Explanation/Background: The proposed .PRO renewal Registry Agreement is fundamentally the same as what was negotiated and approved for .BIZ, also an unsponsored/restricted gTLD, in 2006.

There are elements of the proposed renewal agreement that vary from the current .PRO agreement and the substantive changes are described in detail in the announcement.

• Proposed .PRO Registry Agreement [PDF, 57 KB]
• Proposed .PRO Appendices [PDF, 320 KB]

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

Explanation/Background: The Chair of 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 the Chairs draft Interim Paper [PDF, 170 KB]. The purpose of this paper is to report to the community on structure and potential directions of the recommendations for the overall policy. To be most helpful at this stage of the process the WG seeks your input and comments on the following:

Is the proposed overall approach adequate? If not, what alternative do you propose?

Should process steps be added or excluded?

Should criteria be included, or excluded?

Should the criteria be changed?

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

Explanation/Background: The High Security Zone TLD Advisory Group ("HSTLD AG") voluntary program was designed to support control standards and incentives that will increase trust in the TLD's that elect to participate in the HSTLD program. This report is part of the ongoing work in the development of the New gTLD Applicant Guidebook and is open for community feedback and public comment.

• High Security Top-Level Domain (HSTLD) - Draft Program Development Snapshot [PDF, 144 KB]

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

Explanation/Background: The Zone File Access Advisory Group was formed to study and discuss benefits and methods to effectively and efficiently enhance access to zone file information anticipating an environment with many gTLDs. This Concept Paper (and its referenced cost model) proposes several alternative implementation models for community consideration.

• Concept Paper [PDF, 260 KB]
• Cost Model Information

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

Explanation/Background: Afilias has proposed allocation of one and two-character second-level domain names in .INFO through the Registry Services Evaluation Process, and is seeking an amendment [PDF, 52 KB] to proceed with a phased allocation process. The amendment provides for a change to Appendix 6, Schedule of Reserved Names, and the Functional Specification in Appendix 7.

ICANN has previously approved a similar requests from other gTLD registries:

Dot-NAME (2006, two-characters at the third-level only): http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/#2006004

puntCAT (2007, limited release of UA, UB, UV.cat): http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/#2007001

Dot-JOBS (2007, limited release of two-character names only): http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/#2007002

Dot-Coop (2007, release of go.coop): http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/#2007005

Dot-Coop (2008, one and two-character names): http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/#2008005

Dot-Mobi (2008, single character names): http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/#2008006

Dot-BIZ (2008, one and two-character names): http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/#2008010

Dot-Mobi (2008, two-character names): http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/#2008011

Dot-Pro (2009, one, two, remaining three-character names): http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/#2009002

puntCAT (2009, one and two-character names): http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/#2009009

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

Explanation/Background: The URS is one of the proposed mechanisms to address trademark protection concerns in the New gTLD Program. This is one of the open issues being addressed by staff and community experts. The Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) Procedure describes an expedited process to provide trademark holders with a rapid take-down in clear cut instances of trademark abuse. The URS procedure is expected to provide trademark holders with a new, cost effective remedy in addition to those available under the UDRP and applicable law.

Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) – Clean:

• English [PDF, 128 KB]
• العربية [PDF, 164 KB]
• Español [PDF, 192 KB]
• Français [PDF, 168 KB]
• Русский [PDF, 156 KB]
• 中文 [PDF, 208 KB]

Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) – Redline [PDF, 181 KB]

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

Explanation/Background: The trademark clearinghouse is one of the proposed mechanisms to address trademark protection concerns in the New gTLD Program. This is one of the open issues being addressed by staff and community experts. The Trademark Clearinghouse Model describes a proposal for a central repository of authenticated trademark information for use by registries to support their sunrise or trademark claims processes. This Model is designed to introduce efficiencies into the pre-launch processes for trademark holders and new gTLD registries.

