Final Issue Report New gTLD Subsequent Procedures · Final Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent...

FinalIssueReportonNewgTLDSubsequentProcedures DATE:4December2015

FinalIssueReportonNewgTLDSubsequentProcedures Page1of160Author:SteveChan

FinalIssueReportonNewgTLDSubsequentProcedures

STATUSOFTHISDOCUMENTThisistheFinalIssueReportinresponsetotheGNSOCouncilresolutionrequestingthatataminimum,thesubjectsidentifiedbytheNewgTLDSubsequentProceduresDiscussionGroupbeanalyzedtohelpdetermineiftheymayleadtochangesoradjustmentstotheexistingpolicyrecommendationsasdeterminedintheFinalReportontheIntroductionofNewGenericTop-LevelDomains.ThisFinalIssuereportreflectsfeedbackreceivedthroughthepubliccommentforumonthePreliminaryIssueReport,publishedon31August2015.InaccordancewiththePDPrules,thePreliminaryIssueReportwaspublishedforpubliccommentforatleastthirty(30)days,followedbyconsiderationofpubliccommentsandpublicationofthisFinalIssueReport.

SUMMARYThisFinalIssueReportonNewgTLDSubsequentProceduresisherebysubmittedtotheGNSOCouncilinresponsetotheCouncil’srequest,andpursuanttotheResolutionduringtheGNSOCouncilmeetingon24June2015.



TABLEOFCONTENTS

1.EXECUTIVESUMMARY 3

2.OBJECTIVE 11

3.BACKGROUND 14

4.DISCUSSIONOFPROPOSEDISSUES 18

5.STAFFRECOMMENDATION 135

6.NEXTSTEPS 136

ANNEXA–NEWGTLDSUBSEQUENTPROCEDURESDISCUSSIONGROUPFINALDELIVERABLES 137

ANNEXB–REPORTOFPUBLICCOMMENTS 155



1.ExecutiveSummary

1.1BackgroundIn2005,theGenericNamesSupportingOrganization(GNSO)beganaPolicyDevelopmentProcess(PDP)toconsidertheintroductionofnewgTLDs.Thetwo-yearPDPprocessresultedinasetof19GNSOpolicyrecommendationsforimplementingnewgTLDs.InordertoimplementthepolicyrecommendationsoftheGNSO,andtotakeintoconsiderationsubsequentadditionalGNSOpolicyrecommendationsandimplementationrecommendationsfromthecommunity(includingtheGNSO,GAC,ccNSO,ALAC,SSACandtheICANNBoardthroughtheNewgTLDProgramCommittee(NGPC1)),anumberofdraftApplicantGuidebooks(AGBs)weredevelopedbyICANNstaffinconsultationwiththecommunity.InJune2011,ICANN’sBoardofDirectorsapprovedthefinalAGBandauthorizedthelaunchoftheNewgTLDProgram,althoughsubsequentrevisedversionsoftheFinalApplicantGuidebookwerereleasedbyICANNstaff,includingtheultimatefinalNewgTLDApplicantGuidebookdatedJune4,2012,afewmonthsaftertheapplicationwindowclosed,toincludeinformationinsupportoftheanticipatedobjectionfilingperiod.TheNewgTLDProgramapplicationwindowopenedon12January2012andatotalof1930completeapplicationswerereceived.ThefirstsetofInitialEvaluationresultswerereleasedon22March2013,followedbythefirstsetofnewgTLDdelegationson21October2013.AllapplicationshavenowcompletedtheevaluationprocessandasofthewritingofthisFinalIssueReport,therearenearly800gTLDsdelegatedandapproximately550applicationsstillproceedingthroughtheremainingstepsoftheprogram.Thoughthe2012roundisongoing,effortstoexaminetheroundhavealreadybegun,whichincludedthecreationoftheGNSONewgTLDSubsequentProceduresDiscussionGroup(DG).ThisDiscussionGroupwascreatedbytheGNSOCounciltodiscusstheexperiencesgainedbythefirstroundofnewgTLDapplicationsandidentifysubjectsforfutureissuereports,ifany,thatmightleadtochangesoradjustmentsforsubsequentapplicationprocedures.TheDGpreparedasetoffinaldeliverables,whichincludedasetofsubjectsthatitanticipatedshouldbeanalyzedindetailinthecontextofanIssueReport.On24June,2015theGNSOCouncilpassedaresolutionrequestingthedraftingofaPreliminaryIssueReportonNewgTLDSubsequentProcedures.

1TheICANNBoardresolvedtoestablishtheNewgTLDProgramCommittee(NGPC)in10April2012:https://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-10apr12-en.htm



InaccordancewiththePDPRules,thePreliminaryIssueReportwaspublishedforpubliccommenton31August2015.Followingreviewofthepubliccommentsreceived,theStaffManagerhasupdatedtheIssueReportasaccordinglyandincludedasummaryofthecommentsreceived(seeAnnexB),whichisnowsubmittedastheFinalIssueReporttotheGNSOCouncilforitsconsideration.

