ICANN blog » Mexico City

Mexico City question box responses published

Kieren McCarthy — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 20:17:06 +0000

Two-and-a-half weeks prior to the start of the Mexico City meeting, we opened an online Question Box, where community members could very simply ask questions of ICANN’s staff and Board without having to be physically present at the various public forum and speaking into a microphone.

This approach means for more effective remote participation plus increased participation from attendees who prefer not to address a room directly – something that I have consistently heard is an issue at ICANN meetings.

In total, 96 questions were asked and below ICANN staff has provided answers to each and every one.

We’re going to repeat the whole approach for Sydney but with two main changes. For one, I’m going to put a limit on the number of questions that people can ask. The idea of the question box is that it is an online version of the public forum i.e. you don’t have to physically stand up at the microphone.

However, it is very rare that anyone gets to ask more than two questions during a public forum, and so I think it makes sense to apply the same logic to the online version. Looking at the use of the question box this time around, all but 4 of the 36 commenters asked two questions or less.

There were also a small number of people that felt the 30-word limit on the question was a little too restrictive. And so we’ll increase it to 50 words, which should give plenty of room to comment and question.

Anyway, posted below, as well as on the Mexico City website and the main ICANN website are the responses to the 96 questions. Enjoy. And feel free to comment on the process or any of the questions below.

Kieren McCarthy
General manager of public participation, ICANN

Response and Summary

Mexico City online Question Box, March 2009

Questions are split up according to topic:

ICANN as an organization (26)
Registrars / RAA (23)
Applicant Guidebook / New gTLDs (19)
Public Participation (6)
IDNs / Fast Track (6)
Accountability and Transparency (2)
Others (14)

Others

ICANN as an organization

Asked by: George Kirikos, Leap of Faith Financial Services Inc.

Why did ICANN use its emergency reserve fund to
speculate in financial markets, losing a reported $4.6 million? Emergency
reserves are supposed to be kept in risk free liquid securities.

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.

Asked by: Danny Younger, Registrants

Will the final set of PSC accountability recommendations be in place and adopted prior to the expiration of the JPA?

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

Asked by: Danny Younger, Registrants

When can we expect to see representatives from the at-large community seated on the ICANN Board as directors?

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/

Asked by: Danny Younger, Registrants

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.

Asked by: Danny Younger, Registrants

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.

Asked by: Danny Younger, Registrants

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/

Asked by: Danny Younger, Registrants

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.

Asked by: Danny Younger, Registrants

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.

Asked by: Danny Younger, Registrants

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/

Asked by: Danny Younger, Registrants

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.

Asked by: Danny Younger, Registrants

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.

Asked by: Danny Younger, Registrants

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?

Asked by: Danny Younger, Registrants

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.

Asked by: Danny Younger, Registrants

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.

Asked by: Danny Younger, Registrants

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/

Asked by: Danny Younger, Registrants

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).

Asked by: Danny Younger, Registrants

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/

Asked by: Danny Younger, Registrants

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/.

Asked by: Danny Younger, Registrants

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/

Asked by: Danny Younger, Registrants

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.

Asked by: Danny Younger, Registrants

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/.

Asked by: Danny Younger, Registrants

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.

Asked by: Michael Berkens, Worldwide Media, Inc.

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.

Asked by: Josh Broland, Skenzo

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/

Asked by: Max Menius, Menius Enterprises, Inc. (USA)

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.

Asked by: Karlene Francis, Ministry of Mining and Telecommunications, Jamaica

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.

Registrars / RAA

Asked by: Danny Younger, Registrants

Twomey (two years ago): “What has happened to registrants with RegisterFly.com has made it clear there must be comprehensive review of the registrar accreditation process”. Where’s the review?

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.

Asked by: Danny Younger, Registrants

How does the Board intend to resolve the current impasse over the proposed amendments to the RAA?

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.

Asked by: Danny Younger, Registrants

Recent Breach Notices illustrate that registrar violations can span more than a year before a Breach Notice is finally sent. Will the Board recommend a more timely approach?

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.

Asked by: Danny Younger, Registrants

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

Asked by: Danny Younger, Registrants

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.

Asked by: Danny Younger, Registrants

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.

Asked by: Danny Younger, Registrants

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.

Asked by: Danny Younger, Registrants

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.

Asked by: Danny Younger, Registrants

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.

Asked by: Danny Younger, Registrants

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.

Asked by: Danny Younger, Registrants

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.

Asked by: Danny Younger, Registrants

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.

Asked by: Danny Younger, Registrants

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.

Asked by: Steve Barclay, individual

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.

Asked by: W Kelley, individual

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/.

Asked by: Not Amused, individual

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.

Asked by: Alfredo Fregoso, individual

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.

Asked by: Scott Reed, individual

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.

Asked by: David Filiatrault, individual

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.

Asked by: Jaime Echeverry, Dinahosting S.L.

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.

Asked by: Jaime Echeverry, Dinahosting S.L.

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.

Asked by: Raul Rodriguez, individual

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.

Asked by: Eduardo Rodriguez, Private organization

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.

Applicant Guidebook / New gTLDs

Asked by: Chantal Lebrument, Eurolinc

How high do costs & fees EACH YEAR when we will have taken a New gTLD extension?

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.

Asked by: Danny Younger, Registrants

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.

Asked by: Danny Younger, Registrants

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.

Asked by: Danny Younger, Registrants

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.

Asked by: Danny Younger, Registrants

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.

Asked by: Lori Hament, individual

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.

Asked by: Jaime Echeverry, individual

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.

Asked by: Raymond Marshall, NuMedia Concepts, LLC

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.

Asked by: Raymond Marshall, NuMedia Concepts, LLC

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.

Asked by: David Castello, CCIN.com

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.

Asked by: Artsiom Vapniarski, individual

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 evaluation process. There is a four-month communications period that will precede the launch of the program, to provide additional opportunity for those interested to become develop more familiarity with the process.

Asked by: Raymond Marshall, NuMedia Concepts, LLC

Instead of usa.domain.city, I would propose us.domain.city, e.g. fr.domain.paris/ us.tn.domain.paris/ us.tx.domain.paris/ us.il.domain.paris. Also, you could have de.domain.berlin and us.domain.berin. We simply replace the "WWW" with the "ccTLD" extension. Thoughts???

