台灣網路資訊中心

三、考察、訪問心得：

第卅次ICANN會議於美國洛杉磯舉行，計有來自132個國家，超過1,100位與會者參與本次盛會。ICANN洛杉磯會議討論重點包括IDN技術測試、未來執行IDN的政策討論、開放新屬性型網域名稱之申請政策、與Registrar Accreditation Agreement修訂等議題之實質討論。而誠如ICANN執行長Paul Twomey所述，本次ICANN將是具網路歷史上的意義，除本次會議地點是網路誕生與發展之地外，本次會議所討論之議題也將對未來網路發展具關鍵性影響；此外，長期擔任ICANN董事會主席的Vint Cerf也於本次會期中交棒給紐西蘭律師Peter Dengate Thrush，這些都帶給本次洛杉磯會議濃濃歷史味。

幾個重要會議董事會決議包括確認成立IDN工作小組，以利研議快速開放IDN申請之政策與程序；ICANN董事會對於ccNSO Council所提之ICANN地理區域劃分建議案，將進一步尋求相關單位之意見，包括GNSO、ccNSO、ASO、GAC及ALAC；ICANN董事會將要求ICANN工作人員於明年一月之前提出一份開放新屬性型網域名稱之申請政策的分析報告，以利各界進行後續討論。

此外，在聖胡安及洛杉磯會議期間，ICANN亦完成幾具關鍵性指標的任務，像是與七個亞太及歐洲地區ccTLD管理單位簽署Accountability Framework；與AFRIREGISTER of Burrundi簽署Registrar Accreditation Agreement，AFRIREGISTER of Burrundi是目前第二家以非洲為基地的Registrar。ICANN未來還將與CITEL (Inter-American Telecommunication Commission of the Organization American States)及CTO (Commonwealth Telecommunications Organization)等單位簽署備忘錄。

DNSSEC

DNS是Internet最重要的基礎服務，所有的連線都必需經由DNS作IP或域名的查詢，若DNS無法正常運作對Internet的影響相當大。由於現有DNS協定有部份的缺失，有可能因這些缺失而造成DNS之資料被修改，這種對Internet的威脅目前評估是僅次於DDoS。

因此如何確保DNS正常運作是ICANN最重視的議題之一，目前的解決方案是採用DNSSEC這個標準，所以DNSSEC這個議題在ICANN及IETF等組織皆在熱烈的討論中，尤其在近年內IETF通過多項與DNSSEC相關的新版RFC之後，這些新版的RFC解決了先前舊版標準的缺失，因此在前幾次的ICANN會議中皆有DNSSEC的相關workshop或會議以推動DNSSEC的部署。

這次在ICANN洛杉磯會議舉辦了一個DNSSEC的區域性討論會，主要邀集亞太地區目前有在參與DNSSEC測試的ccTLD進行座談會，講者包括來自台灣(本中心)、日本JPRS、韓國NIDA及IANA。

各ccTLD在座談會上先提出和談論他們的DNSSEC的設計、實施和操作後再接受與會者之提問。韓國提到本身在DNSSEC布署上的一些問題，日本提到目前的測試經驗，IANA介紹目前的root測試系統，我們則介紹台灣推動DNSSEC之原因及測試結果。座談會中除了有討論到各ccTLD的作法及經驗外亦有討論到現有DNSSEC標準之問題(如zone walking等)，這些問題將在後續的IETF中解決，目前已知將在最近會有新的RFC發布。相關DNSSEC之座談資料可在losangeles2007.icann.org/node/77中找到。

ccNSO

IDN是本次ccNSO最主要的討論議題，幾個重要方向包括成立IDN工作小組，期能在正式開放IDN ccTLD政策之前的產出一份過渡時期作法，以有限度開放IDN ccTLD。該工作小組成員建議將納入GAC會員(含主席)、ccNSO會員(含主席)、二名GNSO代表、二名ALAC代表、一名技術相關人士、一名SSAC代表、及二名ICANN工作人員，工作小組成員徵選一事將相關辦法確認後進行。相關文件可參閱附件一、二。ccNSO與GAC於本次ICANN洛杉磯會期之中安排一個聯席會議時段，特別討論ccNSO所提議之fast-track開放IDN ccTLD的方式，以及在單一國家/地區(如印度)使用多種語言的狀況下，如何處理IDN開放申請政策議題。就現階段而言，一個較能接受的模式為每個國家/地區僅能提出一種語言的IDN ccTLD申請。ccNSO亦提議ISO 3166-1表中所列有意義之地理名稱或縮寫均不能申請為IDN 或ASCII gTLD。就整體IDN技術測試發展現況，目前已有11個語文置入root zone之中，並於10月15日正式展開.test計畫，希望就以下進行測試，包括Autonomica laboratory test of A-labels (IND TLDs)(已於今年二月完成測試)、IANA Procedure for the Insertion of A-labels into the Root Zone、IDN TLD Root Server Performance / Tolerance Document、以及IDN TLD Application Evaluation Facility等，相關報告文件，可參閱www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-28oct07.htm。

已討論一段時日的地理區域劃分議題，ccNSO Council將採納self-selection機制的建議方案，使那些對歸屬有問題之ccTLD管理單位可以選擇適當的區域。

四、建議事項

1. 目前IDN工作小組(IDNWG)未來將正式成立，我方可積極加入，協助相關議題討論。

2. 另外一個值得觀察的重點即是中國已正式申請加入ccNSO會員(ccnso.icann.org/applications/archive/msg00221.html)，是否顯示其有逐步返回ICANN架構之中，參與相關議題討論，值得關注。

附件一

DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION

Draft Charter IDN Working Group

A. Purpose

To meet near-term demand, gain experience in dealing with IDNs as ccTLDs and to inform the country code policy development process launched on 2 October 2007 (IDN ccPDP) aimed at creating an overall policy, a fast track approach to introduce a limited number of IDN ccTLDs associated with the ISO 3166-1 two-letter codes (IDN ccTLDs), in a short time frame is being considered.

The purpose of the IDN Working Group (IDNWG) is to develop and report on feasible methods, if any, that would enable the introduction, in a timely manner and in a manner that ensures the continued security and stability of the Internet, of a limited number of non-contentious IDN ccTLDs while the overall policy is being developed.

B. Scope

The IDN ccPDP is intended (if initiated following completion of the Issues Report) to develop overall policy for IDN ccTLDs.

The scope of the IDNWG is limited to developing feasible methods (for the introduction of a limited number of IDN ccTLDs) that do not pre-empt the outcomes of the IDN ccPDP.

In considering feasible methods the IDNWG should take into account and be guided by:

The overarching requirement to preserve the security and stability of the

DNS;

Compliance with the IDNA protocols;

Input and advice from the technical community in respect to the implementation of IDNs;

Current practices for the delegation of ccTLDs.

If issues become apparent to the IDNWG that are outside of its scope, the IDNWG Chair should inform the ccPDP Issues Manager of the issue so that it can be taken into account in the ccPDP. The IDNWG Chair will also submit all Reports of the IDNWG to the Issues Manager.

C. Membership of the IDN Working Group

The IDN Committee will have the following members:

Members of the GAC including its chair;

Members of the ccNSO including its chair;

Two (2) members of the GNSO;

Two (2) members ALAC;

One (1) representative of technical community;

One (1) member of the SSAC: and

Two (2) ICANN staff members.

The IDNWG shall select its own chair from the members of the Working Group.

ICANN will provide adequate staff support to the IDNWG

D. Process for the development of feasible methods for fast track approach

1. IDNWG Initial Report

The IDNWG shall publish for public consultation an Initial Report on a method or alternative methods at the time designated in the IDNWG Time Line. The consultation should include a public discussion with the relevant stakeholders at a designated ICANN meeting.

2. IDNWG Interim Report

At the end of the public consultation period the IDNWG shall prepare a Interim Report which contains a review and analysis of comments made on the Initial Report. The IDNWG at its reasonable discretion, is not obligated to include all comments made on the Initial Report, nor is it obliged to include all comments submitted by any one individual or organisation. The Interim Report shall be published for public consultation at the time designated in the IDNWG Time Line.

3. Review of IDNWG Interim Report

At the end of the public consultation on the Interim Report, the IDNWG shall review and analyse the comments received and may, at its reasonable discretion, add appropriate comments to the Interim Report, to prepare the "The IDNWG Final Report". The IDNWG shall not be obligated to include all comments made during the comment period, nor shall the IDNWG be obligated to include all comments submitted by any one individual or organisation.

4. IDNWG Final Report

In considering its recommendations the IDNWG shall seek to act by consensus. The consensus view of the members of the IDNWG shall be conveyed to the GAC and the ccNSO as the IDNWG Final Report. If a minority opposes a consensus position, that minority position shall be incorporated in the IDNWG Final Report. The Report shall be published within seven days after adoption of the Report by the IDNWG and conveyed to the chairs of the GAC and the ccNSO.

