Mexico City question box responses published

ICANN as an organization

• Emergency reserve fund
• PSC/IIC accountability mechanisms
• At Large Board Directors
• Whois Accuracy Study
• Constituency recertification
• Travel funding
• UDRP review
• Market-based IP transfers
• Board member compensation
• Fast domain takedown
• Consumer protections
• Board removal mechanism
• Emergency Names and Addressing Committee
• Cancelled domains
• Fewer, longer Board meetings
• Cost of ALAC
• President’s Privacy Committee
• Whois accuracy
• Independent Review Process
• Cybersquatting lawsuits
• Board Risk Committee
• Registry Assignments
• Per domain fees
• Price of dotcom domains
• Domain name community
• Senior policy staff recruitment

Registrars/RAA

• RAA review
• Amendments approval
• Breach notices
• Suspending registration services
• Registrar Code of Conduct
• Names of registrars’ directors
• Warehousing policy
• Proxy services
• Registrant rights
• Registrar applications
• AAAA glue
• Amendment process
• Place of business
• Control of expired domains
• Registrar attitude
• Policy process
• Bulk domain transfers
• Enforcement of RAA
• Domain blacklist
• Forced transfer of a domain
• Add Grace Period
• Price of .mx domains
• Mexico registrar model

Applicant Guidebook / New gTLDs

• Annual fees
• Registry fees
• Use of excess revenue
• Introduction of new gTLDs
• Phishing
• Rollout timeline
• Registrar accreditation process
• City TLDs
• Domain abuse
• Rights in second-level domains
• Fixed fee rules
• Third-level domains
• Language preservation
• Geographic names
• Supporting information
• Email and third-level domains
• Refund mechanism
• Guidebook in French
• Competition study

Public participation

• Member dossiers
• Remote participation
• Regional gatherings
• Video conference affilation
• Participation channels
• Fellowship program

IDNs / Fast Track

• Cost recovery
• Language tables
• Management of IDN ccTLDs
• Fast Track conflicts
• Government backing
• Disputes

Accountability and transparency

• Independent review
• Ombudsman

Others

Executive compensation | FX hedging program | Telephone costs | Compensation | Registrars and cybersquatting | WHOIS escrow | Registrar Auctions / Conflicts of Interest | CRISP | Uniform domain drop policy | Meetings and environment | DNSSEC | IPv6 | Online Multilingual Search | ICANN fellowship

Why did ICANN choose an investment policy that resulted in losses of $4.6m in the stock market? It was a carefully thought out policy derived from ICANN’s revenue and capital structure.

ICANN’s revenues are fairly stable and predictable and ICANN had built a large cash balance ($31m in Jun 2007). Concern was expressed by auditors and others about the concentration of cash and that led to a study for investment policy. That study recommended a moderately low risk (65 percent fixed income, 35 percent equity, plus 3 months worth of operating expense in cash). In hindsight it was an unfortunate decision with almost $5m loss (-16 percent) since inception. While that is bad, the market is much worse.

Also, ICANN’s portfolio performed better than other similar risk class portfolios (-12.63 percent compared to an annualized median for similar portfolios of -15.48 percent). Furthermore, the Reserve fund is not for operations. It’s a rainy day fund that has a three to five-year investment outlook. The working capital fund (separate from Reserve fund) has $20 min all cash for over three months of operations.

As far as reconsidering the Investment Policy, ICANN doesn’t want to abandon the investment policy without careful consideration. We don’t want to buy high and sell low. The Board has directed staff to hire a consultant to review the investment policy for reasonableness. No further transfers from working capital to the Reserve Fund will be made until the policy review has been completed.

The PSC is a committee that reports to the President, and the report’s recommendations have now been passed on for consideration by the Board. No recommendations will be implemented until they have been considered by Board. The Board has put the report out to public comment and also asked staff to evaluate implementation of the proposals and report its findings to the Board. See: http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#iic-plan

The draft final report of the ALAC review WG recommends two voting seats for ALAC in the Board; a public comment period is open at http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#alac-review.