1.2DiscussionoftheIssueApotentialNewgTLDSubsequentProceduresPDPWorkingGroupmaybetaskedwithdeterminingwhat,ifanychangesmaybeneededinregardstotheexistingGNSO’sFinalReportonIntroductionofNewGenericTop-LevelDomains.AstheoriginalpolicyrecommendationsasadoptedbytheGNSOCouncilandtheICANNBoardhave“beendesignedtoproduceasystemizedandongoingmechanismsforapplicantstoproposenewtop-leveldomains,”thosepolicyrecommendationsremaininplaceforsubsequentroundsoftheNewgTLDProgramunlesstheGNSOCouncilwoulddecidetomodifythosepolicyrecommendationsviaapolicydevelopmentprocess.TheworkofthePDPisexpectedtofollowtheeffortsoftheNewgTLDSubsequentProceduresDiscussionGroup(DG),whichidentifiedasetofsubjectsforafuturePDPtobeconsideredintheirdeliberations,whichtheDGsawaspossiblybeingaddressedinthefollowingways:

• Clarifying,amendingoroverridingexistingpolicyprinciples,recommendations,andimplementationguidelines;

• Developingnewpolicyrecommendations,and/or;• Supplementingordevelopingnewimplementationguidance

Thereareanumberofrevieweffortsunderwayorplannedwithinthecommunity,thatmayhaveanimpactontheworkofthePDPandmayhelpinformthePDPWG’sdeliberations.Therefore,aPDPwouldnotbeexpectedtobelimitedtothesubjectsidentifiedinthisIssueReport,andshouldtakeintoaccountthefindingsfromparalleleffortsexternaltothePDP-WG.Aspartofitsdeliberations,theDGsuggestedthataPDP-WGshouldconsiderataminimum,thesubjectsidentifiedbelow.Thesesubjectshavebeenorganizedinsuggestedgroupingsthatmayfacilitateestablishingaworkplanaswellaspossiblesub-teamstoundertakethework.Thelistofsubjectsisastartingpoint,andasuggestedmethodoforganization,butitisnotintendedtobeexhaustiveorimposeconstraintsonhowthePDPoperatesortheissuesitdiscusses,providedthattheissuesaredirectlyrelatedtonewgTLDsubsequentprocedures.TheWGmayneedtosupplementorsubtractfromthislist,orreorganizeit,tomeettheneedsofthePDP-WGasitmovesdeeperintothesubstantivepolicydiscussions,keepingtheGNSOCounciluptodateonaregularbasiswithregardstoanychangesthataremade.



TheprovisionalgroupingssuggestedbytheDGandthisIssueReportareenumerateddirectlybelow,whicheachcontainasetofdiscretesubjectsthathavebeenresearchedandanalyzedforthepurposesofthisIssueReport,andarelikelytowarrantadditionaldiscussionandpossiblythedevelopmentofrecommendationsbythePDP:

1. OverallProcess/Support/OutreachIssues2. Legal/RegulatoryIssues3. StringContention/Objections&Disputes4. InternationalizedDomainNames5. TechnicalandOperations

Thetablebelowprovidesthelistofsubjectsandthesectioninwhichgreaterdetailcanbefoundwithinthisreport,ashortdescriptionthatmirrorsthelanguagefromthedraftcharterlocatedinAnnexA,andpreliminarydesignationsofwhichsubjectswouldappeartorequirepolicydeveloped,basedontheworkoftheDGandanalysisbystaffforthisIssueReport.Thesedesignationsareintendedtodifferentiatethenatureofthework,asthesubjectsarecurrentlyunderstood,butthisanalysisispurelypreliminaryinnatureandisabsolutelydependentuponthedeliberationsandoutcomesfromthePDP-WG.

Section Subject Description PolicyDevelopment

Group1

4.2.1CancellingSubsequentProcedures

ShouldthereinfactbenewgTLDsubsequentproceduresandifnot,whatarethejustificationsforandramificationofdiscontinuingtheprogram? X

4.2.2 Predictability

Howcanchangestotheprogramintroducedafterlaunch(e.g.,digitalarchery/prioritizationissues,namecollision,registryagreementchanges,publicinterestcommitments(PICs),etc.)beavoided?

4.2.3

Competition,ConsumerTrustandConsumerChoice

Didtheimplementationmeetordiscouragethesegoals? X

4.2.4 CommunityEngagement

Howcanparticipationfromthecommunitybebetterencouragedandintegratedduringthepolicydevelopmentprocess,implementation,andexecution?



4.2.5 ApplicantGuidebook

IstheAGBtherightimplementationoftheGNSOrecommendations?Ifso,howcanitbeimprovedtoensurethatitmeetstheneedsofmultipleaudiences(e.g.,applicants,thosemonitoringthepolicyimplementation,registryserviceproviders,escrowproviders,etc.)

4.2.6ClarityofApplicationProcess

Howcantheapplicationprocessavoiddevelopingprocessesonanas-neededbasis(e.g.,mayhaveincludedtheclarifyingquestionprocess,changerequestprocess,customersupport,etc.)

4.2.7ApplicationsAssessedinRounds

Hasthescaleofdemandbeenmadeclear?Doestheconceptofroundsaffectmarketbehaviorandshouldfactorsbeyonddemandaffectthetypeofapplicationacceptancemechanism? X

4.2.8 AccreditationPrograms

AsthereappearstobealimitedsetoftechnicalserviceandEscrowproviders,wouldtheprogrambenefitfromanaccreditationprogramforthirdpartyserviceproviders?Ifso,wouldthissimplifytheapplicationprocesswithasetofpre-qualifiedproviderstochoosefrom?Arethereotherimpactsthatanaccreditationprogrammayhaveontheapplicationprocess? X

4.2.9 Systems

HowcanthesystemsusedtosupporttheNewgTLDProgram,suchasTAS,CentralizedZoneDataService,Portal,etc.bemademorerobust,userfriendly,andbetterintegrated?

