ICANN Blog

Sharing is caring!

ICANN Blog ICANN Blog

  • The Draft FY19 Operating Plan and Budget
    on January 19, 2018 at 8:00 am

    Each year, preparing our proposed budget for the next financial year is one of the most important responsibilities ICANN organization has as a not-for-profit operating in the public interest. Long-term financial planning and fiscal responsibility is important, and the ICANN org, the Board, and the community must work together on both. A critical part of this process is that the budget goes through public comment and that you, the community, have the opportunity to provide feedback and inform the budget before it is finalized. ICANN's mission and the various commitments it has accumulated over the years, from the IANA Functions, technical work, and policy development support to ICANN meetings, reviews, and community needs, have meant an increased workload for the ICANN org and an increased amount of personnel and other resources to meet that workload. Historically, the budget has been able to accommodate an increased workload, thanks to continued growth in funding. Now, however, we cannot afford to continue this steady increase. The actual funding for FY18 is below the FY18 budget, and we expect this trend to continue. Funding for FY19 is $138 million, which is below the FY18 budget of $143 million by $5 million. This means ICANN needs to carefully plan and prioritize the work to support our mission and keep expenses within its available budget. I know this may not be an easy thing to do, but it's the right thing to do. I know that we've all felt this increase in the volume of work. I recognize ICANN org could have done better in its financial long-term planning, and I know many of you agree based on previous public comments, such as the recent one on the reserve fund, as well as previous budget public comments, and I thank you for that. Now is the time, and we need your help, feedback, and input to finalize the budget. It is for the multistakeholder community to decide not just what work gets done and when, but also to help keep expenses within ICANN's means and focused on our mission. The ICANN org exists to support the community's work and ICANN's mission. To better allocate resources, the ICANN org looks to the community to provide feedback on what should be prioritized, so that the org can provide the resources and support accordingly. The draft budget includes some proposed reduction of activities, including decreased or delayed potential implementation of projects or activities, engagement, and community support. It also includes $8.5 million in savings within the ICANN org, which are achieved through optimized internal processes and procedures. In addition, this year we've added new material to help you participate, based on your previous feedback. This includes a high-level plan for FY20, so that you see what's beyond FY19, and six modules that provide a specific focus by topic: Contractual Compliance and Consumer Safeguards, Direct Policy Support, DNS Marketplace and Identifier Ecosystem, Technology and DNS security, Engagement, and Reviews. The planned projects in FY19 continue to focus on ICANN's technical mission and accountability and transparency. In addition to supporting the ongoing community work, this includes projects such as the Information Transparency Initiative, which seeks to improve ICANN's document governance and content management, ultimately making it easier for the community to find information on our website. Also in FY19, the community will come together to create the next strategic plan for 2021 and beyond. This will be an important moment for us all to work together on a long-term plan that supports ICANN's mission within our available resources. I know that prioritizing ICANN's work and being fiscally responsible is something the Board, community, and ICANN org all care deeply about. This is the right time to plan for the long-term and to prioritize ICANN's work to support its mission. It is for the multistakeholder community to decide. You, as the Empowered Community, are also entitled to reject the budget outright. We want and need your feedback and input. I look forward to productive discussions about this proposed budget between now and March. Please take action and share your comments during the public comment process. […]

  • What’s New with ICANN Reviews
    on January 18, 2018 at 8:00 am

    Provide Your Input on the Assessment Report for the NomCom2 Review Have you interacted with the Nominating Committee? If so, please share your input on the Nominating Committee Review assessment report to help improve this important body. Join the NomCom2 Review Working Party (RWP) for calls scheduled for 20:00 UTC on 25 January or 20:00 UTC on 1 February. To participate, please contact mssi-secretariat@icann.org. You can also visit the NomCom2 Wiki Workspace Page for a recording of the recent webinar on the assessment report conducted by the independent examiner, Analysis Group. Share your input on Review Operating Standards by 2 Feb 2018 Provide your input to shape how Specific Reviews will be conducted in the future. The deadline to submit your public comment on the Operating Standards for ICANN Specific Reviews has been extended to 23:59 UTC on Friday, 2 February. The goal of the Operating Standards (see Section 4.6), which are mandated by ICANN Bylaws, is to provide a transparent and consistent review process by documenting rules and procedures. Learn more here. Stay-up-to-date with Reviews! Click here for a summary of status updates for active Specific and Organizational Reviews. Also, be sure to bookmark Specific Review Team Workspace Pages to stay up-to-date with progress and opportunities to provide input: Accountability and Transparency Review (ATRT3) Competition, Consumer Trust, and Consumer Choice Review (CCT) Registration Directory Service Review (RDS-WHOIS2) Security, Stability, and Resiliency of the DNS (SSR2) […]

  • Data Protection and Privacy Update: Seeking Community Feedback on Proposed Compliance Models
    on January 12, 2018 at 8:00 am

