Explanation/Background: The Czech Arbitration Court (CAC), an Approved Provider for the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) is proposing to amend its Supplemental Rules to provide for an alternative page limit and processing fee for certain UDRP Complaints. CAC is not proposing any changes to the text of the UDRP (http://www.icann.org/en/dndr/udrp/policy.htm) or the UDRP Implementation Rules (http://www.icann.org/en/dndr/udrp/uniform-rules.htm).

The CAC provides a cover letter explaining their proposal as well as a redline of the proposed changes to the Supplemental Rules (available at http://www.icann.org/en/dndr/udrp/cac-proposed-supplemental-rules-11nov09-en.pdf).

CAC’s proposal is being posted for public comment for 30 days to ensure broad community input. Comments regarding CAC’s proposal maybe submitted by email to: cac-prop-supp-rules@icann.org through 11 December 2009.

Announcement | Comments | Add a comment | Summary/analysis of comments

Explanation/Background: ICANN is soliciting information, advice and proposed models as it considers soliciting expressions of interest in new gTLDs.

The public comment forum will be open until December 11, 2009 however, community members that wish to have their input considered by the Board during its December meeting, should submit comments no later than November 27, 2009.

Comment here; view comments here.

A call for expressions of interest in new gTLDs could provide ICANN and potential applicants important information about the level of interest in the program, which could assist in the resolution of the remaining issues and the planning for the coming new gTLD round.

Receiving expressions of interest (possibly with some financial deposit) will likely contribute to a better understanding of: 1) the economic demand for new gTLDs; 2) the number of gTLDs that are likely to be requested; and 3) inform the program’s operational readiness plan. The EOI path presents also some challenges as outlined below.

The ICANN Board has instructed the staff to study the potential impact of a call for formal expressions of interest (EOI), and provide a plan for Board consideration at ICANN's next Board meeting, 9 December 2009. The plan should include possible options and a risk analysis relating to the proposed action.

This step was the result of public forum comment in ICANN’s Seoul meeting. The discussion indicates significant community interest in the potential for an EOI and that formulation of the model would benefit from expertise that can be found in the community.

Comments may:

• propose EOI models, and
• offer support or criticism for the concept overall.

The most helpful comments will provide rationale along with opinions on the following issues:

1. How do we ensure that participation in the EOI accurately represents the level of interest?


2. Should only those who participate in the EOI be eligible to participate in the first round when the program officially launches?


3. Should a deposit be required for participation in the EOI?


4. If there is a fee, under what circumstances should there be refund?


5. What information should be collected from EOI participants?

• 5.1  What subset of applicant questions found in the Applicant Guidebook at http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-evaluation-criteria-clean-04oct09-en.pdf should be answered?


• 5.2  Including applied-for strings?


• 5.3  Should information be made public?

6. Must the responder commit to go live within a certain time of delegation?


7. What are the implications for potential changes to the Applicant Guidebook after the EOI participation period closes?


8. What are the potential risks associated with the EOI?

Related Resources:

Announcement | Comments | Add a comment | Summary/analysis of comments

Explanation/Background: The ccNSO’s Internationalised Domain Name Country Code Policy Development Process Working Group (IDN ccPDP WG) for the selection and delegation of IDN ccTLDs is pleased to announce the publication of its draft Topic Paper for public discussion and comment. The purpose of this Topic Paper is to identify and define the topics and issues that, in the view of the WG, need to be taken into consideration to propose a feasible policy for the selection and delegation of IDN ccTLDs. To be most helpful at this stage of the process, the WG seeks your input and comments on whether they have identified all relevant topics and issues that need to be addressed by a global policy for the selection and delegation of IDN ccTLDs.

Note that this is a draft document and has not been adopted by the Working Group, whose members will continue to provide their own comments and input during this consultation period.

Announcement | Comments | Add a comment | Summary/analysis of comments

Explanation/Background: ICANN and the Universal Postal Union (UPU) have reached an agreement in principle for the UPU sponsorship of the .POST Top-Level Domain. Final approval of the agreement is subject to ICANN’s public comment process and consideration by the Board of Directors.

The .POST agreement contains several material deviations from the terms of existing sTLD agreements and those are highlighted in the below referenced summary of contractual provisions. The UPU cited their status as an intergovernmental organization and specialized agency of the United Nations as the reason it sought unique contractual provisions. The most significant change to the agreement is the addition of Section 8.11: Provisions Relating to the Sponsor as a Specialized Agency of the United Nations.

