ICANN: Applicants Respond to Singapore GAC Advice on New gTLDs
In the GAC Singapore Communiqué [PDF, 449 KB], the Governmental Advisory Committee (“GAC”) issued further advice to the ICANN Board of Directors regarding New gTLD applications. ICANN notified applicants and the community about the GAC’s advice on 11 April 2014, thus opening a 21-day applicant response period. Applicant responses have been made public.
View Applicant Responses to Singapore GAC Advice »
These responses will be forwarded to the ICANN Board New gTLD Program Committee for consideration as it formulates its response to the GAC’s advice.
This ICANN announcement was sourced from:
newgtlds.icann.org/en/announcements-and-media/announcement-2-08may14-en
ICANN: New gTLD Auctions Updates – First Auction Confirmed
ICANN has updated the Auction Schedule for New gTLD applicants with strings in contention sets. The schedule now lists the participants confirmed for the first Auction on 4 June 2014, and the rescheduling of some sets based on requested postponements.
When Applicants were issued Intent to Auction notifications, they were given an option to postpone the Auction under one of the following circumstances:
- All members of the contention set request the Auction be postponed
Or
- Any applicant in a contention set requests deferment of the Auction until the Name Collision Occurrence Management Framework (the Framework) has been finalized.
Postponements granted as a result of unanimous agreement among all members of the contention set have resulted in deferral of two auctions. The updated schedule postponements requested based on the Framework have only been granted for those sets previously scheduled for the first Auction: those contention sets that requested a postponement for this reason from the first Auction have been moved to the second Auction. Should the Framework not be finalized by the confirmation deadline (21 days prior to an Auction) for the second auction, additional deferrals will be issued. In the updated schedule those contention sets marked with an asterisk (*) have been granted postponements.
The two applicants confirmed for the first Auction have received their confirmations from ICANN . Applicants will receive a notification from ICANN confirming their Auction date at least 21 days prior to the Auction. As Auctions are the method of last resort, Applicants may self-resolve a contention set up to 7 days prior to the Auction.
Auction Date Advancement
Additionally, ICANN is introducing the opportunity for applicants to request that their Auction be advanced – scheduled for a date earlier than originally scheduled. Similar to a request for postponement, an advancement of the auction date requires all members of the contention set to submit the request. To request advancement, the Application’s primary contact must submit the Advancement Request form [PDF, 216 KB] via a case in the Customer Portal at least 45 calendar days prior to the new desired Auction date.
Auction Rules
ICANN has issued a new version of the Auction Rules [PDF, 291 KB] to address several potential issues. One of the more notable changes addresses the eligibility requirements for participating in Auctions. In an effort to prevent any undue disruptions to the Auction Schedule, the following condition has been removed from the eligibility requirements in paragraph 8:
d) Finalized any and all change requests
Because all applications that are in contention sets have passed Evaluation, ICANN believes that in most cases, there is no reason to delay an Auction merely because a change request has been filed, and that the evaluation and processing of the change request generally should proceed independently and in parallel with the Auction timeline. ICANN reserves the right not to send Intent to Auction notices and/or not to proceed with an Auction if a change request by one or more applicants in the Contention Set is pending, but believes that in most instances the Auction should proceed without further delay.
Auctions Bidder Training
Finally, ICANN is pleased to announce the availability of new Bidder Training materials. Power Auctions has prepared three brief training videos to help Bidders prepare for an Auction including videos covering account set-up prior to an Auction, the Auction process, and Post Auction activities. The Videos are posted on the video tutorial page, and are also available via the Auctions landing page.
For more information, please visit the Auctions webpage.
This ICANN announcement was sourced from:
www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-08may14-en.htm
ICANN: FY15 Operating Plan & Budget
Purpose (brief): Join us in creating ICANN ‘s annual operating plan and budget for FY15, which describes planned activities for the year ahead (from 1July 2014- 30 June 2015). These activities are based on ICANN ‘s strategic objectives, fiscal year priorities and community input. The draft FY15 Operating Plan and Budget document will be posted for public comment from 8 May – 1 July.
ICANN is seeking general feedback as well as feedback on the focus areas, objectives, goals, portfolios, projects and budget allocations. Your feedback is important to help ensure we have a clear roadmap for the year ahead.
Next steps:
ICANN will take into consideration the feedback received and respond as necessary, before submitting the draft document for Board consideration.
Draft documents:
- Draft FY15 Operating Plan and Budget [PDF, 1.95 MB]- this document provides an overview of the FY15 budget, and the Operating Plan consisting of descriptions for goals, objectives, portfolios and selected projects.
- Draft FY15 Budget by portfolio and cost category [PDF and Excel]- use this document to view the breakdown of the categories of costs by portfolio.
- Selected FY15 Projects by portfolio [PDF and Excel]: use this document to view a selection of projects that contribute to each portfolio.
- FY15 SO/AC additional budget requests as approved by the Board [PDF and Excel].
- Period opens – 8 May
- Period closes – 1 July
- Please post your comments
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. - All submitted public comments can be viewed here
This ICANN announcement was sourced from:
www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-08may14-en.htm
The Real Uneven Playing Field of Name Collisions by Burt Kaliski
Recent comments on the name collisions issue in the new gTLD program raise a question about the differences between established and new gTLDs with respect to name collisions, and whether they’re on an even playing field with one another.
Verisign’s latest public comments on ICANN’s “Mitigating the Risk of DNS Namespace Collisions” Phase One Report, in answering the question, suggest that the playing field the industry should be concerned about is actually in a different place. The following points are excerpted from the comments submitted April 21.
In a previous comment, Eric Osterweil summarized key differences between established and new gTLDs as they affect name collision risks. Namespaces associated with established TLDs, he observed, represent “well known and measurable real estate” that system administrators can plan for. In contrast, namespaces associated with applied-for strings including new gTLDs, Osterweil continued, “inherently have no well-known policies and structure” – other than the assumption that they weren’t expected to be delegated in the future foreseeable to system administrators.
Osterweil’s points are important to keep in mind, because they apply just as much to one of the comments in this public review period as they did to comments in the previous period.
A better understanding of the situation starts with clear definitions. A name collision occurs when one system assumes that a name is in one name space, another system assumes that the name is in another name space, and the two systems interact unaware of their difference in assumptions. One of the reasons they may not be aware is that the assumptions of both systems were historically the same, and then the assumptions of one of the systems changed.
ICANN’s Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) expresses the definition as follows in SAC062:
“The term ‘name collision’ refers to the situation in which a name that is properly defined in one operational domain or naming scope may appear in another domain (in which it is also syntactically valid), where users, software, or other functions in that domain may misinterpret it as if it correctly belonged there.”
With this definition in mind, it’s useful to highlight two situations that are not the same as name collisions.
This article by Verisign’s Burt Kaliski was soured with permission from:
blogs.verisigninc.com/blog/entry/the_real_uneven_playing_field
New gTLDs Pass 700,000 Registrations As .CLUB Debuts With a Bullet At Six
Registrations for new gTLDs passed the 700,000 mark on 7 May as registrations of .club exceeded 25,000 on the first day of General Availability seeing the gTLD debut in sixth place according to nTLDstats.com on their chart of new gTLD registrations.
There were 25,311 .club registrations on its first day of General Availability out of a total 28,245 registrations across all of the new gTLDs that are currently available, including those in their Sunrise periods, taking .club to a total of 25,716 registrations.
The top gTLD by registration numbers remains .guru who continues to widen its lead over the rest of the pack with 55,928 registrations while .berlin remains in second place with 47,639 registrations followed by .photography (34,982), and 在线 (30,955) being the only gTLDs with more than 30,000 registrations.
There are now nine gTLDs with more than 20,000 registrations, 21 with more than 10,000 registrations, 40 with more than 5,000 registrations and 85 with more than 1,000.
One of the reasons for the success of .club is that the cost of registration is cheaper than most of the other gTLDs to launch and there are no restrictions on who can register a domain. The gTLD has also managed to get over 70 registrars around the globe on board to sell their domains and has sold nearly $500,000 in premium names to date.
While initial registrations have been excellent, it remains to be seen if their predictions of one million registrations by the end of year one, and five million by the end of year five, come to fruition. To date most gTLDs have sold most of their domains on the first day and then registrations have flattened out markedly.
