Logo
ICANN
ICANN
Filtered Search

Are you sure you want to sign out from http://www.vip.icann.org?

If you want to sign out from both http://www.vip.icann.org and ICANN Account, click here.

Public Comment

Public Comment is a vital part of our multistakeholder model. It provides a mechanism for stakeholders to have their opinions and recommendations formally and publicly documented. It is an opportunity for the ICANN community to effect change and improve policies and operations.

Name: Michael Palage
Date: 12 Feb 2026
Email: michael@palage.com
Original Public Comment: ICANN FY27–31 Operating & Financial Plan, ICANN/IANA FY27 Op Plans & Budgets
1. Planning Assumptions (Refer to Page 8)
Somewhat

Comments:

See attached comments about the need for a comprehensive economic study.

2. Strategic Initiatives for FY2026–2030 (Refer to Pages 10–62)
Yes

Comments:

ICANN's failure to conduct a comprehensive economic study negatively impacts its ability to have the full set of available data before it to make informed decisions that benefit all internet stakeholders, rather than just its contracting parties.

3. Strategic Initiatives for FY2026–2030 (Refer to Pages 10–62)
No

Comments:

While some initiatives are realistic, others are clearly aspirational/feel-good. With regard to improving stakeholder representation, participation in ICANN has been dropping. This is evident in policy development calls, where contracting parties dominate attendance. Moreover, if ICANN were ever to stop funding travelers' civil society participation, in-person participation would become almost nonexistent. Implementing consensus policy where the contracting parties have a de facto veto at the GNSO council level also discourages meaningful participation from existing or new non-contracting party stakeholders.

4. Functional Activities (Refer to Page 63)
Yes
5. Draft FY27–31 Financial Plan (Refer to Page 112–116)
No

Comments:

A comprehensive economic study would provide ICANN with better insight into market trends.

6. Are the different segments of Total ICANN, and the work they are doing, clearly communicated?
Somewhat
7. Do the planned headcount and personnel expenses adequately reflect the work ICANN needs to undertake during the fiscal year?
No

Comments:

See comments in the attached document regarding the inefficiency of the grant program and how this is outside of ICANN's core technical competency and should be transferred to a third-party organization. When you

9. Do ICANN Public Meeting budgeted costs appear reasonable?
No

Comments:

No. ICANN should move to two meetings a year; it is primarily ICANN's registrars and registries that continue to zealously advocate for three meetings, as well as those travellers receiving ICANN travel support. This is because these meetings serve more as a trade association event than an actual forum for implementing policy. ICANN demonstrated during Covid lock-down that virtual meetings can be a workable substitute. If the ICANN registrars and registries want three meetings a year, make one of them virtual.

10. Are the planned activities in the Draft FY27 IANA Operating Plan and Budget sufficiently funded?
Somewhat

Comments:

There remains a lack of clarity on how gTLD and ccTLD financial contributions are properly allocated for these services.

12. Do you agree with the ranges ICANN is considering for the Reserve Fund’s target and maximum levels? If not, what do you believe should be the target and maximum levels (if any)?
No

Comments:

ICANN reserve fund should be one year of operational expenses.

14. On a scale of 1 to 10, where 10 indicates “Very Well” and 1 indicates “Needs Major Improvement”, how well do you believe ICANN is performing in financial reporting and transparency?
7

Comments:

Xavier Calvez and his team do a good job.

15. Overall, do you find this guided Public Comment submission form effective, or do you prefer the unguided format?
No

Comments:

As noted in my attached comments, the number of stakeholders participating in the process has been declining. I think allowing for hybrid submission should remain an option.

Attachment

2026-2027-Budget-Public-Comment.docx (24.22 KB)

Summary of Attachment

I am concerned that the proposed budget lacks appropriate initiatives to safeguard and reinforce ICANN’s role as a nonprofit public benefit corporation and instead doubles down on priorities that risk continuing to transform ICANN into a de facto trade association with a veneer of multistakeholderism. The three specific asks that are contained in the attachment are: (1) ICANN must undertake a comprehensive economic study of the entire domain name marketplace, gTLD/ccTLD, primary/seccondary market, vertical integration, etc. (2) Administration of the Grant Program is Outside ICANN’s Core Competency as a Technical Coordinating Body and Should Be Delegated to a Competent Third Party; and (3) ICANN needs to undertake an internal review as to why the community is no longer engaing in this and other public comment periods.

Summary of Submission

I am concerned that the proposed budget lacks appropriate initiatives to safeguard and reinforce ICANN’s role as a nonprofit public benefit corporation and instead doubles down on priorities that risk continuing to transform ICANN into a de facto trade association with a veneer of multistakeholderism. The three specific asks that are contained in the attachment are: (1) ICANN must undertake a comprehensive economic study of the entire domain name marketplace, gTLD/ccTLD, primary/seccondary market, vertical integration, etc. (2) Administration of the Grant Program is Outside ICANN’s Core Competency as a Technical Coordinating Body and Should Be Delegated to a Competent Third Party; and (3) ICANN needs to undertake an internal review as to why the community is no longer engaing in this and other public comment periods.