The .POST Sponsorship Agreement can be viewed at http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/agreements/post/post-agreement-02nov09-en.pdf [PDF, 128K], its appendices at http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/agreements/post/post-appendices-02nov09-en.pdf [PDF, 244K] and a summary of contractual provisions at http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/agreements/post/post-summary-of-provisions-02nov09-en.pdf [PDF, 36K].

Comments should be submitted to post-agreement-2009@icann.org@icann.org and can be viewed at http://forum.icann.org/lists/post-agreement-2009/.

Public comment is sought on the .POST Sponsorship Agreement.

Announcement | Comments | Add a comment | Summary/analysis of comments

Explanation/Background: The Draft Applicant Guidebook, V3 is now available for review and comment at http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/comments-3-en.htm. The Guidebook has been changed significantly. In all, there are over 50 areas of change, clearly indicated in the “redline” version of the Guidebook. All materials are in draft form for public comment and review. Your comments will help with the production of the next version of the Applicant Guidebook.

Further details about the New gTLD Program can be found at: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtld-program.htm.

Announcement | Comments | Add a comment | Summary/analysis of comments

Explanation/Background: After receiving recommendations from the Implementation Recommendation Team and others, taking extensive comment and conducting consultation with the broader community, ICANN Staff have drafted a set of implementation recommendations related to intellectual property protections for the new gTLD program.

Those proposed rights protection mechanisms are:

• The creation of an IP Clearinghouse, which is a database of validated trademarks to be utilised by new gTLD registry operators in implementing either an IP Claims service or Sunrise process during TLD launch; and
• The creation of a Uniform Rapid Suspension process for use in clear-cut, blatant cases of trademark infringement.

These proposed rights protection mechanisms are available for review and comment at http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/gnso-consultations-reports-en.htm.

All materials are in draft form for public comment and review. Your comments will help with the production of the next version of the Applicant Guidebook.

Announcement | Comments | Add a comment | Summary/analysis of comments

Explanation/Background: In June 2007 Interisle Consulting Group was contracted to undertake the external review of the Nominating Committee, and delivered their report in October of the same year.

Following public comments, the NomCom Review WG presented a report to the Board Governance Committee (BGC), at that time responsible for the oversight of the Organizational Review function. The BGC considered that recommendations from the NomCom review process had to be analysed in coordination with the findings of other reviews that at the time of delivery of the report were ongoing. Consequently, the NomCom review WG report was not published for public comments.

More recently – and towards the conclusion of other interlinked review processes– the Structural Improvements Committee (SIC) – which in the meantime took over the duty of coordinating the Organizational Review processes – considered that findings and conclusions of the Working Group report needed to be consolidated and updated before publication for public comments.

To this end, a specific NomCom Review Finalization Working Group was tasked with the duty to update the conclusions and recommendations of the original NomCom review WG report. In order to fulfill its mandate, the WG reviewed relevant documents, and consulted intensively with NomCom Chairs of the period of 2006 to 2009, with supporting staff, and with General Counsel.

The NomCom Review Finalization Working Group issues now for presentation at the Seoul meeting and for public comment its draft report [PDF, 276K]

Announcement | Comments | Add a comment | Summary/analysis of comments

Explanation/Background: The Board appointed JAS Communications as the consultants for the independent review of the Security and Stability Advisory Committee -SSAC. JAS released their draft Final Report in February 2009 for presentation and discussion with the community at the ICANN meeting in Mexico City.

Comments received at the presentation and during the following public consultation were addressed by consultants in the final version of their review report.

The SSAC review WG engaged then in an extensive round of consultation with the SSAC community –which released a structured document providing inputs to the work of the WG- and with the public at large, through a public consultation process.

Announcement | Comments | Add a comment | Summary/analysis of comments

Explanation/Background: ICANN appointed the Boston Consulting Group/Colin Carter & Associates to perform the external review of its Board of Directors; their review report was presented during a public workshop at the ICANN meeting in Cairo and a public comment period followed.

The Board review WG, considering the Independent Reviewer's final report, Board input, and comments from stakeholders and the public, issued an Interim Report for consultation with the Community, which was presented at the ICANN meeting in Mexico City. During the following public comment period further inputs were received from interested parties.

