Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
| Subscribe: Newsletters & News Alerts | ICANN Blog | Public Comment
A vital part of ICANN's processes is the opportunity for there to be public comment on each substantial piece of work before it is put forward for final approval. This is an archive of the public comment periods for 2008, arranged according to the month in which the comment period was closed.
The last 10 closed comments periods of 2008 are given below. The rest can be found by selecting the relevant month in the "Archived forums" box below. In each comment summary box is a brief explanation of what the comment period hoped to achieve, as well as: links to relevant reports and/or webpages; a link to the official announcement of the comment period; a link to where all existing comments can be found; and an email link for anyone that wished to send in a comment. A "summary/analysis" objectively reviews the comments.
Closed forums
| Improving Institutional Confidence | |||||
|
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. |
||||
| Staff member responsible: Kieren McCarthy | |||||
Announcement | Discussion forum | Summary/analysis of comments |
|||||
| Draft Proposed Changes to Registrar Accreditation Agreement | ||||||
|
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. |
|||||
| Staff member responsible: Tim Cole | ||||||
| Meetings Reform | ||||||
|
Explanation: Should ICANN change the number of meetings that it holds and their location? The Meetings Reform Paper [pdf] asks the community to consider that the number of meetings be reduced from three to two per year - a change that would commence from 2010. The paper also proposes that one of the two meetings be held in locations that are transport hubs. The locations would need to be the subject of a separate consultation, but would be rotated through the existing ICANN predetermined regions. There has not been substantive change to meetings processes or the frequency of the meetings since the organization's inception. The purpose of the paper is to encourage debate on any matters to do with meetings that the community may wish to raise, but to especially consider issues concerning the frequency of meetings and their location. Aside from this public comment period, consultations will also be held at the Paris meeting directly with Committees and Councils and there will also be the opportunity to comment via the public forum. |
|||||
| Staff member responsible: Paul Levins | ||||||
| Draft Final ALAC Independent Review | ||||||
|
Explanation: ICANN invites comments on the final draft of the ALAC Review Report [pdf] submitted by Independent Reviewer, Westlake Consulting. Westlake will present the draft report at a workshop on Monday, 23 June, at the Paris ICANN meeting, and the Board Governance Committee's ALAC Review Working Group will discuss the draft report at a workshop on Wedneseday, 25 June, in Paris. This draft report (which includes the Executive Summary [pdf]) has not been reviewed by the ICANN Board or the Board Governance Committee. It is being shared for public information prior to it being finalised by Westlake. The final report will be submitted to the Board after the ICANN Paris meeting. Opportunity for public comment on the final report also will be provided. 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:
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. |
|||||
| Staff member responsible: Denise Michel | ||||||
| Proposed GNSO Top Level Implementation Plan | ||||||
|
Explanation: At its 25 June 2008 meeting in Paris, France the GNSO Council voted to invite public comments on the 21 June 2008 version of the GNSO Improvements - Top Level Plan prepared by the GNSO Improvements Planning Team. The document contains some initial documentation on methods that can be followed in beginning the work required to transition from the current GNSO organization to the type of organization ultimately recommended by the ICANN Board - including the areas of process, operations and collaboration with other ICANN entities. Before any methods can be put into practice, the plan needs to be reviewed by the GNSO and the ICANN community at large and approved by the GNSO Council and endorsed by the ICANN Board. A copy of the document: can be found here: http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-improvements-top-level-plan-21jun08.pdf [PDF, 148K] See a web page with more information about the overall GNSO Improvements process here: http://www.icann.org/topics/gnso-improvements/. |
|||||
| Staff member responsible: Robert Hoggarth | ||||||
| Single Character Name Allocation Framework | ||||||
|
Explanation: In response to community comment and interest, ICANN has developed a proposed allocation framework and use of funds from the allocation of single-character second-level domain names (SC SLDs) in existing gTLDs. ICANN is proposing an auction mechanism and disbursement of funds toward areas of public good for the Internet community. Discussion of proposed allocation methods will involve consultation with gTLD registries. |
