Archive for the ‘ICANN’ Category

ICANN Publishes “Five Things to Know About ICANN’s 2015 Budget”

July 18th, 2014 Comments off











In a blog post ICANN Published “Five things to Know About ICANN’s 2015 Budget”

Typically ICANN just releases its draft budget and then lets the domain blogs and other during and through the comment period rip into the budget & dissect the numbers.

The Draft 2015 CAN Operation Plan and Budget is 80 pages.

Here ICANN seems to be doing damage control in advance by releasing its own notes along with the budget

Here is the post:

“If you are wondering what the future holds for ICANN, you can see our best estimate in the draft FY 2015 ICANN Operating Plan and Budget.

The 80-page document reflects weeks and weeks of planning and number-crunching to provide the clearest view of our future activities and initiatives.

Haven’t had a chance to read it yet?

Let me sum up the five things you should know about ICANN‘s FY 15 budget.

We listened to you and made improvements.

I’m proud of the work that went into this year’s budget. We were able to make many improvements – as you, the community, requested. These include a highlights section and a complete overview of resources and expenses with comments on year-on-year variances by category and by function. We’ve also included a description of the activities of the organization planned for each portfolio. This budget should satisfy your requests for more data, whether you want to see a high-level overview and analysis or drill into the details of a specific project.

Our expenses are stable.

From 1 July, ICANN‘s expenses will remain stable across all departments, except for selected growth areas pertaining to the gTLD service platform, IT infrastructure and Contractual Compliance.

Growth will level off in coming years.

The budget reflects the growth we had to undertake in order to build the underpinnings needed for a global organization with participants from all over the world. Today, we’re offering new and expanded services to more and more people and groups in more regions. And we’re doing this at levels that would not have been possible a few years ago. We are very close now to being where we need to be as a mature global organization, and together we should plan for budget growth to level off in the coming years.

More details on costs relating to the IANA stewardship transition are forthcoming.

As you know, the FY 15 budget cycle was underway when the NTIA announced that it would transition the stewardship of the IANA functions in April. We developed a rough estimate of $4.7 million in costs and added it to the budget as a placeholder. Now, several months later, we have a much better understanding of the project and will soon publish a more detailed cost breakdown, broken into the four tracks of work I’ve written about before.

Your scrutiny is key to our accountability.

We post our draft operating plan and budget so that we are accountable to our community and stakeholders. This means that your review and comments are a critical part of how we remain accountable to you. We welcome your ongoing scrutiny.

This year’s Public Comment period had interesting results. We lengthened the comment period to 54 days (it was 43 days last year), yet we still received fewer contributions than the previous year. We proactively reached out to individuals and groups that provided comments in previous years. We want to learn more about how we can be more effective in getting your feedback.

Next steps.

We are currently reviewing public comments and will post a summary and analysis later in July. The document will be revised as needed and will likely be considered for approval by the Board in late August.

We’ve improved the budget – but there is always room for further refinement. I intend to continue my focus on it, to ensure it is efficient and reflective of our priorities, year after year. Your close attention reinforces our mandate for accountability.””

Categories: External Articles, ICANN Tags:

CEO of .In (India) Alleges 40% of ccTLD’s Left Out Of IANA Transition Coordination Group

July 17th, 2014 Comments off

According to a press release we received today from Dr Govin who is the CEO of the .IN ccTLD Registry which is the ccTLD for India is claiming that about 40% of all ccTLD’s are being left out of the IANA Transition Coordination Group as part of ICANN’s plan to move away from US oversight.

Basically Dr. Govin says that 104 of the 259 ccTLD are not being representative in this process.

Balazs Marto of .HU (Hungary) also signed the email:

The USG has recently announced its intent to transition its procedural role of administering changes to the authoritative root zone file – the database containing the lists of names and addresses of all top-level domains – as well as serving as the historic steward of the DNS.

Whilst the stewardship role of the NTIA has been exemplary, this initiative is welcome, and of the 255 country code Top-Level Domains (ccTLDs) that exist today, 240 were in stable operation with fully automated updating of the IANA Root Zone data, prior to the creation of ICANN which occurred on September 18, 1998.

