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
| PIR’s Proposed Implementation of DNSSEC | |||||
|
Explanation:On 3 April 2008, ICANN posted PIR’s proposal to implement DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC) in .ORG for public information. ICANN has made a preliminary determination that the PIR proposal requires further consideration by the Registry Services Technical Evaluation Panel (RSTEP) because the new service could raise significant Security or Stability issues. In order to inform the RSTEP review team and ICANN Board, ICANN is opening a comment period on PIR’s proposed implementation. All documents related to the PIR proposal are available at http://www.icann.org/registries/rsep/#2008004. |
||||
| Staff member responsible: Patrick Jones | |||||
| Absentee Voting | |||||
|
Explanation:The GNSO Council approved a resolution to recommend to the Board a modification of the ICANN bylaws that would permit electronic absentee voting in certain circumstances in order to allow Council members who are absent from Council meetings to vote. Currently, a member of the Council is unable to vote on an issue when absent from the Council meeting at which the vote occurs. The Council found that this not only disenfranchises members from opportunities to vote, but also, disenfranchises the constituencies they represent. In drafting the resolution, the GNSO considered carefully the way in which it operates today, and produced a report entitled, “Draft GNSO Council Request to the Board to enable full enfranchisement of the GNSO Council’s voting responsibilities.” The report examines closely how the Council typically deliberates prior to initiating a vote on policy matters, and concludes that allowing for absentee voting would enhance participation by enfranchising absent voters by providing a means for absent members to vote electronically. The public is invited to comment on this recommendation before consideration by the Board. |
||||
| Staff member responsible: Liz Gasster | More information please | |||||
Announcement | Comments | Add a comment | Summary/analysis of comments |
|||||
| Domain Tasting | |||||
|
Explanation: The GNSO Council approved by super majority vote a motion to discourage use of the current “add grace period” (AGP), where domains can be returned within five days without cost, for “domain tasting” purposes. The motion, which is pending for Board action, would prohibit any gTLD operator that has implemented an “add grace period” (AGP) from offering a refund to a registrar for any domain name deleted during the AGP that exceeds 10% of its net new registrations during that month, or fifty domain names, whichever is greater. An exemption could be granted based on extraordinary circumstances, as detailed in the motion. “Domain Tasting” refers to a situation where an entity registers a domain name and then tests to see if the name has sufficient traffic to provide more income than the annual registration fee (usually through pay-per-click advertising). If the name is profitable, it is kept. If not, the AGP is used to return the domain at no cost to the registrant. Recently, there has been a significant increase in the number of domain names registered and returned within the AGP. In October 2007, the GNSO Council launched a policy development process (PDP) on domain tasting and produced an Initial Report for public comment that outlined the possible actions to be taken, and the arguments for and against such actions. Public comments were incorporated into a draft Final Report (posted 8 February) for GNSO Council review and action. The public is invited to comment on this motion before final consideration by the Board. |
||||
| Staff member responsible: Liz Gasster | | |||||