It is possible for there to be third-level domains, and this is usually determined by either the TLD registry operator or the registrant of the second-level domain e.g. domain.domain. The examples provided are possible in existing top-level domains, and would be possible in new gTLDs.

Asked by: Nikolay Pavlov, individual

Whether granting of domains of the first level to republics as a part of the Russia (noncommercial) is possible? It would help preservation of minority languages of the people.

Anyone is entitled to apply for a new generic top-level domain when the process opens subject to the process and procedures described in the Guidebook. There are specific processes outlined for certain geograpical names.

Asked by: Ksenia Golovina, Brights Consulting Inc.

Will a string coinciding with a town name that is also a famous commercial TM be identified as a string representing a geographical name and require non-objection paper from government?

The intended usage by the registry plays a role in this determinanation. Support or non-objection from the government is only required if the applicant has declared that it intends to use the TLD as a city name.

Asked by: Robin Gross, Non-Commercial Users Constituency

NCUC still waiting for response from staff regarding our request for supporting information related to DAG, which we requested and were promised in Cairo. All attempts_to obtain this information have_received_no_response_from_staff.

Significant information has been provided in the Guidebook and explanatory memoranda. ICANN is assembling additional background information for publication with the next version of the Guidebook and memoranda.

Asked by: Raymond Marshall, NuMedia Concepts, LLC

Related to prior question. If you can replace the "WWW" with "ccTLDs", can you create e-mail addresses by placing the "@" at the very beginning, e.g. email@de.domain.berlin, email@fr.domain.paris, or email@us.tx.domain.paris?

Yes,what you outline can already be done.

Asked by: Arlene Paredes, Netpia.Com, Inc.

In behalf of Netpia, thanks ICANN, for the updated guidebook. On refund mechanism: Has it been thoroughly, carefully discussed? For transparency, please explain how you came up with those figures.

The refund mechanism has been carefully discussed in order to assess its impact on the application process and the numbers of applications submitted. Substantive comments would be useful in evaluating the efficacy of the currently proposed approach. An analysis of the refunds can be found in section four of the response to comments document: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/agv1-analysis-public-comments-18feb09-en.pdf

Asked by: Lebrument Chantal, Eurolinc

When the Applicant Guidebook will be translated in French?

Version 2 of the Applicant Guidebook is available in French here: http://www.icann.org/fr/topics/new-gtlds/comments-2-fr.htm

Asked by: Daniel Millbank, individual

Did ICANN commission an economic/competition study prior to the Dennis Carlton report? If yes, why was it not released to the community?

Prior to issuing the preliminary reports from Dennis Carlton of Compass Lexecon, ICANN retained CRAI. A report by CRAI can be found at: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/crai-report-24oct08-en.pdf

Public participation

Asked by: George Kirikos, individual

Why was ICANN staff researching George Kirikos’ political views on President Barack Obama? (as was verified by Apache webserver referrer logs) Does ICANN keep a dossier on every community participant?

Information regarding any such search has not been provided to ICANN. ICANN does not contract for, have access to, or maintain a dossier on any community participant, including on their political views.

Asked by: Raymond Marshall, NuMedia Concepts, LLC

Will ICANN allow the public to participate via NetMeeting (w/chat service) in order to participate real time? Also, will you provide video via the web real-time on the meetings?

ICANN expanded its experimentation with Adobe’s Connect system at the Mexico City meeting. This service provides the level of participation you indicate. It was very warmly welcomed by the ccNSO (in whose room the system was run all week) and the ccNSO Council recommended its wider adoption by ICANN.

Asked by: Danny Younger, registrants

ICANN sponsors regional registry/registrar gatherings. Will it ever sponsor regional gatherings exclusive to the non-contracted parties?

Regional sessions with the contracted parties are used to educate and reinforce the contractual relationship. Significant attention is paid to compliance issues at these sessions. However, we agree that regional meetings for non-contracted parties would also be valuable. In fact, many educational and outreach meetings occur in various regions. These are often co-sponsored by ICANN, ISOC and others. ICANN’s Policy Staff has conducted an initial gathering for an array of non-contracted parties in Washington DC in early February 2009 and intends to conduct broader gatherings for non-contracted parties on a regular basis in the US, Europe, and other regions as the need arises.

Asked by: Steve Crean, individual

Can you disclose whether the company currently supplying your telephone/video conference services have an affiliation with any ICANN employee in any shape, manner or form?

There is no affiliation that ICANN is aware of between an employee of the organization and the telephone or audio-visual companies that ICANN uses.

Asked by: Karlene Francis, Ministry of Mining and Telecommunications

Congratulations on the numerous channels for participation. What mechanisms are in place to ensure that the comments are registered/recorded and seriously considered by the Board?

Thank you for your support. All questions and suggested responses drawn up by staff are provided to the Chairman to review before being publicly posted.

Asked by: Karlene Francis, Ministry of Mining and Telecommunications

Thanks to ICANN Fellowship program for facilitating my participation in the Mexico meeting. It is critical that government stakeholders participate in order guide national policy development on internet governance issues.

We are happy to support active participants to the ICANN meetings and agree with your statement regarding the critical role of government in the ICANN process. Government representatives will continue to be considered for the Fellowship program as it progresses. To date, 38 of the 140 fellows from the previous 6 meeting have been gov’t representatives, which makes up over 1/3 of the noted sectors of representation that includes the cctld community, civil society and private sector, business and academia.

IDNs / Fast Track

Asked by: Danny Younger, registrants

Will fees for new IDN ccTLDs also be predicated on a cost-recovery basis?

This is an element of the Fast Track Process that is still under discussion. In the latest revision of the Draft Implementation Plan, Module 7 provides some additional information around a financial model. It is ICANN’s position that some level of cost-recoveryshould be implemented, the level is under discussion. It is anticipated that ICANN staff will provide additional proposed details following the Mexico meeting. http://www.icann.org/en/topics/idn/fast-track/

Asked by: liana Ye, Y&D Infor. Sys. Group

When can we see approporation for language table development as the base technology for IDN?

There is a paper specifically on the proposed development and use of IDN tables that is out for public comment at the moment. You can read it here: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/idn/fast-track/proposed-implementation-details-idn-tables-18feb09-en.pdf

Asked by: Raymond Marshall, NuMedia Concepts, LLC

IDNs/FastTrack may cause existing ccTLDs to decline in value. Will owners of a ccTLD get first pick of their existing domain(s) in the IDN ccTLDs to offset against such declines.