    Happy new year to you all. We have kicked off 2018 by continuing our work on data protection and privacy issues. In particular, we are preparing for the 25 May 2018 enforcement date for the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). As I've previously written, we are working to ensure compliance with this law while maintaining access to WHOIS to the greatest extent possible. Our work in this area began when we asked the community for user cases and created a matrix of these different use cases about the personal data that gTLD registries and registrars collect, transmit or publish pursuant to ICANN agreements or policies. In the absence of a WHOIS policy, the user stories are essential for describing the many different uses of the WHOIS system. The matrix informed discussions about whether there were potential compliance issues under ICANN's agreements with registries and registrars because of the new law, and aided in our engagement with data protection authorities. On 2 November 2017, we published a Statement from Contractual Compliance, which indicated ICANN org would defer taking compliance action against any registry or registrar for noncompliance with contractual obligations related to the handling of registration data. To be eligible for this deferral, we asked ICANN's contracted parties and stakeholders to follow this process to submit proposed interim models for compliance. We've published those community-proposed models here. In parallel, we engaged the European law firm Hamilton to provide its legal analysis of these issues. The three-part assessment found in its first memo [PDF, 253 KB] that the WHOIS service in its current form must change. In the second part [PDF, 577 KB], Hamilton answered community questions about the law's applicability and scope. In its third analysis [PDF, 440 KB], Hamilton described how processing data within the scope of WHOIS could be changed to become compliant with the GDPR. We asked for your feedback on these analyses and published your input here. In December, I wrote that we were working to develop interim models for collecting registration data and implementing registration directory services that may be compliant with both the law and ICANN's contractual agreements. To be clear, these proposed models are meant to facilitate discussion and a final model decided on to be an interim solution. They do not replace any existing ICANN policy development work or policies. Today we published [PDF, 624 KB] for community input those three proposed discussion models for collecting registration data and implementing registration directory services. These models reflect discussions from across the community and with data protection authorities, legal analyses and the proposed models we have received to date. Please provide your input on these models. The input from the community will contribute to assessing the viability of each of the models. From that input either variations or modifications to one of these models will be identified at the end of January for the path forward. To help inform this, please provide your feedback by 29 January 2018. Please send your feedback to gdpr@icann.org. The three models are summarized at a high-level below. The models differ based on what contact information is displayed in the public-facing WHOIS, their applicability, the duration of data retention and what data is not displayed in a public-facing WHOIS: Model 1 would allow for the display of Thick registration data, with the exception of the registrant's phone number and email address, and the name and postal address of the technical and administrative contacts. To gain access to these non-public data points, third parties would be required to self-certify their legitimate interests for accessing the data. This model applies if the registrant is a natural person, and the registrant, registry, registrar and/or the data processor is in the European Economic Area. Model 2 would allow for the display of Thin registration data, as well as the technical and administrative contacts' email addresses. To access the non-public information registries and registrars would be required to provide access only for a defined set of third-party requestors certified under a formal accreditation/certification program. There are two variations on how this model would apply. Model 2A applies to registrants who are both natural and legal persons, where the registrant, registry, registrar and/or the data processor is in the European Economic Area. Model 2B would apply to registrants who are both natural and legal persons, where the registrant, registry, registrar and/or the data processor is regardless of location, that is on a global basis. Model 3 would allow for the display of Thin registration data and any other non-personal registration data. To access non-public information, a requestor would provide a subpoena or other order from a court or other judicial tribunal of competent jurisdiction. This model would apply to all registrations on a global basis. Please click here to see the models [PDF, 624 KB]. We will share these models as we continue our engagement work, including with the Article 29 Working Party. As always, we'll continue to keep the community apprised of the various discussions we have. We've also received a range of correspondence relating to the GDPR. We urge you to visit our data protection/privacy page to view the latest correspondence, proposed models from the community, and other materials relevant to this discussion. Happy 2018 and we look forward to all the work with the community over the coming year. […]

  • Data Protection and Privacy Update – Plans for the New Year
    on December 21, 2017 at 8:00 am

