9,082
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 263:
Line 263: − + + + + + − + + + − + + + + +
→ICANN's Answer to Sub-Committee Members' Inquiries
===ICANN's Answer to Sub-Committee Members' Inquiries===
===ICANN's Answer to Sub-Committee Members' Inquiries===
On January 5, 2012, Cong. Greg Walden, Chairman of the House Sub-Committee on Communications and Technology sent a letter to ICANN requesting answers to the questions of some members of the sub-committee on some issues related to the new gTLD program including:<ref>[[http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/pritz-to-walden-20jan12-en.pdf ICANN's Response to Cong. Greg Walden]</ref>
On January 5, 2012, Cong. Greg Walden, Chairman of the House Sub-Committee on Communications and Technology sent a letter to ICANN requesting answers to the questions of some members of the sub-committee on some issues related to the new gTLD program including:<ref>[[http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/pritz-to-walden-20jan12-en.pdf ICANN's Response to Cong. Greg Walden]</ref>
* Process used by ICANN in achieving consensus through the [[Multistakeholder Model|multistakeholder model]]
* Process used by ICANN in achieving consensus through the [[Multistakeholder Model|multistakeholder model]] ICANN explained that consensus was achieved through community-driven policy development processes wherein working teams composed of members of the different internet stakeholders developed reports and recommendations and the public were given the opportunity to comment. The public comments were considered in drafting the final report and recommendations before submitting it to the appropriate organization within ICANN such as the [[GNSO]] Council, which is responsible presenting it to the ICANN Board for consideration. ICANN emphasized that the GNSO Council is composed of all internet stakeholders and voted 19-1 in favor of the new gTLD policy. The internet governing body also pointed out that ICANN's Advisory Committee's ([[GAC]], [[ALAC]], [[SSAC]], [[RSSAC]] etc.) were involved in the cosensus policy development.ICANN reiterated the statement of Sec. [[Lawrence Strickling|Larry Strickling]] that the ICANN '''multistakeholder does not guarantee that everyone will be satisfied with the outcome.But it is critical to preserving the model of internet governance that has been so successful to date that all parties respect and work through the process and accept the outcome once a decision is reached..."
* Rights protection mechanisms
* Rights protection mechanisms
ICANN informed the Congress that rights protection mechanisms will be implemented according to the project plan included in the [[Applicant Guidebook]]. Rights protection will be implemented in the first and second level domain names. The internet governing body mentioned the development of the Trademark Clearing House as one of the rights protection mechanisms and it is mandatory to all new TLDs.
* Request for a second round of application
* Request for a second round of application
ICANN stated that it is committed in conducting additional rounds of new gTLD applications and it is working on determining the next schedule.
* Transparency regarding surplus funds generated from the new gTLD applications
* Transparency regarding surplus funds generated from the new gTLD applications
ICANN emphasized that it is committed in using the excess funds generated from the new gTLD applications to advance its missions in a transparent way such as allocating funds to projects that are of interest to the greater internet community.
* Bilateral negotiations with registrars about the twelve Law Enforcement Due Diligence Recommendations
* Bilateral negotiations with registrars about the twelve Law Enforcement Due Diligence Recommendations
ICANN confirmed that it is conducting negotiations with its accredited registrars regarding the 12 recommendations of the enforcement agencies. Updates to the negotiation are available [https://community.icann.org/display/RAA/Negotiations+Between+ICANN+and+Registrars+to+Amend+the+Registrar+Accreditation+Agreement '''here''']
* Contingency Plan in case a registry operator goes out of business
* Contingency Plan in case a registry operator goes out of business
* .Brand gTLDs
ICANN told the Congress that an "Emergency Back-end Registry Operator" ([[EBERO]]) is in place to take-over the operations if a failed registry to ensure that the interest of domain name registrants are protected.
* [[Applicant Support Program]] (ASP)
ICANN explained that information regarding the new Applicant Support Program is available in the new gTLD Financial Assistance Handbook. The two types of financial assistance under ASP include a reduced application fee of $47,000 from $185,000 and applicants are allowed to pay the $185,000 application fee through a payment plan. To qualify for financial assistance, entities must meet the required criteria. Financial Assistance applications will be evaluated by an independent [[SARP|Support Application Review Panel]] (SARP).
* [[Trademark Clearinghouse]]
* [[Trademark Clearinghouse]]
* Concerns raised by Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) providers
ICANN explained that the Trademark Clearinghouse is a database of registered trademarks and other types intellectual property rights, which shall be used to provide protection during the start-up phase of the program during the "Sunrise" and "Trademark Claims" processes and the 60-days post launch operation of the Trademark Claims exceeds the final recommendation of the [[Special Trademark Issues]] (STI) team, which was involved in developing the service and suggested that no mandatory post-launch claims service is necessary.
* Possibility of subsidizing the costs of Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) using surplus funds
ICANN clarified that no commitment has been regarding the use of surplus funds and the issue is a matter of continued community consultations. ICANN will consider the proposal to subsidize costs of disputes under the UDRP.
* Thick [[Whois]] system
* Thick [[Whois]] system
ICANN is dedicated in improving the access and accuracy of the Whois information and the Thick Whois will be mandated to all new gTLDs. Five studies regarding Whois services focusing on issues related to misuse, registrant identification, privacy and proxy services are being conducted.
* New gTLD Application Fee and Previous Application Fees
* New gTLD Application Fee and Previous Application Fees
ICANN provided a breakdown of the current $185,000 application fee which include development costs ($26,950 per applcation), applications processing and evaluation costs ($97,800 per application), costs for risk mitigation steps etc. ($60,000 per applicant). Further breakdown of the cost is available [http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new--gtlds/cost--considerations--04oct09--en.pdf.'''here''']
* Revenue from second level domain name registrations under new gTLDs
* Revenue from second level domain name registrations under new gTLDs
* Cost recovery model in assessing fees
* Cost recovery model in assessing fees