Tag Archives: GNSO

Apply Now for ICANN Leadership Positions: Deadline is 20 March

ICANN participants logoICANN‘s Nominating Committee (NomCom) invites interested individuals to submit applications and/or to recommend candidates for ICANN‘s key leadership positions. Applications are invited for the following positions:

  • Three members of the ICANN Board of Directors
  • Two At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) representatives (one each from the Europe and North America regions)
  • One member of the Council of the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO)
  • One member of the Council of the Country-Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO)

Individuals selected by the NomCom will have a unique opportunity to work with accomplished colleagues from around the globe and help shape the Internet’s technical coordination and policy development.

Those selected will also gain valuable insights and experience from working across boundaries of knowledge, responsibility, culture and geography. They will be making a valuable public service contribution towards the functioning and evolution of this essential global resource. Guided by the broad public interest, those selected will work to fulfill ICANN‘s mission to coordinate the global Internet’s systems of unique identifiers, and in particular to ensure its stable and secure operation.

Current NomCom-selected Board members include: Cherine Chalaby, Steve Crocker, Asha Hemrajani, Rafael Lito Ibarra, Bruno Lanvin, Erika Mann, George Sadowsky and Lousewies Van der Laan.

Please submit applications for the positions described above through the on-line application request form at (http://nomcom.icann.org/apply) or by emailing nomcom2016@icann.org.

For more information, please visit the 2016 NomCom website. If you have any questions or comments, please email: nomcom2016@icann.org.

Candidate recommendations are encouraged and can be submitted through an on-line form at http://nomcom.icann.org/suggest.

All applications are confidential and should be received by 20 March 2016 (23:59 UTC) for full consideration. Selections will be announced in August or September 2016. Successful candidates will take up their positions following ICANN‘s Annual Meeting in October 2016.

Fluency in English is a requirement for all positions.

These positions require regular participation in teleconferences and may involve significant international travel, including travel to ICANN‘s three annual Public Meetings. Recent ICANN Public Meetings were held in Singapore, Buenos Aires and Dublin. Meetings during 2016 will be held in Marrakech (5 – 10 March 2016), Panama City and San Juan.

Reasonable direct expenses incurred in the course of service will be reimbursed.

Each Board Member has the option to receive compensation in accordance with the resolution passed by the Board on 30 July 2014, but is not required to do so. (See https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2014-07-30-en#2.b.)

Background:

The NomCom is an independent committee tasked with selecting eight members of the Board of Directors and other key positions within ICANN‘s structure.

It is designed to function independently from the ICANN Board, Supporting Organizations, and Advisory Committees. NomCom members act only on behalf of the interests of the global Internet community and within the scope of the ICANN mission and responsibilities assigned to it by the ICANN Bylaws.

NomCom members contribute understanding of the broad interests of the Internet community as a whole, and knowledge and experience of specific Internet constituencies who have appointed them.

The challenge for the NomCom is to integrate these perspectives and derive consensus in its selections. Although appointed by Supporting Organizations and other ICANN bodies, individual NomCom members are not accountable to their appointing bodies.

NomCom members are accountable for adherence to the ICANN Bylaws and for compliance with the rules and procedures established by the NomCom.

This ICANN announcement was sourced from:
https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-12-17-en

ICA Tells ICANN That Comprehensive UDRP Review Should Follow RPM Analysis by Philip Corwin, Internet Commerce Association

Internet Commerce Association logoOn November 30th ICA filed its comment letter regarding the “Preliminary Issue Report on a GNSO Policy Development Process to Review All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDs” that was published for public comment on October 9, 2015.

ICA’s complete comment can be viewed at forum.icann.org/lists/comments-rpm-prelim-issue-09oct15/msg00021.html, and all 24 filed comments are available at forum.icann.org/lists/comments-rpm-prelim-issue-09oct15/index.html.

The principal question raised by the Report was whether the review and possible adjustment of new gTLD RPMs and the review and potential reform of the UDRP should be combined or separated. On that key decision, our comment letter said that the RPMs should be addressed prior to the UDRP review for these reasons:

We believe that the RPM review and the UDRP review each constitutes a highly complex array of interrelated questions and judgments, and that trying to combine the two into a single mega-review will tax any Working Group (WG) inordinately.

In particular, the UDRP review will constitute the first comprehensive inquiry into ICANN’s oldest Consensus Policy. It may address structural issues; such as whether ICANN should enter into uniform contractual agreements with all UDRP providers, whether there should be clear boundaries to prevent individual dispute providers’ Supplementary Rules from influencing decisional outcomes, and whether an internal appeals procedure should provide an avenue for a ‘UDRP Supreme Court’ to address and reconcile disparate decisions by different providers on nearly identical fact patterns.

