A vital part of ICANN's processes is the opportunity for there to be public comment on each substantial piece of work before it is put forward for final approval. This is an archive of one month's public comment periods, arranged according to the month in which the comment period was closed.
Each box below provides a brief explanation of what the comment period hoped to achieve, as well as: links to relevant reports and/or webpages; a link to the official announcement of the comment period; a link to where all existing comments can be found; and an email link for anyone that wished to send in a comment. A “summary/analysis” objectively reviews the comments.
Closed Comment Forums
| New gTLDs – Preliminary Reports on Competition and Pricing | |||||
|
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:
The preliminary reports represent a third party independent analysis. A public comment period is now open to allow for further inputs from the community. Both reports are currently available in English; other linguistic versions will follow shortly. |
||||
| Staff member responsible: Kurt Pritz | |||||
| Proposed Implementation Plan for Synchronized IDN ccTLDs | |||||
|
Explanation/Background: ICANN is pleased to announce the public comment period for the proposed Implementation Plan for Synchronized IDN ccTLDs [PDF, 440K]. Synchronized IDN ccTLDs are described by situations in the Fast Track Process where:
If approved by the ICANN Board, the proposed implementation plan and process will be available for IDN ccTLD requests for synchronized IDN ccTLDs that have completed the String Evaluation step in the Fast Track Process. Following successful completion of the evaluation process, the requesters may initiate delegation of the synchronized IDN ccTLDs by following ICANN's standard processes for TLD delegation, through the IANA function. ICANN hosted two webinar on April 15, 2010. Here are the recordings of those sessions:
You may wish to fast forward to the 4:53 and 4:58 minute mark, respectively. |
||||
| Staff member responsible: Tina Dam | |||||
| GNSO Policy Development Process on Vertical Integration Between Registries and Registrars | |||||
|
Explanation/Background: The GNSO Council is seeking comments regarding the commencement of a policy development process on the topic of vertical integration between registries and registrars. The public comment period ends on 18 April 2010. Background The GNSO Council has commenced a policy development process (PDP) on the topic of vertical integration between registrars and registries. The GNSO Council formed a working group to evaluate whether policy recommendations, if any, should be developed on the topic of vertical integration between registrars and registries affecting both new gTLDs and existing gTLDs. The working group expects to define the range of restrictions on vertical separation that are currently in effect, to serve as a baseline to evaluate future proposals. This public comment forum is an opportunity to comment on any aspect related to the topic of vertical integration between registries and registrars that you think should be taken into account by the Working Group as part of its deliberations. For example, comments may be submitted on: (i) recommended models for the New gTLD Program, (ii) the economic analysis conducted by economists retained by ICANN, including the CRA Report [PDF, 512 KB] as well as the one recently submitted by Salop and Wright [PDF, 42 KB], (iii) the Board approved model proposed by the Board at the ICANN Meeting in Nairobi on 12 March 2010, or (iv) whether the restrictions currently applicable to existing gTLD registries should be changed, or (v) additional work that should be performed by the Working Group to recommend models for the New gTLD Program. |
||||
| Staff member responsible: Margie Milam | |||||
| Draft Report on WHOIS Accuracy | |||||
|
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 |
||||
| Staff member responsible: David Giza | |||||
Announcement | Comments | Summary/analysis of comments |
|||||
| Zone File Access Concept Paper | |||||
|
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.
|
||||
| Staff member responsible: Craig Schwartz | |||||
| .PRO Renewal Registry Agreement | |||||
|
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.
|
||||
| Staff member responsible: Craig Schwartz | |||||
| Chairs Draft Interim Paper for Policy on Introduction of IDN ccTLDs | |||||
|
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? |
||||
| Staff member responsible: Bart Boswinkel | |||||
| Proposed Framework for the Fiscal Year 2011 Operating Plan and Budget | |||||
|
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. 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:
This first public comment period on the FY11 Framework will end 1st April 2010. |
||||
| Staff member responsible: Kevin Wilson | |||||
| Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) | |||||
|
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:
Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) – Redline [PDF, 181 KB] |
||||
| Staff member responsible: Karla Valente | |||||
| TM Clearinghouse | |||||
|
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):
Trademark Clearinghouse (Redline) [PDF, 124 KB] |
||||
| Staff member responsible: Karla Valente | |||||
| Post Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedure (PPDRP) | |||||
|
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:
Post Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedure (PPDRP) – Redline [PDF, 105 KB] |
||||
| Staff member responsible: Karla Valente | |||||
| Registry Restrictions Dispute Resolution Procedure (RRDRP) | |||||
|
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:
Registry Restrictions Dispute Resolution Procedure (RRDRP) – Redline [PDF, 69 KB] |
||||
| Staff member responsible: Karla Valente | |||||
| IDN 3 Character | |||||
|
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: |
||||
| Staff member responsible: Karla Valente | |||||
| IDN Variants | |||||
|
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: |
||||
| Staff member responsible: Karla Valente | |||||
| Benchmarking of Registry Operations | |||||
|
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: |
||||
| Staff member responsible: Karla Valente | |||||
| Process for gTLD Registry Agreement Amendment | |||||
|
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: |
||||
| Staff member responsible: Karla Valente | |||||