[bc-gnso] ALERTS From the Secretariat: RySG Alternative Proposal for Continuity Operations Instrument

[Benedetta Rossi <bc-secretariat@xxxxxxxxx>]

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?
     * 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?
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]
   
andhttp://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 upcomingICANN 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 seehere 
<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> 


--
Kind Regards,

Benedetta Rossi
BC Secretariat
www.bizconst.org
bc-secretariat@xxxxxxxxx