Thanks to Steve and Jon for this first cut.  It is a shame that time is so short because a considerable amount of work still needs to be done on this topic over the coming few days.  I will bring some thoughts to this discussion in a later post, but thought that the excerpt that Steve linked out to would be a helpful start and have thus posted them below for member’s consideration.

Public comment is requested concerning the recently received from the proposal for Establishment of a Continued Operations Fund. This proposal comes from the Registries Stakeholder Group (RySG) and is accompanied by an addendum (Proposed Continuity Operations Instrument) produced by the Afilias and PIR, supported by some other registries, registry applicants and other interested parties.

The RySG proposal offers an alternative approach to the existing Continuing Operations Instrument that is part of the New gTLD Program. 

Here are some questions that public comment respondents could consider regarding the RySG alternative proposal as well as the existing continuing instrument model offered by ICANN.

  1. Considering ICANN's Mission, what is the appropriate role for ICANN to create a fund or act as an insurer? Under which circumstances?
    • Can the same end be accomplished through a third party?
    • 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:

    • 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:

    • Who should determine how much reserve must be set aside?
    • What criteria should be used to ensure sufficient funding and a mechanism to provide registrant protections?
  1. 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?
  2. 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?
  3. 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?
  4. What appropriate level of internal resources should ICANN have for collections, tracking of deposits and outlays from the fund?
  5. What are the foreseeable challenges to move funds in timely manner to various parties as required responding to emergency situations?

One comment I would leave with you all is that it should be well-noted that ICANN already extracts USD 60,000 from each applicant as a risk fee without detailed explanation as to its use.  Most applicants understand that this money will be used by ICANN legal to fight lawsuits that may arise from the new gTLD program, but find it an uncomfortable “tax” which will probably be used to fight battles that are not of their making.  Food for thought.

 

Kind regards,

 

RA

 

Ronald N. Andruff

President

 

RNA Partners, Inc.

220 Fifth Avenue

New York, New York 10001

+ 1 212 481 2820 ext. 11

 

From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2011 7:06 PM
To: 'bc-GNSO@icann.org GNSO list'
Subject: [bc-gnso] for expedited review: draft BC comment on registry proposal for Continuity Operations Instrument (COI)

 

Per discussion in Dakar and on our 10-Nov member call, here is a draft of BC comments on the a proposed alternative to the for Continuity Operations Instrument in the new gTLD Program.

 

Jon Nevett prepared this draft. 

 

This comment period and docs are described here. 

 

These comments are due 2-Dec, giving us 10 days for review and approval.   This is less than the 14-day period required in our charter, so I am requesting an expedited review period.  If any member has substantive objections to the expedited review, we can go to 14 days and submit our comments after the ICANN due date.

 

All BC members are invited to suggest edits.     Please use track changes and circulate to BC list.   

 

Thanks again to Jon for taking the lead on this.

 

 

Steve DelBianco

vice chair for policy coordination, BC