Entries tagged with “Organizations” from Domains / Internet Technology News - DNS News
At the ICANN meeting in Brussels one of the topics that came up for discussion both during the public forum and the board meeting, was the topic of remuneration.
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 .. ..
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 .. ..
ICANN's Generic Names Supporting Organisation (GNSO) has formed a working group to consider changes to the domain transfer process to enhance security and reduce hijacking. The working group consists of registrars, aftermarket players, domainers and other members of the ICANN Community. The group published its preliminary recommendations at the ICANN meeting in Brussels two weeks ago and the 20-day comment period has just begun.
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
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
Again on the subject of new TLDs ....
One of the "issues" that concerned a number of people is the concept of "vertical separation".
The basic idea is that registries and registrars should be kept separate.
While that is a wonderful Utopian ideal, the reality is that in the real world companies own other companies, people trade in stocks and shares etc., etc. So it's far from being a simple "cut and dried" situation.
It's also a situation that I personally think has been blown out of all proportion. And of course the people who are pushing it hard are the current registry operators. Can you say "monopoly"?
Or how about "fear"?
Be that as it may, the debate has been going on for months. During the Seoul meeting there was a public debate where both sides of the argument were able to "have it out", but while that may have helped clarify things for some people it didn't resolve it.
Fast forward to January 2010.
The GNSO council has now voted that the only way to resolve this issue once and for all is via a PDP - which is ICANN speak for a quite drawn out policy development process:
The motion that the GNSO council approved sets very clear limits on the PDP, but whether or not it will be possible for a policy debate as contentious (for some people) as this to be resolved in the 16 weeks mentioned or not is a different matter.
One of the "issues" that concerned a number of people is the concept of "vertical separation".
The basic idea is that registries and registrars should be kept separate.
While that is a wonderful Utopian ideal, the reality is that in the real world companies own other companies, people trade in stocks and shares etc., etc. So it's far from being a simple "cut and dried" situation.
It's also a situation that I personally think has been blown out of all proportion. And of course the people who are pushing it hard are the current registry operators. Can you say "monopoly"?
Or how about "fear"?
Be that as it may, the debate has been going on for months. During the Seoul meeting there was a public debate where both sides of the argument were able to "have it out", but while that may have helped clarify things for some people it didn't resolve it.
Fast forward to January 2010.
The GNSO council has now voted that the only way to resolve this issue once and for all is via a PDP - which is ICANN speak for a quite drawn out policy development process:
A set of formal steps, as defined in the ICANN bylaws, to guide the initiation, internal and external review, timing and approval of policies needed to coordinate the global Internet's system of unique identifiers.In many cases a PDP can take years to go through the full process, though there have been some exceptions in the recent past (think "tasting").
The motion that the GNSO council approved sets very clear limits on the PDP, but whether or not it will be possible for a policy debate as contentious (for some people) as this to be resolved in the 16 weeks mentioned or not is a different matter.
One of the topics that keeps coming up in ICANN policy discussions and as part of the new TLD application process is "transparency".
ICANN, and the internet community in general, has had plenty of issues in the past with "bad actors" who have caused a lot of issues for everyone (think of many of the registrars who have lost accreditation in the last couple of years for example).
On more than one conference call or policy discussion the issue of a company or a person's track record has come up.
Now while I personally think that anyone who has been knowingly involved in criminal activity OR who has knowingly been involved with a serious breach of ICANN policy (or any of the contracts) should be barred from any further involvement with the DNS, a blanket ban is not without its own set of issues.
The larger the company the more likely it will have been involved with litigation or criminal law suits at some point or other in the past.
And who is pushing for all these "checks and balances" within the ICANN processes? In many cases it's the big brand owners, who live in fear of "squatters" and other "evil doers".
So why do I raise this?
Well George Kirikos has, yet again, managed to dig up some quite revealing data about some of the companies that likely to be involved in new TLDs in the future and who have been very vocal in the ICANN "space" over the last few years.