4.2.10 ApplicationFees

Evaluateaccuracyofcostestimatesand/orreviewthemethodologytodevelopthecostmodel,whileadheringtotheprincipleofcostrecovery.Examinehowpaymentprocessingcanbeimproved.

4.2.11 Communications

ExamineaccesstoandcontentwithinknowledgebaseaswellascommunicationmethodsbetweentheICANNandthecommunity.

4.2.12 ApplicationQueuing

Reviewwhetherfirstcomefirstservedguidanceremainsrelevantandifnot,whetheranothermechanismismoreappropriate. X

4.2.13ApplicationSubmissionPeriod

Isthreemonthstheproperamountoftime?Istheconceptofafixedperiodoftimeforacceptingapplicationstherightapproach?



4.2.14

SupportforApplicantsFromDevelopingCountries

EvaluateeffectivenessofApplicantSupportprogramtoassessifthecriteriawereproperlydesigned,outreachsufficient,monetarysupportsufficient,etc.Inparticular,wasthereenoughoutreachindevelopingeconomiesto1)contributetothedesignandnatureoftheprocessand2)toensureawarenessoftheopportunityafforded? X

4.2.15 DifferentTLDTypes

Doestheone-size-fits-allapplicationandreviewprocesshamperinnovation?Shouldthingssuchastheapplicationprocess,requirements,annualfees,contractualrequirements,etc.bevariablebasedontheTLDtype?Forinstance,shouldanexistingRegistryOperator,thatisfulfillingtherequirementsofitsRegistryAgreement,besubjecttoadifferent,morestreamlined,applicationprocess? X

4.2.16ApplicationSubmissionLimits

Shouldtherebelimitstothenumberofapplicationsfromasingleapplicant/group?Consideriftheroundcouldberestrictedtoacertainapplicanttype(s)(e.g.,fromleastdevelopedcountries)orotherlimitingfactor. X

4.2.17 VariableFees

ShouldtheNewgTLDapplicationfeebevariablebasedonsuchfactorsasapplicationtype(e.g.,openorclosedregistries),multipleidenticalapplications,orotherfactors?

Group2

4.3.1 ReservedNamesList

Reviewthecompositionofthereservednameslisttodetermineifadditions,modifications,orsubtractionsareneeded(e.g.,singleletter,twoletters,specialcharacters,etc.).Evaluateiftheimplementationmatchedexpectations(e.g.,recommendationsoftheReservedNamesWorkingGroup).Reviewwhethergeographicnamesrequirementsareappropriate. X

4.3.2 BaseRegistryAgreement

Performcomprehensivereviewofthebaseagreement,includinginvestigatinghowandwhyitwasamendedafterprogramlaunch,whetherasinglebaseagreementisappropriate,whetherPublicInterestCommitments(PICs)aretherightmechanismtoprotectthepublicinterest,etc.ShouldtheArticle7.7reviewprocessbeamendedtoallowforcustomizedreviewsby X



differentregistrytypes?

4.3.3 RegistrantProtections

TheoriginalPDPassumedtherewouldalwaysberegistrantsandtheywouldneedprotectingfromtheconsequencesofRegistryfailure,althoughitmaynotmakesensetoimposeregistrantprotectionobligationssuchasEBEROandtheLOCwhentherearenoregistrantstoprotect,suchasinaclosedregistry.Shouldmorerelevantrulesbeestablishedforcertainspecificcases? X

4.3.4 ContractualCompliance

Whilenospecificissueswereidentified,contractualcomplianceasitrelatestoNewgTLDsmaybeconsideredinscopefordiscussion,thoughtheroleofcontractualcompliance(i.e.,enforcingagreements)wouldnotbeconsideredwithinscope.

4.3.5RegistrarNon-Discrimination

Areregistrarrequirementsforregistriesstillappropriate? X

4.3.6 TLDRollout

WasadequatetimeallowedforrolloutofTLD?WhenshouldrecurringfeesduetoICANNbegin? X

4.3.7Second-levelRightsProtectionMechanisms

RevieweffectivenessandimplementationofRPMssuchasTMCH,URS,etc.

4.3.8Registry/RegistrarStandardization

Considerwhethertheregistry/registrarrelationshipshouldhaveadditionalstandardizationandregulation. X

4.3.9 GlobalPublicInterest

Existingpolicyadvicedoesnotdefinetheapplicationof“PublicInterest”analysisasaguidelineforevaluationdeterminations.ConsiderissuesidentifiedinGACAdviceonsafeguards,publicinterestcommitments(PICs),andassociatedquestionsofcontractualcommitmentandenforcement.ItmaybeusefultoconsidertheglobalpublicinterestinthecontextofICANN’slimitedtechnicalcoordinationrole,missionandcorevaluesandhowitappliesspecificallytotheNewgTLDProgram. X



4.3.10 IGO/INGOProtections

ThePDPforProtectionofIGOandINGOIdentifiersinAllgTLDsandPDPforIGO-INGOAccesstoCurativeRightsProtectionMechanismsareexpectedtoaddressanumberofissues.Whilenoadditionalworkisenvisioned,ifthereareanyremainingornewissuesfordiscussion,theycouldbedeliberatedinthecontextofthisPDP.