…Both domain registrants and trademark owner complainants deserve, after nearly two decades of unexamined use, a UDRP review and reform process that is accorded adequate time for comprehensive review and development of subsequent recommendations. This review of necessity must be preceded by the RPM review, as it was the intent of the GNSO Council in 2011 that the UDRP review be informed by that of the RPMs and by any changes made to them. Further, as staff notes at page 8 of the Report, one result of “this approach is the fact that community consideration of the more general overarching issue concerning the comprehensiveness of all the RPMs as a set of aggregate protections for trademark holders in all gTLDs, as well as the issue of whether any of the new RPMs should be considered Consensus Policies like the UDRP, will necessarily be postponed to the second phase of work”. Unlike staff, we do not view that consideration as a drawback but as a far more responsible approach than considering integration of any of the new gTLD RPMs in legacy gTLD without knowing whether or in what manner they may be altered.

We agree with staff that “One benefit of this two-pronged approach is better alignment of the timing of the work on reviewing the new RPMs with the operational reviews of the New gTLD Program (including the CCT Review) and, conceivably, a new PDP on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures”. We fully expect that there will be substantial interest in completing the RPM review prior to the opening of any second round of new gTLDs, and that consideration provides another reason for structural separation. If the RPM and UDRP reviews were addressed together, substantial pressure could arise to truncate the UDRP portion lest it delay the timing and adoption of final RPM recommendations. As a result this first-ever UDRP review could get short shrift and inadequate attention.

Many of the other groups and individuals who filed comments also took the view that the RPM and UDRP reviews should be separate, with the RPMs teed up first.

What did surprise us was the reluctance of the trademark community to even contemplate a review of the UDRP, much less consider any changes based on nearly twenty years of experience with it.

The International Trademark Association (INTA) asserted that it is “is strongly opposed to opening the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) to review as the UDRP has been functioning efficiently and well for over fifteen years. It is important to maintain this effective mechanism which combats the most blatant instances of cybersquatting within the domain name system. Any review or subsequent modifications could jeopardize the benefits that the UDRP is intended to provide to trademark owners.” Having attended INTA conferences along with thousands of others, and seen the money invested in global branding as well as the sector’s political influence, it strains credulity to believe that trademark owners could be “rolled’ in the course of a UDRP review.

ICANN’s Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC) warned “that the complexity of any review would be immense and the drain on resources considerable, with a risk of creating new problems via an overly complicated review process… the IPC has a serious concern that if a review were to be carried out, there is a risk of a polarization of views into two camps – each with a fear that the other camp would either dilute or overly strengthen the UDRP. Improvements sought by one side would be seen as potentially abusive to registrants, improvements sought by the other as potentially diluting the effectiveness of a mechanism for resolving disputes efficiently… if a review of the UDRP as a policy is to be considered, an “Expert Group” should be assembled to carry out this review.” For ICA’s part, we think that, just like war is too important to just be left to the generals, UDRP review and reform is too important to just be left to “experts” and must include participation by those with broader views of the UDRP’s impact on domain registrants and free expression, among other key considerations.

And UN agency and accredited UDRP provider the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) opined that “the UDRP continues to function as intended. In its harmonized criteria and universal application, this anti-cybersquatting mechanism has come to be recognized as an international policy success… Destabilization of the predictable UDRP framework may have a range of unintended consequences. It would disrupt the body of precedent carefully developed by hundreds of panelists from across jurisdictions in tens of thousands of cases… Each day, the UDRP demonstrates the flexibility to meet the demands of an evolving DNS; it does not need system-wide updates that would imprudently limit this flexibility”. To the contrary, domain investors would respond that this “flexibility” is code for a lack of any binding precedent that makes the UDRP more of a casino game in a world of proliferating UDRP providers.

We are pleased that ICANN’s Business Constituency, of which ICA is a member, took a more balanced approach, stating, “While the BC believes that the UDRP is working well overall, it now seems timely to engage in a review of its performance with an eye toward considering possible improvements, so long as that UDRP review commences after completion of the RPM review.”

In response to the trademark community’s message of opposition and excessive caution, ICA added this final point to our comment’s Executive Summary, to wit:

Finally, we have strong disagreement with the view expressed by a minority of commenters that the UDRP review anticipated by the GNSO Council’s Resolution of December 15, 2011 should not proceed at all, and that any such undertaking would be unduly arduous and dangerous. The UDRP is the only ICANN Consensus Policy that has never been reviewed. Like any human undertaking, it is not perfect and was drafted by individuals who could not have known how it would be implemented in practice. Any UDRP review should of course be fully informed by the actual record of UDRP practice and experience of participants, and should proceed carefully. But we are confident that a good faith UDRP review that considers the legitimate rights and interests of both registrants and complainants, as well as related public policy issues, can produce a more balanced and consistent system that preserves the fundamental virtues of the UDRP while yielding modifications that benefit all affected parties.

