Archived forums:

• Draft Proposed Changes to Registrar Accreditation Agreement
  (ends 4 Aug 08)
• Improving Institutional Confidence
  (ends 31 Jul 08)
• Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy – Denial of Transfers (Reasons #8 and #9)
  (ends 18 Jul 08)
• Proposed GNSO Top Level Implementation Plan
  (ends 17 Jul 08)
• Single Character Name Allocation Framework
  (ends 13 Jul 08)
• Meetings Reform
  (ends 10 Jul 08)
• Proposed Global Policy for Autonomous System Numbers
  (ends 7 Jul 08)
• Draft/Interim Terminated Registrar Transition Procedure
  (ends 7 Jul 08)
• Draft Final ALAC Independent Review
  (ends 27 Jun 08)
• Travel Support
  (ends 20 Jun 08)
• Operating Plan and Budget 2009
  (ends 17 Jun 08)

• PIR's Proposed Implementation of DNSSEC
• IDN ccTLD Fast Track
• Absentee Voting
• Domain Tasting
• GNSO Improvements Report
• ICANN Travel Support Policy
• Nominating Committee review
• RegistryPro contract amendments
• Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy initial report
• Domain Tasting
• Translation Programme

Upcoming forums:

• Translation Programme

Recent changes:

• Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy – Denial of Transfers (Reasons #8 and #9) opened
• PIR's Proposed Implementation of DNSSEC closed
• IDN ccTLD Fast Track closed
• Proposed GNSO Top Level Implementation Plan opened
• Draft Final Report - IDNC WG Recommendations for ccTLD Fast Track Mechanisms (IDN ccTLD Fast Track) closed
• Draft Proposed Changes to Registrar Accreditation Agreement period opened
• Improving Institutional Confidence period opened
• Single Character Name Allocation Framework period
  opened
• Draft Final ALAC Independent Review period
  opened
• IDN ccTLD Fast Track period opened
• Proposed Global Policy for Autonomous System Numbers period opened
• Operating Plan and Budget 2009 period opened
• Summary/analysis added to Travel Policy
• Summary/analysis added to GNSO Improvements
• Domain tasting period opened
• Absentee voting period opened
• DNSSEC proposal opened for comment
• IDNC interim report comment period opened

• May 2008
• Apr 2008
• Mar 2008
• Feb 2008
• Jan 2008
• 2007 Archive
• Prior to July 2007

Explanation: The draft Operating Plan and Budget for the 2009 financial year has been released for public comment.

• Version 3 [PDF, 360K] (posted 25 June 2008 for consideration by ICANN Board)
• Version 2 [PDF, 476K] (posted 23 May 2008)
• Version 1 [PDF, 356K] (posted 17 May 2008)
  • Français [PDF, 375K]
  • Español [PDF, 379K]
  • Русский [PDF, 770K]
  • العربية - [PDF, 526K]
  • 中文 [PDF, 693K

As a result of the Strategic Plan, from which the Operating Plan is developed and which then leads through to the Budget, there is a call for substantial expense growth for ICANN.

This public comment period is intended to inform the community and provide active community and Board feedback on the proposed objectives and plans. This feedback will be taken into account in arriving at a final plan, which then establishes the resources and objectives for the ICANN community over the next year.

For more information on the process run through by the community to arrive at the Operating Plan and Budget, please review the official announcement of this comment period.

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

Explanation: At the February Delhi meeting, there was a public consultation regarding ICANN's approach to travel support funding for the community. After the public consultation in Delhi, a public comment period was held, and the feedback was analyzed and noted online.

After receiving and analyzing comments on this draft, it will be updated if needed, and final results reviewed with the Board in Paris. Ultimately, the Board will need to adopt (or reject) the budget impact of this new proposal when the Board approves the budget in Paris.

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

Explanation: ICANN invites comments on the final draft of the ALAC Review Report [pdf] submitted by Independent Reviewer, Westlake Consulting. Westlake will present the draft report at a workshop on Monday, 23 June, at the Paris ICANN meeting, and the Board Governance Committee's ALAC Review Working Group will discuss the draft report at a workshop on Wedneseday, 25 June, in Paris.

This draft report (which includes the Executive Summary [pdf]) has not been reviewed by the ICANN Board or the Board Governance Committee. It is being shared for public information prior to it being finalised by Westlake. The final report will be submitted to the Board after the ICANN Paris meeting. Opportunity for public comment on the final report also will be provided.

Westlake Consulting was selected by ICANN's Board to conduct the independent review of the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) and related structures. Key objectives of the review include:

• [To determine] whether the ALAC has a continuing purpose in the ICANN structure; and,
• If so, whether any change in structure or operations is desirable to improve its effectiveness.