4.3.11 ClosedGenericsShouldthereberestrictionsaroundexclusiveuseofgenericsTLDs? X

Group3

4.4.1NewgTLDApplicantFreedomofExpression

ExaminewhetherGACAdvice,communityprocesses,andreservednamesimpactedthisgoal. X

4.4.2 StringSimilarity

Werestringcontentionevaluationresultsconsistentandeffectiveinpreventinguserconfusion?Werethestringcontentionresolutionmechanismsfairandefficient? X

4.4.3 Objections

Reviewrulesaroundstanding,fees,objectionconsolidation,consistencyofproceedingsandoutcomes.Reviewfunctionsandroleoftheindependentobjector.Consideroversightofprocessandappealmechanisms. X

4.4.4AccountabilityMechanisms

Examinewhetherdisputeresolutionandchallengeprocessesprovideadequateredressoptionsorifadditionalredressoptionsspecifictotheprogramareneeded.

4.4.5 CommunityApplications

Wastheoverallapproachtocommunitiesconsistentwithrecommendationsandimplementationguidance?DidtheCommunityPriorityEvaluationprocessachieveitspurposeandresultinanticipatedoutcomes?Weretherecommendationsadequateforcommunityprotection? X

Group4

4.5.1

InternationalizedDomainNamesandUniversalAcceptance

ConsiderhowtoencourageadoptionofgTLDs.EvaluatewhetherrulesaroundIDNsproperlyaccountedforrecommendationsfromIDNWG.DetermineandaddresspolicyguidanceneededfortheimplementationofIDNvariantTLDs. X

Group5



4.6.1 SecurityandStability

WeretheproperquestionsaskedtominimizetherisktotheDNSandensurethatapplicantswillbeabletomeettheirobligationsintheregistryagreement?Shouldtherebenon-scoredquestionsandifso,howshouldtheybepresented?Werethepropercriteriaestablishedtoavoidcausingtechnicalinstability?IstheimpacttotheDNSfromnewgTLDsfullyunderstood? X

4.6.2

ApplicantReviews:Technical/OperationalandFinancial

WereFinancialandTechnicalcriteriadesignedproperlytoallowapplicantstodemonstratetheircapabilitieswhileallowingevaluatorstovalidatetheircapabilities?Howcanthecriteriabestreamlinedandmadeclearer? X

4.6.3 NameCollisions

HowshouldnamecollisionsbeincorporatedintofuturenewgTLDrounds?Whatmeasuresmaybeneededtomanagerisksfor2012-roundgTLDsbeyondtheir2yearanniversaryofdelegation,orgTLDsdelegatedpriortothe2012round? X

1.3StaffRecommendationICANNstaffhasconfirmedthattheproposedissueiswithinthescopeoftheGNSO’sPolicyDevelopmentProcessandtheGNSO(seesection5).ThefinaldeliverablesoftheNewgTLDSubsequentProceduresDiscussionGroup(DG)providedarecommendedminimumsetofsubjects,whichservedasthebasisforanalysiswithinthescopeofthisIssueReportandisexpectedtobethefocusofthePDPaswell.AsuccessfuloutcomeofthePDPiscriticaltoaddressingthenumberofissuesidentifiedbytheDG,bytheICANNBoard2,andanyotherissuesidentifiedduringdeliberations.Withexperiencesgainedfromthe2012applicationroundoftheNewgTLDProgram,thePDPmaybepositionedtoimproveandexpanduponthepoliciesthatcurrentlygoverntheNewgTLDProgram.ICANNstaffthereforerecommendsthatthePDPproceedbyconsideringcarefullytherecommendedsubjectsoftheDG,takingintoaccountrelatedeffortstoreviewtheNewgTLDProgram,andworkingconstructivelytowardsnewormodifiedpolicyrecommendationsforNewgTLDsubsequentprocedures.

2SuggestedareasforpossiblepolicyworkinAnnexAtotheICANNBoardresolutiononPlanningforFuturegTLDApplicationRounds:https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/resolutions-annex-a-17nov14-en.pdf



ThePreliminaryIssueReportwaspublishedforpubliccommenttoallowforcommunityinputoninformationthatmaybemissingfromthePreliminaryIssueReport,ornecessarycorrectionsorupdatestoinformationinthePreliminaryIssueReport.Followingreviewofthepubliccommentsreceived,theStaffManagerhasupdatedtheIssueReportaccordinglyandincludedasummaryofthecommentsreceived(seeAnnexB),whichisnowsubmittedastheFinalIssueReporttotheGNSOCouncilforitsconsideration.

2.Objective

2.1SubmissionThisreportissubmittedinaccordancewithSection4ofthePolicyDevelopmentProcessdescribedinAnnexAoftheICANNBylaws(http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#AnnexA).

