Archived forums:

• Draft 2009-2012 Strategic Plan Final Comment (ends 15 Dec 08)
• Proposed Bylaws Change (ends 17 Dec 08)
• CRAI Report on gTLD Registries and Registrars
  (ends 8 Dec 08)
• New gTLD Draft Applicant Guidebook
  (ends 8 Dec 08)
• Draft Implementation Plan for IDN ccTLDs
  (ends 9 Jan 09)
• ALAC Review Mid-Point Consultation Report
  (ends 12 Dec 08)
• Independent Reviewer's Report on the ICANN Board
  (ends 12 Dec 08)
• CAC UDRP Pilot Project
  (ended 21 Aug 08)
• Operating Plan and Budget 2009
  (ended 17 Jun 08)

• Add Grace Period (AGP) Limits Policy
• Draft Strategic Plan Priorities
• The Role of Individual Internet Users in the GNSO
• GNSO Bylaw Revision
• Proposed Bylaws Revision
• Improving Institutional Confidence
• Draft Proposed Changes to Registrar Accreditation Agreement
• Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Denials Definitions PDP
• Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Issues
• Proposed ICANN Board of Director's Code of Conduct
• Independent Review of the ALAC - Final Report
• Economic Case for Auctions in New gTLDs
• Final Report of IDNC Working Group on ccTLD Fast Track Mechanisms
• SSAC Review Draft Terms of Reference
• .COOP and .MOBI Proposed Contract Changes to Allocate Single-Character Names

Upcoming forums:

• New gTLD Applicant Guidebook
• Improving Institutional Confidence (Cairo)

Recent changes:

• Add Grace Period (AGP) Limits Policy closed
• GNSO Bylaw Revision comment period closed
• Proposed Bylaws Revision comment period closed
• Improving Institutional Confidence comment period closed
• Add Grace Period period opened
• GNSO term limits comment period opened
• NomCom domicile status period opened
• Summary/analysis posted to RAA comment period

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

Explanation: ICANN is seeking comments from the community on the latest version of the strategic plan [PDF, 900K]. This version incorporates comments that were received from the online forum and at the Cairo meeting. This comment period is an additional short opportunity for the community to comment before the Board considers the plan at its December meeting.

Announcement | Comments | Add a comment | Summary/analysis of comments

Explanation: This proposed Bylaws revision was originally posted for public comment from 23 September to 23 October 2008 (http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-23sep08-en.htm), and several changes to the proposed language were received. During the ICANN meeting in Cairo, Egypt, ICANN staff was asked to post the revised language and open a comment period on the modifications to the proposed revision.

The proposed revision would update the diversity requirements for selecting ICANN Board members to include domicile with country of citizenship. The definition of domicile has been updated since the previous comment period (see redline [PDF, 20K]).

Announcement | Comments | Add a comment | Summary/analysis of comments

Explanation: ICANN has received a report today, issued by CRA International, titled “Revisiting Vertical Separation of Registries and Registrars” [PDF, 493K].

ICANN requested CRAI to perform economic research pursuant to two resolutions of the ICANN Board of Directors: 1) the 18 October 2006 resolution of ICANN’s Board of Directors seeking more information relating to the registry and registrar marketplace; and, 2) the 26 June 2008 resolution of ICANN’s Board, directing the development and completion of a detailed implementation plan for the new gTLD Policy.

Announcement | Comments | Add a comment | Summary/analysis of comments

Explanation: The draft 'Applicant Guidebook' for new generic top-level domains (gTLDs) is now available for review and comment at http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtld-comments-en.htm. The draft Guidebook provides information for those interested in applying for new generic top-level domains. Designed to accompany the draft Applicant Guidebook is a set of Explanatory Memoranda that are intended to assist understanding of the implementation work for new gTLDs.

The draft Applicant Guidebook and accompanying papers will be made available in Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish in the near future.

All materials are in draft form for public comment and review. The comments will help with the production of the final Applicant Guidebook, to be released early 2009.

Further details about the New gTLD Program can be found at: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtld-program.htm.

