Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
| Subscribe: Newsletters & News Alerts | ICANN Blog | Public Comment
| 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 one month's public comment periods, arranged according to the month in which the comment period was closed.
Each box below provides 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.
| Forums closing this month | Public comment | Archived forums: |
| Return to main public comment page |
| Discussion Draft of Interim Report of IDNC WG (IDN ccTLD Fast Track) | ||||||
|
Explanation: The IDNC WG was charted by ICANN's Board to develop and report on feasible methods, if any, that would enable the introduction, in a timely manner and in a manner that ensures the continued security and stability of the Internet, of a limited number of non-contentious IDN ccTLDs, associated with the ISO 3166-1 two-letter codes (both the official code list of ISO 3166-1 and the list of reserved ISO 3166-1 code elements) (popularly known as "the fast track"), while the overall IDN ccTLD policy is being developed. The scope of the IDNC WG is limited to developing feasible methods (for the introduction of a limited number of IDN ccTLDs) that do not pre-empt the policy outcomes of the IDN cc Policy Development Process (ccPDP) for which an Issue Report is currently being prepared. Under the IDNC WG charter, in considering feasible fast track methods, the IDNC WG must take into account and be guided by:
As originally indicated in the Discussion Draft of the Initial Report released on 1 February 2008, the fast track approach requires two specific mechanisms which are addressed in this report:
The purpose of this report is to inform and report to the community on the latest topics and issues as identified by the IDNC WG that need to be considered in developing each of the two mechanisms, and to seek input and comments on them. This report, and the comments received, will be used to structure and propose potential mechanisms in the next phase of the fast track (See Section 5 of the report for the Interim Report Schedule). As stated above, the outcome of the fast track cannot pre-empt the outcome of the ccPDP. All of the issues/topics raised regarding the fast track mechanisms also are being raised under the ccPDP. Thus, the solutions reached for the purposes of the fast track, out of necessity, have to be as limited as possible. The Discussion Draft of the Initial Report is available here <http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/idnc-proposed-methodology-31mar08.pdf>. Comments on this report are encouraged to be submitted by 25 April via email to idn-cctld-fast-track@icann.org. An archive of all comments received will be publicly posted at http://forum.icann.org/lists/idn-cctld-fast-track/. |
|||||
| Staff member responsible: Bart Boswinkel | ||||||
| GNSO Improvements Report 2008 | ||||||
|
Explanation: On February 15, 2008, ICANN's Board acknowledged receipt of the "GNSO Improvements Report" and indicated that it would like to receive final public comments on the Report to enable it to consider and implement the Report's recommendations as soon as possible. The Board has directed ICANN staff to open a public comment forum on the Report for 30 days, draft a detailed implementation plan in consultation with the GNSO, begin implementation of the non-contentious recommendations, and return to the Board and community for further consideration of the implementation plan. A copy of the Board's resolution regarding this matter can be found here. You can read the full report here [PDF, 197K] and see a web page with more information here. The ICANN Board Governance Committee's "GNSO Review Working Group" developed the Report's set of recommendations to improve the effectiveness of the GNSO, including its policy activities, structure, operations and communications. The Report reflects the Working Group's examination of many aspects of the GNSO's functioning, including the use of working groups and the overall policy development process (PDP), and the structure of the GNSO Council and its constituencies. The Board Governance Committee determined that the GNSO Improvements working group had fulfilled its charter and forwarded the report to the Board for consideration. Originally due to close on 25 March 2008, the public comment period on the GNSO Improvements Report has been extended by one month, now closing on 25 April 2008. On 19 March 2008, the Board's Executive Committee agreed to grant the extension to permit sufficient time for: i) the parties requesting the extension to have sufficient time to provide to the ICANN Board their proposal, including the details of the consultations and nature of the support that they have gathered; and, ii) to allow time for an additional call to the community to file submissions relating to all aspects of the posted report. |
|||||
| Staff member responsible: Denise Michel | ||||||
| ICANN Travel Support Policy | ||||||
|
Explanation: Explanation: ICANN is looking to create a documented, consistent policy that makes it clear when, for whom, and how ICANN will provide travel support for the wide range of volunteers who make ICANN’s community-based work possible. As ICANN becomes a more mature institution, it is important that we determine the proper approach to participation and travel support, and determine what is sustainable. During a presentation on this topic at the ICANN meeting in Delhi, a commitment was made to host an online forum to collect further input. The presentation document given at the meeting is available at : https://delhi.icann.org/files/TravelSupportExpenseDiscussion_0208.pdf A transcript of the session is available at: https://delhi.icann.org/files/Delhi-WS-TravelPolicy-13feb08.txt. |
|||||
| Staff member responsible: Doug Brent | ||||||
Announcement | Comments | Summary/analysis of comments |
||||||
| Nominating Committee review | ||||||
|
Explanation: The independent organisation reviewing ICANN's Nominating Committee has provided its report. The report will be used to develop detailed proposals for improving the way ICANN fills leadership positions, and part of that process will be public input, both in response to this public comment period and at a special session at the Los Angeles meeting on Wednesday 31 October 2007 at 5pm. The NomCom is responsible for the selection of 8 members of ICANN’s Board of Directors; 3 members of the Country Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO); 3 members of the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO); and 5 members of the Interim At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC). |
|||||
| Staff member responsible: Donna Austin | ||||||
| RegistryPro contract amendments | ||||||
|
Explanation: RegistryPro has asked for several changes to be made to the contact it has for the .pro registry. There are four proposed contract amendments - that can be seen in greater detail on the official announcement webpage for this comment period: 1. Expansion of third-level registrations e.g. med.pro to additional professions The purpose of the changes was outlined in a letter [pdf] to ICANN, received 12 March. For precise changes see the redlined Appendix L [pdf] to RegisterPro's contract incorporating changes to the naming conventions and registration requirements; and redlined Appendix F [pdf] including the proposed Terms of Use provisions. These changes are being posted for public comment prior to consideration by the Board. |
|||||
| Staff member responsible: Craig Schwartz | ||||||
| Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy initial report | ||||||
|
Explanation: In September 2007, a report into the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (the rules for transfer of domain names between registrars) asked ICANN to draw up an Issues Report to review possible changes. Four clauses in the policy were identified as being unclear when it came to denying a transfer, something that had led to a variation in practices between registrars. The Issues Report [pdf] went into greater overall detail and was then put out for comment to the GNSO's constituencies. That process is captured in an Initial Report [pdf] which is now being put out for public comment as the first step in a Policy Development Process (PDP) per ICANN's bylaws. The report concludes that there is general support for more work being done on clarifying the language in the policy. Some suggested wording for those changes is contained in the constituency comments in an appendix at the end of the Initial Report. Comments are sought specifically on the interpretation and phrasing of the four reasons for transfer denials, as further elaborated in the report. A summary/analysis of comments to this public comment period will form part of a Final Report to the GNSO Council near the end of April. The Final Report will then form the basis of discussion by the GNSO Council toward possible changes. |
|||||
| Staff member responsible: Olof Nordling | ||||||