Trademark Clearinghouse (Clean):

• English [PDF, 153 KB]
• العربية [PDF, 236 KB]
• Español [PDF, 204 KB]
• Français [PDF, 172 KB]
• Русский [PDF, 180 KB]
• 中文 [PDF, 200 KB]

Trademark Clearinghouse (Redline) [PDF, 124 KB]

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

Explanation/Background: The Trademark PPDRP is one of the proposed mechanisms to address trademark protection concerns in the New gTLD Program. This is one of the open issues being addressed by staff and community experts. This post delegation procedure should only afford trademark holders the right to proceed against registry operators who have acted in bad faith, with the intent to profit from the systemic registration of infringing domain names (or systemic cybersquatting) or who have otherwise set out to use the gTLD for an improper purpose.

Post Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedure (PPDRP) – Clean:

• English [PDF, 65 KB]
• العربية [PDF, 148 KB]
• Español [PDF, 116 KB]
• Français [PDF, 64 KB]
• Русский [PDF, 208 KB]
• 中文 [PDF, 136 KB]

Post Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedure (PPDRP) – Redline [PDF, 105 KB]

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

Explanation/Background: The RRDRP is one of the proposed mechanisms to address post delegation concerns. The purpose of the RRDRP is to handle complaints from a harmed organization or individual alleging that a community-based restricted gTLD registry operator was not meeting its obligations to police the registration and use of domains within the restrictions stated in the terms of the gTLD registry agreement.

Registry Restrictions Dispute Resolution Procedure (RRDRP) – Clean:

• English [PDF, 61 KB]
• العربية [PDF, 144 KB]
• Español [PDF, 104 KB]
• Français [PDF, 64 KB]
• Русский [PDF, 172 KB]
• 中文 [PDF, 236 KB]

Registry Restrictions Dispute Resolution Procedure (RRDRP) – Redline [PDF, 69 KB]

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

Explanation/Background: This document is a follow-up to the independent Implementation Working team's recommendation on IDN string requirements. The previous requirement for at least three characters in all gTLD strings was considered problematic for some languages, and the team released a recommendation to relax the requirement in some cases. An excerpt of guidebook text is included to help inform the discussion.

IDN 3-Character Requirement:

• English [PDF, 148 KB]
• العربية [PDF, 180 KB]
• Español [PDF, 228 KB]
• Français [PDF, 156 KB]
• Русский [PDF, 328 KB]
• 中文 [PDF, 196 KB]

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

Explanation/Background: An independent Implementation Working team has proposed an approach to IDN variant management at the top level. Language communities that use variant characters are affected by the management and implementation of variants in new TLDs . An excerpt of guidebook text is included to help inform the discussion.

IDN Variants:

• English [PDF, 160 KB]
• العربية [PDF, 2.06 MB]
• Español [PDF, 144 KB]
• Français [PDF, 113 KB]
• Русский [PDF, 182 KB]
• 中文 [PDF, 392 KB]

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

Explanation/Background: An exercise to gather industry data on registry operations was undertaken as part of the ongoing implementation of the evaluation criteria and procedures for the New gTLD Program. This took the form of a study including analysis of public industry information and data collected through a survey of existing registry operators.

Bench Marking of Registry Operations:

• English [PDF, 648 KB]
• العربية [PDF, 564 KB]
• Español [PDF, 532 KB]
• Français [PDF, 556 KB]
• Русский [PDF, 596 KB]
• 中文 [PDF, 564 KB]

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

Explanation/Background: An update on discussions concerning the process for future amendments to the registry agreements for new gTLDs. The paper outlines and seeks comment on several possible amendment process models, including a model recently proposed by the GNSO's Registry Stakeholder Group.

Process for gTLD Registry Agreement Amendment:

• English [PDF, 129 KB]
• العربية [PDF, 156 KB]
• Español [PDF, 180 KB]
• Français [PDF, 144 KB]
• Русский [PDF, 272 KB]
• 中文 [PDF, 240 KB]

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

Explanation/Background: The National Opinion Research Center (NORC) recently completed a study commissioned by ICANN to determine the percentage of domain names registered under the top 5 gTLDs (i.e., .com, .net, .org, .biz, and .info) that contain accurate WHOIS data. Today, the draft report is being posted for review and comment through 15 April 2010.