Announcement | Comments | Add a comment | Summary/analysis of comments

Explanation/Background: ICANN, assisted by the National Opinion Research Center (NORC), recently completed a draft of its study of the percentage of domain names registered using a privacy or proxy service. Today, that draft report is being posted for review and comment through 6 November 2009.

The findings in the report identify a percentage range of domain names that appear to have been registered using a privacy or proxy service. To inform this study, ICANN relied on a random sample of 2400 domain names drawn in March 2009 from the universe of domain names registered under the top 5 gTLDs (i.e., .com, .net, .org, .biz, and .info).

Community members are invited to review the draft report and its findings and comment on all aspects of the report.

The draft report can be found here: http://www.icann.org/en/compliance/reports/privacy-proxy-registration-services-study-28sep09-en.pdf [PDF, 124K]

Announcement | Comments | Add a comment | Summary/analysis of comments

Explanation/Background: ICANN has published a report prepared by TNO entitled "Root Scaling Study: Description of the DNS Root Scaling Model" [PDF, 677K]. TNO (Netherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research) is an independent research organization based in Delft, Netherlands (http://www.tno.nl). This report is an additional product of the root scaling study led by Lyman Chapin of Interisle Consulting, and complements the "Scaling the Root" report [PDF, 1,340K] published on 18 September 2009. The TNO report describes the characteristics of a quantitative model developed by TNO for dynamic analysis of root scaling issues. The TNO model and simulation system are undergoing verification.

ICANN is soliciting public comment on both reports. The Root Scaling Steering Group is evaluating these reports and plans to provide an evaluation and recommendations for the Board and the public.

Announcement | Comments | Add a comment | Summary/analysis of comments

Explanation/Background: In February 2009, with Resolution 2009-02-03-04, the ICANN Board requested the Root Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC), the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC), and the ICANN staff, including the IANA team, to study the potential issues regarding the addition of IDNs, IPv6 addresses, DNSSEC and substantial numbers of new TLDs to the root zone. The Terms of Reference for this study are at http://www.icann.org/en/committees/dns-root/root-scaling-study-tor-05may09-en.htm.

The Root Scaling Study Team led by Lyman Chapin of Interisle Consulting was selected to perform this study.

We are hereby releasing the Interisle report as delivered for public comment and analysis as well as a covering note from the joint RSSAC/SSAC/ICANN staff steering group for this study.

The steering group will be evaluating the report against the Terms of Reference and preparing recommendations for the Board and the public.

Announcement | Comments | Add a comment | Summary/analysis of comments

The public comment period on this proposed bylaw change has been extended by two months, to 27 October 2009, to allow users of the translated versions to prepare and submit their views.

Explanation: Two proposed accountability measures have been posted by direction of the Board for 60 days of public comments, from 27 July 2009 through 25 September 2009. This is the latest step in the Improving Institutional Confidence process.

The first bylaw revision is a new mechanism called the “Community Re-Examination Vote”. It would allow the ICANN community to request the Board to re-examine a Board decision taken by resolution.

The second proposal would revise one of the existing bylaws and replace the independent third-party review process with a more robust process, the “Independent Review Body”.

These proposals represent a significant step forward in ICANN’s already considerable accountability. The draft bylaw changes have been developed in response to community input to the President’s Strategy Committee over the last 12 months.

You are invited to review the proposed changes to the ICANN Bylaws linked to on this page and provide your input to the public comments forum.

Announcement | Comments | Add a comment | Summary/analysis of comments

Explanation: The joint session of the Advisory Committees and Supporting Organizations in Sydney was summarized in a one-page document that included six issues of most concern to the community as well as seven possible solutions.

This comment period is an opportunity for the community to discuss that summary in the expectation that pragmatic solutions can be found.

This comment period is also notable in that it is being used to experiment with new online collaborative software that is being trialed by ICANN staff in an effort to see if the organization can improve its public comment process.

As such, you can email in comments as normal but you will have a far greater opportunity to interact and discuss the summaries as well as propose solution by logging onto the comment period’s discussion space.

Email acso-discussion@icann.org, or interactive online at https://jive.dev.icann.org/community/acso.