Historically, ccTLDs have formulated policy based on a multi-stakeholder model, addressing their user community needs based on the cultural, operational and legal frameworks in which the Registry is founded.

Today the ccTLD community can be categorised into two groups:

i) 151 ccTLD Registry Operators are members of the ICANN Country Code Names Supporting Organization with the function to propose Policy to the ICANN Board that impacts members of the ccNSO (and for ccNSO members to opt-out of decisions taken by the ICANN Board if they so wish), and;

ii) 104 ccTLD Registry Operators who have chosen not to cede any authority to the ICANN Board and are wholly responsible for the secure and stable management of their respective ccTLD Registry.

The 104 ccTLD Registry Operators in ii) above develop their naming policies outside of ICANN in a manner that best serves their respective Internet communities, recognise Industry Best Practices, accord with laws of the jurisdiction in which the Registry is incorporated, and operate within a diverse set of cultural, technical and legal frameworks.
There is no case in which ICANN or IANA may amend these policies or undermine foundation document RFC-1591 upon which the assignment of the ccTLD occurred, and there is no intervention by any external party (even the US Government) in their implementation.

With the IANA transition now in sight, the Internet community is entering a crucial phase in which the details of new arrangements need to be developed and finally agreed.

Yet, a significant section of the ccTLD community is being proactively excluded from the Transition Coordination Group.
Dr Govind, CEO of the body which manages the Indian ccTLD Registry .IN said, “Clearly the process has already been captured by a subset of the ccTLD community. The selection process controlled by the ccNSO resulted in all four seats being assigned to their members. A significant section of the ccTLD Registry operator community do not share the objectives of the ccNSO membership are now excluded from the process

While the Selection Committee did have non-ccNSO community representatives, not a single non- ccNSO ccTLD Registry Operator was ultimately chosen as a representative, despite two highly qualified and experienced candidates offering to serve (and even share a seat) on the Transition Coordination Group to represent the diversity of ccTLD Registry operations.”

As Registry Manager of .HU, Balazs Martos, says “I am very concerned that the ccNSO seem to feel they speak for the whole ccTLD Community when dealing with every IANA matter. They do not, .HU is an IANA service user, but we are not a member of the ccNSO. I would much prefer representation from the non- ccNSO Registry Operator community on the Transition Coordination Group as well, otherwise our position is easily excluded from the process and retaining the status-quo much more desirable.”

If fragmentation of the Root Zone management function is to be avoided, it is essential that any transition process respects, represents and unites the whole ccTLD community, something that the current IANA Transition process being managed by ICANN is not doing. Members of the Coordination Group have stated they were willing to increase the number of participants to be as inclusive as possible; however ICANN refuses to do so.

Dr Govin (CEO .IN ccTLD Registry)

Balazs Martos

Categories: ccTLD's, External Articles, ICANN Tags:

ICANN Selects Marrakesh, Morocco As The Site for ICANN 52 To Be Held In February 2015

July 9th, 2014 Comments off










The ICANN Board has selected Marrakesh, Morocco as the site for ICANN 52 to be held February 8th-12th, 2015.

In the Preliminary Report of the Regular Meeting of the ICANN Board released last night,

This meeting will be in the Africa region

This is an Organizational Administrative Function that does not require public comment.

For more information about Marrakesh you can click here.

ICANN 51 is being held in Los Angeles, from October 12th-16th, 2014.

Categories: External Articles, ICANN Tags:

More 2-Character Domain Requested for .XYZ, .DEALS, .CITY, .COLLEGE, .GOP, .TRADE, .WEBCAM, .BID, .HEALTHCARE, .WORLD, .BAND

July 9th, 2014 Comments off










ICANN has opened up another comment period for 12 more new gTLD which have applied to have the right to allocated 2 charter domain names.


