Entries tagged with “ICANN” from Domains / Internet Technology News - DNS News
GMO Registry, which is part of the GMO Internet group, has been pushing dotShop, but it now appears that at least one other company is interested in pitching for it too..
This isn't the only new TLD project with competition and if ICANN announces tangible timelines in Cartagena you can expect to see a lot more of this..
That time round it was specifically in relation to the board and more specifically its chair. The discussion during the public forum was very interesting, as getting the balance right in such matters is awkward.
There is currently an open comment period on the topic
In any case it now transpires that the ICANN board held a meeting on June 23rd to discuss staff salaries. Or more specifically, the salaries of some of the more senior staff members, namely Kurt Pritz, John Jeffrey and Rod Beckstrom.
You can read more about the meeting here, though the details are pretty scant. What it looks like is that they've empowered Beckstrom to review both Pritz and Jeffrey's salaries - presumably upwards.
That an organisation would have some form of salary review process in place is logical. But during the current economic climate a lot of companies (and other organisations) are either freezing salaries or even reducing them.
And in typical ICANN style the salary review will involve more costs than just the actual increase in wages.Why? Well it's ICANN, isn't it? Instead of simply adjusting salaries they're going to pay consultants to tell them how much they should pay them ...
Beckstrom's salary is also included in this review .. ..
Over the last couple of years several of the gTLD registry operators have requested contractual changes with ICANN.
In many cases the change was small enough that it fit into what is called the Registry Services Evaluation Process (RSEP), which is the case of "new services" such as Verisign's Registry Lock.
In other cases, however, the requested change is much bigger and requires that ICANN open it up to public comment.
Such was the case with the proposed "Phased Allocation Program in .JOBS". which has been open to public comment.
You can read the proposal here (PDF), but in essence it broadens the usage scenarios and the possible registrants of .jobs domains quite significantly. Under the current regime companies are restricted to registering their company name or a close derivative. Under the proposal all those restrictions are gone out the window. From a registrant perspective that may seem appealing at first, but the way that this is being pitched could lead to only a very narrow number of registrants actually gaining at any level. Ultimately, however, the only entity that stands to gain would be the registry.
If you have the time take a read over some of the comments - they are quite revealing!
Over the last couple of years several of the gTLD registry operators have requested contractual changes with ICANN.
In many cases the change was small enough that it fit into what is called the Registry Services Evaluation Process (RSEP), which is the case of "new services" such as Verisign's Registry Lock.
In other cases, however, the requested change is much bigger and requires that ICANN open it up to public comment.
Such was the case with the proposed "Phased Allocation Program in .JOBS". which has been open to public comment.
You can read the proposal here (PDF), but in essence it broadens the usage scenarios and the possible registrants of .jobs domains quite significantly. Under the current regime companies are restricted to registering their company name or a close derivative. Under the proposal all those restrictions are gone out the window. From a registrant perspective that may seem appealing at first, but the way that this is being pitched could lead to only a very narrow number of registrants actually gaining at any level. Ultimately, however, the only entity that stands to gain would be the registry.
If you have the time take a read over some of the comments - they are quite revealing!
Several people have made comments about how ICANN has been losing staff over the last few months.
The most recent departure is their head of compliance - David Giza. His interim replacement will be Pam Little.
What makes this departure noteworthy is the level of activity in the compliance department over the past 18 months - the number of registrars whose accreditations were terminated due to non-compliance increased by several hundred percent
Several people have made comments about how ICANN has been losing staff over the last few months.
The most recent departure is their head of compliance - David Giza. His interim replacement will be Pam Little.
What makes this departure noteworthy is the level of activity in the compliance department over the past 18 months - the number of registrars whose accreditations were terminated due to non-compliance increased by several hundred percent
The key areas of focus for the working group are as follows:
a. Whether a process for urgent return/resolution of a domain name should be
developed, as discussed within the SSAC hijacking report (http://www.icann.org/announcements/hijacking-report-12jul05.pdf; see also http://www.icann.org/correspondence/cole-to-tonkin-14mar05.htm);
b. Whether additional provisions on undoing inappropriate transfers are needed, especially with regard to disputes between a Registrant and Admin Contact. The policy is clear that the Registrant can overrule the AC, but how this is implemented is currently at the discretion of the registrar;
c. Whether special provisions are needed for a change of registrant near a change of registrar. The policy does not currently deal with change of registrant, which often figures in hijacking cases;
d. Whether standards or best practices should be implemented regarding use of Registrar Lock status (e.g., when it may/may not, should/should not be applied);
e. Whether, and if so, how best to clarify denial reason #7: A domain name was already in "lock status" provided that the Registrar provides a readily accessible and reasonable means for the Registered Name Holder to remove the lock status.