Announcement | Discussion space | Summary/analysis of comments

Explanation: IRT Final Report on Trademark Protection Issues [PDF, 300K] now available for Public Comment

The IRT team participated in numerous teleconferences and several face-to-face meetings in Washington, D.C. and San Francisco, California, over a two month period. The resulting recommendations report on Trademark Protection Issues identifies several proposed solutions, including:

• IP Clearinghouse, Globally Protected Marks List and associated Rights Protection Mechanisms, and standardized pre-launch rights protection mechanisms;
• Uniform Rapid Suspension System;
• Post delegation dispute resolution mechanisms;
• Whois requirements for new TLDs; and
• Use of algorithm in string confusion review during initial evaluation.

Announcement | Comments | Summary/analysis of comments

Explanation: ICANN has developed a plan to enhance the security, stability and resiliency [PDF, 1,930K] of the Internet’s naming and addressing systems as called for in its Strategic Plan and in accordance within its bylaws.

The plan notes how the Internet has thrived by engaging many stakeholders who collaborate to foster communication, creativity and commerce in a global commons. The interoperability of the global commons depends on the operation and coordination of the Internet’s unique identifier systems. ICANN and the operators of these systems acknowledge that maintaining and enhancing the security, stability and resiliency of these systems is a core element of their collaborative relationship. The plan notes the growing risks to the security, stability and resiliency of the unique identifier systems and the need to collaboratively address these risks.

The plan delineates ICANN’s specific programs that will address security, stability and resiliency. It also details planned activities that will enhance its contributions through the next operational year. This first version of the plan is intended as a foundation for ICANN and its community to establish a framework for organizing its security, stability and resiliency efforts. The plan does not envision major new roles or programs for ICANN in this area.

The programs and initiatives in which ICANN plans to engage during the 2009-2010 operating year include:

• Improving root zone management through automation; improve authentication of communications with TLD managers and support implementation of DNS Security Extensions (DNSSec)
• Ensure the maturation of the gTLD registry continuity plan and test the data escrow system
• Build on the collaborative efforts of the Internet security community efforts to effectively respond to malicious abuses of the Domain Name System (DNS).

Announcement | Comments | Summary/analysis of comments

Explanation: The Statement of Registrar Accreditation Policy (http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/policy_statement.html) establishes the standards applied by ICANN in granting gTLD registrar accreditation. In addition to setting minimum qualifications, the policy describes “matters potentially leading to ineligibility” for accreditation, including disqualification of a “registrar or registry administrator, or any officer, director, manager, employee, or owner (including beneficial owners) from being an ICANN-accredited registrar or registry administrator” in accordance with procedures established by ICANN.

ICANN has developed a draft, proposed Registrar Disqualification Procedure to codify its procedures for registrar disqualification. This proposed procedure is intended to enhance protection of registrants by preventing potential bad actors from causing repeated harm to registrants and other stakeholders in the domain name space.

The draft Registrar Disqualification Procedure is being posting for public comment for 90 days to ensure broad community input. Feedback will be incorporated prior to implementation of the procedure.

Announcement | Comments | Summary/analysis of comments

Explanation:ICANN retained Dennis Carlton, Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago and Senior Managing Director of Compass Lexecon, to perform two independent analyses:

1. Preliminary Report of Dennis Carlton Regarding Impact of New gTLDs on Consumer Welfare [PDF, 160K]
2. Preliminary Analysis of Dennis Carlton Regarding Price Caps for New gTLD Internet Registries [PDF, 56K]

The preliminary reports represent a third party independent analysis. A public comment period is now open to allow for further inputs from the community.

Announcement | Comments | Summary/analysis of comments

Explanation/Background: VeriSign has proposed to offer Bulk Transfer After Partial Portfolio Acquisition (BTAPPA) in Dot-Com & Dot-Net through the Registry Services Evaluation Process, and is seeking an amendment to proceed with the offering of this service. The amendments provide for changes to Appendix 7.

Announcement | Comments | Summary/analysis of comments

Explanation/Background: The Expedited Registry Security Request (ERSR) is the result of a collaborative effort between ICANN and gTLD registries to develop a process for quick action in cases where gTLD registries inform ICANN of a present or imminent security incident to their TLD and/or the DNS and request a contractual waiver for actions they might take or have taken to mitigate or eliminate the incident. A contractual waiver is an exemption from compliance with a specific provision of the Registry Agreement for the time period necessary to respond to the Incident. The ERSR process is viewable at http://www.icann.org/en/registries/ersr/.

Public comment is sought on the ERSR process.

Announcement | Comments | Summary/analysis of comments

Explanation/Background: The newly-restructured GNSO Council is scheduled to be seated during the upcoming ICANN meeting in Seoul, South Korea. Establishing updated operating procedures consistent with the new ICANN Bylaws is a key step toward seating the new Council.

The GNSO Council Operations Work Team was tasked with a cross-constituency effort to review the existing GNSO operating rules and procedures and to recommend changes consistent with the new GNSO Council's goal to become a strategic manager of the policy process.  The Work Team has developed a package of those recommendations and the GNSO Council has directed the Staff to post them for public review and comment.

Community members are invited to review the recommendations and comment on all aspects of the recommended procedures. The recommended procedures address a number of areas including the selection of officers, the conduct of meetings and how Council votes are cast and counted.

In authorizing the release of the recommendations for review and comment, ICANN Staff was directed to note a specific area of discussion regarding the treatment of instances where Council members may choose to abstain from a particular vote (see - http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-20090924.mp3). Alternative treatment of vote abstentions (the original work team recommendation and potential substitute language) in the recommended procedures is noted in Section 4.2 of the package. Commenters should note which treatment they prefer. The Staff has also been asked by Council members to prepare an analysis of how potential Council votes would be tabulated based on different treatments of Councilor abstentions. That Staff analysis will be provided as a submission to the comment forum.

Document Links:

The recommended operating procedures can be found here:
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/draft-gnso-operating-procedures-24sep09-en.pdf
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/draft-gnso-operating-procedures-24sep09-en.doc

The Process from Here:

At the end of this Public Comment Forum period, ICANN Staff will review the comments submitted and prepare a summary analysis of the various submissions. Consistent with the Transition Implementation Plan approved by the GNSO Council at its 24 September meeting, the updated operating procedures will be the first substantial item on the new Council’s agenda of 28 October in Seoul. The new council members will discuss and vote on the updated Council Operating Procedures. Approval of the Procedures will require a majority of the voting members of each house for approval. Any amendment that results from comments submitted, will need to be voted on prior to the vote on the Procedures and will also require a majority of the voting members of each house.

Staff Responsible: Robert Hoggarth

Deadline and How to Submit Comments:

The Staff is opening a 21-day public consultation forum, from 25 September 2009 through 16 October 2009, and invites community comments on this topic.

To submit comments: Comments on the document are welcome via email at gnso-operating-procedures-2009@icann.org. This public forum will be open through 16 October 2009.

To view comments: An archive of all comments received will be publicly posted at http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-operating-procedures-2009/

Announcement | Comments | Summary/analysis of comments

The Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO), the body of ICANN responsible for policy development relating to generic Top-Level Domains, is asking for public comments on issues relating to procedures for modifying registration information and transferring domain names between registers to inform the deliberations of the Working Group created to address these issues. Specifically, comments on establishing a new urgent return procedure for challenging potentially fraudulent domain name transfers or alterations, potential measures to undo inappropriate transfers and the use of Registrar Lock Status are requested from the broader community. The details of the issues being considered are at http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-14sep09-en.htm.

Announcement | Comments | Summary/analysis of comments

Explanation: In an effort to build on existing best practices, and to encourage the early sharing of documentation that is primarily intended for public review and discussion, a document publication operational policy [PDF, 146K] has been developed for use across ICANN at the organization’s international public meetings.

The intent of the operational policy is to provide a clear framework and guidelines for the consistent publication of work across the organization and so enable wide dialogue throughout the community. It will be reviewed in the light of each meeting in an effort to continuously improve ICANN operations.

That operational policy includes: a single 15-working-day deadline for all documents (including meetings agendas); best practice guidelines on the production of meeting agendas, cover sheets and executive summaries; an emphasis on the use of plain language and minimised use of jargon; and sections considering the issues of translation, earlier provision of presentations, and reporting on the efficacy of the operational policy.

You are invited to discuss and comment any part of the policy online with suggestions for changes. You will need to register to add comments online. The results of the discussion will result in changes to the policy before it is put to the Board for review and approval.

• Is the community (and staff) prepared for the early provision of documents?
• Are you sufficiently persuaded of the need for a document deadline to change established approaches and cultures?
• How do we effectively tackle the issue of language/jargon?
  

Announcement | Discussion space | Summary/analysis of comments