The selection or decision about who should manage the prospective IDN ccTLDs, will be done in accordance with the work of the IDNC working group and will be a matter to be decided in the local community, country or territory.

Asked by: Petko Hristov, individual

What would happen with the fast-track in one country if the government, the ASCII ccTLD operator and an independent group want to apply as IDN ccTLD operators?

Under the Fast Track, the ccTLD operator and the government would need to reach agreement. Any independent group would also need to reach agreement with the appropriate government.

Asked by: Kristian Hristov, individual

Will parlamentary elections in one country affect the fast – track process? There will be a new government from a different political party.

The Fast Track requires the backing of the relevant government authority at the time the IDN is inserted into the root, i.e., at the end of the validation process as well as at the beginning.

Asked by: Nikolay Filipov, individual

What if there is more than one applicant for an IDN ccTLD from a country? Will the country stay on the fast-track?

In much the same way that the redelegation process works, ICANN leaves parties in dispute to find their own solution before acting.

Accountability and transparency

Asked by: Edward Hasbrouck, individual

Please answer the 7 specific unanswered questions, submitted in writing 3 years ago, at: http://hasbrouck.org/blog/archives/001007.html #procedures Please also tell us when, if ever, the Board will consider the pending requests for independent review.

Information relating the the Independent Review Process can be found at: http://www.icann.org/en/general/accountability_review.html. To initiate a request for Independent Review, please complete the ICDR form which can be found at: http://www.adr.org/si.asp?id=4588.

Asked by: Edward Hasbrouck, individual

Please answer the 4 specific unanswered questions, previously submitted in writing, at: http://www.icannwatch.org/comments.pl? sid=2068&cid=16997 Please also tell us when, if ever, the Board will conduct a proper decision-making process to appoint an Ombudsman.

Frank Fowlie was appointed by the ICANN Board and has served as the Ombudsman since 2004. See: http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-24nov04-2.htm. Since that time, the Ombudsman’s position has been subject to Board oversight. Also please note that the Ombudsman Framework is currently posted for public comment: http://icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-13mar09-en.htm.

Others

Asked by: George Kirikos, Leap of Faith Financial Services Inc.

In ICANN’s Form 990, Paul Twomey’s compensation was adjusted upwards to reflect the declining US dollar. Now that the US dollar has soared, will his compensation be adjusted downward accordingly?

Yes, as disclosed in the Form 990, the annual report, and the footnotes to the audited financial statements, payments to Dr. Twomey are paid through Argo Pacific. Payment terms are denominated in Australian Dollars. Thus when expressed in US dollars, any payments are made are adjusted upwards or downwards in accordance with the currency exchange rates.

Asked by: George Kirikos, Leap of Faith Financial Services Inc.

Why is the Board Finance Committee planning an expensive hedging program, when it is possible to conduct most of its business in US dollars, shifting currency risks to suppliers?

The Board Finance Committee has studied an international currency exchange risk management policy for ICANN for the sole purpose of reducing exchange rate risks. Some of ICANN’s expenses are denominated in currencies other than US Dollars reflecting the global focus of ICANN’s efforts. Hedging instruments will not be purchased unless the risk reduction results warrant it.

Asked by: George Kirikos, Leap of Faith Financial Services Inc.

One million/year is spent on telephone costs. What’s being done to minimize that cost, in particular competitive tenders by suppliers, etc? What’s the cost per minute of conference calls currently?

ICANN is always looking to reduce cost. We’re investigating your question to see what the actual cost of telephones are to the organization.

Asked by: George Kirikos, Leap of Faith Financial Services Inc.

Why does ICANN use For-Profit companies as "comparables" in its compensation, when it purports to be a Non-Profit? Given staff’s job security compared to the private-sector, isn’t this unwise overspending?

ICANN’s compensation practices are covered in detail on pages126-9 in the 2008 Annual Report. See: http://www.icann.org/en/annualreport/annual-report-2008-en.pdf.

Asked by: George Kirikos, Leap of Faith Financial Services Inc.

A federal court in California awarded Verizon $33.15 million against OnlineNIC for cybersquatting. What’s ICANN doing to protect registrants in the event of registrar failure? Are other registrars vulnerable?

ICANN takes steps to protect registrants in the event of the termination of a registrar’s RAA, for example, by requiring registrars to participate in a data escrow program (see http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-09nov07.htm). In addition, ICANN has implemented its De-accredited Registrar Transition Procedure to facilitate bulk transfers of names from terminated registrars to functioning registrars (see http://www.icann.org/en/processes/registrars/de-accredited-registrar-transition-procedure-01oct08.pdf). ICANN generally publishes breach letters on its website which serves as a notice to registrants of potential issues at their registrar.

Asked by: George Kirikos, Leap of Faith Financial Services Inc.

Since registrars can escrow privacy Whois in the RDE, how are registrants protected from a nefarious registrar using their privacy Whois system to hide current and historical registration information?

All registrars are required to escrow registrant and other contact data for each gTLD domain name. In the case of Whois proxy and privacy services that act as registrant, the RDE requirement is satisfied when the registrar deposits the registrant (proxy) data into escrow. Registrants should consider that their underlying customer data may not be escrowed when deciding whether to use a Whois proxy or privacy service. Proposed amendments to the RAA would require registrars to either escrow underlying customer data or prominently notify customers if the data will not be escrowed.

Asked by: George Kirikos, Leap of Faith Financial Services Inc.

Registrars can earn more money by auctioning their customers’ expired domains, thus they might "forget" to autorenew them so they can be auctioned. Does this conflict of interest concern ICANN?

Registrars have a duty to act in the best interest of their registrants. In addition, all registrars must abide by the policies in the Registrar Accreditation Agreement. This agreement can be accessed at http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/ra-agreement-17may01.htm (“RAA”).

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. Registrants can further protect themselves by reading the language of the RAA as well as the Registrar-registration agreement. 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.

Asked by: Danny Younger, registrants

Just curious… whatever happened with the Cross Registry Information Service Protocol (CRISP)? Has anyone done anything with it?

“Cross Registry Inforation Service Protocol” was the name of an IETF working group that concluded some years ago. It generated a suite of documents, most notably a framework known as the Internet Registry Information Service, or IRIS. IRIS has not been widely deployed — the first significant deployment was of the “DCHK” protocol (which allows for domain availability checking) at the .DE registry.