Community members are invited to review the draft report and its findings and comment on all aspects of the report. The information in the report is intended to contribute to the ongoing community discussion regarding WHOIS and should be useful in any future policy development process regarding WHOIS.

The draft report can be found here: http://www.icann.org/en/compliance/reports/whois-accuracy-study-17jan10-en.pdf [PDF, 432 KB]

The Process Going Forward:

At the end of this Public Comment period, ICANN Staff will review the comments submitted and prepare a summary analysis of the various submissions.

Deadline and How to Submit Comments:

ICANN Staff is opening a 60-day public comment, from 15 February through 15 April 2010, and invites community comments on the draft report.

The formal Public Comment Forum Box is located here http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201004-en.htm#whois-accuracy-study

To Submit Comments: whois-accuracy-study@icann.org

To View Comments: http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-accuracy-study/

Staff Responsible: David A. Giza, Senior Director, Contractual Compliance

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

Explanation/Background: The posting of the Framework for ICANN's FY11 Operating Plan and Budget [PDF,767 KB] kicks off the nearly five month period for the ICANN community to review this proposed plan and budget, and provide feedback.

This FY11 framework will be discussed with members of the ICANN community at the Nairobi meeting in March, through online public comment areas, and through conference calls with ICANN constituencies. In accordance with ICANN’s bylaws, a draft FY11 Operating Plan and Budget will be posted by 17 May 2010 for community feedback. After more public comment and feedback, the final FY11 Operating Plan and Budget will be submitted to the ICANN Board, for consideration and adoption, at its Brussels meeting in June 2010.

The FY11 Framework builds on the accomplishments of ICANN in FY10, focuses on the highest strategic priorities, and addresses the challenges of a low revenue growth environment. The community is encouraged to provide feedback on the priorities, plans, and resource requirements for ICANN’s activities for the fiscal year.

ICANN's commitment to openness and transparency will reinforce efforts of recent years to post detail-rich budget documents. Feedback on this is welcome too.

http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/en/public-comment/public-comment-201004-en.htm#op-budget-fy2011

The FY11 Framework is currently available in English:

http://www.icann.org/en/planning/ops-budget-framework-fy2011-en.pdf [PDF, 767 KB]

Translated versions will be available in the following languages soon:

• Español [PDF, 616 KB]
• العربية
• Français [PDF, 540 KB]
• Русский
• 中文 [PDF, 816 KB]

This first public comment period on the FY11 Framework will end 1st April 2010.

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

Explanation/Background: The paper describes the case for the creation of a Domain Name System-Computer Emergency Response Team (DNS-CERT) [PDF, 425K] devoted to both proactive and reactive measures related to DNS security, stability and resiliency would lessen the impact of future attacks against or failures of the system. The paper includes a description of the operational concept, services analysis, and suggested governance and funding models.

Note: The Global DNS-CERT Business Case is published as an effort beyond those which are currently identified for Security, Stability and Resiliency in the FY 11 ICANN Operational Plan and Budget framework to be posted for the Nairobi meeting. ICANN is seeking public comment on these documents in order to obtain community feedback. An open consultation session is also planned for the ICANN Nairobi meeting and details will be made available on the overall meeting schedule.

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

Explanation/Background: The Proposed Strategic Initiatives for Improved DNS Security, Stability and Resiliency (SSR) [PDF, 177K] paper presents the rationale, key features and projected costs of two strategic initiatives that ICANN believes are necessary to fulfill its obligations under its Bylaws, the 2009 Affirmation of Commitments, and the 2010-2013 ICANN Strategic Plan. This paper provides a basis for a multi-stakeholder discussion of these proposed initiatives, ICANN's responsibilities in establishing proposed capabilities and how the community might proceed in organizing efforts to support such initiatives.

Note: The Strategic Initiatives paper and accompanying Global DNS-CERT Business Case are proposed as efforts beyond those which are currently identified for Security, Stability and Resiliency in the FY 11 ICANN Operational Plan and Budget framework to be posted for the Nairobi meeting. ICANN is seeking public comment on these documents in order to obtain community feedback. An open consultation session is also planned for the ICANN Nairobi meeting and details will be made available on the overall meeting schedule. Translations of the Strategic Initiatives paper into the 5 UN languages will be made available in the next week.