“”To obtain community input on the proposed amendments to the Registry Agreements of several registry operators. The proposed Amendments are to implement a new registry service that would permit the introduction of two-character domain names for registration in the new gTLD namespace resulting from the recently approved Registry Services Evaluation Process (RSEP) requests.”

Comment Period: 8 Jul 2014 – 29 Jul 2014 23:59 UTC

Reply Period: 30 Jul 2014 – 20 Aug 2014 23:59 UTC

Specification 5 (Schedule of Reserved Names), Section 2 of the New gTLD Registry Agreement addresses reservations of two-character labels. As provided in Specification 5:

All two-character ASCII labels shall be withheld from registration or allocated to Registry Operator at the second level within the TLD. Such labels may not be activated in the DNS, and may not be released for registration to any person or entity other than Registry Operator, provided that such two-character label strings may be released to the extent that Registry Operator reaches agreement with the related government and country-code manager of the string as specified in the ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 standard. The Registry Operator may also propose the release of these reservations based on its implementation of measures to avoid confusion with the corresponding country codes, subject to approval by ICANN.

As part of these requests, each registry operator described the two-character domain names that it would offer for registration. These RSEP requests were posted for public information on the Registry Service Evaluation Process webpage, available at

See below for a summary of each RSEP request:

.healthcare, .world, .band – On 25 June 2014, ICANN posted for public information a request made by Binky Lake, LLC (on behalf of three Donuts, Inc. operated TLDs). The proposal requests the release of all two-character ASCII labels that do not appear on the ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 list and for which there is no corresponding government or country-code operator. To avoid user confusion with the two-character country codes, the registry operator noted in its RSEP that “the release of these two-character ASCII labels poses no risk of confusion with any country-code. Therefore, the restrictions placed on this set of two-character ASCII labels are unwarranted and should be lifted forthwith.”

.trade, .webcam, .bid – On 16 June 2014, ICANN posted for public information a request made by Elite Registry Limited (on behalf of three Famous Four Media operated TLDs). The proposal requests the release of all two-character ASCII labels in respect of the listed strings that do not appear on the ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 list and for which there is no corresponding government or country-code operator. The registry operator noted in its RSEP request that “On behalf of the following Registry Operators, Famous Four Media is requesting a written waiver from ICANN which would permit the allocation of two-character labels, while still reserving two-letter domains that correspond to the two-letter country code names found on the ISO-3166 alpha-2 list: Elite Registry Limited (.trade), Dot Webcam Limited (.webcam), Dot Bid Limited (.bid) (“Registry Operators”). As an initial step, we request the release of all two-character ASCII labels in respect of the listed strings or that will be operated by the foregoing Registry Operators, that do not appear on the ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 list and for which there is no corresponding government or country-code operator.”

.gop – request was posted for public information on 12 June 2014 by Republican State Leadership Committee, Inc.. The proposal requests introduction of two-character .gop domains, while reserving two-letter domains that correspond to the two letter country code names.

.xyz, .college – request was posted for public information on 12 June 2014 by XYZ.COM, LLC for two TLDs. The proposal requests the release of all two-character ASCII labels that do not appear on the ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 list and for which there is no corresponding government or country-code operator. The registry operator noted in its RSEP that it “will submit a subsequent request to release two-character labels that appear on the ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 list and have a corresponding ccTLD, but this initial request is limited to two-character names with no corresponding ccTLD.”

.city – On 6 June 2014, ICANN posted for public information a request made by Binky Lake, LLC (on behalf of one Donuts, Inc. operated TLD) The proposal requests the release of all two-character ASCII labels that do not appear on the ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 list and for which there is no corresponding government or country-code operator. To avoid user confusion with the two-character country codes, the registry operator noted in its RSEP that “the release of these two-character ASCII labels poses no risk of confusion with any country-code. Therefore, the restrictions placed on this set of two-character ASCII labels are unwarranted and should be lifted forthwith.”