It is described at http://www.denic.de/en_1/domains/technik/domaincheck/DCHK-background.html. The SSAC prepared two papers in 2008, SAC 027 and SAC 033, which, among other points, recommend a combination of policy development and adoption of a uniform directory service modeled on the IRIS standard that was developed by CRISP to provide security services.

SAC033 also identifies features common to public/private directory services and discusses how such features could benefit the domain name community. SAC 033 also proposes a methodology to study public/private directories and use findings to identify requirements for domain name related data. The GNSO Council has discussed these reports and also considered them in Mexico City.

Asked by: Michael Berkens, Worldwide Media, Inc.

Is ICANN going to adopt a uniform policy for the deletion of expired domains? Currently each registrar can do what they want, including just keeping their customer’s expired domains.

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. In selecting a registrar, registrants should read their registration agreement and consider the registrar’s deletion policy.

With the EDDP, all ICANN-accredited registrars are required to delete domain names by the conclusion of the 45 day auto-renewal period, unless the registrant has consented to have the registration renewed. The ICANN Compliance Department investigates all complaints received with regard to non-compliance with the EDDP.

The ALAC requested that the GNSO generate an Issues Report on registrants being able to recover domain names after their formal expiration date. The GNSO Council has reviewed that report (see http://gnso.icann.org/issues/post-expiration-recovery/report-05dec08.pdf) and is now working on a charter for a Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery Working Group to address these issues. Any further policy to address such issues would have to be developed through the GNSO policy development process.

Asked by: Danny Aerts, ccNSO member

Mexico, Sydney, Seoul. Evaluate the impact of our behaviour. When are we going to start with less meetings or hubs as to lower the negative climate impact of our traveling.

A recent review of the approach ICANN takes to meetings asked the community to consider a move from three meetings a year to two. Some of these issues are still being considered.

See full details of the comment period here: http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-200807.html#meeting-consultation-2008

Asked by: Ivonne Muñoz, individual

What statistical data, by country, does ICANN have regarding the consequences the fast-flux current has and the participation of attorneys has to this respect?
How is possible to collaborate? [¿qué datos estadísticos por país tiene ICANN con respecto a las consecuencias que actualmente tiene el fast-flux y la participación de abogados al respecto? - ¿cómo colaborar al respecto? ]

Fast flux hosting refers to techniques used by cybercriminals to evade detection by rapidly modifying IP addresses and/or name servers. The GNSO is exploring appropriate action. More information on the community’s efforts in this area can be found at http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-ff-pdp-may08/ and http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/mexico-ff-mar09.htm.

Asked by: Falk von Bornstaedt, Deutsche Telekom

ICANN has been active on IPv6 for some years. Nevertheless, could ICANN do even more to support public awareness about IPv4 address depletion?

ICANN works with organisations in a number of different areas to make sure that there is a good understanding that the IPv4 address space will be fully allocated in about two years and the need for IPv6 deployment. This work includes partnerships with the Regional Internet Registries, Network Operators’ Groups, the IETF, ISOC, the IPv6 Forum, business organisations, governments, regulators, TLD registries, registrars and others. We have also produced a fact sheet and other materials for the media.

Asked by: Juan Yanez Carrera, Tyloon.com Multilingual Search Engine

If the internet is a global media, why is limited by the language barrier? if I want business information about China in Spanish, there is no source of information online.

ICANN has a limited technical remit for dealing with the Internet’s naming and addressing systems. It is not within ICANN’s power or purview to address content of any type on the Internet.

Asked by: Rafik Dammak, individual

Is there any plan to improve fellowship program and make it really open and no restrictive to some communities? It lacks a real representativity.

We are sorry you feel that the fellowship is not representative. We go to great lengths to ensure that the program is open and inclusive, provided that the applicant has met the requirements noted at http://www.icann.org/en/fellowships/ . To date, 140 participants have been provided fellowships and within that group, 5 different sectors (business, academia, civil society and private sector, cctld community and government) from 70 countries have been represented.

RESPONDENTS

All those who asked questions are listed below, by number of comments (in parentheses) and then alphabetically:

Danny Younger, registrants (41)
George Kirikos, Leap of Faith Financial Services Inc. (10)
Raymond Marshall, NuMedia Concepts, LLC (6)
Karlene Francis, Ministry of Mining and Telecommunications (3)
Michael Berkens, Worldwide Media, Inc. (2)
Lebrument Chantal, Eurolinc (2)
Jaime Echeverry, Dinahosting S.L. (2)
Edward Hasbrouck, individual (2)
Danny Aerts, ccNSO member (1)
Not Amused (1)
Steve Barclay, individual (1)
Josh Broland, Skenzo (1)
David Castello, CCIN.com (1)
Steve Crean, individual (1)
Rafik Dammak, individual (1)
David Filiatrault, individual (1)
Nikolay Filipov, individual (1)
Alfredo Fregoso, individual (1)
Ksenia Golovina, Brights Consulting Inc (1)
Robin Gross, Non-Commercial Users Constituency (1)
Lori Hament, individual (1)
Kristian Hristov, individual (1)
Petko Hristov, individual (1)
W Kelly, individual (1)
Max Menius, Menius Enterprises, Inc (1)
Daniel Millbank, individual (1)
Ivonne Muñoz, individual (1)
Arlene Paredes, Netpia.Com Inc (1)
Nikolay Pavlov, individual (1)
Scott Reed, individual (1)
Raul Rodriguez, individual (1)
Eduardo Rodriguez, private organization (1)
Artsiom Vapniarski, individual (1)
Falk von Bornstaedt, Deutsche Telekom (1)
Juan Yanez Carrera, Tyloon.com Multilingual Search Engine (1)
Iiana Ye, Y&D Infor. Sys. Group (1)

Feedback loops for Mexico City

Kieren McCarthy — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 23:17:02 +0000

I’m a big exponent of feedback – particularly simple, mass feedback – for the work that ICANN does. With such a diverse community, in both geographic and cultural terms, it can be next to impossible for ICANN staff to get a feel for what the community thinks about a topic or a session.

We often end up hearing only a very few voices – and usually the same voices – and so broad-based feedback, even if as a result it comes without precision, is enormously valuable. But there is also a requirement on ICANN staff to make it clear to the community that the feedback that is sought and is provided is listened to and reflected.

And so with that in mind, the two sessions in which I personally was able to develop some feedback for have since been updated online with what precisely you said.

Joint AC/SO session

The Joint AC/SO session on Monday afternoon was a very different approach to the usual ICANN meeting. It was developed jointly by the different chairs of the Advisory Committees and Supporting Organizations over a number of teleconferences in the months preceding the Mexico City meeting, with input from myself and from Patrick Sharry, who moderated the session.

There were a number of departures from the norm. The room layout was radically different: we put people in the middle of the room instead of up on stage and we had them facing one another to encourage discussion. The chairs picked out two broad topics and then various members of the SOs and ACs discussed those topics, prodded and moderated by Patrick.

(In fact, if you have a look at the top right of this post, you can see a video featuring Patrick talking about the session.)

Instead of Powerpoint presentations following by Q&A, we had fast-moving discussion with audience participation through the use of coloured pieces of paper (red=I don’t agree; green=I agree; white=I need to hear more/I am undecided). And various other small changes.

At the end of the session we handed out around 200 simple feedback forms in English and Spanish and asked attendees to fill them in. We received exactly 40 back and I have compiled all the results and the comment and posted them on the session webpage for you all to review.

See here: http://mex.icann.org/mon2mar/acso

I won’t go into what I think they demonstrate because that will be for the AC and SO Chairs to decide when we start another round of teleconferences to see what improvements/changes can be made to the format in time for the Sydney meeting.

Public Participation

The second session in which we had a significant degree of real-time feedback was the Public Participation session on Wednesday afternoon where the new Board Committee on Public Participation outlined some ideas and open the floor to ideas and discussion.

At the end, using an online tool from Poll Everywhere.com, the audience was asked three basic questions about the session and could use text messages, smart phones or online voting to register their views.

Again, that feedback has been posted on the session’s webpage so you can go view it. See here: http://mex.icann.org/wed4mar/public-participation. That showed a clear interest in holding another public participation meeting in Sydney, so that’s exactly what we will do.

Your feedback on the feedback

This sort of feedback is vital if we as ICANN staff are to understand what the broader community thinks. It helps us adapt and prevent out-dated or ineffective approaches from getting carved into stone. Of course it is important to show that we see the feedback in order to make it worth your while to provide feedback in the first place so hopefully this blog post does this in some small way.

So, if you think this is useful. Or you think it is a waste of time. If you think we should have feedback forms in every meeting. Or if you would like to see different approaches taken. Then please comment below – our ears and eyes are open.

Community portrait database

Kieren McCarthy — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 22:37:12 +0000

A community database of portraits of the ICANN community has gone live online.

You can find it at: http://www.flickr.com/photos/icann/sets/72157615078679248/

The 231 photographs were taken at the recent Mexico City meeting and the database has individuals from right across the spectrum of attendees – from the Board to Council members to first-time attendees. All those featured agreed to provide ICANN with rights to the photographs.

If you are looking for a particular individual, just type their name into the Flickr search box and they should appear (all photographs in the database are taken by “icannphotos”).

ICANN has posted all the photographs under a Creative Common licence. Which means that so long as you attribute the photograph to ICANN, use it for non-profit means and do not alter the photograph, you are free to use them as you wish.

The Internet community is a small but growing one and at ICANN we are constantly asked if we have photographs of people for a whole range of different reasons. Our hope is that other Internet organizations will follow our lead so that we can build a large database of those in the community – and save having to make people crawl through their photograph albums every year to pull out one which they don’t mind.

Thank you to all those that had their photographs taken. We hope you are happy with the result.

Mexico City briefing note

Kieren McCarthy — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 21:47:11 +0000

At the end of each international public meeting, we produce a summary of the meeting which we call a Briefing Note. This note covers the main topics discussed at the meeting complete with a rundown of what happened and links to further resources.

The Briefing Note is published on the Mexico City meeting website and linked to on its front page. We republish it here:

What was it?
ICANN’s 34th international public meeting is the first of three held annually to conduct policy development and outreach. It was hosted by ICANN (the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers), the Mexican Internet Association (AMIPCI), the Network Information Center (NIC) Mexico, and the Internet Society (ISOC) Mexico.

The meeting was opened by Vice Minister of Communications of Mexico, Gariela Hernandez, who spoke about the positive impact that information technologies have on productivity, competitiveness, and the living conditions of ordinary people.

1219 people attended from over 100 different countries. For the first time, the largest number of attendees – 275 – came from the host country (excluding meetings held in the United States). The participants engaged in a wide range of discussions about the Internet’s domain name system and related issues.

Further information about the meeting, including presentations and transcripts, is available at http://mex.icann.org.

ICANN’s next international public meeting will take place in Sydney, Australia, beginning on 21 June 2009.

What happened and what are the next steps?
Many meetings, workshops, public forums and informal discussions were held over seven days by the different stakeholders of the ICANN model:

Business interests
Civil society
Governments and government agencies
Internet service providers
Registrants
Registrars
Registries
The technical community

Several key issues and themes evolved over the course of the meeting. They are summarized below.

New gTLDs

WHAT HAPPENED: A 90-minute Q&A session was held on the Monday, in which ICANN staff outlined changes made in the second version of the Applicant Guidebook and the community was given the opportunity to ask questions and make comments as the new gTLD process progresses.

Briefings were also given to ICANN’s Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees by ICANN staff, and an update on the whole process given on the Friday. A Branding and new gTLDs session was held on the Monday afternoon, and new gTLDs formed the bulk of discussions during the Public Forum on Thursday.

The Directors approved the establishment by staff of an Implementation Recommendation Team (IRT) comprised of an internationally diverse group of people to develop and propose solutions to the over-arching issue of trademark protection in connection with the introduction of new generic top level domain names (gTLDs).

“The Board has clearly heard and believes strongly that the concerns of trademark holders must be addressed before this process is opened for applications,” said Chairman Peter Dengate Thrush. “The establishment of this team, is an attempt to get proposed solutions from the people with skill in trademark protection and other issues.”

The IRT will be comprised of people who put forward solutions in the first public comment period on the new gTLD Applicant Guidebook.

NEXT STEPS: Feedback from the meeting, as well as comments sent to the second public comment period (which closes on 13 April 2009) will be used to produce a third version of the guidebook.