|||||
| Staff member responsible: Patrick Jones | ||||||
| Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy – Denial of Transfers (Reasons #8 and #9) | ||||||
|
Explanation: As part of its ongoing efforts to review the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (the rules for transfer of domain names between registrars) the GNSO Council seeks community review and comment on two proposed revisions to the IRTP regarding reasons for which a registrar of record may deny a request to transfer a domain name to a new registrar. The two revisions being considered by the Council are referred to as Reason # 8 and Reason # 9. They are part of a larger policy development process (PDP) that has involved a subset of four reasons (Reason # 5 and # 7 in addition to # 8 and # 9) for which a registrar could deny a transfer request. The overall IRTP review has become a considerable undertaking that could ultimately span as many as six separate policy development processes. A review of the current PDP involving Reasons # 8 and # 9 is set forth in the announcement for this comment forum. On 17 April 2008, the GNSO Council launched a drafting group to develop suggested text modifications for Reasons 5, 7, 8 and 9. The drafting group delivered a Final Draft Report [PDF, 48K] dated 4 June 2008, proposing new textual language for reasons 8 and 9, while suggesting that denial reasons 5 and 7 be considered within a separate proposed PDP or a future PDP that offers a stronger linkage with those issues. The Council agreed with the recommendations of the drafting group. It directed the staff to post the proposed new text for Reasons # 8 and # 9 for constituency and public comments and report back to the Council with a summary of the comments received. You can read the recommendations regarding Reasons # 8 and # 9 with the proposed new language here: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/transfers/excerpts-report-transfers-pdp1-dg-jun08.pdf [PDF, 32K] Comments on the document are welcome through 18 July 2008. |
|||||
| Staff member responsible: Olof Nordling | ||||||
| Proposed Global Policy for Autonomous System Numbers | ||||||
|
Explanation: ICANN has received a Proposed Global Policy for Autonomous System Numbers, ASNs, developed by the addressing community through the Regional Internet Registries bottom-up processes and delivered for ratification to the ICANN Board. Autonomous System Numbers are used in the routing of Internet traffic addressed to major entities, qualifying as Autonomous Systems. The proposal defines timelines and allocation principles for a transition from 2-byte to 4-byte ASNs. For the full text of the proposal click here. The text has been open for public comments on multiple occasions through the RIR's procedures and a final call for public comments is now open until 7 July 2008. |
|||||
| Staff member responsible: Olof Nordling | ||||||
| Travel support | ||||||
|
Explanation: At the February Delhi meeting, there was a public consultation regarding ICANN's approach to travel support funding for the community. After the public consultation in Delhi, a public comment period was held, and the feedback was analyzed and noted online. After receiving and analyzing comments on this draft, it will be updated if needed, and final results reviewed with the Board in Paris. Ultimately, the Board will need to adopt (or reject) the budget impact of this new proposal when the Board approves the budget in Paris. |
|||||
| Staff member responsible: Doug Brent | ||||||
| Draft Final Report - IDNC WG Recommendations for ccTLD Fast Track Mechanisms (IDN ccTLD Fast Track) | ||||||
|
Explanation: The IDNC Working Group (IDNC WG) is currently working to develop and 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 IDNC WG has created a Draft Final Report designed to highlight 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 draft document is being made publicly available at this time solely to alert the community to the latest IDNC WG thinking and to facilitate further discussions at the ICANN Paris meeting later this month. This document has not been signed off by the IDNC Working Group whose members will continue to provide their own comments and input. The IDNC WG will conduct a meeting in Paris during the ICANN meeting. |
|||||
| Staff member responsible: Bart Boswinkel | ||||||
| PIR's Proposed Implementation of DNSSEC | ||||||
|
Explanation: ICANN invites public comments on the report of the Registry Services Technical Evaluation Panel (RSTEP) on PIR's proposed implementation of DNSSEC in .ORG. Comments submitted will be synthesized for Board consideration with the PIR proposal. The previous comment period for PIR's Proposed Implementation of DNSSEC. |
|||||
| Staff member responsible: Patrick Jones | ||||||