RIPE, the proposal will be handled by the NRO EC 3 and the ASO AC according to their procedures before being submitted to the ICANN Board for ratification. As a background to this policy proposal, it should be noted that a previous proposal for handling recovered IPv4 address space, “Global Policy Proposal for the Allocation of IPv4 Blocks to Regional Internet Registries” was introduced in 2009 but abandoned by the NRO EC in view of version differences across the RIRs. For more information on that proposal, see the corresponding background report . That proposal is denoted as the first proposal in the table below. Also, a second proposal on this theme “Global Policy Proposal for the Allocation of IPv4 by IANA Post Exhaustion” was introduced in 2010. This proposal was rapidly adopted in ARIN, but abandoned in APNIC and withdrawn in RIPE, making it unlikely that the proposal would advance to become a global policy. For more information on that proposal, see the corresponding background report . That proposal is denoted as the second proposal in the table below. The proposal that is the object of the current background report – for direct access to the proposal text click here [TXT, 12 KB] – is denoted as the third proposal in the table below, where the significant differences between the proposals are summarized. Proposal/features Third proposal Second proposal First proposal RIR return to IANA Not mentioned Voluntary Mandatory vs. voluntary RIR Eligibility Simultaneous for all RIRs Per RIR, when it has less than a /8 in stock Simultaneous for all RIRs ASO reference GPP-IPv4-2011 GPP-IPv4-2010 GPP-IPv4-2009 An overview of these proposals is also provided on the ASO website, see http://aso.icann.org/global-policy-proposals/ The table below outlines the steps taken within each RIR for the current proposal. Hyperlinks are included for easy access. Status of Global Policy Proposal for Post Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation Mechanisms by IANA (GPP-IPv4-2011) RIR AfriNIC APNIC ARIN LACNIC RIPE Proposal Introduced 7 Feb 2011 list message 28 April 2011 list message 25 Jan 2011 list message prop-097 20 Feb 2011 version 2 8 Mar 2011 list message prop 137 18 Mar 2011 list message prop 2011-05 21 Mar 2011   list message prop 2011-01 Discussion list Resource Policy Disc. List SIG-Policy Public Policy Mailing List Politicas – Policy Mailing List Address Policy WG Public Forum AfriNIC 14 4 – 10 June 2011 consensus APNIC 31 21  – 25 Feb 2011 consensus LACNIC XV 15 – 20 May 2011 – presentation [PDF, 241 KB] RIPE 62 2 – 6 May 2011 Final Call for Comments 1 Mar – 26 Apr 2011 27 May – 11 July 2011 Next Public Forum (AfriNIC-15 19 – 25 Nov 2011) ( APNIC 32 29 Aug  – 2 Sept 2011 ) ARIN XXVIII 12 – 14 Oct 2011 LACNIC XVI 4 – 7 Oct 2011 RIPE 63 31 Oct – 4 Nov 2011 Adoption Endorsed by APNIC EC 6 May 2011 Link to document AFPUB-2011-v4-004-draft-01 prop-097-v002 Proposal 137 LAC-2011-05 [PDF, 241 KB] (EN) LAC-2011-05 [PDF, 345 KB] (ES) LAC-2011-05 [PDF, 360 KB] (PT) Proposal 2011 – 01 Link to Policy Development Process Policy Development Process Policy Development Process Policy Development Process Policy Development Process Policy Development Process Status Consensus, awaiting final call Adopted In discussion Final call closed In discussion 1 The ASO MoU states that the NRO shall fulfill the role, responsibilities and functions of the ASO (Address Supporting Organization). 2 The ASO AC (Address Council) consists of elected representatives from each RIR’s policy making community and membership. 3 The NRO EC (Executive Council) consists of the CEOs of the five RIRs. This ICANN announcement was sourced from: www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-26apr11-en.htm

It was with great interest that I read a recent announcement about a plan by the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) to publish template answers on a wiki for the 22 questions relating to registry technical operations contained within ICANN’s new Top-Level Domain Applicant Guidebook. As someone who has spent the best part of six years following the development of the program (witnessing first-hand each evolution of the Applicant Guidebook) my first thought was one of bemusement – How can a generic solution taken “off the shelf” accurately demonstrate whether an applicant is capable of understanding the technical requirements for setting up and operating a new Top-Level Domain? Quite frankly, it can’t. The application process for new Top-Level Domains (TLD) has been carefully designed by ICANN to thoroughly examine whether an applicant has performed the required research to adequately understand what it means to own and operate a vital piece of Internet infrastructure. Operating a TLD is a huge responsibility that should not be taken lightly. The application process has been created in its current format to