Tag Archives: country code Top Level Domains

ICANN: Implementing the Extended Process Similarity Review Panel in the IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process

ICANN logoOn 27 June 2013, the ICANN Board approved the proposed amendments to implement a two-panel process for string similarity review in the Internationalized Domain Names (IDN) country code Top-Level Domain (ccTLD) Fast Track Process.

Today, ICANN is publishing a revised version (in redline) of the IDN ccTLD Fast Track Final Implementation Plan [PDF, 1.07 MB] that includes the changes required for the implementation of the two-panel string similarity review process as approved by the ICANN Board on 27 June 2013.

In addition, ICANN is publishing the Guidelines for the Extended Process Similarity Review Panel (EPSRP) [PDF, 107 KB]. The EPSRP is the second panel of the two-panel process for string similarity review in the IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process.

The two-panel process for string similarity evaluation in the IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process will be effective once the appointment of EPSRP panelists is announced by ICANN. Until the appointment of this second panel is announced, the community should take note that requests under the IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process will continue to be processed according to the version of the IDN ccTLD Fast Track Final Implementation Plan [PDF, 887 KB] published on 4 June 2012.

This ICANN announcement was sourced from:

ICANN: ccNSO FoI WG’s Interim Report on “Revocation”

ICANN logoPurpose (Brief): The ccNSO Framework of Interpretation Working Group (FoI WG) seeks public comment on its initial interpretations of current policy and guidelines related to “Revocation”, which is defined as redelgations undertaken without the consent of the ccTLD manager. “Revocation” refers to the process by which the IANA Operator rescinds responsibility for management of a ccTLD from a manager.
Current Status: The Interim Report is published to seek feed-back and input from the community on the proposed interpretations of the current policies and guidelines. This is part of the process for developing recommendations to the ccNSO and GAC and ultimately to ICANN Board on the interpretation of current, existing policy and guidelines realting to the delegation and redelgation of ccTLD‘s.
Next Steps: The WG will closely review all submitted comments to determine at may at its reasonable discretion modify its report. According to its charter the WG is not obligated to include all comments made during the comment period, nor is it obligated to include all comments submitted by any one individual or organization.

The Working Group expects to formally publish its Final Report prior to the next ICANN meeting in London (June 2014)

Detailed Information

Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose:

The FoI WG identified the applicable polices and procedure statements and reviewed past cases of re-delegations undertaken without the consent of the incumbent operator. Based on this analysis the FOIWG examined issues arising in the context of the applicable policies and procedures and developed draft interpretations summarized below.

  • RFC 1591 identifies three mechanisms available to the IANA Operator: Delegation, Transfer and Revocation.
  • Under RFC 1591, a Transfer requires the consent of the incumbent ccTLD manager.
  •  “Revocation” refers to the process by which the IANA Operator rescinds responsibility for management of a ccTLD from a manager.
  • The WG interprets RFC 1591 to limit Revocation to cases where the IANA Operator reasonably demonstrates that there are persistent problems with the operation of the domain, or the manager continues to engage in “substantial misbehavior”, despite the efforts of the IANA Operator using all means at its disposal to resolve such conduct.
  • If a manager is engaged in “substantial misbehavior” or there are “persistent problems in the operation of a ccTLD” and the ccTLD manager is unwilling or unable to rectify the problems to the reasonable satisfaction of the IANA Operator and/or stop the offending conduct, the IANA Operator may propose a Transfer.
  •  If the manager does not consent to a proposed Transfer, the only mechanism available to the IANA Operator to deal with ultimately intractable problems is Revocation.
  • If the IANA Operator revokes a delegation it should attempt, in collaboration with the significantly interested parties, to ensure the ccTLD will continue to resolve names until a suitable replacement can take over.
  • The FOIWG believes it is consistent general principles of fairness and with RFC1591 to afford an affected manager the opportunity to appeal a notice of revocation issued by the IANA Operator to an independent body.

The FOI WG seeks community feedback on the following questions:

  1. Is the approach used by the working group satisfactory?
  2. Do the issues identified by the working group for this topic capture the major problems associated with the topic? If not what is missing?
  3. Is the proposed interpretation of the relevant sections of RFC 1591 effective and supported?
  4. Are the proposed recommendations effective in addressing the concerns raised in the final report of the DRDWG regarding this topic?
Section II: Background:

The FOIWG was created by the ccNSO Council following the recommendations of the Delegation and Re-delegation Working Group (DRDWG): Recommendation 2: Delegation and re-delegation of ccTLDs

The DRDWG recommends that, as a first step, the ccNSO Council undertakes the development of a “Framework of Interpretation” for the delegation and re-delegation of ccTLDs. This framework should provide a clear guide to IANA and the ICANN Board on interpretations of the current policies, guidelines and procedures relating to the delegation and re-delegation of ccTLDs.

The results of the use of such a Framework of Interpretation should be formally monitored and evaluated by the ccNSO Council after a pre-determined period. If the results of this evaluation indicate that the Framework of Interpretation failed to provide logical and predictable outcomes in ICANN decision making, the ccNSO Council should then launch PDPs on the delegation and re-delegation of ccTLDs.