5. GAC and ccNSO support for IDNWG Final Report

Following its submission the ccNSO and GAC shall discuss the IDNWG Final Report and decide whether they support its recommendations. The Chairs of the GAC and the ccNSO shall notify the Chair of the IDNWG in writing of the result of the deliberations.

6. Supplemental IDNWG Final Report

In the event that the ccNSO or the GAC does not support the recommendations it will inform the IDNWG of the reasons for this. The IDNWG may, at its discretion, reconsider its report and submit a re-drafted Final Report to the ccNSO and GAC to seek support.

7. IDNWG Board Proposal

In the event the IDNWG Final Report or IDNWG Supplemental Final Report is supported by the ccNSO and GAC, the IDNWG shall, within 5 days, submit to the ICANN Board :

a. The (Supplemental) IDNWG Final Report;

b. The written confirmations of support from the ccNSO and the GAC

E. IDNWG Time Line

Activity	Date*	Closure**	Minimal Duration
Publish Initial Report	25 January 2008	NA	NA
Public Comment on Initial Report	25 January 2008	15 February 2008	21 days
Publish Interim Report	9 April		NA
Public Comment on Interim Report	9 April	7 May 2008	28 days
Publish Final Report	4 June 2008		NA
GAC and ccNSO Support Final Report	4 June 2008	25 June 2008	21 days
Board Proposal**	26 June 2008		NA

* Latest date possible to meet minimal duration for public consultation period

** It is assumed in this schedule / time line the Proposed methodology is adopted at the Paris meeting.

F. Background and References

In the Domain Name System, a ccTLD string (like .jp, .uk) has been defined to represent the name of a country, territory or area of geographical interest, and its subdivisions as identified in ISO 3166-1, and is represented by 2 US-ASCII characters

(http://www.iso.org/iso/country_codes/iso_3166_code_lists/english_country_nam

es_and_code_elements.htm). This method of identification was adopted for use in the Internet through RFC 920, dated October 1984, and reaffirmed through RFC 1591, dated March 1994. All ccTLDs in use today are taken directly from the ISO 3166-1 list or from the list of exceptionally reserved code elements defined by the ISO 3166 Maintenance Agency.

The implementation of IDN ccTLDs introduces the (apparent) use of characters outside the US-ASCII character set (for example characters in Cyrillic, Chinese, Arabic, and other scripts) for domain name strings.

In initial discussions by the ccNSO members, other ccTLD managers and ICANNs Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) a number of policy questions were identified and a ”Questions and Issues Paper” was submitted to the ICANN Board of Directors http://www.icann.org/topics/idn/ccnso-gac-issues-report-onidn-09jul07.pdf). It became clear that the development of the required policy for IDN ccTLDs to resolve the issues raised was likely to take a minimum of 2 years. It also became clear that such a time frame was a major concern for a number of ccTLD managers who have expressed there is a pressing need for an IDN

ccTLD in their territory. Because of this, the concept of a fast track approach began to be discussed. In those discussions it was thought that it might be possible to find a method to allow the introduction of a limited number of IDN ccTLDs while the overall policy was being developed.

Policies and procedures that may be relevant to the delegation of an IDN ccTLD under a fast track approach include:

the IDNA protocol standards (http://icann.org/announcements/announcement-2-11may07.htm);

RFC 3454 (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3454.txt);

RFC 3490 (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3490);

RFC 3491 (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3491.txt);

RFC 3492 (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3492.txt);

RFC 1591 and associated procedures for delegation of a country code top level domain (http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc1591.txt)

The GAC principles http://gac.icann.org/web/home/ccTLD_Principles.rtf.

Following consideration of the ”Questions and Issues Paper” and statements of the GAC and ccTLD managers on a fast track approach the ICANN Board has requested the ccNSO to explore both an interim and an overall approach to IDN ccTLDs associated with the ISO 3166-1 two-letter codes and to recommend a course of action to the Board taking the technical limitations and requirements into consideration http://www.icann.org/minutes/resolutions-29jun07.htm#m.

At its meeting on 2 October 2007, the ccNSO Council launched a Policy Development Process (ccPDP) by requesting a PDP Issues Report and appointing an Issues Manager. This ccPDP has been launched to develop an overall approach, which includes finding solutions for the matters raised in the “Questions and Issues Paper”.

附件二

DRAFT

IDN ccTLDs? Designing An Interim Approach

A. Introduction

At the ICANN Board meeting in Puerto Rico, the Board requested that the ICANN community explore both an interim and an overall approach to IDN ccTLDs associated with the ISO 3166-1 two-letter codes and recommend a course of action to the Board in a timely manner.

In respect to an overall approach, the ccNSO Council has requested an Issues Report as a first step in a cc Policy Development Process.

An interim approach would be a methodology to allow for the introduction of a limited number of IDN ccTLDs in a relatively short time frame without pre-empting the outcome of the cc Policy Development Process.

In order to facilitate a substantive discussion on an interim approach by the ccNSO members this document provides an overview of the steps to be taken and decisions to be made to devise an interim approach.

In designing a process to develop and propose an interim approach the following assumptions/requirements have been taken into consideration:

The proposals for mechanisms have to be developed through a process which all relevant stakeholders have agreed upon and adopted prior to the launch of the process;

The outcome of the interim approach will feed into the ccPDP;

Transparency and predictability of such a process should be guaranteed;

Participation of relevant stakeholders in such a process should be optimized;

The proposals to the Board (outcome of the process) should be supported by all relevant stakeholders.

In the balance of this paper the necessary steps and decisions are clustered according to phases.

Annex A to this document is a decision table summarising the steps and timing goals.

B. Phase 1. Is there a need for an interim approach.

As outlined above, the Council has requested an Issues Report to launch a ccPDP to resolve the policy and institutional issues relating to an all encompassing introduction of IDN ccTLDs, including any necessary by law changes. The duration of this ccPDP and the implementation of its Recommendations could take between 2.5 - 7 years. It is understood that this time frame is of concern to a number of ccTLD managers and governments in a number of territories.

The chair of the ccNSO has written to all ccTLD managers asking them to indicate if there is a pressing need for IDN ccTLDs in the territory associated with their country code. The goal is to assess if there is a pressing need for the introduction of IDN ccTLDs.

Responses to the letter will form the basis of discussion at the ccNSO meeting during the ICANN meeting in Los Angeles.

C. Moving forward on the assumption there is a need for an interim approach.

In the event that a need for an interim approach is demonstrated and taking into account the assumptions and requirements set out in A above, it is suggested that the ccNSO, GAC, and other relevant ICANN constituencies recommend that the ICANN Board establish a committee (IDNC) to propose mechanisms to introduce a limited number of IDN ccTLDs in a limited timeframe. The proposed methodology will need to be developed according to a predefined process which is accepted by all relevant constituencies, in particular the ccNSO and GAC.

In order to assist with an informed discussion at the Los Angeles meeting on the advisability of an interim approach the ccNSO Council has requested some preparatory be prepared for discussion purposes. This includes

Draft charter for an IDNC

° Scope of the IDNC and objective including the parameters within which the IDNC is to develop a methodology for the interim approach;

° Process to develop proposal for methodology (phase 2-6 of process described in this paper) including a time line

Description of membership of IDNC. Current thinking on membership is; 5 members of the GAC including its chair; 5 members of the ccNSO including its chair; 2 members of the GNSO including its chair; 2 members ALAC including its chair; one representative of technical community; and 2 senior ICANN staff members.

At the Los Angeles meeting it is intended that the ccNSO will:

Discuss the need for an interim approach and if agreed that there is such a need;

Discuss the suggestion of an IDN Committee and if agreed;

Discuss and, if agreed, adopt the draft charter and proposed membership of IDNC.

It is hoped that the GAC will also be discussing these matter in Los Angeles and will consider making the same or a similar recommendation to the ICANN Board.

D. Phase 3 Adoption of recommendation by the ICANN Board and establishment of IDNC.

Formalities

Adoption of the Recommendation by the ICANN Board;

Appointment of IDNC.

The balance of this document (Phases 4, 5 and 6) outlines steps and timelines for the work of the IDNC and assumes that the ICANN Board adopts a recommendation and appoints an IDNC at or soon after the ICANN meeting in Los Angeles.

E. Phase 4 Development of feasible methodologies for interim approach

The IDNC will be tasked with developing a methodology or a number of alternative methodologies for an interim approach to the introduction of IDN ccTLD in a limited timeframe. The proposed methodology or methodologies would be discussed by the relevant stakeholders, in particular by the ccNSO and GAC. It is hoped this could be done at the ICANN meeting in Delhi (10-15 February 2008).