.deals, .xn--fjq720a – On 6 June 2014, ICANN posted for public information a request made by Binky Lake, LLC (on behalf of two Donuts, Inc. operated TLDs) The proposal requests the release of all two-character ASCII labels that do not appear on the ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 list and for which there is no corresponding government or country-code operator. To avoid user confusion with the two-character country codes, the registry operator noted in its RSEP that “the release of these two-character ASCII labels poses no risk of confusion with any country-code. Therefore, the restrictions placed on this set of two-character ASCII labels are unwarranted and should be lifted forthwith.”

As provided by the Registry Services Evaluation Policy, ICANN has undertaken a preliminary determination on whether the proposals might raise significant competition, security or stability issues. ICANN’s preliminary review (based on the information provided) did not identify any such issues for these requests.

To note, in its 27 March 2014 Singapore Communiqué, the GAC noted that it “discussed the Brand Registry Group proposal for a streamlined process under an addendum to the Registry Agreement for the approval of country names and 2-letter and character codes at the second level.” The GAC stated that it “has no major concerns about brand owners seeking approval for such names,” but that the approval should be “done directly with the countries concerned rather than through a GAC-level operational process.” The GAC noted that “individual GAC members could assist with proposals relevant to their particular country if requested,” and the GAC suggested that “consideration be given to establishing a register of countries that do not require individual requests to be made.” The GAC will be informed of this public comment period.
Section II: Background

In 2006, .name requested for a limited release of reserved two-character names which ICANN staff performed an initial technical evaluation, and referred the matter to the Registry Services Technical Evaluation Panel (RSTEP) process. The RSTEP panel considered the security and stability impacts of the proposal, which focused on unexpected responses being received from the DNS for both existing and non-existing domains, as well as simply user confusion where the idea of two letter second-level domains is unfamiliar. Based on the report of the RSTEP Panel, internal experts and other public comments, there were no significant security and stability issues related to introduction of the proposal, and the board adopted a resolution on 16 January 2007 to authorize ICANN to amend the .name Registry Agreement to implement the proposed registry services.

From 2007 to 2012, ICANN processed various RSEP proposals related to the release of two-character labels for 11 TLDs (.jobs, .coop, .mobi, .biz, .pro, .cat, .info, .travel, .tel, .asia, and .org).

Currently six RSEP proposals for the introduction of two-character domain names for .kred, .best, .ceo, .wiki, .globo, and 143 other Donuts, Inc. operated TLDs is open for public comment for a total of 148 New gTLDs. (Note: Binky Lake, LLC has submitted a RSEP request on behalf of Donuts, Inc. for 143 gTLDs.) Approving amendments to the identified Registry Agreements to implement the proposed new registry service would be the first of its kind in the new gTLD space. The public comment forum for these six requests can be found here:

Categories: External Articles, ICANN, new gTLDs Tags:

ICANN Updates New gTLD Collision Auction Schedule; Here Is The New 2014 Schedule

July 7th, 2014 Comments off










ICANN has published an updated schedule of the ICANN Last Resort Auction for those new gTLD  in Collision.

ICANN will hold a Last Resort Auction for new gTLD strings that had more than one application and which have not settled the contention through private auctions or otherwise.

You might remember that ICANN proposed most recently to hold 20 Last resort auctions per month starting with June 2014.

However June only saw one new gTLD Last Resort auction, none are scheduled for July and August only has 2 auctions scheduled:

Here is the schedule for the rest of 2014 of course subject to change:


Auction #3 Auction Bidding Round 1 Begins at 20:00 UTC on 6 August 2014



Auction #4 Auction Bidding Round 1 Begins at 13:00 UTC on 17 September 2014




















Auction #5 Auction Bidding Round 1 Begins at 16:00 UTC on 22 October 2014






















Auction #6 Auction Bidding Round 1 Begins at 20:00 UTC on 19 November 2014















Auction #7 Auction Bidding Round 1 Begins at 13:00 UTC on 17 December 2014




















Categories: External Articles, ICANN, new gTLDs Tags:

After 2 Years .Sex, .Porn & .Adult Become “Sensitive Strings” To The New gTLD Committee

July 4th, 2014 Comments off

After 2 year years The New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC) has decided that .Sex, .Porn and .Adult are Sensitive Strings according to the minutes of the new gTLD committee to ICANN which are dated July 1st.