Comments by registrants, registrars and other interested parties are strongly encouraged and can be viewed at:
http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#irtp-b-initial-report
The deadline for submitting comments is 25 July.
Disclosure - I chair the working group
ORG, The Public Interest Registry (PIR) today announced that the .ORG domain is now in full production with Domain Name System Security Extensions (DNSSEC) by accepting second level signed .ORG zones. In launching signed delegations, .ORG - the third largest domain - takes its final step in an extensive two-year process, becoming the first generic top-level domain (TLD) to offer full DNSSEC deployment. The announcement was made today at ICANN Brussels by Alexa Raad, CEO of PIR.
ICANN have published the 4th version of the DAG.
The DAG - Draft Applicant Guidebook - is like the "bible" for anyone aspiring to run a new TLD.
Unfortunately the new TLD launch cannot take place until the DAG has been finalised - a point that seems to be always just over the horizon.
ICANN have published the 4th version of the DAG.
The DAG - Draft Applicant Guidebook - is like the "bible" for anyone aspiring to run a new TLD.
Unfortunately the new TLD launch cannot take place until the DAG has been finalised - a point that seems to be always just over the horizon.
The December ICANN meeting will be held in Cartagena, Colombia.
The ICANN board is currently meeting, so I'm seeing some information being dripped out of it via Rod Beckstrom's Twitter feed (nice work Rod!)
I suspect that the .co registry will be involved in the meeting in Colombia for obvious reasons, but are we going to see more panic from US participants? It's not as if the US has had an exactly stellar relationship with Colombia over the last number of years. ..
EOI was killed off, "vertical integration" was shunted back to a GNSO workgroup to "sort it out", while the much awaited "decision" on .xxx morphed into this:
15. Consideration of the Independent Review Panel Declaration - ICM Registry v. ICANN
Whereas, on 6 June 2008, in accordance with ICANN Bylaws, ICM Registry, Inc. filed an application for an Independent Review challenging ICANN's denial of ICM's application for the .XXX sTLD;
Whereas, on 8 September 2008, ICANN submitted its response to ICM's IRP;
Whereas, after a three-member Independent Review Panel (Panel) was constituted, both ICM and ICANN submitted additional papers setting out their respective positions on the matter;
Whereas, from 21 through 25 September 2009, a live hearing was held in Washington DC, where both sides submitted documentary evidence and witness testimony;
Whereas, on 19 February 2010, the Panel issued its 2-1 majority Declaration with findings;
Whereas, in accordance with Article IV, section 3.15 of ICANN's Bylaws, "[w]here feasible, given that the Board shall consider the IRP Panel Declaration at the Board's next meeting";
Whereas, the Board has considered the IRP Panel Declaration throughout the week in Nairobi from 7-12 March 2010 and reviewed various paths toward conclusion; and
Whereas, in the absence of a process for approving an sTLD six years following the receipt of the original application, the Board wishes to create a transparent set of process options which can be published for public comment.
Resolved (2010.03.12.39), the Board has considered the Independent Review Panel's Declaration in conformity with the ICANN Bylaws requirements during its meeting in Nairobi and explored possible paths regarding ICM's application for the .XXX sTLD.
Resolved (2010.03.12.40), the Board directs ICANN's CEO and General Counsel to finalize a report of possible process options for further consideration.
Resolved (2010.03.12.41), the Board directs ICANN's CEO and General Counsel to post the report of possible process options on the ICM matter for public comment within 14 days, which will enable the community to provide input on the Board processes. The report will be posted for public comment for no less than 45 days, which will enable the Board to consider the possible process options no later than ICANN's 38 th International Meeting in Brussels.
Which led to the publishing of this set of documents by ICANN yesterday
Now there is a public comment period and then there'll be another report which will be presented to the board and maybe - just maybe, the board will make some kind of actual decision at the Brussels meeting in June.
Now don't hold your breath whatever you do!
ICANN's board may end up shunting the entire thing back to the community again or get blocked by the GAC.
In the meantime I suspect ICM feel a bit like a mouse in a maze:
(Thanks to the little birdie who provided the graphic)
The ICANN Board's statement on vertical integration at Nairobi has left pretty much everyone in an awkward position.
Either it is:
- a masterful move by the board
- or an act of madness
I'd hope it was the masterful move, as it essentially forces everyone to reach a consensus. Failure to do so will have a negative impact on both registrars and registries, as nobody can really "win' in the post-Nairobi world.