Announcement | Comments | Add a comment | Summary/analysis of comments

Explanation: ICANN is pleased to make the Draft Implementation Plan for the IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process available for public discussions. The Draft Implementation Plan can be found here [PDF, 265K].

The IDN Fast Track Process is a mechanism recommended by the IDNC Working Group, focused on the introduction of a limited number of non contentious IDN ccTLDs, associated with the ISO 3166-1 two-letter codes, to meet near term demand, while an overall IDN ccTLD policy is being developed.

Update: The new deadline for the fast-track comment is 7 January 2009.

Announcement | Comments | Add a comment | Summary/analysis of comments

Explanation: The ALAC Review Working Group (WG) has released its Mid-point Consultation Report for discussion with the ICANN community. This preliminary report presents the WG's "initial thinking" on the questions under review following the publication of the Independent Review of the At Large Advisory Committee by Westlake Consulting. It is based on consultation that the WG has undertaken with the ICANN community at the Paris meeting, through an online comment forum and at meetings with a variety of groups with the ICANN community. A summary of the consultation is contained in an appendix to the report.

For more information about the ALAC Review, see the ALAC Review page.

Announcement | Comments | Add a comment | Summary/analysis of comments

Explanation: ICANN's Board has been provided with the Boston Consulting Group/Colin Carter & Associates' independent review of the Board. This report will be used to inform ICANN's effort to develop detailed proposals for improving the Board's structure and processes. The Board has not had an opportunity to discuss the Report, but will consider it along with the ICANN community. As with other independent reviews of ICANN structures, the Board invites public input on the Report, and encourages the community to post their comments to the public forum that has been opened on this topic for the next 60 days.

Announcement | Comments | Add a comment | Summary/analysis of comments

Explanation: ICANN has received a request from the Czech Arbitration Court (CAC) to run two pilot projects related to its implementation of UDRP.

ICANN has at the request of CAC agreed to post for public comment the description of the pilot projects for a period of thirty days (30), along with a report on the pilot project by professor Chris Reed, a recognized international authority on technology law and electronic commerce law.

Those wishing to comment are encouraged to do so and to make their comments not later than 20 August 2008.

Comments may be submitted by email to cac-pilot@icann.org and may be viewed at http://forum.icann.org/lists/cac-pilot.

Announcement | Comments | Add a comment | Summary/analysis of comments

Explanation: The draft Operating Plan and Budget for the 2009 financial year has been released for public comment.

• Version 3 [PDF, 360K] (posted 25 June 2008 for consideration by ICANN Board)
• Version 2 [PDF, 476K] (posted 23 May 2008)
• Version 1 [PDF, 356K] (posted 17 May 2008)
  • Français [PDF, 375K]
  • Español [PDF, 379K]
  • Русский [PDF, 770K]
  • العربية - [PDF, 526K]
  • 中文 [PDF, 693K

As a result of the Strategic Plan, from which the Operating Plan is developed and which then leads through to the Budget, there is a call for substantial expense growth for ICANN.

This public comment period is intended to inform the community and provide active community and Board feedback on the proposed objectives and plans. This feedback will be taken into account in arriving at a final plan, which then establishes the resources and objectives for the ICANN community over the next year.

For more information on the process run through by the community to arrive at the Operating Plan and Budget, please review the official announcement of this comment period.

Announcement | Comments | Add a comment | Summary/analysis of comments

Explanation: The ICANN Board has asked for additional community input on the appropriate role and representation of individual commercial and non-commercial Internet users in the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO). Faced with a number of different recommendations stemming from various independent reviews and GNSO and user-community group efforts, the Board continues to consider this issue and believes that comments from the community, especially stakeholders in the GNSO, ALAC and At-Large groups, and any relevant applicants for new constituencies, would be particularly helpful.

Potential commenters are asked to consider addressing the inclusion of registrants and individual users in the GNSO in a manner that compliments the ALAC and its supporting structures and ensures that registrants' and individual Internet users' gTLD interests are effectively represented within the GNSO. A summary document has been prepared by the ICANN Staff to provide background on this issue and to outline a number of potential options being considered by the Board.