    As 2017 comes to an end, it's a good time to assess where we are and where we are going with our work to address potential compliance issues with ICANN agreements with generic top-level domain (gTLD) registries and registrars in light of the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). A Look Back at 2017 We started out by working with an ad hoc group of community volunteers to help us create and populate a matrix of user stories of the personal data that gTLD registries and registrars collect, transmit, or publish pursuant to ICANN agreements or policies. The purpose for collecting this information was to inform discussions about whether there are potential compliance issues under ICANN agreements with registries and registrars because of the new law, and to engage with data protection authorities. We continued this work by facilitating discussions within the multistakeholder community during ICANN Public Meetings, blogs, and webinars. Also, we engaged the European law firm Hamilton to provide legal analysis on these issues. This analysis, developed in parts, aims to serve as building blocks for community discussions about how to approach GDPR issues in the domain name space. Ultimately, this data will help us outline a legal framework on which to build possible models for compliance with both the GDPR and ICANN's contracts with gTLD registries and registrars. Part 1 [PDF, 252 KB], published on 16 October 2017, described the potential issues that could arise in relation to the WHOIS service in its current form as a result of the GDPR. Part 2 [PDF, 577 KB], published on 15 December 2017, addressed questions that the ICANN community has raised with a goal of providing a better general understanding of the effects of the GDPR on the domain name space. Part 3 [PDF, 440 KB], published today, elaborates on how the processing of data within the scope of WHOIS could possibly be changed to become compliant with the GDPR. This analysis lays out a legal framework to guide our approach to begin building potential compliance models with the community's input. Charting a Path for the New Year As we look to the new year, we are mindful that the May 2018 GDPR enforcement date is fast approaching. It's important to plot out where we're going so that we start the year with the energy and direction that we'll need to get us to our goal. We've made it a high priority to find a path forward to ensure compliance with the GDPR while maintaining WHOIS to the greatest extent possible. Now, it is time to identify potential models that address both GDPR and ICANN compliance obligations. We'll need to move quickly, while taking measured steps to develop proposed compliance models. Based on the analysis from Hamilton, it appears likely that we will need to incorporate the advice about using a layered access model as a way forward. Before 15 January 2018, we want to publish for Public Comment proposed compliance models. As a first step, we'd like to hear your feedback and suggestions about the layered access approach described in Part 3 of the Hamilton legal analysis. To help us meet this deadline, please submit your feedback before 10 January 2018. As we look to settle on a compliance model by the end of January, the community's continued participation and input will be instrumental in ensuring that we've appropriately shaped the model. Email your comments and suggestions to gdpr@icann.org. To be clear, your feedback about the layered access approach outlined in the Hamilton memo is not intended to replace the ongoing process we published about how to submit a proposed compliance model in response to the 2 November 2017 Statement from Contractual Compliance. We have received one suggested model and know that many of you have been working to finalize your proposals. Your models will help us shape our proposal and we will continue to publish your submissions on our webpage as we receive them. We look forward to continuing our engagement with the ICANN community in 2018 as we work together on this important issue. As before, we will continue to provide updates via blogs, webinars, and documents on our Data Protection/Privacy Issues webpage. […]

  • Do You Have a Domain Name? Here's What You Need to Know.
    on December 19, 2017 at 8:00 am

    Part III – Having Issues Transferring Your Domain Name? One of the primary purposes of ICANN's Transfer Policy is to provide you with the option to freely move your domain name from one registrar to another. In our last blog, we explained how to do this. If you still have problems making a transfer, here is some information on why you might be encountering issues and some additional information on what you might be able to do about it. The first thing you should know is that there are a few instances when your registrar cannot transfer your domain name, such as if it is the subject of an ongoing Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), Transfer Dispute Resolution Policy (TDRP) or Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) proceeding. Your registrar also cannot transfer your domain name if it is subject to a court order. Additionally, as we explained in the last blog, your domain name cannot be transferred if it is subject to a 60-Day Change of Registrant lock. There might be other reasons your registrar is denying your transfer request. This will depend on the terms and conditions of your registration agreement with the registrar. For example, there is evidence of fraud, your name is not listed as the registrant of record, or if you have an outstanding payment for a previous registration period. Non-payment for a pending or future registration period however is not grounds for denial of transfer. It is important that you understand the terms and conditions in your registration agreement so that you know what to expect if you decide to make a transfer. What to Do? There are some common issues you might run into when transferring a domain name. You can't transfer the domain name because it is in a 60-day Change of Registrant lock. This rule is in place to prevent unauthorized changes to your contact info for the purposes of making unauthorized transfers, which could result in making the domain name un-recoverable. If you want to opt out of this protection, you can make the request to your registrar prior to making changes to your contact information. You cannot transfer the domain name because your request falls within 60 days of the initial registration or a previous transfer. This rule is put in place for your protection. Some registrars however may choose to grant exceptions to this rule so you can contact your registrar directly to ask if they'll allow you to initiate a transfer during this period. You cannot transfer the domain name because it is in 'Registrar Lock' or 'Client Transfer Prohibited' status (sometimes used to protect against unauthorized transfers). You can change these statuses by contacting your registrar. Some registrars may provide you with the option to change these statuses yourself via your control panel. In either case, the registrar must provide you with the AuthInfo code needed to change the status within five calendar days of your request. You should know that you can always contact your registrar directly for assistance with transferring, even if you registered your domain name through a reseller or another service provider. ICANN is not a registrar and does not transfer domain names. If you do not know who your registrar is you can search here to find out. If after you've contacted the registrar and you are still not successful in your attempt to transfer your domain name, you can submit a formal Transfer Complaint with ICANN. Click here to read 5 things Every Domain Name Registrant Should Know About ICANN's Transfer Policy FAQs: Transferring Your Domain Name More Information on Domain Name Transfers More Information on Transfer Complaints [PDF, 124 KB] More Information about Domain Name status codes, such as 'Registrar Lock' or 'Client Transfer Prohibited' Learn more about ICANN's Transfer Policy (Effective as of 1 December 2016). The 'Do You Have a Domain Name? Here's What You Need to Know' educational series is part of ICANN's broader efforts to help you better understand the ICANN policies that affect you, your role in the Domain Name System (DNS), and the role of the ICANN organization, registries, and registrars in the DNS ecosystem. […]

(Visited 3 times, 1 visits today)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *