Summary and Analysis of Comments

[Patrick Jones <patrick.jones@xxxxxxxxx>]

Summary and Analysis of Public Comments for:
ICANN's gTLD Registry Failover Plan

The public comment period on ICANN's gTLD Registry Failover Plan ran from 15 
July to 14 August 2008. 2 comments were received (one from ICANN's Security and 
Stability Advisory Committee, and one from Karl Auerbach). The public comments 
on this forum are archived at 
http://forum.icann.org/lists/registry-failover-plan/.

SSAC Comment

Steve Crocker provided a comment on behalf of ICANN's SSAC. SSAC believes that 
"the plan is implementable and that testing will help confirm whether the plan 
is comprehensive (complete)."

SSAC asked if there were efforts to define "continuity metrics" or 
"accountability metrics", such as what service levels a registrant can expect 
or how long name service will persist following the different types of failure.

SSAC noted the considerable time and energy invested in the current gTLD 
Registry Failover Plan, and wished to remain informed of plans for live testing 
with registries. See 
http://forum.icann.org/lists/registry-failover-plan/msg00004.html.

Auerbach Comment

Karl Auerbach raised a number of critical points about the gTLD Registry 
Failover Plan. He believes the plan presumes that all registries now or in the 
future provide reliability of services on par with the .COM registry, and 
questions whether this must remain the case. He suggests the key matter is 
"that consumers know in advance of their purchase so that they may know the 
nature and quality of support of the name that they are acquiring" and that 
consumers "ought to have the ability to make informed choices whether to buy a 
name from a high-preservation registry/TLD or from one that offers a less 
expensive but less protected alternative."

Auerbach believes the Plan imposes complex, rigid and expensive procedures on 
new gTLDs and consumers who do not need names "encumbered with the costs of 
this preservation system."

He suggests an alternative requirement that registries publish a yearly 
statement signed by an independent expert auditor attesting that the registry 
has, performs, and periodically tests systems and procedures of business asset 
preservation, and that those procedures are adequate to allow speedy 
resurrection of the registry.

Auerbach believes that the plan does not provide flexibility to gTLD registries 
to "restructure a non-performing product". He questions how the Plan fits under 
laws covering bankruptcy, bulk transfer of assets, e-discovery or privacy of 
registrants.

Auerbach also raises issues that are outside the scope of the gTLD Registry 
Failover Plan, such as providing third party beneficiary rights for domain name 
registrants to contracts between ICANN and registries, a formal structure for 
registrants within ICANN and ICANN's growth. See 
http://forum.icann.org/lists/registry-failover-plan/msg00000.html.

Next Steps

ICANN is developing the implementation of the gTLD Registry Failover Plan and 
is planning a test exercise with experienced registries in Fiscal Year 09. 
Further information about the implementation and test exercise will be made 
available in the near future.
--
Patrick L. Jones
Registry Liaison Manager &
Coordinator, ICANN Nominating Committee
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers
4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
Marina del Rey, CA 90292
Tel: +1 310 301 3861
Fax: +1 310 823 8649
patrick.jones@xxxxxxxxx