This review is part of ICANN's ongoing commitment to its evolution and improvement. ICANN's bylaws require periodic, independent examinations of the role and operation of key elements of ICANN.

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

Explanation: ICANN has received a Proposed Global Policy for Autonomous System Numbers, ASNs, developed by the addressing community through the Regional Internet Registries bottom-up processes and delivered for ratification to the ICANN Board. Autonomous System Numbers are used in the routing of Internet traffic addressed to major entities, qualifying as Autonomous Systems. The proposal defines timelines and allocation principles for a transition from 2-byte to 4-byte ASNs. For the full text of the proposal click here. The text has been open for public comments on multiple occasions through the RIR's procedures and a final call for public comments is now open until 7 July 2008.

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

Explanation: ICANN invites comments on its Draft/Interim Terminated Registrar Transition Procedure, which will be used by ICANN to facilitate transfer of gTLD registrations from de-accredited registrars to ICANN-accredited registrars. Following conclusion of this public comment period, the resulting procedure will be revised as appropriate and submitted to the ICANN Board of Directors for adoption and fully implemented upon approval.

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

Explanation: Should ICANN change the number of meetings that it holds and their location? The Meetings Reform Paper asks the community to consider that the number of meetings be reduced from three to two per year - a change that would commence from 2010.

The paper also proposes that one of the two meetings be held in locations that are transport hubs. The locations would need to be the subject of a separate consultation, but would be rotated through the existing ICANN predetermined regions.

There has not been substantive change to meetings processes or the frequency of the meetings since the organization's inception. The purpose of the paper is to encourage debate on any matters to do with meetings that the community may wish to raise, but to especially consider issues concerning the frequency of meetings and their location.

Aside from this public comment period, consultations will also be held at the Paris meeting directly with Committees and Councils and there will also be the opportunity to comment via the public forum.

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

Explanation: In response to community comment and interest, ICANN has developed a proposed allocation framework and use of funds from the allocation of single-character second-level domain names (SC SLDs) in existing gTLDs. ICANN is proposing an auction mechanism and disbursement of funds toward areas of public good for the Internet community. Discussion of proposed allocation methods will involve consultation with gTLD registries.

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

Explanation: As part of its ongoing efforts to review the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (the rules for transfer of domain names between registrars) the GNSO Council seeks community review and comment on two proposed revisions to the IRTP regarding reasons for which a registrar of record may deny a request to transfer a domain name to a new registrar. The two revisions being considered by the Council are referred to as Reason # 8 and Reason # 9. They are part of a larger policy development process (PDP) that has involved a subset of four reasons (Reason # 5 and # 7 in addition to # 8 and # 9) for which a registrar could deny a transfer request.

The overall IRTP review has become a considerable undertaking that could ultimately span as many as six separate policy development processes. A review of the current PDP involving Reasons # 8 and # 9 is set forth in the announcement for this comment forum.

On 17 April 2008, the GNSO Council launched a drafting group to develop suggested text modifications for Reasons 5, 7, 8 and 9. The drafting group delivered a Final Draft Report [PDF, 48K] dated 4 June 2008, proposing new textual language for reasons 8 and 9, while suggesting that denial reasons 5 and 7 be considered within a separate proposed PDP or a future PDP that offers a stronger linkage with those issues.

The Council agreed with the recommendations of the drafting group. It directed the staff to post the proposed new text for Reasons # 8 and # 9 for constituency and public comments and report back to the Council with a summary of the comments received.

You can read the recommendations regarding Reasons # 8 and # 9 with the proposed new language here: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/transfers/excerpts-report-transfers-pdp1-dg-jun08.pdf [PDF, 32K]

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

Explanation: At its 25 June 2008 meeting in Paris, France the GNSO Council voted to invite public comments on the 21 June 2008 version of the GNSO Improvements - Top Level Plan prepared by the GNSO Improvements Planning Team.

The document contains some initial documentation on methods that can be followed in beginning the work required to transition from the current GNSO organization to the type of organization ultimately recommended by the ICANN Board - including the areas of process, operations and collaboration with other ICANN entities. Before any methods can be put into practice, the plan needs to be reviewed by the GNSO and the ICANN community at large and approved by the GNSO Council and endorsed by the ICANN Board.

A copy of the document: can be found here: http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-improvements-top-level-plan-21jun08.pdf [PDF, 148K]

See a web page with more information about the overall GNSO Improvements process here: http://www.icann.org/topics/gnso-improvements/.

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

Explanation: Following extensive input from the Internet community, a Transition Action Plan, Improving Institutional Confidence in ICANN document and an FAQ have been prepared by the President’s Strategy Committee in order to start a discussion process for possible changes within ICANN, the main aim of which is to ensure community confidence in the organization as the Joint Project Agreement between ICANN and the United States government concludes in September 2009.

A timetable for that process will also be outlined, and a dedicated webpage launched to provide the community with all the information it needs, including regular updates as the process develops.

This public comment period will be one of two that act as the place to provide written input and feedback into the consultation (oral input will be possible at ICANN and other meetings). A summary and analysis of this comment period will be provided to the Committee carrying out the consultation (the President's Strategy Committee) in order to assist in revision and review of the documents above.

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

Explanation: In an effort to address concerns raised about the Protection of Registrants, ICANN has undertaken considerable discussions with community members concerning potential amendments to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA). The ICANN Board of Directors passed a resolution in San Juan directing staff to solicit community input related to RAA amendments, engage in a dialogue with registrars to arrive at a set of proposed RAA amendments to be posted for public comment. This set of proposals is set forth at http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-18jun08-en.htm.

This public comment period is the second of two that act as the place to provide written input and feedback into the consultation (oral input will be possible at ICANN and other meetings). A summary and analysis of this comment period will be provided to the Board in order to assist it in its review.

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

Explanation: The IDNC Working Group (IDNC WG) is currently working to develop and report on feasible methods that would enable the timely and efficient ("fast track") introduction of a limited number of non-contentious IDN ccTLDs, while an overall long-term IDN ccTLD policy is being developed. The IDNC WG has created a Draft Final Report designed to highlight the latest topics and issues that need to be considered in developing (1) a mechanism for the selection of the IDN ccTLD string and (2) a mechanism to designate an IDN ccTLD manager. The draft document is being made publicly available at this time solely to alert the community to the latest IDNC WG thinking and to facilitate further discussions at the ICANN Paris meeting later this month. This document has not been signed off by the IDNC Working Group whose members will continue to provide their own comments and input. The IDNC WG will conduct a meeting in Paris during the ICANN meeting.

The Draft Final Report is available here: http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/idn-cctld-fast-track-draft-final-report-recommendations-13jun08.pdf [PDF, 152K]

Comments on the draft document are welcome via email at idn-cctld-fast-track@icann.org. To be considered by the IDNC WG in Paris, any comments should be submitted by 23 June 2008. An archive of all comments received will be publicly posted at http://forum.icann.org/lists/idn-cctld-fast-track/.

Announcement | Comments

Explanation: ICANN invites public comments on the report of the Registry Services Technical Evaluation Panel (RSTEP) on PIR's proposed implementation of DNSSEC in .ORG. Comments submitted will be synthesized for Board consideration with the PIR proposal.

The previous comment period for PIR's Proposed Implementation of DNSSEC.

Announcement | Comments | Summary/analysis of comments

Explanation: The IDNC WG was charted by ICANN's Board 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, associated with the ISO 3166-1 two-letter codes (both the official code list of ISO 3166-1 and the list of reserved ISO 3166-1 code elements) (popularly known as "the fast track"), while the overall IDN ccTLD policy is being developed.

The scope of the IDNC WG is limited to developing feasible methods (for the introduction of a limited number of IDN ccTLDs) that do not pre-empt the policy outcomes of the IDN cc Policy Development Process (ccPDP) for which an Issue Report is currently being prepared. Under the IDNC WG charter, in considering feasible fast track methods, the IDNC WG must 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.

As originally indicated in the Discussion Draft of the Initial Report released on 1 February 2008, the fast track approach requires two specific mechanisms which are addressed in this report:

1. A mechanism for the selection of the IDN ccTLD string (See Section 3 of the report); and
2. A mechanism to designate an IDN ccTLD manager (See Section 4 of the report).

The purpose of this report is to inform and report to the community on the latest topics and issues as identified by the IDNC WG that need to be considered in developing each of the two mechanisms, and to seek input and comments on them. This report, and the comments received, will be used to structure and propose potential mechanisms in the next phase of the fast track (See Section 5 of the report for the Interim Report Schedule). As stated above, the outcome of the fast track cannot pre-empt the outcome of the ccPDP. All of the issues/topics raised regarding the fast track mechanisms also are being raised under the ccPDP. Thus, the solutions reached for the purposes of the fast track, out of necessity, have to be as limited as possible.

The Discussion Draft of the Initial Report is available here <http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/idnc-proposed-methodology-31mar08.pdf>.

