More from ICANN Court Filing: Not Only Are ccTLD’s Not Property But They Don’t Belong To The Country
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.
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.””
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) GOVIND@nixi.in
Balazs Martos firstname.lastname@example.org
The ICANN Board has selected Marrakesh, Morocco as the site for ICANN 52 to be held February 8th-12th, 2015.
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.
More 2-Character Domain Requested for .XYZ, .DEALS, .CITY, .COLLEGE, .GOP, .TRADE, .WEBCAM, .BID, .HEALTHCARE, .WORLD, .BAND
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.
The new gTLD string are: .XYZ, .DEALS, .CITY, .COLLEGE, .GOP, .TRADE, .WEBCAM, .BID, .HEALTHCARE, .WORLD, .BAND and the IDN XN–FJQ720A.
“”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 https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/rsep-2014-02-19-en.
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: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/two-char-new-gtld-2014-06-12-en.