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 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. 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?
This announcement was sourced from :
http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-17oct11-en.htm