Interestingly before the application period closed it was wildly speculated by many including myself that the Government Advisory Council (GAC) would object to the strings such as .Sex giving level of opposition to .XXX and the years and number of battles that ICM the registry for .XXX faced to getting the extension approved.

However the GAC never objected to .Sex or the other strings .Porn and .Adult.

Matter of fact in the two years since the new gTLD applications were submitted there has not been any objections lodged to .Sex, .porn or .adult that I have seen anywhere in the ICANN channel, at the ICANN meeting or even in the public sessions of each ICANN meeting when anyone can get up to chat about anything with the ICANN Board.

This “concern” has literally come out of nowhere, its basis is unknown and not explained in the minutes of the New gTLD committee meeting.

Under the heading “Consideration of Sensitive Strings” the committee says:

“”The Committee engaged in a discussion concerning applications for several adult-oriented strings in the current round of the New gTLD Program, including .ADULT, .PORN, and .SEX. The applications propose to serve the same sector as the .XXX sponsored TLD. Staff noted that the applications were not the subject of GAC advice, or any special safeguards, other the safeguards that are applicable to all new gTLDs. The Committee considered how the safeguards in the new gTLD Program compare to the safeguards that were included in the .XXX Registry Agreement.

“”The Committee requested staff prepare additional briefing materials, and agreed to discuss the matter further at a subsequent meeting.”””

Making it more puzzling is that two of the strings, .porn and .adult, ICM the registry of .XXX is the only applicant and is already on the record saying that domains those strings will be given to .XXX domain holders.

.Sex has two applicants and is among the last new gTLD contention auctions to be held by ICANN according to their schedule but in the event ICM wins that auction .Sex domain names would also be given to the holders of .XXX domain names.

Which of course raises another issue

What if ICM and the other applicant or .Sex had gone into a private auction settle contention on the basis that existed before July 1, before the new gTLD committee new found interest in these strings and one of the applicants spent say $5 Million to settle only now to wake up to find something that was not an issue is now an issue?

Fairness would dictate that objections need to be raised in a timely manner, it is so in a court of law,  and should be the same for ICANN and its committees.



Categories: External Articles, ICANN, new gTLDs Tags:

As ICANN Meeting Ends “China Launches Campaign To Control The Internet”

June 26th, 2014 Comments off

Talk about a disturbing headline just published a post entitled “China Launches Campaign To Control The Internet”

According to the story, China’s communist government intends to impose on the Internet the same “guiding principles” it currently uses to stifle online dissent within China.”

The decision of the U.S.  to relinquish its oversight of ICANN, is seen by China as an opportunity to increase its influence over the Internet.

Political analysts said China wants a “new world order of Internet governance” based on international cooperation and away from US control and towards control by China.

“China is boosting its effort to promote what it calls a “double seven strategy” to wrest control of the Internet at the 50th global conference of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers being held in London.””

Lu Wei, chairperson of China’s State Internet Information Office, as early as ICANN’s opening ceremony made the astonishing claim that global participants have reached a general consensus over seven key issues of Internet governance raised by China.”

“These seven issues are part of China’s “double seven strategy” that is essentially a formula for complete control of the Internet by China.”

The double seven strategy consists of the “seven baselines” and the “seven consensuses” both unilaterally developed by China without consulting with other countries that are part of ICANN.

The seven baselines consist of promoting communism, promoting China’s national interests, observing Chinese laws and regulations; promoting the legitimate interests of Chinese citizens, promoting social order, morality and pushing for information authenticity.

The “seven strategy” echoes Beijing’s belief that the Internet should serve the interests of developing countries like China. It argues that the Internet should focus on protecting the legitimate rights and interests of citizens and not become a hotbed for criminal activity or terrorism.

“It seeks to make more beneficial to mankind by bringing peace and security to all countries and not be used as a “weapon” to attack others.

“Lu also said the Internet should run with civility and integrity without spreading rumors or perpetrate fraud.

