Archived forums:

• Domain Tasting
  (ends 21 May 08)
• Absentee Voting
  (ends 21 May 08)
• PIR's Proposed Implementation of DNSSEC
  (ends 24 May 08)
• Discussion Draft of Interim Report of IDNC WG (IDN ccTLD Fast Track)
  (ends 25 Apr 08)

• GNSO Improvements Report
• ICANN Travel Support Policy
• Nominating Committee review
• RegistryPro contract amendments
• Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy initial report
• Domain Tasting
• Add Grace Period Modifications
• Translation Programme
• New gTLDs - DNS Stability
• Initial report on ccIDN fasttrack
• Introduction of IDN ccTLDs

Upcoming forums:

• Translation Programme

Recent changes:

• 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
• Dec 2007
• Nov 2007

• 2007 Archive

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 | Add a comment | 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: On 3 April 2008, ICANN posted PIR's proposal to implement DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC) in .ORG for public information. ICANN has made a preliminary determination that the PIR proposal requires further consideration by the Registry Services Technical Evaluation Panel (RSTEP) because the new service could raise significant Security or Stability issues.

In order to inform the RSTEP review team and ICANN Board, ICANN is opening a comment period on PIR's proposed implementation. All documents related to the PIR proposal are available at http://www.icann.org/registries/rsep/#2008004.

Announcement | Comments | Add a comment | 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 | Add a comment | 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 grant the 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: On 5 February 2008, NeuStar and Afilias submitted separate but similar requests through the Registry Services Evaluation Process to modify the AGP in their respective TLDs in order “to address the excessive delete problem” (i.e. domain tasting) in .BIZ and .INFO.

Currently there are no limitations on the number of deletions that a registrar can process and receive a refund during the five-day AGP. The proposed service would limit the number of AGP deletions where a registrar could receive a full registration fee credit each month: either 50 per month or 10% of that registrar’s net new monthly domain name registrations, whichever is greater.

A registrar would be permitted to delete as many names as it wished during the five-day AGP, receiving credit throughout the month. However, at the end of the .BIZ or .INFO normal monthly billing cycle the Registrar’s account would be debited for the full value of the domain name registrations that exceeded the month’s set threshold.

Announcement | NeuStar Comments | Afilias 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

Explanation: The ICANN community has recently completed a policy development process regarding the introduction of new generic top-level domains (gTLDs) which resulted in a set of GNSO recommendations to guide ICANN in introducing new gTLDs to the namespace.

The recommendations concluded that "ICANN must implement a process that allows the introduction of new top-level domains," and called for a procedure respecting the principles of fairness, transparency and non-discrimination. In preparing for the expected implementation of the gTLD policy recommendations, staff is conducting some review and analysis of the technical issues involved in this development. The addition of gTLDs to the namespace is an expansion of the DNS on a potentially large scale, to include many more names at the top level. One of the policy recommendations developed in relation to the introduction of new gTLDs included the requirement that "strings must not cause any technical instability."

ICANN is publishing this paper [pdf] to solicit informed input on the technical issues relevant to the addition of new gTLDs, and to provide transparency toward how it will interpret and implement this recommendation. The goal is a clear set of rules that will be available to potential new gTLD applicants, so that it is known from the outset what tests will be applied to each application.

ICANN is seeking feedback on the proposed approach to these areas as a step in its implementation planning for the introduction of new gTLDs.

Announcement | Comments | Summary/analysis of comments

Explanation: A working group of the ccNSO (the IDNC WG) is reviewing the possible 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. The Charter of the group can be found here.

An Initial Report is the first step in a four-step process for the Working Group to arrive at a Final Report. A discussion draft [pdf] of that Initial Report has been released, and comments on it are welcome until 26 February 2008.

Announcement | Comments | Summary/analysis of comments

Explanation: The country code Names Supporting Organisation (ccNSO) - which represents the manager of the country code top-level domains such as .de for Germany, or .uk for the Britain - asked for an issues paper to be drawn up regarding the possible introduction of ccTLDs as internationalized domain names (IDNs) i.e. for the two-letter country codes currently used on the Internet to be provided in a non-Western alphabet.

In particular the issues report will cover whether the existing ICANN bylaws cover IDN versions of the two-letter codes (as defined by the ISO 3166-1 list); and whether the ccNSO should launch a policy development process (PDP) into delegation of IDN versions of ISO 3166-1 codes.

The staff member responsible for drawing up the report was asked to identify policies, procedures, and/or bylaws that should be reviewed and, as necessary revised as a result of such a policy. The staff member was also asked to propose a timeline for conducting each stage of a possible future PDP.

The various ongoing policy issues that may impact this paper, as well as a suggested format for people to submit their comments in is available in the official announcement of this public comment forum. We advise that those interested in responding review that announcement in full.

Please note that it is not necessary at this stage to make suggestions to resolve any issues relating to an overall policy or answer any questions.

Announcement | Comments | Summary/analysis of comments