Additional study and consultation is required on several overarching issues: trademark protection and possible abuses; DNS stability; and Economic analysis of the effect of new gTLDs on the marketplace. A number of other precise areas of change for the next version of the Guidebook were outlined in a staff update on the Friday.

The Implementation Recommendation Team (see above) has been asked to draft a report by 24 April for comment and to produce a final report no later than 24 May so it can be considered at ICANN’s Sydney meeting in June.

The first applications for new generic top-level domains are expected to be received in December 2009 at the earliest or in the first quarter of 2010.

MORE INFORMATION is available on ICANN’s new gTLDs page (http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtld-program.htm). This web page includes the draft Applicant Guidebook, accompanying explanatory memoranda, an FAQ, along with many additional resources.

Full details on the Q&A session can be found here: http://mex.icann.org/node/2610
A staff update on the new gTLD process can be found here: http://mex.icann.org/files/meetings/mexico2009/new-gtlds-staff-updates-06mar09.pdf

The second public comment period for the Applicant Guidebook can be found here: http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#dagv2

IDNs and IDN Fast Track

WHAT HAPPENED: The latest version of the Implementation Plan was outlined, as well as three papers that identified open issues where further input from the community is needed to complete implementation.

Introductory sessions on the topic were given in English and Spanish on the Sunday, and a further session explaining the changes made to the Implementation Plan was run on the Monday. Briefings were also given to ICANN’s Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees by ICANN staff. IDNs were one of the main topics of discussion at the Public Forum on Thursday, and an update on the whole process given on the Friday.

The Fast Track was discussed extensively in the GAC and ccNSO and was the subject of formal resolutions by both organizations, as well as by the ICANN Board at its public meeting on Friday.

NEXT STEPS: Feedback from the meeting, as well as comments sent to a public comment period on the Implementation Plan and papers (which closes on 6 April 2009) will be used to produce a revised version of the Implementation Plan. The Board requested that the Implementation Plan be finalized for its last meeting of 2009.

MORE INFORMATION is available at http://www.icann.org/en/topics/idn/

Monday IDN session: http://mex.icann.org/node/2629.
Board and GAC session: http://mex.icann.org/node/2638
Board public meeting: http://mex.icann.org/node/2689
GAC communiqué: http://gac.icann.org/web/communiques/gac33com.pdf
ccNSO website: http://ccnso.icann.org/

A staff update on the IDN and Fast Track process can be found here: http://mex.icann.org/files/meetings/mexico2009/idns-staff-updates-06mar09-en.pdf

The public comment period for the Fast Track can be found here: http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#update-idn-cctlds

RAA Amendments

WHAT HAPPENED: The GNSO Council approved a wide range of amendments to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) – the contract that ICANN has with the companies that register generic top-level domains. The Board then asked the amendments to be put out to a 30-day comment period.
The 17 amendments cover four broad categories:

New enforcement tools – new Registrar Audit and a group liability provision amongst other things.
Registrant protections – shining a light on the risks of proxy registration.
Consistent minimum standards of service for all registrars.
A modernizing of the agreement to get up-to-date with the domain name market.

The full amendments, and a history of the amendment process, are online at: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/raa/

The GNSO also decided to draft a registrants rights charter and identify further amendments to the RAA.

NEXT STEPS: The amendments will shortly be put out to a 30-day public comment period by the Board, and the GNSO Council and ICANN staff will be advised of the registrants rights charter and possible further RAA amendments before 31 July 2009.

MORE INFORMATION:
RAA staff update: http://mex.icann.org/files/meetings/mexico2009/raa-amendments-staff-updates-06mar09-en.pdf
RAA amendments webpage: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/raa/

Improving Institutional Confidence (IIC)

WHAT HAPPENED: The President’s Strategy Committee published its draft Implementation Plan with a set of proposed recommendations on how to improve institutional confidence in ICANN ahead of the conclusion of the Joint Project Agreement (JPA) in September 2009. This revised document was the result of extensive community consultations during 2008, and it was produced for information, not decision. The ultimate decision will be taken by the Board.

The Mexico City meeting saw widespread discussion of these documents. A special session was held on Wednesday and the issue was also discussed at the At Large Summit and within a number of supporting organizations and advisory committees.

NEXT STEPS: The Board will consider the Improving Institutional Confidence report at its next meeting on 23 April 2009. At that meeting, the Board will consider whether to ask staff to do more detailed implementation work. There will be a public comment period of 60 days, beginning shortly after the Mexico City meeting.

MORE INFORMATION: Information about the documents, the public comment periods, the regional meetings and the draft Implementation Plan can be found on dedicated IIC webpages at: http://www.icann.org/en/jpa/iic/
Wednesday IIC session: http://mex.icann.org/node/2809

At-Large Summit

Representatives of over 90 At-Large Structures representing ICANN’s global individual Internet user community came together at ICANN’s Mexico City meeting in the At-Large Summit held between 28 February and 4 March 2009.

The Summit was a unique gathering of the representatives of individual Internet users participating in ICANN. Organized as an integral part of the 34th ICANN International Meeting in Mexico City, the Summit featured:

Two General Sessions of all participants;
Thematic sessions and workshops on issues that concern individual Internet users worldwide led by At-Large community members;
Five policy-focused working groups produced statements on important subjects to the whole ICANN community; and many other events.

Full details of the Summit, including the Summit’s final Declaration, can be found online at http://www.atlarge.icann.org/summit.

GNSO Improvements

WHAT HAPPENED: Progress continued on structural and operational changes to ICANN’s main policy-making body. Early meetings on Saturday and Sunday focused on operational and process work team efforts. Another team discussed resolution of transition issues to seat the newly structured GNSO Council.

Several new stakeholder group charters were submitted by the community throughout the week and a consolidated public comment forum was initiated for comments on those proposals. The community heard from proponents of the Cybersafety, City TLD and Consumer constituencies. A formal petition from the CyberSafety constituency was also posted for community comments. At its Friday meeting, the Board directed the ICANN staff to identify potential changes to existing GNSO constituency charters and to suggest specific changes to help them conform more closely to ICANN bylaw principles.

NEXT STEPS: The work teams covering different aspects of the improvements will continue to move forward with calls and meetings in the coming weeks. The community will have opportunities to comment on the proposed charters for new GNSO stakeholder groups as well as the petition for the new CyberSafety constituency.