ICA looks forward to participating in both the RPM and UDRP reviews. ICANN staff is scheduled to deliver a Report summarizing comments and suggesting next steps by December 10th. Following receipt of that report, the GNSO Council will decide on a way forward and, if ICA’s and other commenters’ proposed procedure is followed, will consider a draft Charter for an RPM review working group in the initial months of 2016.

Throughout the coming review processes, ICA will be an active participant seeking to protect the legitimate rights and interests of domain investors and developers and to bring greater balance between trademark and domain rights.

Here’s the rest of our comment letter’s Executive Summary:

Executive Summary

  • ICA prefers a separate and sequential approach for the reviews and subsequent reports and recommendations, with the RPM review preceding and thereby informing the UDRP review.
  • ICA reiterates all of the points made and views expressed in our prior RPM comment letter of April 30, 2015.
  • ICA believes that the URS has been largely effective in achieving its intended goals. We would strongly oppose any alterations that could make it a substitute for, rather than a narrow supplement to, the UDRP. In addition, the initiation of a PDP to determine whether the URS and other new gTLD RPMs should become Consensus Policies for all gTLDs, and the full consideration of the multiple transitional issues accompanying any such decision, illustrates again that the decision of GDD staff to seek imposition of the URS in contract renewal negotiations with legacy gTLDs was a direct and impermissible intrusion into the policy realm reserved to GNSO Council by ICANN’s Bylaws. ICANN’s Board should therefore instruct GDD staff to cease and desist from any such attempts during the time that these PDPs are open and active, and should refuse to approve any legacy gTLD renewal contract that contains any provision of new gTLD RPMs.
  • The language of Trademark Claims notices may deter legitimate noninfringing domain registrations at new gTLDs. This situation can be partly but not completely addressed by providing more comprehensive information in the notice to the prospective registrant, and also clarifying under what circumstances the post-notice registration of a domain will be considered to constitute “bad faith” for UDRP and URS purposes.
  • Labels that generate a Trademark Claims notice should not be expanded beyond the present system of exact matches of the trademark, plus domain labels recovered in UDRP or court actions under the ‘Trademark-plus-fifty’ implementation measure.
  • The right of first refusal for a premium domain name during or after the sunrise period should be conditioned on whether the trademark is unique or a dictionary word, and if a dictionary word whether the gTLD label is related to the goods and services for which it is registered.
  • Our responses to the report’s UDRP questions emphasize the need for a mechanism, perhaps via an optional internal appeal, to establish greater predictability and consistency in decisions dealing with similar facts; better protection for free speech, especially legitimate noncommercial criticism; more equitable time periods for respondents to choose counsel and draft answers; a fairer means of allocating cases among UDRP providers and their panelists; and establishment of a uniform laches policy barring complaints in defined circumstances.
  • Our additional comments on the UDRP address the need for clear guidelines and meaningful penalties to determine and deter attempted Reverse Domain Name Hijacking; greater transparency requirements for UDRP providers; and establishment of an ICANN-maintained centralized database of UDRP decisions and other relevant information.

This article by Philip Corwin from the Internet Commerce Association was sourced with permission from:
http://www.internetcommerce.org/rpm-udrp-review/

ICANN: Proposed implementation of GNSO Policy Development Process Recommendations on Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part D

ICANN logoPurpose: The public comment proceeding seeks to obtain community input on the proposed implementation of the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Policy Development Process (PDP) recommendations on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part D.

Current Status: The IRTP Part D PDP Working Group delivered its Final Report [PDF, 1.1 MB] to the GNSO Council on 5 September 2014. The GNSO Council adopted the report and its recommendations unanimously on 15 October 2014. The ICANN Board adopted the recommendations of the IRTP Part D Working Group on 12 February 2015. The Implementation Review Team in conjunction with ICANN staff worked together to develop a revised Transfer Dispute Resolution Policy (TDRP) as well as a revised Transfer Policy. Community input is now sought on the revised TDRP and Transfer Policy to ensure that the proposed revisions meet the intent of the policy recommendations.

Next Steps: ICANN staff will review the comments received in collaboration with the Implementation Review Team to determine whether any changes need to be made to the proposed implementation as a result of the input received. Following that, the TDRP and Transfer Policy will be finalized and the implementation effective date announced. In addition, education and outreach materials will be prepared to accompany the implementation.

Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose

In consultation with the GNSO Implementation Review Team, which was formed as directed by the GNSO Council to work with ICANN staff to ensure that the resultant implementation fulfills the intentions of the approved policy recommendations, ICANN staff reviewed the TDRP and Transfer Policy and has proposed revisions which include amongst others:

  • elimination of the first level (registry level) of the TDRP
  • the statute of limitation to launch a TDRP is extended from 6 months to 12 months from the initial transfer
  • inclusion of reporting requirements
  • inclusion of updated definitions into the TDRP
  • inclusion of additional reasons to deny a transfer under the Transfer Policy (e.g., pending UDRP proceeding, pending TDRP proceeding)

ICANN staff and the GNSO Implementation Review Team are now looking for input on the proposed revisions to the TDRP and Transfer Policy, which aim to satisfy the intent of the GNSO Policy Recommendations.

Additionally, any feedback on the expected time needed for affected parties to implement the revised TDRP and Transfer Policy before coming into effect, would be appreciated.

Section II: Background

The Transfer Policy provides the policy framework for domain name transfers between registrars. The Transfer Policy also provides standardized requirements for inter-registrar transfer disputes – through the Transfer Dispute Resolution Policy (TDRP).

The Transfer Policy (formerly, the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy or IRTP) is an existing community consensus policy that was implemented in late 2004 and has been revised numerous times since then. The IRTP Part D Policy Development Process (PDP) is the fourth and final PDP of this series of revisions. The Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council resolved at its meeting on 17 October 2012 to launch an Issue Report on IRTP Part D, which should include all the remaining issues identified by the original transfers Working Groups as well as the additional issue identified by the IRTP Part C WG.

The GNSO Council requested an Issue Report from Staff on this fourth and final IRTP PDP Working Group at its meeting on 22 June 2012 which combined all remaining issues identified by the original transfers WG as well as the additional issue identified by the by the previous IRTP Part C PDP Working Group.

Those charter questions are:

  1. Whether reporting requirements for registries and dispute providers should be developed, in order to make precedent and trend information available to the community and allow reference to past cases in dispute submissions;
  2. Whether additional provisions should be included in the TDRP (Transfer Dispute Resolution Policy) on how to handle disputes when multiple transfers have occurred;
  3. Whether dispute options for registrants should be developed and implemented as part of the policy (registrants currently depend on registrars to initiate a dispute on their behalf);
  4. Whether requirements or best practices should be put into place for registrars to make information on transfer dispute resolution options available to registrant;
  5. Whether existing penalties for policy violations are sufficient or if additional provisions/penalties for specific violations should be added into the policy;
  6. Whether the universal adoption and implementation of EPP AuthInfo codes has eliminated the need of FOAs

The IRTP Part D PDP Working Group delivered its Final Report [PDF, 1.1 MB] to the GNSO Council on 5 September 2014. The report and its recommendations were adopted unanimously by the GNSO Council on 15 October 2014. The ICANN Board adopted the recommendations of the IRTP Part D Working Group on 12 February 2015. The Implementation Review Team in conjunction with ICANN staff worked together to develop a revised Transfer Dispute Resolution Policy (TDRP) as well as a revised Transfer Policy. Community input is now sought on the revised TDRP and Transfer Policy to ensure that the proposed revisions meet the intent of the policy recommendations.

Section III: Relevant Resources

This ICANN announcement was sourced from:
https://www.icann.org/public-comments/irtp-d-implementation-2015-11-10-en

Close Date Extension: Preliminary Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Public Comment Period

ICANN logoThe public comment period for the Preliminary Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures has been extended to 30 October 2015 23:59 UTC.

At the request of the GNSO Council via a resolution passed during its meeting on 24 September 2015, ICANN staff has determined to extend the public comment period from 40 days to 60 days. Beyond providing additional time for the community to consider the report, the anticipated benefits are that the close date will no longer fall just prior to ICANN54 and discussions about the report can occur during the meeting while the public comment period remains open.

This ICANN announcement was sourced from:
https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-10-02-en

Pre-ICANN 54 Policy Update Webinar

ICANN54 Dublin logoThe ICANN Policy Development Support Team will provide a Policy Update Webinar on Thursday, 8 October 2015 at 10:00 UTC and 19:00 UTC, summarizing policy activities across the ICANN policy development community and the ongoing Transition of Stewardship of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Functions and the ICANN Accountability efforts.

Please RSVP via this form by 2 October 2015. Remote participation details will be sent the week of 5 October 2015.

Updates will also be provided on topics from ICANN‘s Support Organizations and Advisory Committees:

  • Address Supporting Organization (ASO) and Regional Internet Registries (RIR) Activities
  • Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO): New generic Top Level Domain subsequent procedures
  • Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO): Data & Metrics for GNSO policy making
  • Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO): Review of Rights Protection Mechanisms in all generic Top Level Domains
  • Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO): Next Generation generic Top Level Domain Registration Directory Services to Replace WHOIS
  • Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO): Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues
  • Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO) Activity Update
  • At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) and Regional At-Large Organizations (RALO) Activities
  • At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC): The work of the At-Large Structure (ALS) Criteria and Expectations Taskforce
  • Government Advisory Committee‘s (GAC) High-Level Meeting (HLM) at ICANN 55 in Marrakech
  • Government Advisory Committee‘s (GAC): The Protection of IGO Names and Acronyms
  • Root Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC) Activity Update
  • Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) Activity Update

The two sessions are duplicates, scheduled to accommodate different time zones. Each session runs for 90 minutes and will be conducted in English. The webinar will be conducted in Adobe Connect along with a dial-in conference bridge for audio.

Participants will have the opportunity to ask questions at the end of each session. During the course of the webinar, questions may be submitted using the chat function in Adobe Connect.

Recordings of the webinars will be made available here. The Policy Development Support Team is always available to answer any questions via email at policyinfo@icann.org.

Please RSVP via this form by 2 October 2015.
Remote participation details will be sent the week of 5 October 2015.

This ICANN announcement was sourced from:
https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-09-17-en

Independent Examiner Issues Final Report of Their Review of the GNSO

ICANN logoWestlake Governance Limited (“Westlake Governance”), the independent examiner for the review of the Generic Names Supporting Organization (“GNSO“) has issued its final report. This marks an important milestone in ICANN‘s commitment to continuous improvement, accountability and transparency. After extensive consultation with the GNSO and the broader ICANN community, including a formal public comment process and ongoing engagement and participation of the GNSO Review Working Party, Westlake Governance formulated their conclusions.

Westlake determined that the GNSO has made good progress in implementing a Working Group model as the foundation for consensus work, in restructuring the GNSO Council and in improving communications and coordination with the ICANN Board and other structures, among other improvements. Recognizing that organizational effectiveness is a process of continuous improvement, Westlake offers 36 recommendations in the areas of: participation & representation, continuous development, transparency and alignment with ICANN’s future.

In preparation for the eventual implementation of Board-approved recommendations, the GNSO Review Working Party will provide their input on feasibility, focusing on prioritization of recommendations and alignment of implementation with other improvements already planned or underway. The ICANN Board is expected to take action on the findings and recommendations in the early part of 2016, after consideration of all community input.

Final Report of Review of the GNSO is available here; it can be accessed from the recently updated GNSO Review web page.

What is the significance of the GNSO Review?

The GNSO serves an important function – it is responsible for developing and recommending to the ICANN Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains.

Based on direction from the Board, the purpose of the Review was to evaluate organizational effectiveness of the GNSO in accordance with the ICANN-provided objective and quantifiable criteria; acknowledge areas that are working well, identify areas that need improvement and propose needed changes. This review, like reviews of other structures within ICANN, is mandated by ICANN‘s Bylaws. The Organizational Effectiveness Committee of the Board (previously the Structural Improvements Committee) is responsible for review and oversight of policies relating to ICANN’s ongoing organizational review process.

“This Review is significant for a number of reasons. The process piloted several improvements, offering important lessons that will be incorporated into upcoming Reviews. The Final Report comes at a time of pivotal change and transformation at ICANN. The Community’s views along with the examiner’s insights will inform and contribute to enhanced organizational effectiveness of ICANN structures and ICANN as a whole,” commented Rinalia Abdul Rahim, Chair of the Organizational Effectiveness Committee.

How is the GNSO Community involved?

During the course of the last 14 months, Westlake Governance conducted research, analyzed data and evaluated effectiveness of prior review recommendations working closely with the GNSO Review Working Party. The 20-member GNSO Review Working Party representing the diversity of the GNSO Community was designated by the GNSO Council as a liaison between the GNSO, the Independent Examiner and the ICANN Board. Under the leadership of Jen Wolfe, this group has represented the voice of the GNSO community throughout the Review, in an effort that introduced several important Review process improvements.

What does “continuous improvement” mean?

With Reviews as a tool to inspire a culture of continuous improvement, the GNSO Review Working Party will have a pivotal role in helping prioritize recommendations and ensuring a shared understanding of what an “effective” or “successful” implementation would look like. The independent review process fostered diverse views on how GNSO should be structured for the future and these discussions are expected to provide useful input into GNSO’s implementation work. Whether structural changes are needed and when such changes should be considered will be topics for discussion after the conclusion of the Review process, possibly during the implementation planning.

