A vital part of ICANN’s processes is the opportunity for there to be public comment on each substantial piece of work before it is put forward for final approval. This is an archive of one month’s public comment periods, arranged according to the month in which the comment period was closed.
Each box below provides a brief explanation of what the comment period hoped to achieve, as well as: links to relevant reports and/or webpages; a link to the official announcement of the comment period; a link to where all existing comments can be found; and an email link for anyone that wished to send in a comment. A “summary/analysis” objectively reviews the comments.
| Forums Closing This Month | Public Comment | Archived Forums |
|
2008 |
Closed Forums
| Introduction of IDN ccTLDs | |||||
|
Explanation:The country code Names Supporting Organisation (ccNSO) - which represents the manager of the country code top-level domains such as .de for Germany, or .uk for the Britain - asked for an issues paper to be drawn up regarding the possible introduction of ccTLDs as internationalized domain names (IDNs) i.e. for the two-letter country codes currently used on the Internet to be provided in a non-Western alphabet. In particular the issues report will cover whether the existing ICANN bylaws cover IDN versions of the two-letter codes (as defined by the ISO 3166-1 list); and whether the ccNSO should launch a policy development process (PDP) into delegation of IDN versions of ISO 3166-1 codes. The staff member responsible for drawing up the report was asked to identify policies, procedures, and/or bylaws that should be reviewed and, as necessary revised as a result of such a policy. The staff member was also asked to propose a timeline for conducting each stage of a possible future PDP. The various ongoing policy issues that may impact this paper, as well as a suggested format for people to submit their comments in is available in the official announcement of this public comment forum. We advise that those interested in responding review that announcement in full. Please note that it is not necessary at this stage to make suggestions to resolve any issues relating to an overall policy or answer any questions. |
||||
| Staff member responsible: Bart Boswinkel | |||||
Announcement | Comments | Summary/analysis of comments |
|||||
| Domain Tasting Initial Report | |||||
|
Explanation:The body that represents individual Internet users within ICANN, the At Large Advisory Committee (ALAC), asked ICANN’s main policy body, the Generic Names Supporting Organisation (GNSO) to review the issue of “domain tasting” in spring 2007. Domain tasting is where someone uses existing legitimate processes to register a domain name and then tests to see if the address has sufficient traffic to provide more income than the annual registration fee (usually through the addition of pay-per-click advertising). If the address is deemed sufficiently profitable, it is kept. If not, the current “add grace period” - where domains can be returned within five days without cost - is used to return the domain at no net cost to the registrant. This process has seen an enormous increase in the number of domains registered and returned and some feel represents a loophole that needs to be closed. In response to the ALAC’s request in spring 2007, the GNSO Council requested that ICANN staff prepare an issues paper for review and discussion. That Issues Report [pdf] was produced and discussed at ICANN’s San Juan meeting in June 2007, during which the GNSO Council decided to set up a working group to gather more information. The working group came back with an Outcomes Report [pdf] in October 2007. As a result of both reports, the GNSO Council decided at the end of October 2007 to launch a formal policy development process (PDP) into domain tasting, beginning with a request that other parties in the ICANN structure provide their input on the issue. As a result of all this, an Initial Report [pdf] has been produced outlining the process, possible actions to be taken, and the arguments put forward for and against such actions. It is this Initial Report that has been put out for public comment. Feedback will be incorporated into a Final Report supplied to the GNSO Council for it to review and take action where necessary. |
||||
| Staff member responsible: Olof Nordling | |||||