“He said the Internet should pass on positive energy and carry forward the culture of mankind and aid the healthy development of minors.”

The Duo Wei Times, a Chinese-language newspaper published in the U.S., said China intends to control the Internet by pushing its “double seven strategy” and by forcing the U.S. to relinquish the final vestiges of its authority over ICANN’s functions.”

This idea of the US giving up control over the Internet and handing it over to the likes of China and Russia is off is great start.

Categories: External Articles, ICANN Tags:

Here Is The GAC Communique From The ICANN London That Was Just Released

June 26th, 2014 Comments off

The Government Advisory Counsel (GAC) has just issued its Communique from the ICANN London meeting.

It has been the practice of the GAC to issue such a Communique at the end of each ICANN meeting outlining its decisions its advice to the ICANN Board and any developments or other thoughts arising out of the meeting.

Here it is:

1. Transition of US Stewardship of IANA and Strengthening ICANN Accountability

The GAC is committed to engaging with the current processes dealing with transition of US Government stewardship of IANA; and strengthening ICANN accountability.

The GAC will participate in both processes by nominating the Chair and four additional GAC members for formal membership of the coordination group and working group respectively, to provide a balanced representation of governmental interests. The GAC will ensure that geographic, linguistic and gender diversity are reflected. GAC participants in the groups will consult with, and facilitate information flows across, the broader GAC membership.

The GAC recognizes the need for it to comment on the final draft proposals from the IANA stewardship transition coordination group and the ICANN accountability working group before the public comment periods.

2. Safeguard Advice Applicable to all new gTLDs and Category 1 (consumer protection, sensitive strings and regulated markets) and Category 2 (restricted registration policies) strings

a. The GAC advises:

I. the Board to call on the NGPC to provide the GAC with a comprehensive and satisfactory response to the legitimate concerns raised in the Beijing and Singapore Communiqués.

The GAC considers that the current responses offered to the GAC fail to address a number of important concerns, including:

1) the process for verification of WHOIS information;

2) the proactive verification of credentials for registrants of domain names in regulated and highly regulated industries (the relevant Category 1 strings);

3) the proactive security checks by registries;

4) the Public Interest Commitments Dispute Resolution Process (PICDRP), which is not defined as to length of procedure or outcome; and

5) discrimination in restricted TLDs.

In additionThe GAC advises that:

I. the Board to provide its responses to GAC advice at least four weeks prior to ICANN meetings in order to give sufficient time to the GAC to assess and provide feedback on these complicated matters.

These concerns are further clarified in an Annex to this Communique.

The GAC looks forward to the activation of the review panel on promoting competition, consumer trust and consumer choice envisaged in the Affirmation of Commitments.

The GAC notes that the Government of Israel expressed concerns about the potential for discrimination in the operation of .kosher, which Israel will study further.

3. Specific Strings

a. .Africa

Consistent with the new gTLD applicant guidebook, the GAC provided consensus advice articulated in the April 11 2013 communiqué that the Dot Connect Africa (DCA) application number 1-1165-42560 for dot Africa should not proceed.

The GAC welcomes the June 2013 decision by the New gTLD Program Committee to accept GAC advice on this application.

The GAC notes the recent action taken to put on hold the ZACR African Union Commission endorsed application due to the Independent Review Panel (IRP) mandated by ICANN Bylaws.

The GAC advises:

1. The ICANN Board to provide timely communication to the affected parties, in particular to provide clarity on the process and possible timelines;

2. The ICANN Board that, following the release of the IRP recommendation, the Board should act expeditiously in prioritising
their deliberations and delegate .africa pursuant to the registry agreement signed between ICANN and ZACR.

b .Spa

The GAC welcomes the NGPC’s acceptance of the GAC advice on .spa.

The GAC reiterates its advice ( on the issue that “the relevant parties in these discussions are the city of Spa and the applicants.”

The GAC therefore seeks NGPC’s clarification on whether its explanation that “the applications will proceed through the normal process” means it will follow the Applicant Guidebook taking into consideration the GAC advice.

c .wine / .vin

There was further discussion on the issue of .wine/.vin, but no agreement was reached because of the sensitive nature of the matter.

The matter of .wine and .vin was raised at the High Level Governmental Meeting, where some members expressed concerns in terms of ICANN’s accountability and public policy.

These concerns are not shared by all members.

4. Protection of Children

The GAC reiterates its advice in the Buenos Aires Communiqué that new gTLD registry operators should be made aware of the importance of protecting children and their rights consistent with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

5. Protection of Inter-Governmental Organisation (IGO) Names and Acronyms

The GAC reaffirms its advice from the Toronto, Beijing, Durban, Buenos Aires and Singapore Communiqués regarding protection for IGO names and acronyms at the top and second levels, as implementation of such protection is in the public interest given that IGOs, as created by governments under international law, are objectively different rights holders; notes the NGPC’s letter of June 16th, 2014 to the GNSO concerning further steps under the GNSO Policy Development Process while expressing concerns that the process of implementing GAC advice has been so protracted; welcomes the NGPC’s assurance that interim protections remain in place pending any such process; and confirms its willingness to work with the GNSO on outcomes that meet the GAC’s concerns.

6. Protection of Red Cross / Red Crescent Names

The GAC refers to its previous advice to the Board to protect permanently the terms and names associated with the Red Cross and Red Crescent, including those relating to the189 national Red Cross and Red Crescent societies, and recalls that the protections afforded to the Red Cross and Red Cross designations and names stem from universally agreed norms of international law and from the national legislation in force in multiple jurisdictions.


a. The GAC now advises, that:

I. the Red Cross and Red Crescent terms and names should not be equated with trademarks or trade names and that their protection could not therefore be adequately treated or addressed under ICANN’s curative mechanisms for trademark protection;

II. the protections due to the Red Cross and Red Crescent terms and names should not be subjected to, or conditioned upon, a policy development process;

III. the permanent protection of these terms and names should be confirmed and implemented as a matter of priority, including in particular the names of the international and national Red Cross and Red Crescent organisations.


The GAC notes that there continue to be range of initiatives being progressed relevant to WHOIS, including outcomes from the WHOIS Review Team and the recently finalised report of the Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services. Many of the issues under discussion and analysis have public policy dimensions, including privacy, law enforcement, consumer protection and public safety.

a. The GAC requests that:

I. ICANN make further efforts to explain and clarify the linkages between the full range of WHOIS activity for the benefit of GAC and the community between now and the Los Angeles meeting, to ensure that WHOIS activity adequately reflects GAC’s earlier comments and concerns. ICANN should also consider the implications of short, restrictive comment deadlines for community workload. The GAC suggests that ICANN conduct a session for the community on these issues in Los Angeles.

8. Accountability and Transparency

The GAC was briefed by the Board-GAC Recommendation Implementation Working Group (BGRI) and agreed to specific ATRT2 recommendations being progressed by the BGRI as follows:

o Development of a formal process for the Board to notify and request GAC advice (Recommendation 6.4) – Document current process and seek comment on options for improvements.

o Bylaw changes to formally implement the documented process for Board-GAC Bylaws consultation developed by the BGRI (Recommendation 6.5) – GAC advises the Board that there are no further requests for Bylaws amendments, in light of the new gTLDs, and hence sees no need for Board action on this to be further delayed.

o Regularisation of senior officials’ meetings (Recommendation 6.7) – GAC agrees that regular high level meetings are beneficial, and will examine ways to maximize their benefits and continually improve the way they are arranged and scheduled.

o GAC to use opportunities to provide input to ICANN policy development processes (Recommendation 10.2) – GAC noted that the GAC-GNSO Consultation Group is addressing this.

9. Human Rights

GAC noted the written analysis on ICANN’s procedures and policies in the light of human rights, fundamental freedoms and democratic values, prepared by experts of the Council of Europe. The GAC noted that there is a developing interest in the ICANN community to include human rights issues in future discussions.

10. Protection of Geographic Names in gTLDs

The GAC provided a briefing, led by the sub-group on geographic names of the working group on future gTLD issues, to the community on protection of geographic names in future new gTLD application rounds.

Further work will be done on this matter and new updates will be provided at the next ICANN meeting.

Categories: External Articles, ICANN Tags:

Victim’s Of Terrorists Holding a Billion Dollars+ In Judgements Seeks Seizure of .IR Registry By ICANN

June 24th, 2014 Comments off

According to a press release, A lawyer representing a “group of American victims of terror and family members of those who have been injured or killed in attacks sponsored by the Islamic Republic of Iran (Iran) have moved to attach and seize the ccTLD domain registry of Iran, .Ir

“The families, who hold unsatisfied American federal court judgments amounting to more than a billion dollars against the Iranian government seek to own all the “top-level domain” (TLD) names provided by the US to Iran including the .ir TLD, the ایران TLD and all Internet Protocol (IP) addresses being utilized by the Iranian government and its agencies.”

“The court papers have been served on Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)”

The families are represented in this unprecedented civil action by attorney Nitsana Darshan-Leitner of Tel-Aviv, Israel and Robert Tolchin of New York.

Darshan-Leitner said: “This is the first time that terror victims have moved to seize the domain names, IPs and internet licenses of terrorism sponsoring states like Iran and are attempting to satisfy their court judgments.

The Iranians must be shown that there is a steep price to be paid for their sponsorship of terrorism. In business & legal terms it is quite simple – we are owed money, and these assets are currency worth money. ”

“In cases brought in the US by the terror victim plaintiff/judgment holders against Iran, the districts courts have repeatedly ruled that the suicide bombing and shooting attacks perpetrated by the Hamas and Islamic Jihad terrorist organizations in Israel were funded by the Islamic regime through MOIS.

“However, although the families have received compensatory and punitive damage judgments against the defendants, Iran has refused to satisfy the court awards.”

“Iran has been designated by the Department of State as an outlaw nation that provides material support and resources to terrorist groups worldwide since 1996.

“Under an exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (28 U.S.C. § 1610(g)), legislated to assist terror victims to collect judgments against foreign states abrogates Iran’s sovereign immunity for claims arising from acts of terrorism and subjects to attachment “the property of a foreign state… and the property of an agency or instrumentality of such a state, including property that is a separate juridical entity or is an interest held directly or indirectly in a separate juridical entity.”

According to Baruch Ben-Haim whose son Shlomo was severely injured in a 1995 terrorist bombing of an Israeli bus: “It’s not right that the US government would provide these licenses to Iran while it is refusing to pay off the judgments handed down against it for funding global terrorism. The federal court awards given to our families must be satisfied.”

Darshan-Leitner said, “For years the Iranian government has refused to pay its judgments, thumbing its nose at these terror victims and the American court system. Our clients continue to suffer from the suicide bombing that Iran financed in Jerusalem nearly seventeen years ago. It is not our intention to shut down Iran’s internet usage, but we want what is rightfully due. If by seizing any funds earned from these licenses and contractual rights we can satisfy the judgments, we will have served our clients.”

We remain committed to helping these American families satisfy their judgments.”

Categories: External Articles, ICANN Tags:

.Global Online Auction Signup Is Live; You Must Sign Up Even If You Pre-Bid With Namejet

June 23rd, 2014 Comments off











The signup for the .Global online Live Domain Name is now active.

If you want to participate remotely in the .Global Live domain name Auction which is being held during ICANN London, you need to go and sign up here.

The auction will be held starting at around 12:30 PM EST; 5:30 PM London time.

Even if you have pre-bid bid on for the .Global auction, you need to register at the online auction provider which is here:

If you do not register you will not be able to bid.

You will not be able to bid during the live auction through

Namejet is  just handling the pre-bidding and post bidding (for any domains that do not sell in the live auction) only.

You will not be able to access the online live bidding platform with your Namejet  login information.

Once again you must register with the actual online action provider to participate in the online bidding for the live .Global domain auction