GNSO Review by the Numbers

For additional information, please visit:

 

This ICANN announcement was sourced from:
https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2015-09-15-en

Preliminary Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures

ICANN logoBrief Overview

Purpose: This public comment proceeding is being opened to obtain community input on the Preliminary Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures.

Current Status: This new Preliminary Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures is posted for public comment and submitted to the GNSO Council in response to the Council’s request, pursuant to a Resolution passed during its meeting on 24 June, 2015.

Next Steps: Following review of public comments received on this report, the Staff Manager will update the Issue Report as appropriate to reflect public comment. The Staff Manager will submit a summary of the public comments received together with the Final Issue Report to the GNSO Council for consideration.

Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose

This Preliminary Issue Report [PDF, 1.28 MB] was created in response to the GNSO Council request to analyze subjects that may lead to changes or adjustments for subsequent New gTLD Procedures, utilizing a set of deliverables from the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Discussion Group (DG) as the basis for analysis. This Preliminary Issue Report is intended to help establish a baseline scope of subjects and to provide analysis that will hopefully further the work of the potential PDP Working Group, but it is not intended to discuss and provide solutions, as that is work expected to be accomplished by the PDPWG.

This Preliminary Issue Report seeks to review the subjects identified by the DG in depth, to help the community in determining what, if any changes may be needed in regards to the existing GNSO Final Report on Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains, which has “been designed to produce a systemized and ongoing mechanisms for applicants to propose new top-level domains,” meaning those policy recommendations remain in place for subsequent rounds of the New gTLD Program unless the GNSO Council would decide to modify those policy recommendations via a policy development process. The DG saw the subjects it identified as possibly being addressed in the following ways:

  • Clarifying, amending or overriding existing policy principles, recommendations, and implementation guidelines;
  • Developing new policy recommendations, and/or;
  • Supplementing or developing new implementation guidance.

There are a number of New gTLD-related review efforts underway or planned within the community, which to the extent that they are known, are discussed in this report. A potential Policy Development Process (PDP) should not be expected to be limited to the subjects identified in this Issue Report, and should take into account the findings from these related efforts. In some cases, it may be determined that certain subjects can be fully addressed in these related efforts. The subjects identified by the DG have been organized in suggested groupings that could facilitate establishing teams to undertake the work. The list of subjects is a starting point, and a suggested method of organization, but it is not intended to be exhaustive or impose constraints on how a potential PDPWG operates or the issues it discusses, provided that the issues are directly related to new gTLD subsequent procedures. The list of subjects may need to be supplemented, shrunk, or reorganized, to meet the needs of the substantive policy discussions of the PDPWG.

The provisional groupings suggested by the DG and discussed in this Issue Report are enumerated directly below, which each contain a set of discrete subjects that have been researched and analyzed for the purposes of this Issue Report, and are likely to warrant additional discussion and possibly the development of recommendations by a potential PDP Working Group:

  1. Overall Process / Support / Outreach
  2. Legal / Regulatory
  3. String Contention / Objections & Disputes
  4. Internationalized Domain Names
  5. Technical and Operations

This document is being published for public comment to seek community input particularly with regards to information that may be missing from this Preliminary Issue Report, or necessary corrections or updates to information, as well as any feedback on the proposed PDP Working Group Charter. Furthermore, comments are sought on whether there are any issues that should be explored in the PDP in addition to those described above and in the Preliminary Issue Report.

Section II: Background

In 2005, the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) began a policy development process (PDP) to consider the introduction of new gTLDs. The two-year PDP process resulted in a set of 19 GNSO policy recommendations for implementing new gTLDs. In order to implement the policy recommendations of the GNSO, and to take into consideration subsequent additional policies and recommendations from the community (including the GNSO, GAC, ccNSO, ALAC, SSAC and the ICANN Board through the New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC)), a number of draft Applicant Guidebooks (AGBs) were developed by ICANN staff.

In June 2011, ICANN‘s Board of Directors approved the final AGB and authorized the launch of the New gTLD Program, although subsequent revised versions of the Final Applicant Guidebook were released by ICANN staff, including the ultimate final New gTLD Applicant Guidebook dated June 4, 2012, a few months after the application window closed.

The New gTLD Program application window opened on 12 January 2012 and a total of 1930 complete applications were received. The first set of Initial Evaluation results were released on 22 March 2013, followed by the first set of new gTLD delegations on 21 October 2013.

All applications have completed the evaluation process and as of the writing of this Preliminary Issue Report, there are over 700 gTLDs delegated and approximately 600 applications still proceeding through the remaining steps of the program. Though the 2012 round is ongoing, efforts to examine the round have already begun, which includes the creation of the GNSO New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Discussion Group (DG), was created to discuss the experiences gained by the first round of new gTLD applications and identify subjects for future issue reports, if any, that might lead to changes or adjustments for subsequent application procedures.