Deadline and How to Submit Comments

The Staff is opening a 30-day public consultation forum, from 28 October 2008 until 28 November 2008, and invites community comments on this topic.

Comments on the document are welcome via email at gnso-users@icann.org. This public forum will be open through 28 November 2008. An archive of all comments received will be publicly posted at http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-users/.

For a copy of the public announcement of this forum please see http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-28oct08-en.htm.

Announcement | Comments | Summary/analysis of comments

Explanation: The AGP Limits Policy was adopted by the ICANN Board on 26 June 2008, following completion of a GNSO policy development process on domain tasting. The GNSO conducted their work in response to ICANN community stakeholders' concerns about domain tasting.

The adopted Policy, once implemented, will prohibit registry operators from offering refunds to ICANN-accredited registrars for domain names deleted during the AGP that exceed the thresholds defined by the Policy unless an exemption has been granted by an operator.

Public comment is sought on the draft implementation plan of the Policy. Comments may be submitted via email to agp-limits-policy@icann.org and viewed at http://forum.icann.org/lists/agp-limits-policy/.

Announcement | Comments | Summary/analysis of comments

Explanation: As part of its annual planning cycle, ICANN is seeking comments on a draft of the priorities for the strategic plan [PDF, 88K]. These priorities will become the framework for the July 2009 June 2012 Strategic Plan. The Strategic Plan sets out ICANN¹s priorities for the next three years and is the reference point for the preparation of the annual Operating Plan and Budget. All those interested in the in the future activities of ICANN are encouraged to review and comment on this material. Further details can be found at http://www.icann.org/en/planning/

Announcement | No comments submitted

Explanation: Public comments are invited on a proposed change to the ICANN bylaws that would implement term limits for GNSO Council members. Currently there is no limit to the number of consecutive terms in which a GNSO Council member may serve. In November 2006, the GNSO Council passed a resolution endorsing term limits, wherein a council member could serve no more than two consecutive terms (http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#200611).  Moreover, a former council member must remain off the GNSO Council for one full term prior to serving any subsequent term. In light of the pending GNSO review which was underway at the time, the ICANN Board postponed action on term limits. The ICANN Board Governance Committee subsequently included term limits as a recommendation in the GNSO Improvements Report (http://www.icann.org/en/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-report-03feb08.pdf, see Sec. 5.1, p. 28) The Report recommends that the preferred limit be two 2-year terms, in order to enhance inclusiveness and enable more people to become involved in Council activities. The GNSO Improvements package was approved by the Board on 26 June 2008 http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun08.htm#_Toc76113182. The draft bylaws change also creates an exception, as recommended by the GNSO Council and the Board Governance Committee, in a “special circumstance,” such as geographic diversity requirements, where no alternative representative is available to serve.

Currently, the GNSO Council, constituencies and ICANN staff are working to implement a new structure for constituency representation and voting for the GNSO Council. In considering the imposition of term limits for GNSO Council members, comments are particularly invited on whether the pending reorganization presents issues for the implementation of term limits that should be considered before term limits are adopted, including any other aspects of the new structure, such as the creation of stakeholder groups or the formation of new constituencies. ICANN also invites comments on when term limits should go into effect.

The proposed revised bylaws text can be found at:

• العربية - [PDF, 101K]
• 中文 [PDF, 152K]
• English [PDF, 45K]
• Français [PDF, 45K]
• Español [PDF, 45K]
• Русский [PDF, 45K]

Announcement | Comments | Summary/analysis of comments

Explanation: Over the past several years, the Nominating Committee has expressed concern that being required to count more than one country of citizenship for diversity purposes often makes it difficult to select the best candidates for the Board seats that the Nominating Committee is mandated to fill. In carrying out its responsibilities to fill Seats 1 through 8, the Nominating Committee shall seek to ensure that the ICANN Board is composed of members who in the aggregate display diversity in geography, culture, skills, experience, and perspective, by applying the criteria set forth in Bylaws.

The Nominating Committee also noted that some of the candidates have often lived in a country for many years, and thereby better represent the interests of that country than any country of which the candidates may be citizens.