MORE INFORMATION: http://www.icann.org/topics/gnso-improvements/

Independent Reviews

The independent review process requires each of ICANN’s Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees to undergo review every few years to make sure that the organization as a whole continues to serves the needs of the global Internet community.

WHAT HAPPENED: There are six reviews going on at the moment, and one will be started in the upcoming future. Starting with the most advanced to the least advanced: GNSO, NomCom, ALAC, Board, RSSAC, SSAC and ccNSO. The advancement of each of these reviews was presented during specific meetings in Mexico.

The GNSO advanced its implementation of changes; the Nominating Committee review will be soon updated for publication for public comments; ALAC review is accepting last public comments before finalization. The Board review is solliciting public comments into the working group discussion; and the RSSAC and SSAC reviews will soon enter the working group stage. The terms of reference for review of the ccNSO is nearly finished.

NEXT STEPS: The reviews will continue to advance through working group work, public comments and community response and review.

MORE INFORMATION:
Dedicated reviews webpage: http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/
Staff update on reviews: http://mex.icann.org/files/meetings/mexico2009/organizational-reviews-staff-updates-06mar09-en.pdf

Board Resolutions

The full set of Board Resolutions at the public meeting on Friday can be found online at http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-06mar09.htm.

A transcript of the meeting can be found at: http://mex.icann.org/files/meetings/mexico2009/transcript-board-meeting-06mar09-en.txt
A short summary of resolutions is given below.

GNSO Constituency Renewals: Acknowledged submissions from six existing constituencies and asked for staff analysis and follow-up submissions, as needed, by the Sydney meeting.
IPv4 Allocation Policy: Ratified the global policy for handing out the last available IPv4 address blocks
IDN ccTLD Fast Track: Asked that the Implementation Plan be made available for consideration prior to the last Board meeting of 2009. Directed staff to outline costs to ICANN of country code top-level domains, including IDN ccTLDs.
Trademark Protection for new gTLDs: Created a new Implementation Recommendation Team to develop and propose solutions to the overarching issue of trademark protection in connection with the introduction of new gTLDs. A draft report to be ready by 24 April 2009.
Geographic term protection for new gTLDs: Applicant Guidebook to be revised to give greater specificity on the scope of protection at the top level for the names of countries and territories. Staff to exchange letters with the GAC to find a solution before end of May.
RAA Amendments: ALAC and GNSO thanked for their work and advice. The GNSO-approved amendments to be put out to public comment for 30 days.
Board Committees: The Charters of four new Board Committees (IANA, Public Participation, Risk and Structural Improvements) approved and the Board Governance Committee given the tasks of the dissolved Conflicts of Interest Committee and Reconsideration Committee.
Ombudsman Framework: Posted for public comment.
President’s Strategy Committee Report: The Improving Institutional Confidence consultation report posted for comment for 60 days.
Timely posting of materials: The Public Participation Board Committee asked to develop a plan to have all major meeting material available two weeks before a meeting starts.
At Large Summit: Acknowledged receipt of the Summit’s Declaration and congratulated At Large community.
Thanks: Given to Milton Mueller, Demi Getschko, Dave Wodelet, the scribes, local hosts, event teams, sponsors and Mexican government.

Other Matters
You can view edited videos of the conference’s main events at: http://mex.icann.org/video

Pictures of the conference can be found at: http://www.icann.org/photos/

Mexico meeting goes mobile

Kieren McCarthy — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 00:07:01 +0000

The Mexico City meeting is now accessible on your phone.

So if you are attending the conference next week but can’t remember which meeting is on at which time or in what room, you can now access the information directly and quickly using your cell or mobile phone.

The full schedule is available at http://icann.mobi.

The mobile version of the Mexico meeting site contains other useful information, including:

A map of the venue
A Twitter feed so attendees can interact using text messages
Security advice
Taxi numbers
Hotel information
Restaurant and bar reviews
A weather forecast

ICANN would like to thank dotMobi for its help in setting up and hosting the icann.mobi site.

At-Large Summit – an Overview

Nick Ashton-Hart — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 21:49:12 +0000

The Mexico City meeting is a landmark for At-Large. For the first time, the whole At-Large community will be meeting together face-to-face in the ‘At-Large Summit’. About 90 representatives of the At-Large membership of organisations (called “At-Large Structures”) are already confirmed. Mexico City meeting attendees will be able to spot them easily, as each will have a ribbon indicating their status as a Summit delegate attached to their ICANN meeting badges.

It is being held 28 February through 5 March, at the Sheraton and also at the nearby Melia Mexio Reforma hotel.

All ICANN staff, board members, and community members are invited and encouraged to attend the sessions, all of which are open to everyone.

As proposed by At-Large Community, the Summit has the following objectives:

Develop the Community’s capacity for engagement in ICANN by increasing its knowledge and understanding of the key issues confronting ICANN and ICANN’s roles and responsibilities;

Provide an opportunity for the community to finalise and present its advice on some of the most important issues facing the ICANN community today, and last but not least,

Highlight the successes of the community in recent years and build upon them to ensure that the interests of the world’s more than 1 billion individual Internet users are well represented in the development of Internet name and number policy.

Summit activities include:

An opening and closing General Session of all participants (Saturday the 28th),

Five working groups on key policy issues confronting ICANN,

Thematic Sessions (workshops on topics submitted by community members for inclusion in the Summit programme)

and much more!

The structure, format, and content of the Summit have been developed through a completely bottom-up process. For example, the five policy working group topics were chosen by surveying the entire At-Large community. Members were asked to rank in order of preference their priorities for policy work during the Summit, and the top five choices were then automatically selected as the subjects for the five working groups to tackle. The subjects are:

At-Large Community Engagement in ICANN

The Future Structure and Governance of ICANN

New gTLDs including IDN gTLDs

ICANN Transparency and Accountability

DNS Security Issues within ICANN’s Remit

The Thematic Session subjects are all community driven, too. Community members were asked to propose topics and the format for these sessions and the Summit working group is then taking the proposals and scheduling them. Details of these sessions will shortly be posted to the main meeting schedule at http://mex.icann.org/full-sched.

These sessions are designed to provide Summit delegates with a greater understanding of At-Large and ICANN mandates, structures, and processes and supply the tools needed by At-Large to better involve and engage their members in ICANN activities and policy development processes. Many of them delve into specific policy subjects in more detail and with an At-Large-specific viewpoint.