The DG prepared a set of final deliverables, which included a set of subjects that it anticipated should be analyzed in detail in the context of an issue report. On 24 June, 2015 the GNSO Council passed a resolution requesting the drafting of this Preliminary Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures.

Section III: Relevant Resources

Section IV: Additional Information

Open Date: 31 Aug 2015 23:59 UTC

Close Date: 10 Oct 2015 23:59 UTC

Staff Report Due: 24 Oct 2015 23:59 UTC

This ICANN announcement was sourced from:
https://www.icann.org/public-comments/new-gtld-subsequent-prelim-2015-08-31-en

ICANN: Proposed ICANN Bylaws Amendments—GNSO Policy & Implementation Recommendations

ICANN logoPurpose (Brief): During its meeting on 24 June 2015, the GNSO Council unanimously adopted the recommendations of the GNSO Policy & Implementation Working Group (see: gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/policy-implementation-recommendations-01jun15-en.pdf), which was tasked to address a number of questions as they relate to GNSO policy and implementation.

Among others, these recommendations include three proposed new GNSO processes, two of which—the GNSO Guidance Process (GGP) and the GNSO Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP)—require changes to the ICANN Bylaws1 subject to ICANN Board approval. Per its resolution of 28 July 2015 (see: https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2015-07-28-en#1.c), the ICANN Board has directed that these proposed changes to the ICANN Bylaws be posted for public comment prior to ICANN Board consideration.

Public Comment Box Link: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/bylaws-amendments-2015-07-31-en

1These proposed changes to the ICANN Bylaws are accompanied by a GGP and EPDP Manual, which can be found in Annex D and F of the GNSO Policy & Implementation Final Report (see: http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/policy-implementation-recommendations-01jun15-en.pdf) and would be incorporated into the GNSO Operating Procedures following adoption of the proposed ICANN Bylaws changes by the ICANN Board.

Comment Period Opens on 31 July.

This ICANN announcement was sourced from:
https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2015-07-31-en

ICANN: EXTENDED: Draft Report: Review of the GNSO

ICANN logoThe Public Comment period for the Draft Report: Review of the Generic Names Supporting Organization has been extended by an additional week. In view of the current community workload and the impact the recommendations will have on the workload of the community and staff, the comment period has been extended to 31 July 2015 23:59 UTC at the request from the members of the GNSO Review Working Party.

The purpose of the Public Comment posting is to request community feedback on the Draft Report issued by Westlake Governance Limited (Westlake) on the Review of Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO). As the Independent Examiner, Westlake has drafted their report after conducting extensive work, including but not limited to online surveys (178 responses), 40 one-on-one interviews (considerably more than originally anticipated in the scope of work), review and analysis of documents and direct observations of GNSO proceedings at three ICANN meetings. In addition, Westlake has been engaged in consultations with representatives from the GNSO and other community members.

Westlake will issue their Final Report at the end of August 2015 after considering community feedback via Public Comment process, in-person meetings at ICANN53 and ongoing interaction with the GNSO Review Working Party. The final report, along with public comments, will be considered by the Board. After the Board takes action and accepts the report, the implementation phase will begin.

The Report Summary (Section 1, pages 4-20) offers a brief overview of Westlake’s work and outlines 36 proposed recommendations, classified into four topical themes: Participation and Representation; Continuous Development; Transparency; and Alignment with ICANN’s Future. Please refer to the specific recommendation and relevant section of the Draft Report for additional details and context about each recommendation.

Word [DOCX, 65 KB] and PDF [PDF, 283 KB] templates have been developed to facilitate input to this Public Comment.

This ICANN announcement was sourced from:
https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-07-24-en

ICANN: Next-Generation gTLD Registration Directory Services to Replace WHOIS Preliminary Issue Report

ICANN logoBrief Overview

Purpose: This public comment proceeding seeks to obtain community input on the new Preliminary Issue Report concerning Next-Generation gTLD Registration Directory Services (RDS) to Replace WHOIS.

Current Status: This new Preliminary Issue Report on a next-generation RDS to replace WHOIS is posted for public comment and submitted to the GNSO Council in response to a request received from the ICANN Board, pursuant to a Resolution during a meeting of the ICANN Board on 26 April, 2015.

Next Steps: Following review of public comments received on this report, the Staff Manager will update the Issue Report as appropriate to reflect both public comments and any changes the EWG Process Working Group (EP-WG) may make to the Process Framework that GNSO Councilors and Board members developed as a basis for this effort. The Staff Manager will submit a summary of the public comments received together with the Final Issue Report to the GNSO Council for consideration.

Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose

This Preliminary Issue Report [PDF, 1.37 MB] was created in response to the Board-initiated Policy Development Process (PDP) to define the purpose of collecting, maintaining and providing access to gTLD registration data and consider safeguards for protecting that data, determining if and why a next-generation Registration Directory Service (RDS) is needed to replace WHOIS, and creating policies and coexistence and implementation guidance to meet those requirements.

This new Preliminary Issue report replaces the original Preliminary Issue Report published in March 2013. Pursuant to a Resolution during a meeting of the ICANN Board on 26 April 2015, this new report includes, amongst others, an overview of past efforts related to WHOIS policy, recommendations generated by the Expert Working Group on Next-Generation Registration Directory Services (EWG), a Process Framework for a PDP Working Group that was developed by GNSO Councilors and Board members to provide guidance on how to approach this complex set of issues, and a draft PDP Working Group Charter.

This Preliminary Issue Report introduces a detailed process framework to address the many significant and interdependent policy areas that the PDP should address, as developed in collaboration by GNSO Councilors and Board members, to structure the PDP for success. This phased process includes:

  • Establishing gTLD registration data requirements to determine if and why a next-generation RDS is needed;
  • Designing policies that detail functions that must be provided by a next-generation RDS to support those requirements; and
  • Providing guidance for how a next-generation RDS should implement those policies, coexisting with and eventually replacing legacy WHOIS.

The Preliminary Issue Report also considers the many inter-related policy areas that must be addressed if a new policy framework is to be adopted to replace the current WHOIS program. These include:

  • Users/Purposes: Who should have access to gTLD registration data and why?
  • Gated Access: What steps should be taken to control data access for each user/purpose?
  • Data Accuracy: What steps should be taken to improve data accuracy?
  • Data Elements: What data should be collected, stored, and disclosed?
  • Privacy: What steps are needed to protect data and privacy?
  • Coexistence: What steps should be taken to enable next-generation RDS coexistence with and replacement of the legacy WHOIS system?
  • Compliance: What steps are needed to enforce these policies?
  • System Model: What system requirements must be satisfied by any next-generation RDS implementation?
  • Cost: What costs will be incurred and how must they be covered?
  • Benefits: What benefits will be achieved and how will they be measured?
  • Risks: What risks do stakeholders face and how will they be reconciled?

This document is being published for public comment to seek community input particularly with regards to information that may be missing from this Preliminary Issue Report, or necessary corrections or updates to information in the Preliminary Issue Report as well as any feedback on the proposed PDP Working Group Charter. Furthermore, comments are sought on whether there are any issues that should be explored in the PDP in addition to those described above and in the Preliminary Issue Report.

Section II: Background

Created in the 1980s, the collection and publication of domain name registration data began as a service by Internet operators to identify and contact individuals or entities responsible for the operation of a network resource on the Internet – then (and still today) referred to as WHOIS.

ICANN‘s requirements for domain name registration data collection, access and accuracy for gTLD registries have undergone some important changes, including registration data publication service specifications with the 2013 RAA. Yet, after nearly 15 years of GNSO task forces, working groups, workshops, surveys and studies, comprehensive WHOIS policy reform remains the source of long-running discussion and debate. WHOIS policy and the underlying protocol are still in need of comprehensive reforms to address the significant number of issues related to gTLD registration data.

On 8 November 2012, the ICANN Board passed a resolution launching the Expert Working Group on gTLD Registration Directory Services (EWG) to help redefine the purpose of gTLD registration data and consider how to safeguard the data, and to propose a model for gTLD registration directory services (RDS) to address accuracy, privacy, and access issues.

Upon publication of the EWG’s Final Report in June 2014, an informal group of GNSO Councilors and ICANN Board Members collaborated to propose a Process Framework for structuring a GNSO PDP to successfully address these challenging issues (EP-WG). On 26 May, 2015, the ICANN Board passed a resolution adopting that Process Framework and reaffirming its 2012 request for a Board-initiated PDP to define the purpose of collecting, maintaining and providing access to gTLD registration data, and to consider safeguards for protecting data, using the recommendations in the EWG’s Final Report as an input to, and, if appropriate, as the foundation for a new gTLD policy.

Accordingly, the GNSO Council is proceeding with the Board-requested PDP, using the Framework’s 3-phase process to (1) establish gTLD registration data requirements to determine if and why a next-generation RDS is needed, (2) design policies that detail functions that must be provided by a next-generation RDS to support those requirements, and (3) provide guidance for how a next-generation RDS should implement those policies, coexisting with and eventually replacing WHOIS.

Section III: Relevant Resources

Section IV: Additional Information

This ICANN announcement was sourced from:
https://www.icann.org/public-comments/rds-prelim-issue-2015-07-13-en