ICANN|ARCHIVES

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.

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.

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.

No, ICANN is not currently discussing transfer of root server functions to an international organization.

While we are excited to hear that the Internet's domain name system continues to be used to improve communication and information sharing across the world, ICANN as an organization does not have any role in the provision of content.

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.

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.

Specific recommendations regarding the Governmental Advisory Committee will be the focus of a community-wide discussion, as part of the Improving Institutional Confidence consultation.

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.

It is important to note that the RAA, the agreement that governs the relationship between ICANN and its accredited registrars, does not specifically address actions by parties other than the registrar that may result in harm to internet users, members of the public and others.

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.

See http://www.icann.org/en/transfers/policy-en.htm.

Additional questions can be directed to the ICANN Contractual Compliance Team.

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.

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.

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.

See: http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#irt-report

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.

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.

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

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.

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/.

---

Asked by: Yanus Nevstruev

---

The string <WWW> is currently on the list of top-level reserved names. (See the draft Reserved Names list in Module 2, section 2.1.1.2, 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The General Manager of Meetings reviews each bid and makes a recommendation to the Board. When the bidding process for a meeting is opened, ICANN posts an announcement on its front page; it is also linked to under the Meetings section on the front page.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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/

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).

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.