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

Explanation/Background:

The GNSO Registration Abuse Policies Working Group has published its Initial Report. The Report includes concrete recommendations to address domain name registration abuse in gTLDs for Community consideration and input. Included are recommendations related to:

• Cybersquatting: recommending the initiation of a Policy Development Process to investigate the current state of the UDRP.
• Whois access problems: seeking ways to ensure that WHOIS data is accessible in an appropriately reliable, enforceable, and consistent fashion; and requesting that the ICANN Compliance Department publish data about WHOIS accessibility.
• Malicious use of domain names: recommending the creation of best practices to help registrars and registries address the illicit use of domain names.
• Front-running: recommending possible enforcement actions by ICANN Compliance
• Fake renewal notices
• Domain kiting
• Deceptive and/or offensive domain names
• Uniformity of contracts: recommending the creation of an Issues Report to evaluate whether a minimum baseline of registration abuse provisions should be created for all in-scope ICANN agreements.
• GNSO-wide practices for the collection and dissemination of best practices, and for uniformity of reporting.

The Registration Abuse Policies Working Group is requesting your input, especially on the proposed recommendations. For further details, please review the Registration Abuse Policies Initial Report:

• English [PDF, 1.8 MB]

Translations of the Executive Summary:

• العربية [PDF, 2.42 MB]
• 中文 [PDF, 240 KB]
• Français [PDF, 652 KB]
• Русский [PDF, 788 KB]
• Español [PDF, 513 KB]

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

Explanation/Background: As part of the GNSO Improvements Process, which has as its objective to improve the structure and operations of the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO), a Working Group (WG) Work Team was tasked with developing a Working Group Model. This Working Group Model should become the focal point for policy development and enhance the policy development process by making it more inclusive and representative, and – ultimately – more effective and efficient.

To this end, the WG WT has developed this document, entitled ‘Working Group Guidelines’, which brings together two different elements of the Working Group process; on the one hand it addresses what should be considered in creating, purposing, funding, staffing, and instructing/guiding a WG to accomplish the desired outcome (the chartering process), and; secondly, what guidance should be provided to a WG on elements such as structuring, norms, tasking, reporting, and delivering the outcome(s) as chartered (the working group process). The WG WT is seeking your input on this document, especially on the elements contained in this document as well as what other information should be included as part of Working Group Guidelines. Following the public comment period, the WG WT intends to review the comments received and determine if and how this document should be updated before being submitted to the Policy Process Steering Committee (PPSC) for its consideration.

Background documents / links

• Working Group Guidelines [PDF, 608K]
• Working Group Work Team Workspace
• The GNSO Improvements Web Site

Staff responsible: Marika Konings

Deadline and how to submit comments

Comments are welcome via e-mail to working-group-guidelines@icann.org until 22 March 2010.

Access to the public comment forum from which comments can be posted can be found at:
http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#working-group-guidelines

An archive of all comments received will be publicly posted at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/working-group-guidelines/

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

Explanation/Background: On 27 August 2009, the ICANN Board of Directors passed a resolution approving in principle the implementation of the Board Review WG recommendation “to add one voting director appointed from the At-Large Community to the ICANN Board of Directors, and removing the present ALAC Liaison to the Board (…).”

In preparation for this new appointment, the ALAC, in consultation with the At-Large Community, has prepared a White Paper [PDF, 240K] entitled “Call for Community Comment on the Proposed Process for the 2010 Selection of an ICANN At-Large Board Member”. Included in this document is a review of community discussions to date, inclusive of debate points and rationale for any recommendations made, a draft process timeline, specific issues and recommendations for community review and feedback.

This White Paper has already been subject to At-Large Community review beginning 11 January 2010.

On 26 January 2010, the Board Review WG released its final report [PDF, 116K]. Regarding the issue of the voting director to be appointed by the At-Large Community, the report stipulates in part:

• The acknowledgement that the Board already approved in principle its recommendation for one At-Large voting Director replacing the ALAC Liaison
• The conclusion that ALAC and At-Large should develop a mechanism for the selection of their voting Board Director. “The selection process must ensure that the appointment has the approval of ALAC and the approval of the At-Large Community more broadly.”

All members of the ICANN community and the public are invited to review the ALAC and At-Large Community White Paper on the Proposed Process for the 2010 Selection of an ICANN Board Member and share comments through 6 March 2010.

Please note that this public consultation is organized pending any Board decision on the formalization of the in-principle decision adopted in August 2009 on the possibility for the ALAC/At-Large Community to select a voting Board Director in replacement of the present non-voting ALAC Liaison to the Board.

Relevant Board Resolution

• Minutes of 27 August 2009 ICANN Board Meeting:
  http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/minutes-27aug09-en.htm

Staff Responsible: Heidi Ullrich

Deadline and How to Submit Comments:

The Staff is opening a 30-day public consultation forum, from 5 February 2010 through 6 March 2010, and invites community comments on this matter.

To submit comments: Comments on the document are welcome via email at (at-large-director@icann.org). This public forum will be open through 6 March 2010.

To view comments: An archive of all comments received will be publicly posted at (http://forum.icann.org/lists/at-large-director/).

For a copy of the public announcement of this forum please see: http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-05feb10-en.htm

Announcement | Comments | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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: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: The ICANN Bylaws specify that the GNSO has the right to select two individuals to serve on the ICANN Board, commonly referred to as Board Seats 13 and 14. Under the Bylaws, the Contracted Party House selects Board Seat 13, and the Non-Contracted Party House selects Board Seat 14.

On 28 January 2010, the GNSO Council approved the process proposed by the Contracted Party House to select a representative to fill Board Seat 13 for the 2010 election, and amended its Operating Procedures to include this process and timeline. Because the current term for Board Seat 13 expires at the end of April 2010, the GNSO Council is proposing an expedited process for the 2010 selection of Board Seat 13, but has also specifically reserved the right to modify the election procedures before the nomination period expires if public comments raise issues or matter that merit changes to the adopted processes. The GNSO Council also tasked the GNSO Operations Work Team with the responsibility of developing the procedures for future selection of Board Seats 13 and 14 to be included in the GNSO Operating Procedures.

Announcement | Comments | Summary/analysis of comments

Explanation/Background: ICANN is publishing today for public comment a discussion draft that addresses the requirements and implementation processes for the reviews called for in the Affirmation of Commitments.

The Affirmation of Commitments contains specific provisions for periodic review of ICANN's key objectives. These reviews are to be performed by review teams composed of volunteer community members representative of the relevant ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees, as well as independent experts.

The paper [PDF, 620K] posted for public consultation presents a discussion draft to address the Affirmation review requirements; it describes:

• The Affirmation requirements for reviews
• The proposed methodology for conducting the reviews
• The preliminary activities (such as the establishment of the review Teams and others)
• The timeline of the preparatory activities and of the first review
• A draft Terms of Reference for the first review

Inputs are sought from the community on the full set of proposals contained in this paper.

Announcement | Comments | Summary/analysis of comments

Explanation/Background: The ongoing GNSO Improvements process has created significant community interest in the formation of new GNSO constituencies. One of those proposals is for a new Consumers Constituency. Proponents of the Consumers Constituency originally submitted a New Constituency Petition and Charter to the ICANN Board on 14 April 2009. A revised version of the proposal, responding to several Board inquiries was submitted to the Board on 15 September 2009.

All members of the ICANN community and the public are now invited to review the revised petition and charter of the Consumers Constituency and share comments with the Board through 13 February 2009.

Background and Explanation:

In June 2008, the Board of Directors endorsed a series of recommendations on how to improve the GNSO's structures and operations. One of the significant drivers of those recommendations was an interest in maximizing participation in the GNSO and its policy development processes. Among the various recommendations endorsed by the Board was that ICANN take steps to clarify and promote the option to self-form new constituencies.

The ICANN Bylaws provide that any group of individuals or entities may petition the Board for recognition as a new or separate constituency, in accordance with Section 5(4) of Article X. Such a petition must explain (1) why “the addition of such a Constituency will improve the ability of the GNSO to carry out its policy-development responsibilities” and (2) why “the proposed new Constituency would adequately represent, on a global basis, the stakeholders it seeks to represent.” Despite those Bylaw provisions, it has been many years since the organization has had formal requests for any new GNSO constituencies. Since the Board action last June, however, the Board has received four petitions for potential new GNSO Constituencies. In December, the Board chose not to approve three of those proposals (see http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/prelim-report-09dec09-en.htm) and the Consumers proposal is still under consideration.

The ICANN bylaws do not provide specific procedural guidance for how interested parties should submit the petitions contemplated in Article X. Mindful that explicit steps, formats, and/or processes for expansion would take some time for the community to develop in the implementation of the improvements recommendations, the Board directed ICANN Staff to provide the community with some initial guidance, a structure and a specific procedural path for potential new constituencies to follow. At its 1 October 2008 meeting, the Board acknowledged Staff's development of a "Notice of Intent" document for potential new constituencies and directed Staff to develop a formal petition and charter template to assist new constituency applicants in satisfying the formative criteria (consistent with the ICANN Bylaws) to facilitate the Board's evaluation of petitions to form new constituencies.

At the direction of the Board, the ICANN Staff developed a two-step process for potential new constituencies to follow. The proponent of the Consumers Constituency completed the first step of the process on 28 February 2009 by filing a Notice of Intent to Form a New Constituency – (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/consumers-constituency-noif-28feb09.pdf. The proponents of the Consumers Constituency completed the second step of the process- submission of a New Constituency Petition and Charter on 14 April 2009 – (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/consumers-constituency-intro-letter-10apr09.pdf and http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/consumers-constituency-petition-charter-redacted-10apr09.pdf).

In August 2009 the members of the ICANN Board developed a number of questions regarding the proposal. As a result of those proposals the Consumer Constituency Proponents revised their original NOIF and updated their proposed charter document on 15 September 2009 (see the revised NOIF http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/consumers-constituency-noif-redacted-15sep09.pdf and the revised charter http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/consumers-constituency-charter-15sep09.pdf.

 Relevant Board Resolution, Bylaws and Constituency Submissions:

• Minutes of 1 October 2008 ICANN Board Meeting: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/minutes-01oct08.htm

• ICANN Bylaws Article X, Section 5, Subsection 4: http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm - X-5.1

• Copies of the original and Revised Consumers Constituency Petition Documents can be found at this web page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/newco-process-en.htm

• Revised (15 Sept) Consumers Constituency NOIF: http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/consumers-constituency-noif-redacted-15sep09.pdf

• Revised (15 Sept) Consumers Constituency Charter Document; http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/consumers-constituency-charter-15sep09.pdf

To facilitate community review, the staff has prepared comparison documents of the NOIF and Charter documents that highlight the changes between the original submissions and the 15 September revised versions.

• Comparison (15 Sept) Consumers Constituency NOIF: http://www.gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/comparison-consumers-constituency-noif-redacted-15sep09-en.pdf [PDF, 69K]

• Comparison (15 Sept) Consumers Constituency Charter Document: http://www.gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/comparison-consumers-constituency-charter-15sep09-en.pdf [PDF, 109K]

Staff Responsible: Robert Hoggarth

Deadline and How to Submit Comments:

The Staff is opening a 21-day public consultation forum, from 22 January 2010 through 13 February 2010, and invites community comments on this matter.

To submit comments: Comments on the document are welcome via email at consumers-constituency-petition@icann.org. This public forum will be open through 13 February 2010.

To view comments: An archive of all comments received will be publicly posted at http://forum.icann.org/lists/consumers-constituency-petition/.

For a copy of the public announcement of this forum please see http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-22jan10-en.htm.

Announcement | Comments | Summary/analysis of comments