2.2Issuea.Theproposedissueraisedforconsideration:

InJuneof2014,theGNSOCouncilcreated“anewDiscussionGrouptodiscusstheexperiencesgainedbythefirstroundofnewgTLDapplicationsandidentifysubjectsforfutureissuereports,ifany,thatmightleadtochangesoradjustmentsforsubsequentapplicationprocedures.3”AstheoriginalpolicyrecommendationsasadoptedbytheGNSOCouncilandICANNBoardhave“beendesignedtoproduceasystemizedandongoingmechanismsforapplicantstoproposenewtop-leveldomains”,thosepolicyrecommendationsremaininplaceforsubsequentroundsoftheNewgTLDProgramunlesstheGNSOCouncilwoulddecidetomodifythosepolicyrecommendationsviathepolicydevelopmentprocess.Inperformingitstask,theDiscussionGroup(DG)identifiedanumberofissuestobeconsideredthatmayaffectexistingconsensuspolicy,principles,policyrecommendationorimplementationguidanceand/orgeneratenewpolicyrecommendations.b.Theidentifyofthepartysubmittingtheissue:GNSOCouncilc.Howthepartyisaffectedbytheissue:

3ResolutioncreatingtheNewgTLDSubsequentProceduresDiscussionGroup:http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201406



Thebreadthofissuesidentifiedincludeevaluationcriteria,supportforapplicantsfromdevelopingcountries,contractualrequirements,theglobalpublicinterest,andmanyotherareas.Assuch,theimpactisnotisolatedtoanyoneStakeholderGroup(SG)/Constituency(C)/AdvisoryCommittee(AC).Inadditiontoimpactingnewapplicants,yet,registrars,registrants,existingregistries,end-users,intellectualpropertyowners,andInternetandserviceprovidersmayalsobeaffected.d.SupportfortheissuetoinitiatethePDP:

• On17November2014,theICANNBoardpassedaresolutionregardingPlanningforFuturegTLDApplicationRounds,includingprovidingsuggestedareasforpolicydevelopment:https://features.icann.org/planning-future-gtld-application-rounds

Theresolutioncarried,withfourteenmembersoftheBoardvotinginfavoroftherelevantresolutions4.

• On24June2015,theGNSOCouncilrequestedaPreliminaryIssueReportto

analyzesubjectsthatmayleadtochangesoradjustmentsforsubsequentNewgTLDprocedures:http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201506

Themotionpassed,with100%ofthecontractparthousevotingyesand76.9%ofthenon-contractedpartyhousevotingyes5.

e.StaffRecommendations

i. WhethertheissueiswithinthescopeofICANN’smissionstatement,andmorespecificallytheroleoftheGNSOICANN’smissionstatementincludesthecoordinationoftheallocationofcertaintypesofuniqueidentifiers,includingdomainnames,andthecoordinationofpolicydevelopmentreasonablyandappropriatelyrelatedtothesetechnicalfunctions,whichincludesnewgTLDs.

ii. Whethertheissueisbroadlyapplicabletomultiplesituationsororganizations

AsnewgTLDpolicyaffectsapplicants,registries,registrars,andregistrants,theissueisbroadlyapplicabletomultiplesituationsororganizations.Anychangesto

4SeeICANNBoardmeetingminutes:https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/minutes-2014-11-17-en#2.b5SeetheGNSOCouncilmeetingtranscript:http://buenosaires53.icann.org/en/schedule/wed-gnso-council/transcript-gnso-council-24jun15-en.pdf



thepolicy,itsrulesorprogrammechanismsthatmayresultfromaPDPwouldalsobebroadlyapplicabletomultiplesituationsororganizations.

iii. Whethertheissueislikelytohavelastingvalueorapplicability,albeitwiththe

needforoccasionalupdatesUpdatesorrefinementstotheexistingNewgTLDPolicywouldguidethedevelopmentandmanagementoffutureNewgTLDsubsequentprocedures,whichwouldpresumablyremain“designedtoproduceasystemisedandongoingmechanismforapplicantstoproposenewtop-leveldomains.”

iv. Whethertheissuewillestablishaguideorframeworkforfuturedecision-makingTheNewgTLDpolicyisexpectedtogovernfutureNewgTLDsubsequentprocedures,whichagain,wouldpresumablyremain“designedtoproduceasystemisedandongoingmechanismforapplicantstoproposenewtop-leveldomains.”

v. WhethertheissueimplicatesoraffectsICANNpolicyThegoalofthePDPwouldbetodevelopnewpolicyormodifyexistingNewgTLDpolicy,whichwouldreplacethepolicyasestablishedinTheFinalReportontheIntroductionofNewGenericTop-LevelDomains.

2.3ScopeBasedontherecommendationsabove,thelaunchofadedicatedpolicydevelopmentprocesslimitedtoconsiderationofthisissuehasbeenconfirmedbytheGeneralCounseltobeproperlywithinthescopeoftheICANNpolicyprocessandwithinthescopeoftheGNSO.

2.4ReportInaccordancewiththeGNSOPolicyDevelopmentProcess,theStaffManagerhaspublishedthePreliminaryIssueReportforpubliccommentinordertoallowforcommunityinputonadditionalinformationthatmaybemissingfromthePreliminaryIssueReport,orthecorrectionorupdatingofanyinformationinthePreliminaryIssueReport.Followingreviewofthepubliccommentsreceivedonthisreport,theStaffManagerhasupdatedtheIssueReportaccordinglyandincludedasummaryofthecommentsreceived(seeAnnexB),whichisnowsubmittedastheFinalIssueReporttotheGNSOCouncilforitsconsideration.