You can read the full text of what George uncovered here, but suffice to say that a lot of the big brands and companies aren't as "clean" as they'd like us all to be (and no that wasn't a typo).
Unilever, Disney, Coca-Cola, Time Warner, Yahoo! and Telstra are all named and, if you'll excuse the cliche, shamed...
ICANN, and the internet community in general, has had plenty of issues in the past with "bad actors" who have caused a lot of issues for everyone (think of many of the registrars who have lost accreditation in the last couple of years for example).
On more than one conference call or policy discussion the issue of a company or a person's track record has come up.
Now while I personally think that anyone who has been knowingly involved in criminal activity OR who has knowingly been involved with a serious breach of ICANN policy (or any of the contracts) should be barred from any further involvement with the DNS, a blanket ban is not without its own set of issues.
The larger the company the more likely it will have been involved with litigation or criminal law suits at some point or other in the past.
And who is pushing for all these "checks and balances" within the ICANN processes? In many cases it's the big brand owners, who live in fear of "squatters" and other "evil doers".
So why do I raise this?
Well George Kirikos has, yet again, managed to dig up some quite revealing data about some of the companies that likely to be involved in new TLDs in the future and who have been very vocal in the ICANN "space" over the last few years.
You can read the full text of what George uncovered here, but suffice to say that a lot of the big brands and companies aren't as "clean" as they'd like us all to be (and no that wasn't a typo).
Unilever, Disney, Coca-Cola, Time Warner, Yahoo! and Telstra are all named and, if you'll excuse the cliche, shamed...
In an interesting move several members of the ICANN community formed an "informal" Working Group to discuss the concept of "expressions of interest" in new TLDs. This all happened very quickly, which is more or less the opposite to how most ICANN related activities progress.
Earlier this evening the group submitted its report / paper to ICANN
The report, which runs to about 11 pages, is concise and seems to have covered most of the areas of interest. What's also interesting to note is that the people involved came from a variety of areas and probably give a reasonably good cross-section of the ICANN community.
If you have a few minutes the document is definitely worth reading and is a nice example of how a group of people can get things done quickly and efficiently when needed.
Now if only the rest of the ICANN processes were this quick to reach consensus!
(Maybe pigs flying is more likely!)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=1cd796ad-b955-4fa9-8fe4-d9fbbedc5591)
Earlier this evening the group submitted its report / paper to ICANN
The report, which runs to about 11 pages, is concise and seems to have covered most of the areas of interest. What's also interesting to note is that the people involved came from a variety of areas and probably give a reasonably good cross-section of the ICANN community.
If you have a few minutes the document is definitely worth reading and is a nice example of how a group of people can get things done quickly and efficiently when needed.
Now if only the rest of the ICANN processes were this quick to reach consensus!
(Maybe pigs flying is more likely!)
During the ICANN meeting in Seoul it became very clear that new TLDs were not going to progress on schedule (which schedule doesn't matter).
It also became clear that:
You cannot appease all interest groups AND move forward with new TLDs.
The "overarching issues" need to be addressed before the "community" can move towards a workable solution.
For a lot of new TLD applicants the delays with new TLDs are a source of worry, concern and possibly financial strain. While a big corporate may have ample funds to "wait out" the process, this probably wouldn't be the case with some of the smaller TLD projects.
During the week in Seoul some of the applicants tried to come up with a workable "halfway house" style solution.
The concept of garnering information on "interest levels" was put forward in various forms. While the idea has been welcomed in some quarters there are others who are not as comfortable with it.
The logic behind it is quite simple.
At present ICANN does not know how many applicants there will be for new TLDs, nor does it know how many contenders there will be for the same strings. A lot of the "problems" and "issues" are based on guesswork and wild assumptions.
While there may indeed be a basis for concerns it would be significantly easier to address an issue that is clearly presented and identified than by simply "imagining' or "guessing" about its existence.
The Board made reference to this community driven concept during their meeting in Seoul and referenced their experience with planning for the introduction of IDN ccTLDs.
Of course waiting for ICANN to "make a move" can be a frustrating experience, so it's hardly surprising that a group of new TLD applicants got together to form their own, informal, working group to push things forward.
It's also hardly surprising that this move has been met with some criticism from within ICANN circles (drawing parallels with the IRT).
And now ICANN has launched its own initiative to cover the same ground. (Or will the two be working to the same goal? Sorry - I'm getting quite confused by all the back and forth)
Meanwhile the RAA is coming under review again and there's a silly number of other working groups trying to deal with other aspects of ICANN policy...
Oh the fun and games!
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=229794a0-065e-4524-9655-f5baa343bb85)
It also became clear that:
- ICANN still wants them to go ahead
- ICANN wants to make everyone happy
You cannot appease all interest groups AND move forward with new TLDs.
The "overarching issues" need to be addressed before the "community" can move towards a workable solution.
For a lot of new TLD applicants the delays with new TLDs are a source of worry, concern and possibly financial strain. While a big corporate may have ample funds to "wait out" the process, this probably wouldn't be the case with some of the smaller TLD projects.
During the week in Seoul some of the applicants tried to come up with a workable "halfway house" style solution.
The concept of garnering information on "interest levels" was put forward in various forms. While the idea has been welcomed in some quarters there are others who are not as comfortable with it.
The logic behind it is quite simple.
At present ICANN does not know how many applicants there will be for new TLDs, nor does it know how many contenders there will be for the same strings. A lot of the "problems" and "issues" are based on guesswork and wild assumptions.
While there may indeed be a basis for concerns it would be significantly easier to address an issue that is clearly presented and identified than by simply "imagining' or "guessing" about its existence.
The Board made reference to this community driven concept during their meeting in Seoul and referenced their experience with planning for the introduction of IDN ccTLDs.
Of course waiting for ICANN to "make a move" can be a frustrating experience, so it's hardly surprising that a group of new TLD applicants got together to form their own, informal, working group to push things forward.
It's also hardly surprising that this move has been met with some criticism from within ICANN circles (drawing parallels with the IRT).
And now ICANN has launched its own initiative to cover the same ground. (Or will the two be working to the same goal? Sorry - I'm getting quite confused by all the back and forth)
Meanwhile the RAA is coming under review again and there's a silly number of other working groups trying to deal with other aspects of ICANN policy...
Oh the fun and games!
ICANN's website contains a LOT of information. Some of it is useful, some of it is fascinating, but it's all valuable (to someone)
The problem with the current site is that has grown so much over time that it is practically unusable. Unless you spend a silly amount of time using it (and I do!) it's nigh on impossible to find anything. Even when you spend a lot of time using the site you may still find yourself going round and round in circles trying to find information that you know exists (or does it??, maybe you were simply imagining it?)
So a few months ago ICANN started a process of revamping the site.
They've published some of the screenshots and background studies that led them to to this change on their blog.
So how does it look?
Crisp and fresh are words that spring to mind.
When will we get to see it?
That, unfortunately, is the BIG question and with the upcoming departure of Kieren McCarthy you'd have to wonder if the organisation will have the energy and impetus to forge ahead with such a dramatic change. Yes, it is needed, but whether or not Kieren's replacement(s) will have the same drive and devotion remains to be seen.
I for one hope that they do manage to "get it together", but I won't hold my breath. Don't get me wrong - a lot of ICANN staff would welcome a new and more usable site, but you need someone with energy and drive to ensure that it happens.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=25d65f97-f77f-4927-bfd0-13ad2b7fdf6a)
The problem with the current site is that has grown so much over time that it is practically unusable. Unless you spend a silly amount of time using it (and I do!) it's nigh on impossible to find anything. Even when you spend a lot of time using the site you may still find yourself going round and round in circles trying to find information that you know exists (or does it??, maybe you were simply imagining it?)
So a few months ago ICANN started a process of revamping the site.
They've published some of the screenshots and background studies that led them to to this change on their blog.
So how does it look?
Crisp and fresh are words that spring to mind.
When will we get to see it?
That, unfortunately, is the BIG question and with the upcoming departure of Kieren McCarthy you'd have to wonder if the organisation will have the energy and impetus to forge ahead with such a dramatic change. Yes, it is needed, but whether or not Kieren's replacement(s) will have the same drive and devotion remains to be seen.
I for one hope that they do manage to "get it together", but I won't hold my breath. Don't get me wrong - a lot of ICANN staff would welcome a new and more usable site, but you need someone with energy and drive to ensure that it happens.
Since ICANN announced that they would need a new CEO there has been quite a bit of speculation as to who would fill the role.CircleID has suggested that the new CEO could be Rod Beckstrom
According to a vaguely worded announcement published by ICANN today, the board is hoping to have the potential CEO attend the meeting in Sydney, though it's not clear either who the potential candidate is or if they will indeed be attending (see here)
The much vaunted launch of the new TLDs as announced at the ICANN Paris meeting last year is probably a bit of a damp squid in many respects.
Don't expect to see any actual progress there until next year at the earliest.
In the meantime you can read all about the plans people have for launching their "solutions".
The problem with some of the proposed "solutions" is simply that they rectify non-existent issues.
If politicians get their own TLD, then why not butchers? Or taxi drivers? Or fishermen?
The biggest issue with any of these TLDs is going to be reaching a mass that will allow them to survive. Some will probably be very successful on more than one level, but if people are going to propose TLDs they really need to think the entire process through.
Just because there is a perceived issue at present does not mean that creating a new TLD is going to do anything to solve it.
There are many cool ideas for new TLDs out there, don't get me wrong. But for every sane concept there are probably a few really badly thought out ones.
Unfortunately for the people pushing their new TLD projects it's not them who gets to decide which TLDs will be given a chance.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=9c5b891f-f3a0-4f1f-9d4f-4494f68b5381)
Don't expect to see any actual progress there until next year at the earliest.
In the meantime you can read all about the plans people have for launching their "solutions".
The problem with some of the proposed "solutions" is simply that they rectify non-existent issues.
If politicians get their own TLD, then why not butchers? Or taxi drivers? Or fishermen?
The biggest issue with any of these TLDs is going to be reaching a mass that will allow them to survive. Some will probably be very successful on more than one level, but if people are going to propose TLDs they really need to think the entire process through.
Just because there is a perceived issue at present does not mean that creating a new TLD is going to do anything to solve it.
There are many cool ideas for new TLDs out there, don't get me wrong. But for every sane concept there are probably a few really badly thought out ones.
Unfortunately for the people pushing their new TLD projects it's not them who gets to decide which TLDs will be given a chance.
It's always nice to see new ventures launching, but that is especially true when you know most of the actors involved.
Minds and Machines, which launched this weekend during the ICANN meeting in Mexico, is aimed at assisting companies and organisations navigate the new gTLD application process, as well as offering a registry services backend. Put another way, if you want to get your gTLD "in a box", then these are the guys you need to be talking to.
I probably sound a little over enthusiastic and biased. You'd be right,
As I mentioned, I know the main players, namely Antony Van Couvering, Jothan Frakes and Elaine Pruis. All three have shown themselves to be experts in their chosen area of work - the domain industry, and if I was applying for a new gTLD I'd definitely be calling on their services.
I'm sure Minds and Machines won't be the only company "touting for business" down in Mexico (and again at Sydney), so I wish them the best of luck.
Minds and Machines, which launched this weekend during the ICANN meeting in Mexico, is aimed at assisting companies and organisations navigate the new gTLD application process, as well as offering a registry services backend. Put another way, if you want to get your gTLD "in a box", then these are the guys you need to be talking to.
I probably sound a little over enthusiastic and biased. You'd be right,
As I mentioned, I know the main players, namely Antony Van Couvering, Jothan Frakes and Elaine Pruis. All three have shown themselves to be experts in their chosen area of work - the domain industry, and if I was applying for a new gTLD I'd definitely be calling on their services.
I'm sure Minds and Machines won't be the only company "touting for business" down in Mexico (and again at Sydney), so I wish them the best of luck.
WIPO, which manages domain disputes on behalf of the gTLDs and a lot of the ccTLDs, has put forward a proposal to ICANN for a paperless UDRP process.
In a very interesting and insightful article on CircleID George Kirikos looks at the implications of such a process. If you have an interest in domains then you really should read both what he has to say and the details of the proposal itself.
Nominet made changes to their dispute policy a few months ago and that met with quite a bit of criticism, though I don't think they had even mooted going purely electronic.
In a very interesting and insightful article on CircleID George Kirikos looks at the implications of such a process. If you have an interest in domains then you really should read both what he has to say and the details of the proposal itself.
Nominet made changes to their dispute policy a few months ago and that met with quite a bit of criticism, though I don't think they had even mooted going purely electronic.
ICANN have announced their implementation plans for the new AGP (Add Grace Period) Limits Policy
The plan specifies that gTLD Operators (hereinafter referred to as "Operators") must inform each of their accredited Registrars of the new Policy within the next 21 days and subsequently implement the Policy as soon as possible thereafter but no later than 31 March 2009.So that's it for domain tasting ...
The new AGP Limits Policy is based on a detailed recommendation made by the GNSO Council to the Board earlier this year and provides that Operators who offer an AGP to their customers will now be prohibited from making refunds to registrars for AGP deletes that exceed the threshold limits set by the Policy. The limits defined by the Policy are (i) 10% of that registrar's net new registrations (calculated as the total number of net adds of one-year through ten-year registrations as defined in the monthly reporting requirement of Operator Agreements) in that month, or (ii) fifty (50) domain names, whichever is greater, unless an exemption is requested by a Registrar and subsequently granted by an Operator. While Operators will initially have significant flexibility on how to treat such requests, ICANN Staff will monitor the process closely and modifications will be recommended if any additional patterns of abusive behavior are detected.
The implementation plan is the result of extensive public deliberations which were part of the GNSO Policy Development Process (PDP) on domain tasting, outreach to Operators and ICANN-accredited Registrars, and public comment on a draft implementation plan.
The plan includes significant changes to the reporting obligations of Operators. Operators will now be required to submit as part of their monthly reporting requirement information for each Registrar including, but not limited to, the number of exemption requests, number of exemptions granted, numbers of names affected by granted exemption requests and number of AGP deletes if this information is not currently defined in the Operator's monthly reporting requirement. Additionally, the monitoring requirements in the plan require ICANN to publish status reports on the implementation effort which will include a review of all exemption requests and their disposition, names of registrars that have recurring requests for exemptions and the reasons for these exemptions as well as other information defined in the plan.
The recent announcement to the ICANN Community on 13 November 2008 reported that AGP deletes decreased by 84% from June to July 2008 as a result of the related AGP budget provision adopted by the Board for fiscal year 2009. The budget provision has the same thresholds as the AGP Limits Policy. The AGP Limits Policy will carry a much higher financial penalty (i.e., the domain name registration fee paid by Registrars to Operators) than the budget provision (i.e., the current registrar-level transaction fee of US$0.20) for excessive AGP deletes. It is expected that following implementation of the Policy, AGP deletes will continue to decline until few or none are subject to excess delete fees.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=92c46f85-3d5d-4eb6-be76-8cc9c91b2edc)
Feed Subscription
If you use an RSS reader, you can subscribe to a feed of all future entries tagged “Organizations”.
Recent Comments