Comments on this report are encouraged to be submitted by 25 April via email to idn-cctld-fast-track@icann.org. An archive of all comments received will be publicly posted at http://forum.icann.org/lists/idn-cctld-fast-track/.

Announcement | Comments | Summary/analysis of comments

Explanation: The GNSO Council approved a resolution to recommend to the Board a modification of the ICANN bylaws that would permit electronic absentee voting in certain circumstances in order to allow Council members who are absent from Council meetings to vote.  

Currently, a member of the Council is unable to vote on an issue when absent from the Council meeting at which the vote occurs. The Council found that this not only disenfranchises members from opportunities to vote, but also, disenfranchises the constituencies they represent.

In drafting the resolution, the GNSO considered carefully the way in which it operates today, and produced a report entitled, “Draft GNSO Council Request to the Board to enable full enfranchisement of the GNSO Council’s voting responsibilities.” The report examines closely how the Council typically deliberates prior to initiating a vote on policy matters, and concludes that allowing for absentee voting would enhance participation by enfranchising absent voters by providing a means for absent members to vote electronically.

The public is invited to comment on this recommendation before consideration by the Board.

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

Explanation: The GNSO Council approved by super majority vote a motion to discourage use of the current “add grace period” (AGP), where domains can be returned within five days without cost, for “domain tasting” purposes. The motion, which is pending for Board action, would prohibit any gTLD operator that has implemented an “add grace period” (AGP) from offering a refund to a registrar for any domain name deleted during the AGP that exceeds 10% of its net new registrations during that month, or fifty domain names, whichever is greater. An exemption could be granted based on extraordinary circumstances, as detailed in the motion.

“Domain Tasting” refers to a situation where an entity registers a domain name and then tests to see if the name has sufficient traffic to provide more income than the annual registration fee (usually through pay-per-click advertising). If the name is profitable, it is kept. If not, the AGP is used to return the domain at no cost to the registrant. Recently, there has been a significant increase in the number of domain names registered and returned within the AGP.

In October 2007, the GNSO Council launched a policy development process (PDP) on domain tasting and produced an Initial Report for public comment that outlined the possible actions to be taken, and the arguments for and against such actions. Public comments were incorporated into a draft Final Report (posted 8 February) for GNSO Council review and action.

The public is invited to comment on this motion before final consideration by the Board.

Announcement | Comments | Summary/analysis of comments

Explanation: On February 15, 2008, ICANN's Board acknowledged receipt of the "GNSO Improvements Report" and indicated that it would like to receive final public comments on the Report to enable it to consider and implement the Report's recommendations as soon as possible. The Board has directed ICANN staff to open a public comment forum on the Report for 30 days, draft a detailed implementation plan in consultation with the GNSO, begin implementation of the non-contentious recommendations, and return to the Board and community for further consideration of the implementation plan. A copy of the Board's resolution regarding this matter can be found here.

You can read the full report here [PDF, 197K] and see a web page with more information here.

The ICANN Board Governance Committee's "GNSO Review Working Group" developed the Report's set of recommendations to improve the effectiveness of the GNSO, including its policy activities, structure, operations and communications. The Report reflects the Working Group's examination of many aspects of the GNSO's functioning, including the use of working groups and the overall policy development process (PDP), and the structure of the GNSO Council and its constituencies. The Board Governance Committee determined that the GNSO Improvements working group had fulfilled its charter and forwarded the report to the Board for consideration.

Originally due to close on 25 March 2008, the public comment period on the GNSO Improvements Report has been extended by one month, now closing on 25 April 2008. On 19 March 2008, the Board's Executive Committee agreed to grantthe extension to permit sufficient time for: i) the parties requesting the extension to have sufficient time to provide to the ICANN Board their proposal, including the details of the consultations and nature of the support that they have gathered; and, ii) to allow time for an additional call to the community to file submissions relating to all aspects of the posted report.

Announcement | Comments | Summary/analysis of comments

Explanation: Explanation: ICANN is looking to create a documented, consistent policy that makes it clear when, for whom, and how ICANN will provide travel support for the wide range of volunteers who make ICANN’s community-based work possible. As ICANN becomes a more mature institution, it is important that we determine the proper approach to participation and travel support, and determine what is sustainable.

During a presentation on this topic at the ICANN meeting in Delhi, a commitment was made to host an online forum to collect further input.

The presentation document given at the meeting is available at : https://delhi.icann.org/files/TravelSupportExpenseDiscussion_0208.pdf

A transcript of the session is available at: https://delhi.icann.org/files/Delhi-WS-TravelPolicy-13feb08.txt.

Announcement | Comments | Summary/analysis of comments

Explanation: The independent organisation reviewing ICANN's Nominating Committee has provided its report.

The report will be used to develop detailed proposals for improving the way ICANN fills leadership positions, and part of that process will be public input, both in response to this public comment period and at a special session at the Los Angeles meeting on Wednesday 31 October 2007 at 5pm.

The NomCom is responsible for the selection of 8 members of ICANN’s Board of Directors; 3 members of the Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO); 3 members of the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO); and 5 members of the Interim At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC).

Announcement | Comments | Summary/analysis of comments

Explanation: RegistryPro has asked for several changes to be made to the contact it has for the .pro registry.

There are four proposed contract amendments - that can be seen in greater detail on the official announcement webpage for this comment period:

1. Expansion of third-level registrations e.g. med.pro to additional professions
2. Registration of second-level domains to licensed individuals
3. Retain second-level registrations for those eligible to fit within two or more professions
4. Registrants required to signs and abide by Terms of Use

The purpose of the changes was outlined in a letter [pdf] to ICANN, received 12 March. For precise changes see the redlined Appendix L [pdf] to RegisterPro's contract incorporating changes to the naming conventions and registration requirements; and redlined Appendix F [pdf] including the proposed Terms of Use provisions.

These changes are being posted for public comment prior to consideration by the Board.

Announcement | Comments | Summary/analysis of comments

Explanation: In September 2007, a report into the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (the rules for transfer of domain names between registrars) asked ICANN to draw up an Issues Report to review possible changes. Four clauses in the policy were identified as being unclear when it came to denying a transfer, something that had led to a variation in practices between registrars.

The Issues Report [pdf] went into greater overall detail and was then put out for comment to the GNSO's constituencies. That process is captured in an Initial Report [pdf] which is now being put out for public comment as the first step in a Policy Development Process (PDP) per ICANN's bylaws. The report concludes that there is general support for more work being done on clarifying the language in the policy. Some suggested wording for those changes is contained in the constituency comments in an appendix at the end of the Initial Report.

Comments are sought specifically on the interpretation and phrasing of the four reasons for transfer denials, as further elaborated in the report.

A summary/analysis of comments to this public comment period will form part of a Final Report to the GNSO Council near the end of April. The Final Report will then form the basis of discussion by the GNSO Council toward possible changes.

Announcement | Comments | Summary/analysis of comments

Explanation: The GNSO Council is considering the issue of "domain tasting", a term used to describe the case when someone registers a domain name and then tests to see if the name has sufficient traffic to provide more income than the annual registration fee (usually through pay-per-click advertising). If the name is deemed sufficiently profitable, it is kept.

If not, the current "add grace period" (AGP) - where domains can be returned within five days without cost - is used to return the domain at no net cost to the registrant. Recently there has been a significant increase in the number of domains registered and returned within the AGP. ICANN staff prepared an Issues Report in June 2007 and subsequently a GNSO working group published an Outcomes Report in October 2007. The GNSO Council decided on 31 October 2007 to launch a policy development process (PDP) on domain tasting. An Initial Report was produced for public comment, outlining the policy development process, possible actions that might be taken, and the arguments put forward for and against such actions. Public comments were incorporated into a draft Final Report (posted 8 February) for GNSO Council review and action.

Members of the Council subsequently drafted this motion to curb domain tasting. It would prohibit any gTLD operator that has implemented an add grace period from offering a refund for any domain name deleted during the AGP that exceeds 10% of its net new registrations in that month, or fifty domain names, whichever is greater. An exemption may be sought for a particular month, upon the documented showing of extraordinary circumstances, as detailed in the motion.

The GNSO Council will consider public comments and constituency impact statements regarding the draft motion and incorporate them into a further draft for Council consideration at its scheduled 17 April meeting.

Announcement | Comments | Summary/analysis of comments

Explanation: The draft translation programme that will be used by ICANN to communicate and interact with non-English speakers has been put out for community comment today.

You can review it here in:

العربية | 中文 | Français | English | Español | Русский

The programme has two main aims: to inform people about ICANN as an organisation, including its history, processes, component parts and evolution; and to allow people to participate effectively in the organisation’s ongoing decision-making and policy work.

The mission of the programme is to provide those who are not fluent English speakers with an equal level of access to influence and participate in the work of the organisation.

Following community input, the programme will be redrafted as necessary and put into a Final Report. The intention at this stage is to send the programme to the Board for review and/or approval at the Paris meeting in June.

A full transcript of the public meeting held in New Delhi on Wed 13 Feb regarding this programme is also available.

Announcement | Comments | Summary/analysis of comments