determine this. For the applicant, the risk of landing in Extended Evaluation, ICANN’s special audit system for applications that require further attention, is far too great to be toying with a one size fits all approach. In an attempt to save money, applicants will instead be at risk of losing at least $150,000 should their application fail the evaluation criteria set by ICANN. While consultants working closely with the ITU are correct in stating that applicants do not have to be currently operating Domain Name Registry Systems, they still must identify the technical solution that supports the specific Registry requirements of the application in question. The financial and organisational descriptions must do the same. The solution proposed by the ITU becomes even more unrealistic when you consider the following: Registry technical operations must identify the intended registry system specifications such as: domain name lifecycle, servers, software, infrastructure, data centres, bandwidth providers, policies & procedures etc. Those who know will agree that this is impossible to do generically. Any Registry Services provider worth a pinch of salt is offering the ‘technical operations’ component of the application free of charge with their back-end registry services solution. One has to question whether the approach suggested by the ITU is one that delivers a significant increase in risk without actually delivering any tangible cost reduction? This is not a turnkey solution. Applicants will still be required to provide answers to non technical and financial sections, answers which need to be consistent with the information provided in the technical sections of the application, so those who consider the ITU’s approach will struggle to establish consistency throughout all sections of the application. Without having properly researched, designed and finally settled on a technical solution, whether that be to outsource to industry experts, or build in-house, Applicants will not have the ability to identify information for other areas of the application such as Registry set up and operational costs that will be critical to the successful development of sound and accurate financials. Further, how will applicants be able to demonstrate to ICANN that the technical specifications provided can be delivered on? From my perspective, taking answers from another entity (whose content has no relation to any registry system (real or proposed)) clearly demonstrates two things: 1) You are proficient with the cut and paste function of your keyboard and; 2) You clearly lack the understanding necessary to manage a critical piece of Internet infrastructure such as a new Top-Level Domain. As any high school student can tell you, cutting and pasting answers from a wiki is prone to failure. Although the ITU claim that only ‘approved contributors’ will be able to edit the information, it is unclear how someone would be granted ‘approved contributor’ status. With the highly competitive nature of the TLD process, Applicants should be aware that the accuracy of the information contained within the template has the potential to be highly dubious and potentially even prone to subtle sabotage. I have no doubt that ICANN’s evaluators will be on the lookout for these responses, just like any good teacher would do. The message to prospective applicants here is simple: If you show disrespect to the evaluators and don’t give the technical criteria of your application the attention it truly deserves, then why should they take your application seriously. I am left with two equally horrifying questions: 1). Is this simply an attempt by the ITU to devalue and undermine the entire new TLD application process (and therefore ICANN)? 2). Does anyone at the ITU truly understand the goals of the application process and what it is intended to do? Were the ITU’s ambitions truly altruistic, they would spend their efforts providing capability advice and skills to the community. This approach would be useful and would not water down the quality of submissions to ICANN, as this solution almost certainly will. Finally, this blog does not set out to be self-serving. Yes, there is a level of confidence that comes with choosing a back-end registry provider that is established and experienced. However, ICANN has ensured that anyone who can fulfil the technical requirements will be awarded a TLD Registry. So, the point I am making is that the process of fulfilling the technical requirements of a new TLD Registry involves more than a simple cut and paste. It requires communicating a level of understanding that a new TLD is a piece of mission critical infrastructure and that there are enormous responsibilities that come with this. This posting by Chris Wright, Chief Technology Officer at AusRegistry International , was sourced from: www.ausregistry.com/blog/?p=823