After public comments (17 April) the WG will finalize its report to the Structural Improvements Committee and the Board. The Board review WG presented its initial report in Mexico for feedbacks; also this WG is considering the possibility for ALAC to nominate one or two Board Directors.

A public comment period is opened at http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-200904.html#board-review. After public comments (17 April) the WG will finalize its report to the Structural Improvements Committee and the Board. More at http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/board/ and http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/alac/

The ICANN Compliance Department together with the National Opinion Research Center organized a Whois Accuracy Study. When can we expect to see the results of this study?

The results of the Whois Accuracy Study are expected to be published by ICANN at the ICANN 36 meeting in Seoul, South Korea.

The bylaws require constituent bodies to operate to the maximum extent feasible in a transparent manner. Will the Board refuse to re-certify constituencies that don’t publicly archive member discussions?

The re-certification submissions provided by all GNSO constituencies were posted for public comment through 25 February (see the summary of comments on the public comment webpage). The Staff also is conducting a thorough review of the submissions and any Board decisions will take place in the context of the GNSO Improvements implementation process. It is anticipated that the Board will take remedial steps to correct any areas where existing constituencies are not currently living up to the bylaws principles rather than taking the punitive step of de-certification.

A $60million budget is currently insufficient to
fully fund GNSO Council travel expenses. How high does the budget need to be
before full travel funding becomes available?

Travel funding was recently reviewed for all supporting organizations and advisory committees. For more information please visit: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/travel-support/

ICANN Staff issued a Draft Statement of Work for
Funnel Review (indicating a review is consistent with ICANN’s efforts to
improve policies/procedures). Can we also expect a UDRP review?

While there are no current plans to review the UDRP, ICANN does consistently review and revise its main agreements and processes in order to keep them fit-for-purpose. The GNSO may initiate a PDP to revise the UDRP if desired.

RIRs are considering proposals to permit
market-based address transfers. Does the Board have a view on this
development?

ICANN works closely with the RIRs on areas of mutual interest while each recognizes that the other is entitled to set policies through their own processes.

When can we anticipate a decision being reached on
the topic of board member compensation?

The Board review working group (WG) presented its initial report in
Mexico, asking for further inputs from the community on this and other key
issues; a public comment period is open at
http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-200904.html#board-review until 17 April. Then, the WG plans to present its final report in
Sydney, taking into consideration comments from the community. More at
http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/board/

Board’s thoughts on APWG’s Accelerated Domain
Suspension Process proposal seeking to define accreditation requirements for
entities that would expedite takedowns of domains used in phishing or malware
distribution?

The Board recognizes that reducing the use of domains used in phishing or malware distribution is a difficult challenge and mitigation is a shared responsibility in which many types of service providers, law enforcement entities and users themselves can all play important roles.

The Board applauds the efforts of the APWG, including working with ICANN-accredited registrars, to develop and update best practices to encourage and facilitate the accelerated take-down of domains that are associated with criminal activity. The GNSO Council is initiating a Working Group on Registration Abuse that may address domain based phishing or malware. However, since much of this abuse is not related to domain name registrations, it may not be within the scope of ICANN’s policy remit to address all of these concerns.

Strategic Plan: “Clarify ICANN’s role in relation
to consumer protection; develop a clear consensus position by the end of
2009.” What is the Board’s current view on ICANN’s role?

The purpose of this objective in the plan is to support the Board in developing an agreed-on view.

PSC Discussion Proposal: Establish accountability
mechanisms that allow the community to remove the Board collectively and
reconstitute it. When do you anticipate such a mechanism being in place?

The PSC is a committee that reports to the President, and the report’s recommendations have now been passed on for consideration by the Board. No recommendations will be implemented until they have been considered by Board. The Board has put the report out to public comment and also asked staff to evaluate implementation of the proposals and report its findings to the Board. See: http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#iic-plan

ICANN’s Emergency Names and Addressing Committee
(ENAC) supposedly includes 1 appointed ALAC representative from each region.
Whom has the ALAC appointed to serve on this Committee?

There are no current members of the ENAC. The ENAC is non-membership non-standing committee that will only be formed in the event that certain conditions warrant its invocation. If the conditions ever warranted formation of the committee there would then be call for members.

Will the ICANN Compliance Department be willing to
tell us how many domains have been cancelled in the last year as a result of
WDPRS filings?

WDPRS does not generate those statistics; it is not currently configured to inform ICANN about those registrants whose domains are cancelled as a result of complaints filed through the system. ICANN will explore enhancements that can be made to the WDPRS in order for it to generate additional statistics or other means of reporting.

The Independent Review of the Board of ICANN
recommended to “Move to fewer but longer board meetings”; does the board
agree or disagree?

The Board review working group (WG) presented its initial report in
Mexico for feedback; this report discusses this recommendation of external
reviewers
(http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/board/board-review-interim-report-20feb09-en.pdf).
A public comment period is open at
http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-200904.html#board-review and the WG plans to present its final report in Sydney, taking into
consideration comments from the community. More at
http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/board/

ALAC Review: “after a year since we first began
asking, ICANN has not been able to produce current or historical data on the
cost of the ALAC”; Board response?

With the recent efforts to provide more detailed expense reporting, (see the dashboard at: http://www.icann.org/idashboard/public/), Board and stakeholders, constituencies, and other community members have asked for even more detailed expense reporting. ICANN has committed to continue efforts to provide more and more detailed expense reporting to honor its continual commitment for transparency and accountability. More specifically, the draft FY10 Operating Plan and Budget will contain more information on the details of budget spending by constituency (SOs and ACs).

Why did the Board decide to eliminate the Board
Privacy Committee which was first established at the recommendation of
at-Large director Mueller-Maguhn? Is privacy no longer an important
consideration?

Privacy has remained an important part of ICANN’s policy discussions. The President’s Standing Committee on Privacy was formed in 2003 but never progressed beyond an initial work plan. The Committee has not been formally dissolved although it has not been active for a number of years. For more information on the Committee view: http://www.icann.org/en/committees/privacy/

The stated goal of the WDRP Consensus Policy was to
improve Whois accuracy. If Whois accuracy has not improved, will ICANN
direct the GNSO to revisit this policy?

There are a number of Whois studies currently being
planned. Several are being planned and executed by ICANN’s Compliance
department. There are also studies of Whois being considered by the GNSO
Council, these are focused on gathering and analyzing data that might be
useful for potential future policy making. The results may provide insights
related to Whois accuracy but are not specifically focused on the WDPRS. For
the latest information on policy activities, please visit:
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/. For information on Compliance-related
activities, please see http://www.icann.org/en/compliance/.

In the matter of the Independent Review Process
before the International Centre for Dispute, ICANN argues for a deferential
standard of review. Is ICANN unwilling to be held accountable?

ICANN is committed to following accountability mechanisms, that were established as part of a community driven process and are set out in the bylaws, which can be found at: http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm. With respect to the specific Independent Review Process, ICANN’s papers are posted, and further papers will be posted as they become available, at: http://www.icann.org/en/irp/

How many cybersquatting-related lawsuits directed at
registrars does ICANN need to see before it realizes that ICANN action is
warranted?

Lawsuits are matters for courts to decide. Any suspected breach of the RAA should be reported to ICANN, and ICANN will address investigate these matters and take compliance action when appropriate. Cybersquatting matters can be addressed through the WDPRS. The RAA does not specifically address cybersquatting. A PDP is required to provide ICANN clear authority to take action regarding cybersquatting.

Will ICANN’s new board-level Risk Committee be
reporting to the community on the risks associated with terminating the JPA?

Information about the Risk Committee, including its charter outlining its purpose and scope of responsibilities, can be found at: http://www.icann.org/en/committees/risk/.

ICANN has approved two registry assignments (.pro to
Hostway; .name to Verisign’s VIS). Shouldn’t the assignment process be as
robust as the new gTLD application process?

ICANN’s registry agreements have a provision for assignments that required their approval by ICANN. In the case of .PRO and .NAME, assignments an appropriate evaluation occured.

Will ICANN reduce its per domain fee of $.20 now that is has a huge surplus, well in excess of its own stated reserve requirements?

ICANN’s strategic plan calls for a Reserve Fund of an amount equal to one year of operating expenses. This amount has not been reached and thus the FY10 budget framework proposes additional contributions.

Will ICANN give back the profits it has made in 2009
to the domainers? will you tell verisign to stop raising the prices of .COM?
will you stop big corporatons from influencing you?

ICANN is a not-for-profit organization. If the organization receives more income than its spends (as outlined in the community-approved budget), it typcially reduces the fee it charges registrars per domain. The terms of the dotcom contract approved by the Board in 2006 allow VeriSign to raise fees in a limited way without approval from ICANN. See that contract in full here: http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/agreements/com/

To what extent do ICANN officers regard the domain name community as a legitimate and respectable stakeholder in ICANN driven outcomes? Do ICANN support, in principle, the interests of "domainers"?

ICANN is a bottom-up consensus driven organization. The current GNSO improvements process calls for structure and process changes to create an environment that encourages the formation of new constituencies. The Board welcomes proposals for the formation of new constituencies and input from all interested stakeholders.

Are the recruitments for senior policy positions
restricted by eligibility to work in the USA and also candidates living in
certain geographical locations. If so, is ICANN really international?

Part of the Improving Institutional Confidence consultation - currently out for public comment (see: http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#iic-plan) - reviews precisely the question of an additional "legal presence" for ICANN to deal with issues of nationality and other related factors.

Work in amending the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (resulting from the review of the accreditation process) is underway. Full details are available at http://www.icann.org/en/topics/raa. In addition, other issues related to the accreditation policy (http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/policy_statement.html) are under review. Most recently, GNSO approved a set of amendments to the RAA. Those amendments will be considered by the Board at its April meeting. The amendments improve protections for registrants and provide ICANN with better enforcement tools.

The various constituencies within the GNSO worked collaboratively on the new RAA amendments and approved it in Mexico City by unanimous agreement. It is now forwarded to the Board for action.

ICANN continues to improve its contractual compliance activities, including timeliness of its actions. Many breaches are cured using tools other than breach notices, i.e., other forms of communication with registrars. Each case is addressed individually in order to best protect registrants, cure breaches in a timely manner and ensure a level playing field. The Contactual Compliance team keeps the Board regularly updated on all of its activities.

RAA amendment: ability to create new Registered Names suspended if Registrar is repeatedly/willfully in fundamental/material breach of its obligations at least three times within year. Why isn’t once sufficient?

This proposed RAA amendment allows ICANN to suspend registration services for one breach if the breach is not cured; and suspend registration services when a registrar has repeatedly breached the RAA, even if all of the breaches were cured by the registrar within the year. To see the exact language, please go to: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/raa/raa-provisions-comparision-18jun08.pdf

RAA: In the event ICANN establishes a Code of Conduct for ICANN accredited registrars, Registrar shall abide by that Code; Will ICANN ever establish a registrar code of conduct?

The RAA requires that a code of conduct be supported by a consensus of all registrars in order to enforceable. Recent staff work has instead focused on improving protection of registrants through amendment of the RAA itself. The recent GNSO resolution requires that within 30 days of Board approval of the set of amendments, representatives from the GNSO community and the ALAC shall be identified to participate in drafting a registrant rights charter.

RAA amendment: “Upon execution of agreement, Registrar shall provide ICANN with a list of the names of Registrar’s directors and officers”. Will such a list ever be made public?

It is currently not the intention to make such a list public. However, if in future that is seen to be a useful course of action, ICANN will put such a proposal through its normal procedures.

RAA: “Registrar shall abide by ICANN adopted specifications or policies prohibiting or restricting warehousing of or speculation in domain names by registrars.” Will such a policy be forthcoming?

That topic has been discussed and the possibility raised. All such policies must go through the GNSO’s Policy Development Process.

RAA amendment: registrar shall display conspicuous notice when election is made to utilize proxy services that customer data is not being escrowed. Is Board comfortable with this loophole?

A careful balance was struck during the course of the RAA amendment process to obligate registrars to provide a high level of service without impeding the registrar marketplace.

RAA amendment: “In the event that ICANN publishes a webpage that identifies available registrant rights and responsibilities”. When does ICANN intend to publish such a page?

It is anticipated that a process for creating a registrant rights and responsibilities document would be initiated following adoption of a revised RAA. The process is intended to include significant community input.

One would think that an organization committed to
transparency would publicly post registrar accreditation applications. Will
this ever happen?

Registrar applications contain commerically sensitive material. ICANN currently does not publish them, and there has not been a formal set of requests for ICANN to do so.

Will ICANN issue a specification requiring Registrars to allow folk to add AAAA glue for their Domain Name Servers by a fixed date?

The ability for registrants to add IPv6 glue to their domain records is generally a function of the registrar marketplace. A requirement that this service be made available to registrants would need to go through some form of policy development and/or public comment processes.

GNSO Councilor comment: “the RAA amendment consultative process essentially excluded registrants and users including brand owners, and ignored their input.” Is the Board aware of such Staff mismanagement?

The RAA amendment process included substantial public input. Following each public comment period, a sythnesis document was posted that documented the ways in which input was incorporated and provided explanation of the comments that could not be incorporated. All of the relevant materials have been archived at http://www.icann.org/en/topics/raa.

RAA amendment: “Registrar shall provide on its website its accurate contact details including valid email and mailing address.” Why won’t ICANN require identification of registrar’s primary place of business?

This provision was included to make it easier for registrants to reach the registrar. Current, correct contact information is believed to be the most useful for parties with a need to reach the registrar.

Why are registrars allowed to hold or control names that have expired. It should be released to be re-registered by anyone. Why are registrar’s allowed to sell trademark or similar names. Cheers!

Registrars function in a competitive marketplace. Registrants should carefully review the policies of the registrar they choose to use to determine whether they agree with its practices. Registrars have no obligation to conduct a review of names as they are registered. The Uniform Dispute Resolution Process (UDRP) is available to individuals as one means of challenging the registration of a name that violates trademark rights.

On top of that, the Expired Domain Deletion Policy (EDDP) is a consensus policy that revised the domain registration expiration provisions in ICANN’s Registrar Accreditation Agreement in December 2004 (see http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/eddp.htm). EDDP defines a uniform deletes practice that registrars must follow at the time of domain name expiry, as well as specific requirements for handling of expired names subject to a UDRP dispute - see the question "Is ICANN going to adopt a uniform policy for the deletion of expired domains? " for more information.

Why should registrars act as if they own the domains, they are supposed to offer a service…not control one ! This undermines the whole integrity of ICANN and should be stopped.

Under the Expired Domain Deletion Policy, http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/eddp.htm, registrars must provide registrants with the details of their deletion and auto-renewal policies. In selecting a registrar, registrants should read their registration agreement and consider the registrar’s deletion policy. Any further policy to address such issues would have to be developed through the GNSO policy development process. ICANN has a contractual agreement with its registrars. If you feel a registrar has broken the terms of the agreement , any suspected breach of the RAA should be reported to ICANN’s Contractual Compliance team. See: http://www.icann.org/compliance/.

Why do "so called" non-profit organisations spend years talking about serious issues like domain wharehousing when it could be easily solved?…it’s an obvious conflict of interest and should stop.

ICANN develops new policies through a bottom-up consensus-building process. The topic of domain warehousing by registrars may be addressed by the community through the GNSO’s policy development process.

When ICANN closed down ESTdomains, they handed over EST’s entire historical registrant database to Directi, instead of just current registrants, allowing Directi to spam ex-registrants with "ResellerClub" offers. Why?

Although ICANN had registrant information available through its Registrar Data Escrow program, ICANN did not provide any registrant information to Directi to facilitate the bulk transfer. EstDomains agreed independently to provide registration data to Directi. Questions about the transaction should be directed to one or both of the involved registrars.

The details of the bulk transfer of domains from ESTdomains to Directi can be found here: http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-25nov08-en.htm. The process by which domains are transferred between registrars was developed with community input and through ICANN’s public comment process. See: http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-06jun08-en.htm.

I am concerned that ICANN has not developed effective policies for dealing with registrars that violate ICANN regulations. Please explain the enforcement process.

Investigations into possible non-compliance are triggered by proactive enforcement activities or by complaints (to see complaint escalation process, go to: http://www.icann.org/en/compliance/archive/compliance-newsletter-200805.html#escalation). When there is suspected non-compliance, ICANN transmitts an enforcement notice to the contracted party and requests proof that the violation has been cured.

Typically, 72 percent of initial enforcement notices result in corrective action by the registrar or registry, and no further enforcement action is required. If the Registrar or Registry does not provide proof of compliance after it has received a notice of non-compliance, ICANN initiates the breach process. This involves, among other things, sending a notice of breach of contract. When contract breaches are not cured within the time specified by ICANN’s contracts, contract termination is considered. The interests of innocent registrants are considered in each case of proposed contract termination.

Would the emergence of a Realtime Blackhole list that blacklisted all domains from a given set of Registrars be evidence of the policing of Registrars not being sufficient?

Assuming this question concerns a proposed process for eradicating spam, content matters are outside of ICANN’s mission and ICANN’s Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) does not address content issues. ICANN does not have authority to take compliance action against registrars concerning issues that fall outside of the terms of the RAA. Therefore, the emergence of a Real-time Blackhole List for the purpose of identifying domains used for spam, and the name of the registrar associated with each domain, would not provide sufficient information that ICANN could use to take compliance action against registrars based on the terms of the RAA.

Would be possible to establish additional and immediate procedures to transfer a domain when the current registrar is not cooperating with the transfer process?

The Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy applies to all gTLD transfers. Where a "losing" registrars is not cooperative with a transfer, the registrant may request the "gaining" registrar to file a complaint under the Transfer Dispute Resolution Policy or may submit a compliance report to ICANN at http://reports.internic.net/cgi/registrars/problem-report.cgi.

When the registrar can demonstrate that the domain was registered through fraud methods like stolen credit card, would ICANN think of extending the current 5 days window for refunds?

Changes to ICANN’s fee structure can be made through the budgeting process. ICANN’s budget is posted for public comment annually before it is presented to the Board for potential adoption. Registry fees are generally established in each registry’s Registry-Registrar Agreement, and would need to be changed there.

In Mexico, a developing nation, the registry of domain names under the prefix .com.mx is handled by a single, private-owned company whose prices are much higher than the average worldwide.

ICANN sets registration policies only for generic top-level domains. Registration policies for country code domains, such as .MX, are the responsibility of each individual country or territory and are not in ICANN’s remit.

Hello!! I’d like to know why all .com.mx domain names have to be purchased through NIC.MX. Isn’t it a monopoly? and, Isn’t it really bad for internet gobernance? Thank you.

ICANN sets registration policies only for generic top-level domains. Registration policies for country code domains, such as .MX, are the responsibility of each individual country or territory and are not in ICANN’s remit.

The fees in the current draft agreement include a baseline fee of USD 25,000 per year. Transactional fees apply only after a registry has 50,000 registered names. This is intended to scale with the size of the registry. See the draft registry agreement at http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-agreement-clean-18feb09-en.pdf.

The IANA’s .int registry serves the IGO population without fees. Will the Board direct the IANA to provide registry services without fees to other small populations?

It is not anticipated that IANA or ICANN will operate additional registries.

When will ICANN articulate a transparent mechanism, that includes community agreement, for the disposition of excess new gTLD revenues, should there be any, given ICANN’s non-profit status?

The evaluation fee covers the cost of peforming the evaluation and thus it is estimated that the fees collected will be offset by the costs to process an application. ICANN has committed to performing a careful cost accounting once the process is launched. If there are surplus funds, this will be addressed through the process of public review and comment. There is discussion in the guidebook about potential disposition of revenues that may result from auctions. This description is included in Module 4 of the draft Applicant Guidebook, currently out for public comment.

ICANN’s Articles of Incorporation require ICANN to
determine the “circumstances” under which new TLDs are added to the root.
What specific circumstances prompted the current new gTLD round?

The introduction of competition into the domain name system was one of the main reasons ICANN was created. Following two previous rounds, it was always the case that ICANN would pursue greater expansion of the registry space. Under the Joint Project Agreement that ICANN has with the US government, ICANN was also urged to introduce new gTLDs. That process has been running for three years and currently rests with a detailed implementation plan out to public comment. See: http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#dagv2.

antiques.shop.ebay.com or ebay.shop.antiques or antiques.shop.ebay or ebay.antiques.shop? The only folks not confused by this are phishers. How will ICANN deal with the phishing that the TLD rollout will engender?

The issue of trademarks and string confusion are part of the ongoing Applicant Guidebook review process. A revised guidebook was recently posted for public comment. Please provide your comments as part of the public comment forum so they can be considered. See: http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#dagv2.

Why did it take almost 5 years to get to a new TLD process? The Board and ICANN have repeatedly mislead the public by providing wrong dates. See http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/ announcement-10may07.htm

The new gTLD process has been developed through ICANN’s Policy Development Process. That process depends on the consensual agreement of all parties to move forward and sometimes that process takes longer than originally anticipated. Dates put forward by ICANN staff and Board are provided with the expectation that the community recognises they are the best current estimate for how long a process will take.

How easy is the accreditation process for current registrars regarding new TLD and will there be any fixed pricing scheme?

You can find full details (including pricing) about registrar accreditation here: http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/accreditation.htm. The procedures followed by the Registrar Liaison department for adding TLDs can be found at http://www.icann.org/en/processes/registrars/adding-gtld-appendix-17feb09-en.pdf.

Will ICANN consider separate time tracks for the new gTLD process, e.g. the corporate, generic, city TLDs? Some are more contentious than others with City TLDs being the least contentious.

This is not currently part process described in the Applicant Guidebook. The guidebook is going through its second period of public comment at the moment (see: http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#dagv2) and ICANN will carefully consider all feedback to that comment period in creating the next version of the guidebook.

New gTLDs will further fragment the Internet. Does the panel agree that a more fragmented Internet will help to reduce spamming/phishing activity due to increased costs, more domain spaces, etc.?

Possible abuse of new gTLDs was an important part of the feedback ICANN received in the first Applicant Guidebook public comment period. ICANN will work actively with the community to find solutions to these concerns and answer these questions more specifically in the next version of the guidebook.

A wiki page covering overarching new gTLDs issues can be found at https://st.icann.org/new-gtld-overarching-issues/index.cgi?new_gtld_overarching_issues.

If someone obtains a gTLD like dotCircus would it then allow them to lay claim to domain names like Circus.com or Circus.info or is ICANN going to protect these owners?

Currently there are no mechanisms in place that would grant a TLD operator rights in a second level domain that includes the names used in the TLD. Any disputes over the rights to second-level domains in new gTLDs would be covered by ICANN’s UDRP, which includes a provision allowing registrants to demonstrate rights and legitimate interests in their domain names.

Can you simplify application and process for new gTLD rules with fixed fees and simple "4-5 points" rules? It’s very complicated now.

The application lifecycle, available in Module 1 of the Applicant Guidebook, is a good place to become familiar with the process. The evaluation process is intended to be simple and straightforward in most cases but also sufficiently robust to provide a clear process in controversial or complex cases.

Staff is available to clarify or answer questions about the