In the proposal, domicile, not just citizenship, is to be considered in the diversity calculation. The Nominating Committee members unanimously agreed that the proposed Bylaws revisions would alleviate the concerns.

Announcement | Comments | Summary/analysis of comments

Explanation: At the Midterm Review of the Joint Project Agreement (JPA) between ICANN and the US Department of Commerce, in February 2008, ICANN's chairman announced a broad public consultation over possible changes to the organization. ICANN's President's Strategy Committee (PSC) then prepared two documents - an Improving Institutional Confidence in ICANN document, and a Transition Action Plan - using comments made to the Midterm Review and its previous work to help set out the requirements of a post-JPA ICANN and the steps needed to consult the community.

In those documents, five key areas are identified, and each of those areas is broken down into constituent parts in order to identify particular discussion points, focus debate, and produce specific steps forward. Those documents have been through one period of public comment and, having been revised as a result, have now entered a second.

In an effort to progress the consultation, an interactive forum has been set up that focuses comments and discussion on the individuals points and suggestions included in the revised documents. Please visit that forum at http://comment.icann.org/en/iic/. Alternatively, we have set up specific email addresses for each of the five main areas. Emails sent to each will appear in a specific "emailed comments" folder within this area's folder on the discussion forum.

Announcement | Discussion forum | Summary/analysis of comments

Explanation: In an effort to address concerns raised about the Protection of Registrants, ICANN has undertaken considerable discussions with community members concerning potential amendments to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA). The ICANN Board of Directors passed a resolution in San Juan directing staff to solicit community input related to RAA amendments, engage in a dialogue with registrars to arrive at a set of proposed RAA amendments to be posted for public comment. This set of proposals is set forth at http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-18jun08-en.htm.

This public comment period is the second of two that act as the place to provide written input and feedback into the consultation (oral input will be possible at ICANN and other meetings). A summary and analysis of this comment period will be provided to the Board in order to assist it in its review.

Announcement | Comments | Summary/analysis of comments

Explanation: The GNSO Council approved on 4 September 2008 a motion on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Denial Definitions Public Development Process (PDP). The motion, which is pending for Board action, proposes new texts [PDF, 49K] for two of the nine denial reasons (#8 and #9) while recommending that work on denial reasons #5 and #7 be suspended until such time as a Policy Development Process is initiated on PDP C on IRTP operational rule enhancement as outlined in the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Issues PDP Recommendations of 19 March 2008.

The public is invited to submit comments until 6 October 2008 before final consideration by the Board.

Announcement | Comments | Summary/analysis of comments

Explanation: The Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) aims to provide a straightforward procedure for domain name holders to transfer their names from one ICANN-accredited registrar to another. As part of a broader review of this policy, a Policy Development Process (PDP) is currently ongoing on new Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy issues. These new Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy issues include questions relating to registrar exchange of registrant e-mail information, the potential need for including new forms of electronic authentication and potential provisions for "partial bulk transfers." The Working Group is requesting your input for its deliberations to answer the following questions:

Issue I - Is there a way for registrars to make Registrant E-mail Address data available to one another? Currently there is no way of automating approval from the Registrant, as the Registrant Email Address is not a required field in the registrar Whois. This slows down and/or complicates the process for registrants, especially since the Registrant can overrule the Admin Contact .

Issue II - Whether there is need for other options for electronic authentication (e.g., security token in the Form of Authorization (FOA)) due to security concerns on use of email addresses (potential for hacking or spoofing) .

Issue III - Whether the policy should incorporate provisions for handling "partial bulk transfers" between registrars - that is, transfers involving a number of names but not the entire group of names held by the losing registrar .

For further details, please visit http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-08sep08-en.htm.

Announcement | Comments | Summary/analysis of comments

Explanation: On 26 June 2008, ICANN's Board of Director's passed the following resolution:

Whereas, the members of ICANN's Board of Directors are committed to maintaining a high standard of ethical conduct.

Whereas, the Board Governance Committee has developed a Code of Conduct to provide the Board with guiding principles for conducting themselves in an ethical manner.