The Board's statement is still being debated, but on the face of it they are blocking any form of relationship between registries and registrars:
5. New gTLDs Implementation – Vertical Integration
Whereas, decisions about industry structure affect many aspects of the public interest – prices, service offerings, sources and uses of data, and more;
Whereas, ICANN has obtained several studies, and heard from Industry participants about the possible benefits and detriments of choices related to ownership integration or non-integration;\
Whereas, the market for new gTLDs will be dynamic, and has yet to emerge. In particular, there are concerns about how industry structure could affect consumer data protection;
Whereas, the GNSO is in an active policy development process on the issue of Vertical Integration, and the Board does not want to create an environment in which it would be difficult to later harmonize the new gTLD marketplace with the GNSO policy result; and
Whereas, it is important to establish a baseline approach to registry-registrar separation for the new gTLD process to move ahead.
Resolved (2010.03.12.17), within the context of the new gTLD process, there will be strict separation of entities offering registry services and those acting as registrars. No co-ownership will be allowed.
Resolved (2010.03.12.18), if a policy becomes available from the GNSO, and approved by the Board prior to the launch of the new gTLD program, that policy will be considered by the Board for adoption as part of the New gTLD Program.
The second last line includes an incredibly vague reference to "registry services" without offering any definition. So is providing DNS to a registry covered? What about if I buy shares in a company that already owns shares in another company? Where do you draw the line?
The last sentence is the "opening", but based on the interactions on the mailing list so far I'd suspect that there will be a lot of squabbling ..
Hopefully, however, there will be some progress, as it is now an issue of importance to a lot of parties
The ICANN Board's statement on vertical integration at Nairobi has left pretty much everyone in an awkward position.
Either it is:
- a masterful move by the board
- or an act of madness
I'd hope it was the masterful move, as it essentially forces everyone to reach a consensus. Failure to do so will have a negative impact on both registrars and registries, as nobody can really "win' in the post-Nairobi world.
The Board's statement is still being debated, but on the face of it they are blocking any form of relationship between registries and registrars:
5. New gTLDs Implementation – Vertical Integration
Whereas, decisions about industry structure affect many aspects of the public interest – prices, service offerings, sources and uses of data, and more;
Whereas, ICANN has obtained several studies, and heard from Industry participants about the possible benefits and detriments of choices related to ownership integration or non-integration;\
Whereas, the market for new gTLDs will be dynamic, and has yet to emerge. In particular, there are concerns about how industry structure could affect consumer data protection;
Whereas, the GNSO is in an active policy development process on the issue of Vertical Integration, and the Board does not want to create an environment in which it would be difficult to later harmonize the new gTLD marketplace with the GNSO policy result; and
Whereas, it is important to establish a baseline approach to registry-registrar separation for the new gTLD process to move ahead.
Resolved (2010.03.12.17), within the context of the new gTLD process, there will be strict separation of entities offering registry services and those acting as registrars. No co-ownership will be allowed.
Resolved (2010.03.12.18), if a policy becomes available from the GNSO, and approved by the Board prior to the launch of the new gTLD program, that policy will be considered by the Board for adoption as part of the New gTLD Program.
The second last line includes an incredibly vague reference to "registry services" without offering any definition. So is providing DNS to a registry covered? What about if I buy shares in a company that already owns shares in another company? Where do you draw the line?
The last sentence is the "opening", but based on the interactions on the mailing list so far I'd suspect that there will be a lot of squabbling ..
Hopefully, however, there will be some progress, as it is now an issue of importance to a lot of parties
The board has put forward a motion to decide vertical integration once and for all. There will no cross-ownership allowed.
The board's decision is very interesting.
They are, to quote Dennis Jennings, setting a baseline, but will bow to any policy decision that comes from the GNSO.
There is now a GNSO PDP (Policy Development Process) to discuss vertical integration.
The board has put forward a motion to decide vertical integration once and for all. There will no cross-ownership allowed.
The board's decision is very interesting.
They are, to quote Dennis Jennings, setting a baseline, but will bow to any policy decision that comes from the GNSO.
There is now a GNSO PDP (Policy Development Process) to discuss vertical integration.
This morning the ICANN board is meeting in Nairobi
On the menu this morning are a number of topics, but only a couple of them are attracting any serious attention. One of them, EOI (Expressions of Interest), was hoped, by some, to be a way to move the new TLD project forward.
The board looks set to completely reject the EOI concept this morning.
At present board members are giving their thoughts on why they are doing this (or not doing it .. )
This morning the ICANN board is meeting in Nairobi
On the menu this morning are a number of topics, but only a couple of them are attracting any serious attention. One of them, EOI (Expressions of Interest), was hoped, by some, to be a way to move the new TLD project forward.
The board looks set to completely reject the EOI concept this morning.
At present board members are giving their thoughts on why they are doing this (or not doing it .. )
Feed Subscription
If you use an RSS reader, you can subscribe to a feed of all future entries tagged “ICANN”.
Recent Comments