Archived forums:

• IDN .test Evaluation Plan
• .Name registry renewal agreement
• Neustar new registry service
• IDN insertion into the root zone
• ICANN's performance

• September
• August
• July
• June
• May
• April
• 2008
• 2007
• Prior to July 2007

The draft .test plan is posted here for public comment [pdf]. It contains a preliminary list of scripts for the example.test evaluation strings. Recommendations for changes or additions to this list of strings will be carefully reviewed. A final version of the plan will be provided for ICANN Board consideration at its 14 August 2007 meeting.

Translation of the .test plan into Arabic, French, Spanish, Russian, and Chinese is currently underway and will be released shortly.

Update (19 Jul 07): In response to comments made on this public forum, the Evaluation Plan has been updated. Specifically, an amended version of the proposed label for the Persian TLD has been posted (review it here [pdf]). The changes that have been made: (i) replaces the previously suggested Persian .test TLD with an alternate TLD label that more clearly reveals the Persian YEH, and (ii) changes of the reference to the name of the language from Farsi to Persian.

Announcement | Comments | Summary/analysis of comments

There are elements of the proposed renewal agreement that vary from the current .Name agreement. This table [pdf], summarizes all the differences between the 2001 and proposed 2007 agreement. The substantive changes include:

• .Name currently pays an annual fixed fee that has been subject to a maximum 10% annual increase since its inception. The proposed renewal agreement contains the same registry-level transaction fee schedule as the recently approved gTLD agreements.
• .Name makes a distinction between traditional second and third-level registrations vs. bulk third-level registrations. Bulk is defined as sales of 50,000 names or more under .Name’s consumer mass-market approach to third-level registrations. .Name has said their mass-market approach to third-level registrations is needed for the consumer market to prosper and grow.
• Bulk third-level registrations have a fee, as of the effective date of the agreement, roughly equivalent to 5% of revenue with: no minimum fee vs. second-level and traditional third-level registrations that have a fee minimum of $0.15US per registration: and a fee cap of $0.15US vs. other recently approved registry agreements that have a fee cap of $0.25US.

This fee structure is intended to facilitate the sale of third-level names via a special program, a form of innovation, intended to provide new consumer choices.

The proposed .Name renewal registry agreement can be viewed here [pdf], with its appendices downloadable here [pdf].

Announcement | Comments | Summary/analysis of comments

ICANN's Board of Directors by a 11-0 vote approved Resolution 06.85 to implement the service. The resolution authorized the President and General Counsel to enter into an amendment of the .BIZ Registry Agreement with NeuLevel (now named NeuStar). ICANN and NeuStar have negotiated an amendment to implement the approved service. Under NeuStar’s Terms of Service for BTAPPA [pdf], protections for registrants may include:

• The Gaining and Losing Registrars must have ICANN accreditation for .Biz at the time the Transfer Request is submitted.
• The Gaining and Losing Registrars must each have a Registrar Agreement in effect with NeuStar and must be in good standing.
• The losing registrar shall provide to all domain name registrants involved in the bulk transfer 15 days advance written notice of the bulk change of sponsorship.

The amendment provides for a new Section 7 in Appendix 7 of the .Biz Registry Agreement. The process for considering new registry services can be seen here. Absent significant objections, ICANN will enter into this amendment following the public comment period. All documentation regarding this approved service and corresponding comment fora is available here.

Announcement | Comments | Summary/analysis of comments

This announcement includes the draft procedure itself and a draft paper describing the negative impacts to the DNS (tolerance measure) that, if observed, would trigger an emergency revocation procedure. The revocation procedure provides for the rapid removal of IDNs from the root zone if these negative impacts rise to the level specified in the tolerance document. The Root Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC) is also analyzing the tolerance measure.

Following the public comment period ICANN staff will revise these documents and publish a final set of procedures that will be reviewed by ICANN Board of Directors at the ICANN Meeting in San Juan (25-29 June 2007). The procedure will be implemented according to standard processes for newly adopted or revisions to IANA services.

Announcement | Comments | Summary/analysis of comments

All responses are welcome. Targeted comments regarding several areas of performance, which have been drawn from the ICANN Strategic Plan, are of particular interest:

• Is ICANN becoming more transparent, accessible and accountable? What improvements have been observed and what still needs to be done?
• Has ICANN improved its operational performance? What improvements have been observed and what still needs to be done?
• Has ICANN improved its performance in the development of Policy? What improvements have been observed and what still needs to be done?
• Has ICANN increased international participation? What improvements have been observed and what still needs to be done?
• Have there been improvements in participation and in efficiency of the ICANN multi-stakeholder model? What more needs to be done?
• What plans and actions have been observed that position ICANN for more comprehensive transition of the technical coordination of the Internet’s system of unique identifiers. What more needs to be done?
• What improvements have been made in dispute resolution and the application of fairness and equity in the management of complaints and other mechanisms of review that are available? These include the work of the reconsideration committee, the Ombudsman and independent review.

Discussion of this issue is also being encouraged on the ICANN blog, and ICANN's public participation site.

Announcement | Comments | Summary/analysis of comments