Response and Summary
Sydney Online Question Box
Aside from the comments and question provided by those physically attending the meeting, community members were also able to interact remotely using an online Question Box. Those questions and answers to each are supplied below. The process will be repeated with one or two changes and improvements for the upcoming Seoul meeting in October 2009.
Questions are split up according to topic:
1. How can u stop domain registration 4 spammers who regstred in bulk where regstrars r nt goin suspend any a/c. Even dey r not goin 2 fill correct WHOIS info.
2. How can we set up new TLD extension with financial, man power, equipments etc.
ICANN only has authority to take contractual compliance action against its contracted parties -- registrars and registries.
ICANN does not have a contract with registrants.
If ICANN becomes aware that one of its contracted parties is engaged in an unlawful practice, such as spamming, the RAA allows ICANN to take compliance action, including the issuance of a notice of breach, and termination if the noncompliant party does not timely cure the breach.
ICANN makes decisions that affect all internet users around the globe, none the less its control is in the hands of the American government. The JPA will end in September allowing a totally independent ICANN, what role should the EU have in the new ICANN?
Firstly, the JPA is not an oversight mechanism of ICANN; and secondly, ICANN is already an independent body.
The role that the EU plays in ICANN is likely to remain the same as it is now: as an influential member of the Governmental Advisory Committee, like all other governmental representatives.
If the NTIA determines, based on community input, that the JPA should be extended for some period of time, will ICANN enter into discussions regarding an extension, or simply walk away from the agreement?
ICANN will continue to work closely with the NTIA on the agreements it has with the US government.
ICANN has made it clear it believes the JPA should conclude in September 2009 with a charter and has outlined a number of suggested changes to the organization through the Improving Institutional Confidence consultation to address community concerns raised the Midterm Review of the JPA.
What happens in September will be the focus on continued discussions with both the NTIA and the community as to the best way forward.
Is ICANN now considering transfer of part or all of its ROOT server control to an international organization within the next 4 years.
Is ICANN currently discussing transfer of its root server control, in whole or in part, to any current or proposed international organization within the next 4 years.
The Argentinian Republic has set up the domain tur.ar, in conjunction with Cancilleria, Nic and AAAVT (Argentinian Association Agency for Travel and Tourism), for agencies certified by the national tourism department.
How are we able to work with ICANN on this initiative?
What is more important to the ICANN board and staff: meeting a deadline for introducing new TLDs, or ensuring that all legitimate community concerns are met before commencing with the roll out?
Meeting legitimate community concerns is more important to both Board and staff than meeting an announced deadline.
We have said publicly we will not open the process until concerns have been addressed.
The International Telecommunications Union (ITU), EU and several foreign governments have called for more direct control of ICANN. Without proper safeguards, these entities may be able to effectively take control.
Has ICANN established any new protections to prevent a hostile take over by a foreign government or international organization?
ICANN's model of decision-making already makes it impossible for the form of takeover you outline. The Board is made up of representatives from across the community and they would need to be persuaded of such a significant alteration in the way ICANN works. The Board would also take direction from the community on a matter of such importance.
In short, unless the whole community decided to provide additional governmental influence within the model of decision-making, it would not happen.
The White Paper stressed the goal of private sector management. Since then, there has been an increased focus on a multistakeholder process.
Does that foreshadow increased involvement on the part of governments?
Many if not most registrars are given to refusing to transfer an owned domain name under any circumstances, including domains not nearing expiration, not modified within 60 days, not locked.
ICANN's response to me was "Bad things happen on the Internet". Example: thebestoftoons.us. I'd like to see stiff penalties imposed.
The Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy was developed in 2004 to provide a straight forward process for allowing domain name registrants to transfer their domain names from one ICANN-accredited registrar to another.
ICANN recognizes that the transfer of domain names can be problematic when the registrar of record and the gaining registrar do not comply with the requirements of the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy. In 2008, complaints regarding domain name transfers accounted for approximately 26% of the consumer complaints received by ICANN.
To address community concerns regarding domain name transfers, Compliance staff is planning to conduct an audit of registrars’ application of the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy during the first trimester of FY2010.
ICANN requires accurate registrant information. There is most notably a San Diego, CA, US based registrar, who also owns a telemarketing group, woefully abusing that information, even in violation of the FTC the do-not-call list. Other registrars us it to send out misleading expiration notices.
Stiff penalties are one solution....
Register onlinenic.com which denied transfer domain out for about 3 months, how could I do with it?
ICANN recognizes transfer of domain names can be problematic when the registrar of record and the gaining registrar do not comply with the requirements of the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy.
The Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy was developed in 2004 to provide a straight forward process for allowing domain name registrants to transfer their domain names from one ICANN-accredited registrar to another and to promote competition between registrars. The Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy provides a standardized procedure that all registrars must comply with when registrants make transfer requests. The Contractual Compliance Team enforces this policy.
To assist registrars in understanding their obligations under the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy, ICANN issued two Advisories, 23 August 2007 http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/Transfer-Advisory-23aug07.pdf and 3 April 2008 http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/advisory-03apr08.htm. To further clarify the requirements of the Policy, the Board adopted revisions to it in November 2008.
Additional questions can be directed to the ICANN Contractual Compliance Team.
UDRP-ICANN-1999 only applicable conflicts with domain names-brands (gTLDs), in agreement with the Cybersquatting concept at the time. Nowadays, a more modern concept of cybersquatting includes other types of conflicts. This is what many LDRP (ccTLDs)and second process OMPI has understood, Is ICANN taking into consideration the possibility to broaden the issues that may be applicable to UDRP-gTLDs? if this is not the case, why?
The issue of trademark protection in new gTLDs has been specifically addressed by the Implementation Recommendation Team (IRT). Its final report is currently out for public comment.
See: http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#irt-report. Additionally, ICANN expect input from other interested parties on this issue as part of the broader new gTLD process.
ICANN approved the .cat for the Catalonian community but in Spain we have other communities with a language of their own, like Galicia, Valencia and Basque. When is it expected for the rest of the communities, just as the Catalanes, to be able to have its own domain?
There is a specific community-based application process as part of the Applicant Guidebook for new gTLDs.
Applications for new top-level domains are expected to open in the first quarter of 2010, you will be able to apply for your own version of dot-cat at that point.
While the GAC requested geographic names be reserved at the second level at no cost to governments of all new gTLDs, I wonder why this principle should not apply to *all* TLDs, not just the new ones. What is the board's view on the issue of country name dot com?
It's not entirely clear what you mean about this principle applying to all TLDs, but if you are talking about trademarks, then a final report by an Implementation Recommendation Team has recently been published for public comment.
Please contribute any ideas you may have to that comment period.
Hello, Please tell me how can I register a new TLD, a generic one, and a sponsored one?
What are the steps, the costs and the time.
Thank you, Andrei Marinescu
All the top-level domains you outline are "generic" top-level domains.
There has been two rounds of new gTLDs in 2000 and 2003, and current plans call for the next round of new gTLDs to launch in 2010.
The cost of applying for a new gTLD at that time is currently estimated to be $185,000 (USD). However, in addition, running a registry incurs a wide range of costs beyond simply applying.
There are many in the community that would be happy to talk to you about what those costs may be.
Is ICANN considering the idea of third-level domains for Dot-City TLDs using the country code, domain, City-TLD, e.g. de.domain.berlin, us.domain.berlin, uk.domain.london, ca.domain.london, fr.domain.paris, us.domain.paris, etc.? Thanks
Thanks for this follow-up question from the last question box in Mexico City and following a response on the ICANN blog.
The same basic response remains the same - it is possible for there to be third-level domains, and this is usually determined by either the TLD registry operator or the registrant of the second-level domain e.g. domain.domain.
It is not up to ICANN but rather than the applicant for a new TLD to decide what to do with their top-level domain.
1. Price protection for existing tld's is the ONLY reasonable future course. When will ICANN support price protection for existing tld's by making a clear, definitive public statement?
2. New tld's must be released in a gradual manner to allow for market buy-in & assimilation. WHY are ICANN against this?
Only the terms of new gTLDs are being discussed in this process and price controls on exisiting gTLDs would not be directly affected.
For additional details please refer to the economic analysis reports we have produced as part of the new gTLD process: http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-06jun09-en.htm
Which documents need to be prepared, which organizational events need to be held, and what, in general, does the Republic of Tatarstan need to do in order to apply for its domain for national autonomy in ICANN?
Eligibility for country-code top-level domains is strictly granted based upon the ISO 3166-1 standard, which in turn is derived from recognition by the UN.
Complete details are at http://www.iana.org/procedures/cctld-establishment.html. ICANN can not accept applications for country-code domains until a country is listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard.
Is it possible to create an additional domain registry in Ecuador besides nic.ec? What would be the precedure to follow?
For information on processes for delegation and redelegation of ccTLDs, please refer to the IANA website: http://www.iana.org/domains/root/cctld.
The process of changing the designated manager(s) of a ccTLD is known as redelegation. This process is conducted according to the principles described in ICP-1 and RFC 1591.
For a simplified summary of the process that is followed in implementing these principles, see the ccTLD Delegation and Redelegation Step-by-Step Overview. See: http://www.iana.org/domains/root/delegation-guide/.
The string <WWW> is currently on the list of top-level reserved names. (See the draft Reserved Names list in Module 2, section 188.8.131.52, at http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-evaluation-procedures-clean-18feb09-en.pdf).
Names on this list are reserved for technical and infrastructure reasons, or are ICANN organizational names. According the applicant guidebook as currently drafted, an application for <WWW> as a gTLD would not be approved.
IRT recommended URS with two weeks to respond. Initial notice is by email. Another notice by post within 5 days. No faxes.
What percentage of all email is spam, and what's the average time for postal delivery around the world?
How late was the IRT report compared to its deadline?
It is very difficult to get a precise figure for what percentage of email sent is spam. It is also a misleading figure as many techniques exist for preventing unsolicited email from reaching individuals in the first place. It is equally difficult - and meaningless - to find an average postal delivery time.
It is much easier to point to the dates of the IRT report. It was initially planned to be released on 24 May, however when it became clear it would take longer, the deadline was extended to 29 May and met.
So, in answer to your question, it took five days longer than originally expected to provide a final report on trademark protection.
How many end-user consumers (as distinguished from self-interested registries, registrars, and consultants) have made comments in favour of new gTLDs, and how many have made comments against new gTLDs in the public comment periods?
Please provide a list in 2 columns of those on the record in favour and against.
The vast majority of comments do not place themselves as being unequivocally for or against new gTLDs; rather they raise concerns or issues with different aspects of the Applicant Guidebook. ICANN will continue to address those concerns through its usual decision-making processes.
Although not all commenters have identified themselves as end-users, consumers, or otherwise, it appears that various end users have submitted comments including statements both for and against the introduction of new gTLDs.
In March 2008, ICANN staff stated they were considering “different agreements for business, governments, IGOs?” Currently, ICANN has produced only one baseline registry agreement.
Will ICANN require governments and IGOs to enter the same contract as businesses (indemnity, adherence to consensus policies even it if violates international law, etc)?
The Applicant Guidebook is still under review.
So far it has not been necessary to provide different base agreement. If it becomes clear that a different agreement would be beneficial, it will be considered.
Given that IGOs participated in the 2000 and 2004 new TLD rounds, will ICANN staff move forward with accepting new gTLD applications, if ICANN has not yet finalized a mutually acceptable registry agreement for governments and IGOs applicants.
The Applicant Guidebook and the proposed base agreement are still under development and discussion.
In developing version three of the base registry agreement, ICANN's staff will review all previous comments on the posted drafts, including any comments relative to the question of contracting with governments or IGOs. Also, staff will take into account the experience and recent discussions with the UPU concerning .POST.
ICANN called for bids to select a host for the Meeting in Latinamerica in 2010. ACUI expressed interest to conduct the meeting in Colombia accordingly. Who evaluates those bids or statement of interest to host a meeting and what is the process followed to determined the country/city for the meeting?
Not a question a brief request-
Please expedite IDN TLD implementation. This should occur before any english language gTLD releases. Lets do this slowly and properly, we don't need to rush everything at once.
We expect that the Fast Track process will begin earlier than the new gTLD process, with the Fast Track beginning this year and new gTLD applications opening in 2010.
As for IDNs within the new gTLDs process; it is unlikely to be possible to separate out the two as they are both following the same process.
What are the cirteria and procedure for the selection/election of th new CEO?
What about the ATLAS receommednation to give At Large two voting seats in the Board?
You can find the criteria here: http://www.icann.org/en/careers/ceo-31mar09-en.htm.
A recent update on this process provided more details: http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-14jun09-en.htm.
As for the recommendation about At Large voting Board seats, this was recently discussed in the May Board meeting (see 7c, http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/prelim-report-21may09.htm).
The Board's Structural Improvements Committee has been requested by the Board to develop alternative scenarios for discussion, for a possible different composition of the Board. This will be done taking into consideration the ALAC Review recommendations and other interrelated ones, about Board and NomCom size and composition.
Does ICANN acknowledge the value of creating and binding itself to accept the decisions of independent "judiciary" branch, and, if so, what are you doing to establish such an independent review tribunal and make it more affordable than the current arbitration approach?
ICANN has itself put forward the idea of an independent review tribunal.
That process is open to community review and discussion and will be designed through feedback and input from the community.
Does ICANN agree that the rules it imposes on registries, registrars and registrants by its contracts and obligations flowing from them should be limited to rules supported by a demonstrated consensus among those affected?
If not, what is the source of ICANN’s authority to impose obligations not supported by consensus?
Yes, ICANN's contracts with registries and registrars require compliance with "consensus policies".
ICANN's decisions are made by a Board made up of representatives from the community and the organization follows a bottom-up consensus approach to all its decisions.
The source of ICANN's authority is in the global representation of the Internet community within its processes.
How can I guarantee my rights in Domain Name companies, knowing that some of these companies hold up the names after payments are made, or they don't permit us to get an EPP CODE?
Presuming this question is in reference to ICANN’s Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy, Registrants can contact the Contractual Compliance Team for enforcement assistance.
Transfer of domain names can be problematic when the registrar of record and the gaining registrar do not comply with the requirements of the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy. The Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy provides a standardized procedure that all registrars must comply with when registrants make transfer requests.
The Contractual Compliance Team enforces this policy. To assist registrars in understanding their obligations under the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy, ICANN issued two Advisories, 23 August 2007 http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/Transfer-Advisory-23aug07.pdf and 3 April 2008 http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/advisory-03apr08.htm.
To further clarify the requirements of the Policy, the Board adopted revisions to it in November 2008.
See http://www.icann.org/en/transfers/policy-en.htm. Additional questions can be directed to the ICANN Contractual Compliance Team.
It is important to have GNSO Board with good number of independent members, not affiliated to any interest group.
Thank you for your comment/suggestion.
The GNSO Council already has three independent members chosen by the Nominating Committee who are not affiliated with a particular GNSO Constituency. One of those appointees currently serves as Chair of the Council.
i suggest to make a free domains with new TLD ( .Free ) for Free or just for 1$ per year as a cheapest domain is that possible ? thank you
Currently what you outline is not possible. There is a wholesale registry price that is typically around $6. You are welcome to apply for the top-level domain dot-free when the process opens. Under the current rules (which are still up for review), you may be able to register domain names if you are selected as the dot-free registry owner, but only if you are a "single organization".
There was a related discussion about this in Sydney. See here for more information: http://syd.icann.org/node/4237/
The IIC process has generated much interest and community comment. However, the currently-proposed IIC plan doesn’t seem to have changed significantly from the original plan.
Question: Has the PSC adequately responded to the many substantive concerns raised by the community during the IIC process? If so, what changes were made?
You may be looking at an out of date document. The recently published staff recommendations represent a significant development building on previous documents.
Please consult "Improving Institutional COnfidence; The Way Forward" at http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-01jun09-en.htm.
If you feel that some point has been overlooked, you will be able to raise that in a further public comment period or in person at ICANN meetings where the issue is discussed
(a special session in Sydney will be held on Wednesday 24 June at 1pm in the main room, see: http://syd.icann.org/node/3871).
I undersand in the past Tucows and Godaddy have offered to run the .com registry for $3 or less per domain.
Whynot allow open registry bidding? If domains were $3 or less to renew (or reg) I would not be looking to let a high percentage of my portfoilio expire.
In order to advance its stability and security mission, ICANN's registry agreements have historically featured presumptive renewal provisions. Presumptive renewal encourages registries to invest in providing high levels of service and stability without the risk of uncertainty about the continuing right to operate the TLD.
Unless an existing registry is found to have broken the terms of its registry agreement, it will generally be allowed to continue management of that registry when its current contract expires.
For further background, please refer to the GNSO Council Report to the Board on Policies for Contractual Conditions for Existing Registries (4 October 2007) See: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/gtld-policies/council-report-to-board-PDP-feb-06-04oct07.pdf.
All those who asked questions are listed below, by number of comments (in parentheses) and then alphabetically: