<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[council] RySG Alternative Proposal for Continuity Operations Instrument
- To: "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [council] RySG Alternative Proposal for Continuity Operations Instrument
- From: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 07:33:43 -0700
- Accept-language: fr-FR, en-US
- Acceptlanguage: fr-FR, en-US
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: AcyNfWpJv1CMk2b2S/CDSHqXl9fetwAJXWkw
- Thread-topic: RySG Alternative Proposal for Continuity Operations Instrument
http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-17oct11-en.htm
RySG Alternative Proposal for Continuity Operations Instrument
Comment Period Deadlines (*)
Important Information Links
Public Comment
Box<http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/rysg-proposal-cof-17oct11-en.htm>
Open Date:
17 October 2011
To Submit Your Comments (Forum)<mailto:rysg-proposal-cof@xxxxxxxxx>
Close Date:
2 December 2011
Time (UTC):
23:59
View Comments Submitted<http://forum.icann.org/lists/rysg-proposal-cof/>
Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose
ICANN received from the Registries Stakeholder Group (RySG) a proposal for
Establishment of a Continued Operations Fund (COF). This proposal is
accompanied by an addendum (Proposed Continuing Operations Instrument) produced
by the Afilias and PIR, supported by some other registries, registry applicants
and other interested parties.
· The RySG proposal can be found here:
http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/rysg-proposal-cof-21jul11-en.pdf[PDF,
71 KB]
· The Addendum can be found here:
http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/rysg-proposal-cof-addendum-01sep11-en.pdf
[PDF, 119 KB]
The RySG proposal offers an alternative approach to the existing Continuing
Operations Instrument that is part of the New gTLD Program. The current model
proposed by ICANN is outlined in the Applicant Guidebook, in particular see
Question 50 of applicant questions evaluation criteria attachment and the spec
8 of the Registry Agreement. Respondents to the public comment that wish to
learn more about this topic are also encouraged to read the gTLD Registry
Transition Process Memorandum
(http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/registry-transition-processes-clean-30may11-en.pdf
[PDF, 747 KB]) and the recently posted Emergency Back-End Registry Operator
Request for Information (EBERO RFI):
http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-14sep11-en.htm
Essentially, the existing Continuing Operations Instrument requires each new
gTLD to obtain a letter of credit that will pay for the maintenance of five
critical registry functions in the event of a registry failure. The proposed
Continuing Operations Fund mechanism is essentially an insurance pool where
each registry contributes to a fund - the contribution to a pooled risk fund
would be less than the letter of credit (perhaps significantly less).
Here are some questions that public comment responders to be considered
regarding the RySG alternative proposal as well as the existing continuing
instrument model offered by ICANN. To be most effective, comments should
identify the question addressed, or identify if a separate issue is addressed.
1. Considering ICANN's Mission, what is the appropriate role for ICANN to
create a fund or act as an insurer? Under which circumstances?
o Can the same end be accomplished through a third party?
o Will an insurance company underwrite this?
2. The current COI model outlined on the Applicant Guidebook (see:
http://newgtlds.icann.org/applicants/agb) is designed to provide some
safeguards regardless of the number of gTLD registries that fail.
For the existing COI model:
o There will be an incentive to underestimate the projected size of the new
registry, and therefore lower the cost of the COI to below what it should be to
protect registrants. How could this be addressed?
For the COF model:
o Who should determine how much reserve must be set aside?
o What criteria should be used to ensure sufficient funding and a mechanism
to provide registrant protections?
3. In the estimates shown in the addendum (Proposed Continuity Operations
Instrument), what are the assumptions can be made in creating the basis for the
proposed fund?
4. How should the both the existing COI model and the newly proposed COF
model ensure that it appropriately meets the needs of multiple registries sizes
from small to large?
5. Will the allocation of costs need to be adjusted over time if new
registries enter the pool after the target balance is achieved? How can this
account for some level of predictability and fairness for all registries?
6. What appropriate level of internal resources should ICANN have for
collections, tracking of deposits and outlays from the fund?
7. What are the foreseeable challenges to move funds in timely manner to
various parties as required responding to emergency situations?
Section II: Background
This assurance of continuing operations through some mechanism - whether it is
the current continuity operations instrument or the newly proposed continuing
operations fund - is an important issue because it provides a mechanism to
protect registrants in the event of a registry failure. ICANN's main goal is a
registrant protection through the implementation of a transition process that
occurs in a secure, stable and reliable manner, minimizing impact not only to
gTLD registrants, but also to gTLD users. This process should provide
transparency to all parties involved in the transition.
The continuity operations instrument provides the one fully performed and in
place registrant protection mechanism before the TLD is delegated. Additional
important background information is furnished in the gTLD Registry Transition
Process Memorandum
(http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/registry-transition-processes-clean-30may11-en.pdf[PDF,
747 KB]). Commenters should read that. A mechanism similar to the proposed
continuing operations fund was considered at one time.
Section III: Document and Resource Links
· New gTLD Registry Agreement (see spec 8):
http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/agreement-specs-clean-19sep11-en.pdf
[PDF, 4.5 MB]
· Module 2 of the Applicant Guidebook:
http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/evaluation-questions-criteria-clean-19sep11-en.pdf
[PDF, 725 KB] and
http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/evaluation-procedures-clean-19sep11-en.pdf
[PDF, 919 KB]
· gTLD Registry Transition Process Memorandum:
http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/registry-transition-processes-clean-30may11-en.pdf
[PDF, 747 KB]
· New gTLD Program: http://newgtlds.icann.org/
Section IV: Additional Information
There will be a session during the upcoming ICANN Dakar
Meeting<http://dakar42.icann.org/> to explain the proposal and receive
additional community feedback. The session will be chaired by representatives
from the RySG. This session will have remote participation for the people not
able to attend in person. If you are interested in learning more and have
questions, please see here<http://dakar42.icann.org/node/27219> the details.
Staff Contact:
Karla Valente
Email:
karla.valente@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:karla.valente@xxxxxxxxx?subject=More%20information%20on%20the%20RySG%20Alternative%20Proposal%20for%20Continuity%20Operations%20Instrument%20public%20comment%20period>
Glen de Saint Géry
GNSO Secretariat
gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
http://gnso.icann.org
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|