Preparatory work

IDNC to develop feasible methodologies;

Face-to face meeting IDNC to discuss draft methodologies;

IDNC to provide initial report on feasible methodologies for public consultation (1 February 2008);

Discussion on feasible methodologies at ICANN meeting in Delhi in February 2008;

IDNC to prepare inerim report on feasible methodologies containing a review of all DRAFT comments received and assessment thereof.

Formalities

Publish Initial Report on feasible methodologies for public consultation;

Public consultation on Intermediate report, which includes a face-to-face consultation with the ccNSO, the GAC and other relevant constituencies at the ICANN meeting in Delhi (10-15 February 2008);

Publish Interim report, within reasonable time after the Delhi meeting.

F. Phase 5 IDNC proposal for an interim approach

Based on the Initial Report and the Interim Report the IDNC prepares a Final Report for an interim approach. This Report contains the proposed methodology, if any, recommended by the IDNC for introduction of limited number of IDN ccTLDs.

The Final Report is published before and considered at the ICANN meeting in Paris (22- 27 June 2008). In the event that the draft proposal is supported by the ccNSO and GAC it would be submitted to the ICANN Board. If the ccNSO or the GAC does not support the draft proposal, then it will not be submitted. The IDNC may, at its own discretion, submit an amended Final Report to the ccNSO and GAC to seek support.

Preparatory work

IDNC to prepare draft proposal;

Tentatively face-to-face meeting IDNC to discuss draft proposals;

Formalities

Publish draft proposal;

ccNSO to discuss and if agreed, support draft proposal;

GAC to discuss and if agreed, support draft proposal;

IDNC submit Final Proposals to the Board

G . Phase 6 Adoption Final Proposals as submitted by the ICANN Board

Assumed formalities

Public comment period of 28 days

Adoption of proposal as interim approach

Direct ICANN staff to implement proposals

Annex A:

Decision table IDNC track

What	Who	When	End date	Comment
Initiate exploration & feasibility	ccNSO Council	2 October	22 October	Initiate exploration + preparatory steps (defining process etc.)
Agree process	ccNSO membership, including ccTLD managers & GAC	Tuesday 30 October	30 Tuesday	ccTLD managers have to agree upon process by consensus, as do other relevant stakeholders such as GAC
Approve Advice to the Board on IDNC track	ccNSO Council	Wednesday 31 October		ccNSO/GAC recommendation on process and scope of IDNC track
Board adoption Advice	ICANN Board	2 November		Appointment of IDNC, adopting of process as defined and supported by ccNSO & GAC, adoption of time line.
Publish report on feasible models (Initial Report)	IDNC	25 January 2008		IDNC to produce document for discussion of feasible models and issues associated with interim approach.
Public Consultation feasible models	Stakeholders, including ccTLD managers	25 January 2008	15 February 2008	Public Consultation on Initial Report This includes full discussion of report at ICANN meeting in Delhi
Publish Interim Report	IDNC	9 April 2008		Document with collected comments + analyses and tentative direction(s) for proposal
Public Consultation Interim Report	stakeholders	9 April 2008	7 May 2008	This may include regional hearings etc.
Publish Final Report	IDNC	4 June 2008		This Report includes preferred model based on extensive consultation
Discussion and Support Final Report ccNSO and GAC	ccNSO Members + ccTLD managers and GAC	4 June 2008	25 June 2008	ccNSO membership + ccTLD managers have to support the proposals (by consensus). If not there will be no Proposals on implementation. GAC will need to be able to support proposals of IDNC If no consensus, potential one round of consultation ending at F2F meeting autumn 2008. To be determined by IDNC.
IDNC Board Proposal	IDNC	26 June		IDNC will submit Board Proposal for adoption.
Board Vote,	ICANN Board	27 June ?

報告人姓名	梁明正、許乃文徐桂尼、江進榮		服務單位及職稱	執行長、技術組組長國關組管理師	附一、請以﹁ A 4 ﹂大小紙張，橫式編排。出國人員有數人者，依會議類別或考察項目，彙整提出報告。	註二、請於授權聲明欄簽章，授權本中心重製發行公開利用。
出國期間	96/10/26-11/04		出國地點	美國洛杉磯
出國事由	參加美國洛杉磯ICANN會議。
報告書內容包含：一、出國目的二、會議行程三、考察、訪問心得四、建議意見
授權聲明欄		本出國報告書同意貴中心有權重製發行供相關研發目的之公開利用。授權人：梁明正許乃文徐桂尼江進榮 (簽章)