The Final Report of the Delegation Redelegation and Retirement Working Group (DRDWG) identified the following issues pertaining to “Unconsented Redelegations”:

No procedure for re-delegation of a ccTLD without the consent of the incumbent operator. RFC1591 nor ICP1 discuss the re-delegation of a ccTLD without the consent of the incumbent operator. Instead both of these documents discuss the revocation of a delegation by IANA, for cause, followed by a re-delegation to a new operator. This is somewhat confusing given that in these types of situations the revocation has never caused a ccTLD to be removed from the root prior to being delegated to a new operator &ndash thus trying to ensure continued resolution of the domains registered in the relevant ccTLD. This further illustrates some of the issues surrounding the re-delegation of ccTLDs without the consent of the incumbent operator.

The objective of the FOIWG is to develop and propose a “Framework of Interpretation” for the delegation and re-delegation of ccTLDs. This framework should provide a clear guide to IANA functions manager and the ICANN Board on interpretation of the current Policy Statements.

Section III: Document and Resource Links: 

The Interim Report can be found at: Interim Report on Revocation [PDF, 220 KB]

Additional Resources:

Further information on the work of the FoI WG is available at: ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/foiwg.htm

Section IV: Additional Information: 

The Interim Report addresses the third of the following topics and which will be considered individually and in the order presented:

  • Obtaining and documenting consent for delegation and re-delegation requests
  • Obtaining and documenting support for delegation and re-delegation requests from Significantly Interested Parties (sometimes referred to as Local Internet Community or LIC).
  • Developing recommendations for un-consented re-delegations
  • Developing a comprehensive glossary of the terms used for the delegation and re-delegation of ccTLDs.
  • Developing recommendations for IANA reports on delegation and re-delegation

Comment / Reply Periods

  • Comment Open Date: 28 October 2013
  • Comment Close Date: 20 December 2013 – 23:59 UTC
  • Reply Open Date: 21 December 2013
  • Reply Close Date: 31 January 2014 – 23:59 UTC

Important Information Link

Afnic Shows Correlation Between Creation Of French Companies and Domain Registrations

cAFNIC logoThere is a high correlation between the registrations of domain names and companies being created, the latest Afnic Domain Name Industry Report has found.

From January 2007 until mid-2013, Afnic found there is a high correlation that is consistent throughout the years. However there are aberrations such as in 2008/2009, the rate declined due to the introduction of the auto-entrepreneur status in January 2009 with a large number of people opting for this tax status Then in December 2011 with the opening of .fr to all Europeans and then again with the introduction of domains with IDN characters also saw a drop in the correlation.

AFNIC FR Domain Registrations Correlation Graph

Afnic says there are two conclusions that can be drawn from their research, these being that most new companies integrate “internet” issues in their strategies by registering at least one domain name and that the domain name is usually a .fr domain.

This reflects research conducted by other ccTLDs, with the most recent being for .au that was released this week (see here or here) that showed around 56 percent of Australians, or 74 percent of those who register a domain, choose .au for their online presence.

ICANN: Consultation on ccTLD Delegation and Redelegation Performance Standards

ICANN logoPurpose (Brief): A consultation on developing performance standards for Delegation and Redelegation of a ccTLD.

Detailed Information

Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose

The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions contract

(SA1301-12-CN-0035) between ICANN and the United States Department of Commerce, National Telecommunications Information Administration (NTIA) to maintain the continuity and stability of services related to certain interdependent Internet technical management functions, known collectively as the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority calls for a public consultation from all interested and affected parties to help satisfy the following objective:

    C.2.8 Performance Standards — Within six (6) months of award, the Contractor shall develop performance standards, in collaboration with all interested and affected parties as enumerated in Section C.1.3, for each of the IANA functions as set forth at C.2.9 to C.2.9.4 and post via a website.

This consultation involves the operation of the Delegations and Redelegations of Country Code Top Level Domains (ccTLDs) described in the IANA functions contract as the following:

C.2.9.2.c Delegation and Redelegation of a Country Code Top Level-Domain (ccTLD) –The Contractor shall apply existing policy frameworks in processing requests related to the delegation and redelegation of a ccTLD, such as RFC 1591 Domain Name System Structure and Delegation, the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) Principles And Guidelines For The Delegation And Administration Of Country Code Top Level Domains, and any further clarification of these policies by interested and affected parties as enumerated in Section C.1.3. If a policy framework does not exist to cover a specific instance, the Contractor will consult with the interested and affected parties, as enumerated in Section C.1.3; relevant public authorities; and governments on any recommendation that is not within or consistent with an existing policy framework. In making its recommendations, the Contractor shall also take into account the relevant national frameworks and applicable laws of the jurisdiction that the TLD registry serves. The Contractor shall submit its recommendations to the COR via a Delegation and Redelegation Report.

Section II: Background

This is one of a series of consultations to establish performance standards for the delivery of the IANA functions, as described in contract SA1301-12-CN-0035.