The opening General Session on Saturday will consist of a full schedule of briefings and panel discussions on current work in ICANN, many led by community members with expertise in the subjects concerned, such as DNSSec, IDNs, and the IPv4-IPv6 transition.

The Closing General Session on Thursday will provide a wrap up of key outcomes and deliverables and identify next steps for the At-Large Community. Expect the unexpected on Thursday morning – it will be a tour-de-force summary of the Summit using a very audiovisual format that should keep everyone engaged.

Last but not least, the public workshop on Wednesday entitled “eCrime and Abuse of the DNS Forum” which is sure to be one of the most popular workshops of the entire ICANN meeting is being organised in cooperation with the Summit and will have various experts from At-Large participating in it.

For those who are interested in learning more, visit the Summit microsite at http://www.atlarge.icann.org/summit. We hope to see you in Mexico City!

ACSO Open Joint Sessions in Mexico

Kieren McCarthy — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 03:14:54 +0000

On the Monday of the Mexico meeting, there will be a joint meeting of the Advisory Committees and Supporting Organisations. The objective of this “ACSO” session is to share views and perspectives on common issues in a way that will inform the discussions within those groups during the week.
The format is a discussion among selected members of each of the Supporting Organisations and Advisory Committees. Each SO and AC will designate up to four people in order to represent a range of perspectives.

The meeting will be held in two 90-minute sessions, separated by a 30-minute break, and with a 30-minute feedback period at the end. There will be two broad discussion topics of common interest, with specific sub-questions. They are:

14:00-15:30 — EXPANDING THE NAME SPACE
- What is the impact of the new gTLD and IDN Fast Track processes on the market structure of the Domain Name Space and ICANN’s processes?
- How should geographic names be handled and is there a blurring of “cc” and “g” spaces ?
- What should be the cost and the pricing structure for new TLDs (both application fee and ongoing fees)?

16:00-17.30 — IMPROVING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
- What do we mean by “policy development”?
- How can technical expertise and input from stakeholders be included early in the process?
- What changes, if any, could be made to ICANN’s processes to allow for more effective policy development?

These topics were chosen by the Chairs of the SOs and ACs after consultation with their members. The objective in each session is to have an open discussion rather than statements of official position, in order to foster a common understanding within the community. These sessions will not take decisions nor does the group represent a decision-making body.

Sessions will be public and transcribed, but they are not a public forum. Opinion will however be sought during the discussion through the use of coloured cards to represent whether people agree or disagree with a particular comment or proposal put forward. A feedback period will follow at 17:30 where members of the community will be invited to comment on any of the topics discussed in the previous two sessions.

Please note that the session and its format remain experimental in an effort to improve discussion and interaction between Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees. As such, not only do we expect to learn from the session in Mexico but we will be seeking feedback from the SOs and ACs themselves after the meeting is over in order to identify improvements for ICANN’s next meeting in Sydney in June.

Mexico City Question Box

Kieren McCarthy — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 00:51:49 +0000

As explained in an earlier post, we have created an online question box for Mexico City public forums. That question box is embedded into this post so you can respond simply and directly from the ICANN blog.

The box should appear below (you may have to click on “[read the rest]“). If you have trouble viewing the box, you can access it directly on the web using this URL: http://icann.wufoo.com/forms/mexico-city-question-box/.

Fill out my Wufoo form!

Public forums in Mexico City

Kieren McCarthy — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 00:45:17 +0000

If you were at the Cairo meeting, you will know that there was no small degree of irritation about the time that was available for the traditional open mic session on the Thursday.

If people are really keen, I can explain why that came about, but perhaps more importantly, we have ensured that there is plenty of time available at the Mexico City meeting next month for “public forum”.

In fact, there is four-and-a-half hours dedicated forum time: 90 minutes on the Monday solely covering the Applicant Guidebook; 30 minutes at the end of the Joint ACSO meeting; and two-and-a-half hours open-mic time on the Thursday.

Click here to visit our new online Question Box for Mexico City

Just to be clear: this is more open-mic time than at any ICANN meeting since Vancouver in 2005, and that meeting was marked out as being where both the dotcom contract and the .xxx application were discussed. We are also starting to separate out the delivery of reports (AC/SO chairs, staff and Board Committees) from “public forum” time, meaning open microphone time. That means that open microphone time is not dependent on anything else and stands alone as dedicated time.

Aside from the time issue, the other big concern the community has had is the ability to ask questions. Not everyone likes queuing up behind the public microphone and having to wait their turn to address an entire room of people.

Equally, the public forum has always been the most contentious meeting in terms of remote participation. In my role as general manager of public participation, I introduced and have followed chatrooms for the public forum in every meeting since Lisbon (March 2007), reading out questions and comments directly into the microphone.

This approach works, but not that well: chatrooms do not lend themselves very well to asking questions. So, in order to make things much easier for the community, there is now a very simple online question box.

Go to the Question Box

You type in your name, affiliation and email address. You give the broad area that the question is covering. You type in your question and then hit “Ask Your Question” and it is then in the system and we will make sure you receive an answer either in the forum itself, or in a response that we will produce in the weeks following the meeting (the hope of course is that everything will be answered on the day).

I hope that this online question box is self-explanatory, but it case you have any questions or queries, that is why this blog post exists – to enable you to raise them where others can see them, and to allow for responses to those queries to be easily found.

So, in summary – please use this question-box system. It is only as good as the use made of it. And I hope it will make for more enjoyable, informative and interesting public forum sessions in Mexico City.

You can visit the Question Box by clicking here.

ICANN blog » Mexico City

Mexico City question box responses published

Response and Summary

Mexico City online Question Box, March 2009

ICANN as an organization

Registrars/RAA

Applicant Guidebook / New gTLDs

Public participation

IDNs / Fast Track

Accountability and transparency

Others

ICANN as an organization

Registrars / RAA

Applicant Guidebook / New gTLDs

Public participation

IDNs / Fast Track

Accountability and transparency

Others

RESPONDENTS

Feedback loops for Mexico City

Community portrait database

Mexico City briefing note

Mexico meeting goes mobile

At-Large Summit – an Overview

ACSO Open Joint Sessions in Mexico

Mexico City Question Box

Public forums in Mexico City