Resolved (2008.06.26.09), the Board directs staff to post the newly proposed ICANN Board of Directors' Code of Conduct for public comment, for consideration by the Board as soon as feasible.

In accordance with the above resolution, public comments on ICANN Board of Directors' Code of Conduct [PDF, 25K] are encouraged to be submitted by 29 August 2008 via email to bcoc@icann.org. An archive of all comments received will be publicly posted at http://forum.icann.org/lists/bcoc.

Announcement | Comments | Summary/analysis of comments

Explanation: ICANN invites comments on the Final ALAC Review Report [pdf] submitted by Independent Reviewer, Westlake Consulting.

The report is available in Arabic [PDF, 940K], Chinese [PDF, 881K], English [PDF, 561K], French [PDF, 629K], German [PDF, 611K] and Spanish [PDF, 629K].

ICANN is now seeking the views of the community on the recommendations contained in the report.

Westlake Consulting was selected by ICANN's Board to conduct the independent review of the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) and related structures. Key objectives of the review include:

[To determine] whether the ALAC has a continuing purpose in the ICANN structure; and, If so, whether any change in structure or operations is desirable to improve its effectiveness.

This review is part of ICANN's ongoing commitment to its evolution and improvement. ICANN's bylaws require periodic, independent examinations of the role and operation of key elements of ICANN.

Announcement | Comments | Summary/analysis of comments

Explanation: During the ICANN meeting in Paris, France, ICANN staff made a commitment to release a paper describing the economic case for auctions as a tiebreaking mechanism for resolving contention among identical or confusingly similar applications for new gTLDs. The paper [PDF, 52K] was prepared by ICANN's auction design consultant PowerAuctions LLC with support from ICANN staff. The paper notes that auctions as a tiebreaking mechanism accomplish a goal of allocative efficiency through a transparent, objective and scalable process for the resolution of gTLD applications.

Announcement | Comments | Summary/analysis of comments

Explanation: The IDNC Working Group (IDNC WG) has developed its Final Report on feasible methods that would enable the timely and efficient ("fast track") introduction of a limited number of non-contentious IDN ccTLDs, while an overall long-term IDN ccTLD policy is being developed. The Final Report highlights the latest topics and issues that need to be considered in developing (1) a mechanism for the selection of the IDN ccTLD string and (2) a mechanism to designate an IDN ccTLD manager. The ICANN Board of Directors accepted the Final Report at its 26 June meeting in Paris, France and directed that the report be made available for public comments.

Final Report of IDNC WG [PDF, 100K]

Comments on the document are welcome via email at idn-cctld-fast-track@icann.org. This public forum will be open through 15 August 2008. An archive of all comments received will be publicly posted at http://forum.icann.org/lists/idn-cctld-fast-track/.

Announcement | Comments | Summary/analysis of comments [PDF, 233K]

Explanation: As part of ICANN's commitment to its ongoing improvement, the Board approved a comprehensive plan for independent review of ICANN's structures, as well as of the Board itself. The reviews are intended to ensure an independent examination of the role and operation of key elements of ICANN.

As part of this process, the draft Terms of Reference for the Review of the Security and Stability Advisory Committee are being posted for public comment.

Comments will close on 5 September 2008.

Revised Terms of Reference will be prepared based on the comments received.The revised Terms of Reference will form the basis for a Request for Proposal for an independent reviewer to undertake the review. It is anticipated that the review will commence later this year.

Announcement | Comments | Summary/analysis of comments

Explanation: The DotCoop and DotMobi sponsored TLDs have proposed allocation of single-character second-level domain names through the Registry Services Evaluation Process, and the registries are seeking contract amendments to proceed with allocation. Both amendments provide for changes to Appendix 6, Schedule of Reserved Names.

• The DotCoop proposal [PDF, 40K]
• The DotMobi proposal [PDF, 64K]

All documentation related to the DotCoop proposal is available at http://www.icann.org/registries/rsep/#2008005, while all documentation related to the DotMobi proposal is available at http://www.icann.org/registries/rsep/#2008006.

Announcement | Comments | Summary/analysis of comments