Section III: Document and Resource Links

Comment/Reply Periods

Comment Open:     15 January 2013
Comment Close:     28 February 2013
Close Time (UTC):     23:59     Public Comment Announcement
Reply Open:     1 March 2013     To Submit Your Comments (Forum)
Reply Close:     21 March 2013     View Comments Submitted
Close Time (UTC):     23:59     Report of Public Comments

This ICANN announcement was sourced from:

Issues For New gTLDs And ccTLDs Broaden Their Appeal Focus of US News

Domain names have been the focus of articles in America’s two leading quality newspapers, The New York Times and The Washington Post, over the last few days.The New York Times looked at country code Top Level Domains that have attempted to broaden their base by exploiting their code. For example, the attempt by the .CO (Colombia) registry to market themselves as an alternative to .COM and .ME (Montenegro) to promote its use by social media sites and bloggers.With more than 600,000 registrations of .CO domains in over 200 countries, the registry notes they hope to reach five million registrations with five years.Meanwhile The Washington Post looks at the expansion of new generic Top Level Domains saying “the trusty .com domain … is about to face vast new competition that will dramatically transform the Web as we know it.”The article looks at potentially controversial gTLD strings such as .ABORTION, .ISLAM or .MUHAMMAD and asks who will get to operate these controversial gTLDs. “Can the Ku Klux Klan own .NAZI on free speech grounds, or will a Jewish organization run the domain and permit only educational Web sites – say, remember.nazi or antidefamation.nazi? And who’s going to get .AMAZON – the Internet retailer or Brazil?”While there are bound to be some controversial gTLDs applied for, it is hard to imagine the demand for many of their suggestions. Maybe .AMAZON could be in demand.One controversial gTLD could be .GAY with two groups likely to apply for the rights to operate it, while .ECO also has two groups interested in applying for this string, one of which is “a nonprofit chaired by former vice president Al Gore; the other from a group founded by former Soviet Union president Mikhail Gorbachev.”Not being based in the US, it is hard to fully comprehend whether the concerns expressed in .GAY are reasonable.Scott Seitz, the CEO of DotGay LLC, “who is gay, said the simple idea of operating the domain devoted to the gay movement exerts its own pressures. ‘I have a responsibility, and I am in awe of that,'” Seitz told The Washington Post, “adding that he and his business partners intend on donating two-thirds of their revenue to various social causes. ‘I buried 40 friends in 18 months [who died from complications related to HIV]. Having .GAY is scary, it could be crazy. I’ve already told people to get steel doors and window bars for security to protect against anti-gay organizations that wouldn’t want dot-gay to happen.'”To read the articles in full, see:
For Countries That Own Shorter Web Site Suffixes, Extra Cash From Abroad
www.nytimes.com/2011/02/07/technology/07dotco.htmlRush is on for custom domain name suffixes

The National ccTLD Disputes: Between State Actors and Non-State Actors by Y.J. Park

Since 1985, non-state actors under Jon Postel’s leadership have experimented creating virtual national spaces on the Internet through so-called “country code top level domain names” (ccTLDs). There are 251 ccTLDs on the Internet. In 1998, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) – the newly established coordination body for Internet addresses including ccTLDs – stressed out the principle of private sector leadership instead of public sector administration of Internet identifiers. ICANN’s coordination of ccTLDs required state actors to comply with the principle of private sector leadership in a top-down manner.As of 2009, the question of how to govern ccTLDs is still disputed at the national level between state actors and non-state actors, with state actors starting to reassert their power over ccTLDs, ignoring the principle of private sector leadership recommended by ICANN. This study presents five different national ccTLDs dispute cases, to investigate why national ccTLDs disputes have increased after the establishment of ICANN and how are state actors trying to regain control over ccTLDs.To download and read this article by Y. J. Park in the International Journal of Communications Law and Policy, see:

ICANN: Webinars: Synchronised IDN ccTLDs

ICANN posted on 22 March 2010 a Proposed Implementation Plan for Synchronized IDN ccTLDs.Synchronized IDN ccTLDs are described by situations in the Fast Track Process where:

  • IDN ccTLDs are requested in more than one official language or script in a country/territory,
  • the requests for corresponding multiple strings are considered equivalent,
  • delegation would solve a significant problem for Internet users, and
  • users accessing domains under any of the equivalent IDN ccTLDs expect that such domains will resolve to the same address or value.

There are several comments in the still open Public Comment forum for the proposed plan icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201004-en.htm#synch. In addition, several independent observations and requests for clarification have been made by the technical community. In order to address these, ICANN has published a set of Questions & Answers (Q&A) and is conducting two webinars. The webinars will include a presentation of the Proposed Implementation Plan and allow for questions by interested participants.The webinars will be conducted on Thursday 15 April, 2010 at 01:00 UTC and at 14:00 UTC. The two webinars will contain the same content but are set to facilitate participation across time zones. Registration and more information about webinar participation can be found at the ICANN e-learning site.Participants should read the Q&A and the Implementation Plan for Synchronized IDN ccTLDs prior to the webinar.The webinars will be recorded and the recordings will be published in the public comment forum for the Proposed Implementation Plan. The public comment period was originally scheduled to end on 13 April, and is now extended through 17 April at 00:00 UTC.This ICANN announcement was sourced from: