Local Time - Dakar


Hosted by

Senegal FlagARTP

Thanks to our Sponsors



Public Interest Registry

Sonatel Orange







Siter - Domain dialing


GMO Registry


Tango Registry Services

African Registry Consortium




RU Center

Iron Mountain

Thanks to our Local Sponsors





nic senegal



Continuing Operations Instrument (COI) - Discussion on RySG proposal

Thu 27 Oct 2011 - 09:00 - 10:30
Big Amphitheater

Session Leader: Kurt Pritz | Senior Vice President, Stakeholder Relations

Remote Participation - Low Bandwidth
Remote Participation - High Bandwidth

ICANN received from the Registries Stakeholder Group (RySG) a proposal for Establishment of a Continued Operations Fund (COF). This proposal is accompanied by an addendum (Proposed Continuing Operations Instrument) produced by the Afilias and PIR, supported by some other registries, registry applicants and other interested parties. In this session, panelists will discuss the proposal that is also posted for public comment until 2 December 2011.

  1. The RySG proposal can be found here: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/rysg-proposal-cof-21jul11-en.pdf
  2. The Addendum can be found here: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/rysg-proposal-cof-addendum-01sep11-en.pdf

Who should attend? All interested new gTLD applications and on-going operations of stable registries.

Agenda Details:

Panelists will discuss the proposal and accompanying addenda. Particular focus will be on specific questions this proposal and the existing continuing instrument raises. Attendees are encourage to read the RySG documentation and additional resources recommendations below prior to the session.

Here are some questions that will be discussed regarding the RySG alternative proposal as well as the existing continuing instrument model offered by ICANN.

  1. Considering ICANN's Mission, what is the appropriate role for ICANN to create a fund or act as an insurer? Under which circumstances?
    • Can the same end be accomplished through a third party?
    • Will an insurance company underwrite this?
  2. The current COI model outlined on the Applicant Guidebook is designed to provide some safeguards regardless of the number of gTLD registries that fail.

    For the existing COI model:

    • There will be an incentive to underestimate the projected size of the new registry, and therefore lower the cost of the COI to below what it should be to protect registrants. How could this be addressed?

    For the COF model:

    • Who should determine how much reserve must be set aside?
    • What criteria should be used to ensure sufficient funding and a mechanism to provide registrant protections?
  3. In the estimates shown in the addendum (Proposed Continuity Operations Instrument), what are the assumptions can be made in creating the basis for the proposed fund?
  4. How should the both the existing COI model and the newly proposed COF model ensure that it appropriately meets the needs of multiple registries sizes from small to large?
  5. Will the allocation of costs need to be adjusted over time if new registries enter the pool after the target balance is achieved? How can this account for some level of predictability and fairness for all registries?
  6. What appropriate level of internal resources should ICANN have for collections, tracking of deposits and outlays from the fund?
  7. What are the foreseeable challenges to move funds in timely manner to various parties as required responding to emergency situations?

Additional Resources:

Chairs: Brian Cute, Ken Stubbs

Panelists: Antony Van Couvering, Adrian Kinderis, Richard Tindal, Paul D. McGrady, Jr.


  • Opening remarks ~ 30 minutes by Chairs
  • Discussion ~ 40 minutes - panelists express point of views
  • Q&A - 20 minutes