ICANN 71: Difference between revisions

Line 55:

===Policy===

====GNSO====

* GNSO: EPDP Phase 2A Update<br/>

* GNSO: [[Expedited Policy Development Process on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data (EPDP)|EPDP Phase 2A Update]]<br/>

:Two outstanding issues:

# legal vs. natural persons<br/>

# feasibility of unique contacts/anonymized emails<br/>

* GNSO Transfer Policy ~~Review~~ PDP WG

* GNSO [[Policy Development Process to Review the Transfer Policy]] [[WG]]

: The session was dedicated to determining PDP Goals, specifically around the retention/overall security of [[Transfer Authorization Code]] (TAC). The hope is that if the TAC is strong enough, the WG could recommend eliminating [[FoA]]s. The WG decided to include a request to tech ops to determine whether TACs would be secure enough to ensure that the requesting registrant owns the domain in question. [[James Galvin]] raised several questions about the TAC mechanism. He asked about specifications such as one-time use, lifetime, and length. Galvin also reminded the group that ICANN uses FOAs for a paper trail as security/authorization. If the WG wants to recommend using TACs, it will have to be properly implemented to be as secure as possible. [[Roger Carney]] said that the goal is to remove or make optional FOAs and only use the code (TAC), which has been used for the last 3 years. There was also a discussion over the metrics for determining the secureness of TACs. There is anecdotal evidence but by security principles, the mechanism is not yet entirely secure.

=====Contracted=====

@@ Line 55: / Line 55: @@
 ===Policy===
 ====GNSO====
-* GNSO: EPDP Phase 2A Update<br/>
+* GNSO: [[Expedited Policy Development Process on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data (EPDP)|EPDP Phase 2A Update]]<br/>
 :Two outstanding issues:
 # legal vs. natural persons<br/>
 # feasibility of unique contacts/anonymized emails<br/>
-* GNSO Transfer Policy Review PDP WG
+* GNSO [[Policy Development Process to Review the Transfer Policy]] [[WG]]
+: The session was dedicated to determining PDP Goals, specifically around the retention/overall security of [[Transfer Authorization Code]] (TAC). The hope is that if the TAC is strong enough, the WG could recommend eliminating [[FoA]]s. The WG decided to include a request to tech ops to determine whether TACs would be secure enough to ensure that the requesting registrant owns the domain in question. [[James Galvin]] raised several questions about the TAC mechanism. He asked about specifications such as one-time use, lifetime, and length. Galvin also reminded the group that ICANN uses FOAs for a paper trail as security/authorization. If the WG wants to recommend using TACs, it will have to be properly implemented to be as secure as possible. [[Roger Carney]] said that the goal is to remove or make optional FOAs and only use the code (TAC), which has been used for the last 3 years. There was also a discussion over the metrics for determining the secureness of TACs. There is anecdotal evidence but by security principles, the mechanism is not yet entirely secure.
 =====Contracted=====