3.Background

3.1ProcessBackground

ICANNsuccessfullycarriedouttwoproofofconceptroundstointroducealimitednumberofnewgTLDsin20006and2003-20057.Pursuanttothesuccessfulproofofconceptrounds,in2005,theCounciloftheGenericNamesSupportingOrganization(GNSO)beganapolicydevelopmentprocesstoconsidertheintroductionofnewgTLDs.Thediscussionsfocusedaroundfourkeyquestions,ortermsofreferenceastheywerecalled8:

1. Shouldnewgenerictopleveldomainnamesbeintroduced?2. Selectioncriteriafornewtopleveldomains3. Allocationmethodsfornewtopleveldomains4. Policytoguidecontractualconditionsfornewtopleveldomains

TheWorkingGroupandthecommunitycollaboratedoverfourversionsoftheInitialReport:

o IssueReport(5Dec2005)-http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/gnso-issues-rpt-gtlds-05dec05.pdf

o FirstDraftInitialReport(19Feb2006)-http://archive.icann.org/en/topics/gnso-initial-rpt-new-gtlds-19feb06.pdf

o SecondDraftInitialReport(15Mar2006)-http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/issues-report-15mar06.htm

o ThirdDraftInitialReport(15Jun2006)-http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/issues-report-15jun06.pdf

o FourthandFinalInitialReport(28Jul2006)-http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/newgtlds-issues-report-01-28jul06.htm

ThecommunitydevelopedfourversionsoftheFinalReportaswell:

o FirstDraftFinalReport(13Feb2007)-http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/GNSO-PDP-Dec05-FR13-FEB07.htm

o SecondDraftFinalReport(16Mar2007)-http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/pdp-dec05-draft-fr.htm

6Informationregardingtheyear2000round:http://archive.icann.org/en/tlds/app-index.htm7Informationregardingtheyear2003-2005round:http://archive.icann.org/en/tlds/stld-apps-19mar04/8InformationregardingtheTermsofReferenceforNewgTLDs,includingapubliccommentforum:https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2005-12-06-en



o ThirdDraftFinalReportPartA(18Jun2007)–http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/pdp-dec05-fr-a-18jun07.pdf

o ThirdDraftFinalReportPartB(18Jun2007)-http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/pdp-dec05-fr-b-18jun07.pdf

o FourthandFinalReport(6Sep2007)-http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm

Overthecourseofdeliberations,theWGarrivedatasetofprinciples,policyrecommendations,andimplementationguidelinestoguidethelaunchofanewgTLDapplicationprocess.AnimportantcomponentoftheFinalReporttoconsideristhatitstates"Thispolicydevelopmentprocesshasbeendesignedtoproduceasystemisedandongoingmechanismforapplicantstoproposenewtop-leveldomains,"therebyimplyingthatifthereistobenewpolicydevelopmentoradjustments,theGNSOmustdosoviathePolicyDevelopmentProcess(PDP);otherwise,theexistingpolicyrecommendationswouldremaininplacetoguidetheprogram.InSeptember2007,theGNSOCounciladoptedthepolicyrecommendationsfromtheGNSOpolicydevelopmentprocessandforwardedthemtotheICANNBoardofDirectorsforadoption.AtaNewgTLDsWorkshopheldinOctoberof2007,adocumentwaspreparedtosummarizetherecommendations,noteotherworkunderwayatthetimetofacilitatetheintroductionofnewgTLDsandwhereapplicable,brieflyprovideinformationandrationalebehindtheprinciples,recommendations,andimplementationguidelines9.InJune2008,theICANNBoardadoptedtheGNSO'spolicyrecommendationsfortheintroductionofnewgTLDsanddirectedstafftodevelopanimplementationplanforanewgTLDintroductionprocess.TheApplicantGuidebook(AGB),orRequestforProposal(RFP)asitwasknownthroughoutthepolicydevelopmentprocess,servedasthevehiclethatstaffusedtoimplementtheGNSOpolicyrecommendations.TheAGBwasintendedtoserveasacomprehensiveguideforapplicantsontheprogram’srequirementsandevaluationprocess.StaffdevelopedanumberofiterationsoftheApplicantGuidebook,eachversionincorporatingreviewandconsiderationofrobustcommunityinputreceivedthroughpubliccomments,ICANNmeetings,andotheravenues:

o Version1(Oct2008)-http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/historical-documentation/matrix-agb-v1

o Version2(Mar2009)-http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/historical-documentation/matrix-agb-v2

o Version3(Oct2009)-http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/historical-documentation/matrix-agb-v3

9See:http://archive.icann.org/en/meetings/losangeles2007/files/losangeles/gnso-newgtlds-workshop-29oct07.pdf



o Version3–Excerpts(Feb2009)-http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/historical-documentation/matrix-agb-v3-excerpts

o Version4(May2010)-http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/historical-documentation/matrix-agb-v4

o Version5(Nov2010)-http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/historical-documentation/matrix-agb-v5

o Version6(Apr2011)-http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/historical-documentation/matrix-agb-v6

o Version7(May2011)-http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/historical-documentation/matrix-agb-v7

InJune2011,theICANNBoardapprovedanApplicantGuidebookfornewgTLDsandauthorizedthelaunchoftheNewgTLDProgram,althoughadditionaliterativeversionsoftheApplicantGuidebookwerepublishedbeforebeingultimatelyfinalizedinJuneof2012.

o Version8(Sep2011)-http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/historical-

documentation/matrix-agb-v8o Version9(Jan2012)-http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/historical-

documentation/matrix-agb-v9o ApplicantGuidebook(Jun2012)-http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb

ICANNopenedtheapplicationsubmissionperiodinJanuaryof2012andclosedinJuneof2012,receiving1930completeapplications,exceedingtheestimatesofmanyinthecommunity.InDecemberof2012,ICANNheldaprioritizationdrawtodeterminetheorderinwhichapplicationswouldbeprocessedthroughInitialEvaluationandsubsequentphasesoftheprogram.InMarchof2013,ICANNreleasedthefirstsetofInitialEvaluationresultsandbyMayof2014,hadcompletedthereleaseofallInitialEvaluationresults.AsofthebeginningofNovemberin2015,nearly800gTLDshavebeendelegatedandintroducedintotheDNS10withapproximately550stillproceedingthroughtheNewgTLDProgram.InJune2014,theGNSOCouncilcreatedtheNewgTLDSubsequentProceduresDiscussionGroup(DG)todiscussexperiencesgainedandlessonslearnedfromthe2012NewgTLDroundandidentifysubjectsforafutureissuereport,thatmayleadtochangesoradjustmentsforsubsequentprocedures.WhileNewgTLDProgramoperationsarestillongoing,thesenseinthecommunityseemedtobethatenoughapplicationshadbeenprocessedthrougheachofthevariousaspectsoftheNewgTLDProgramtoallowtheDGtobeabletoatleastdrawsomeinitialconclusionsregarding

10Current2012NewgTLDProgramroundstatisticscanbefoundhere:http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/statistics



thepossiblescopeofsubjectstobeanalyzedinanIssueReportandsubsequently,possiblyaPDP.InAugust2014,theDGbegandeliberations,focusingprimarilyontheidentificationofissuesthatmembersexperiencedinthe2012NewgTLDround.TheDGsoughttocollectissuesinaveryliberalmanner,consideringnoissueidentifiedbyaDGmembertobetoobigortoosmall,aslongasitwaswithinthecontextoftheNewgTLDProgram.Theissueswerecollectedandorganizedintologicalgroupings,initiallyinamindmappingsoftware11.InNovember2014,theICANNBoardprovidedinitialinputonareasforpossiblepolicywork(seeAnnexA12relatedtoaresolutiononPlanningforFuturegTLDApplicationRounds).Inaddition,ICANN’sGlobalDomainsDivision(GDD)teamprovidedstaffinput13tobeconsideredbytheDGduringitsdeliberations.ThesetwoinputswereconsideredbytheDGandintegratedasappropriate.TheDGfurtherrefinedthelistofissuesbydevelopingamatrixwhichattemptedtoassociateeachoftheidentifiedissueswithacorrespondingprinciple,policyrecommendationorimplementationguidelinefromthe2007FinalReportonNewGenericTop-LevelDomains,ortonotethattheissuemayinfactwarrantnewpolicywork.Furthermore,theDGdevelopedadraftPDPWGcharterthatidentifiedsubjects,dividedintoprovisionalgroupings,forfurtheranalysisinthisIssueReportandapotentialPDP.TheDGcompleteditsdeliverables14inJuneof2015andprovidedthemtotheGNSOCouncilforitsdeliberations.TheGNSOCouncilpassedaresolutiontorequestaPreliminaryIssueReportonNewgTLDSubsequentRoundsinJuneof201515,attheICANNMeetinginBuenosAires.TheDGdeliverablesserveasthebasisforanalysisinthisIssueReport,astheDGrecommended.

11Mindmapavailablehere:https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/49356545/New%20gTLD%20Subsequent%20Procedures_MM_6Oct2014.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1412728208000&api=v212DirectlinktoAnnexAtotheICANNBoardresolutiononPlanningforFuturegTLDApplicationRounds:https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/resolutions-annex-a-17nov14-en.pdf13TheGlobalDomainsDivision(GDD)providedinputtothesetofissuesidentifiedbytheNewgTLDSubsequentRoundsDiscussionGroup(DG):https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/49356545/Staff-input-to-DG-23jan15.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1425335232000&api=v214ThefinaldeliverablesfortheNewgTLDSubsequentRoundsDiscussionGroup(DG)canbefoundhere:http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/deliverables-subsequent-procedures-01jun15-en.pdf15Ibid



4.DiscussionofProposedIssues

4.1Overview

ApotentialNewgTLDSubsequentProceduresPolicyDevelopmentProcess(PDP)WorkingGroupwouldbetaskedwithcallinguponthecommunity’scollectiveexperiencesfromthe2012NewgTLDProgramroundtodeterminewhat,ifanychangesmayneedtobemadetotheexistingIntroductionofNewGenericTop-LevelDomainspolicyrecommendationsfrom8August200716.TheoriginalpolicyrecommendationsasadoptedbytheGNSOCouncilandICANNBoardhave“beendesignedtoproduceasystemizedandongoingmechanismsforapplicantstoproposenewtop-leveldomains,”thosepolicyrecommendationsremaininplaceforsubsequentroundsoftheNewgTLDProgramunlesstheGNSOCouncilwoulddecidetomodifythosepolicyrecommendationsviaapolicydevelopmentprocess.TheworkofthePDPwouldfollowtheeffortsoftheNewgTLDSubsequentProceduresDiscussionGroup(DG),whichidentifiedasetofsubjectsforoneormorefuturePDPstoconsiderintheirdeliberations.TheDGsawtheissuestoaddressinaPDPas:

o Clarifying,amendingoroverridingexistingpolicyprinciples,recommendations,andimplementationguidelines;

o Developingnewpolicyrecommendations;o Supplementingordevelopingnewimplementationguidance

InadditiontotheworkoftheDG,anumberofrevieweffortsareunderwaywithinthecommunity,whichmayhaveanimpactonthefutureworkofapossiblePDPandmayhelpinformthePDPWG’sdeliberations.Therefore,aPDPshouldnotbelimitedtotheissuesidentifiedbytheDGandshouldtakeintoaccountthefindingsfromtheparalleleffortsexternaltothePDP.AspartofthePDPdeliberations,theePDP-WGisexpectedtoconsiderataminimum,thesubjectsbelow.Thesesubjectshavebeenorganizedinsuggestedgroupingsthatmayfacilitatedevelopingaworkplanandestablishingpotentialsub-teamstoundertakethework.ThelistbelowinthissectionoftheIssueReportisastartingpoint,andasuggestedmethodoforganization,butitisnotintendedtobeexhaustiveorimposeconstraintsonhowthePDP-WGoperatesortheissuesitdiscusses,providedthattheissuesaredirectlyrelatedtonewgTLDsubsequentprocedures.TheWGmayneedtosupplementorsubtractfromthislist,orreorganizeit,tomeettheneedsoftheWGasitmovesdeeperintothesubstantivepolicydiscussionswiththeexpectationthattheGNSOCounciliskeptuptodatewithregardstoanychangesthataremade.

16TheFinalReportontheIntroductionofNewGenericTop-LevelDomains,approvedbytheICANNBoardin2007,canbereadhere:http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm



TheprovisionalgroupingssuggestedbytheDGareenumerateddirectlybelow.WithineachofthesegroupingsarediscretesubjectsthathavebeenresearchedandanalyzedforthepurposesofthisIssueReport,andarelikelytowarrantadditionaldiscussionandpossiblythedevelopmentofrecommendationsbythePDP-WG:

1. OverallProcess/Support/OutreachIssues2. Legal/RegulatoryIssues3. StringContention/Objections&Disputes4. InternationalizedDomainNames5. TechnicalandOperations

Intheanalysisofeachofthesubjects,staffhasattemptedtoidentifywhichsubjectsmayrequirepolicydevelopmentversuswhatmaypossiblyresultinimplementationguidancethatshouldbeconsideredbyICANNstaffwhenitundertakestheimplementationofsubsequentprocedures.NotehoweverthatthesecategorizationsaremerelysuggestionsandthePDP-WGmaycometodifferentconclusionsafteritsowncarefulconsiderationofthesubjects.TheseprovisionaldesignationsofpolicyversusimplementationmayhelpthePDP-WGinitsinitialprioritizationofitswork.ThesubjectsforanalysisbythePDP-WGareexpectedtobenumerous,soitmaybeimpracticaltoworkonallconcurrently.Asaresult,staffisprovidingaselectionofsuggestedworkmethodsforconsiderationbelowinsection4.7onWorkProcesses.Ofparticularnote,anumberofpubliccommentshadconcernswiththegroupingsandsequencingofsubjects.WhilethesubjectshavenotbeenreorganizedwithinthisIssueReport,insection4.7,staffhasproposedforconsiderationanadditionalwaytoorganizethesubjects.

4.2Group1OverallProcess/Support/OutreachThesubjectsinthissectionareinrelationtothefollowingelementsfromthe2007FinalReport,ascategorizedbytheDG:

• PrinciplesAandC;• Recommendations1,9,10,12and13;• ImplementationGuidanceA,B,C,D,E,M,N,OandQ,and17;• NewTopics:“DifferentTLDTypes”,“ApplicationSubmissionLimits”and

“VariableFees”


• 4.2.1.1ExplanationofSubject

17Ibid



TheFinalReportonIntroductionofNewGenericTop-LevelDomains18,(or2007FinalReportasitwillbereferredtointherestofthisIssueReport)statesthat:

Thispolicydevelopmentprocesshasbeendesignedtoproduceasystemisedandongoingmechanismforapplicantstoproposenewtop-leveldomains.TheRequestforProposals(RFP)forthefirstroundwillincludeschedulinginformationforthesubsequentroundstooccurwithinoneyear.Afterthefirstroundofnewapplications,theapplicationsystemwillbeevaluatedbyICANN'sTLDsProjectOfficetoassesstheeffectivenessoftheapplicationsystem.Successmetricswillbedevelopedandanynecessaryadjustmentsmadetotheprocessforsubsequentrounds.

Infollowingtheguidanceinthe2007FinalReport,theApplicantGuidebook(AGB)19providedthetextinsection1.1.6inregardstosubsequentapplicationrounds:

ICANN’sgoalistolaunchsubsequentgTLDapplicationroundsasquicklyaspossible.Theexacttimingwillbebasedonexperiencesgainedandchangesrequiredafterthisroundiscompleted.Thegoalisforthenextapplicationroundtobeginwithinoneyearofthecloseoftheapplicationsubmissionperiodfortheinitialround.ICANNhascommittedtoreviewingtheeffectsoftheNewgTLDProgramontheoperationsoftherootzonesystemafterthefirstapplicationround,andwilldeferthedelegationsinasecondapplicationrounduntilitisdeterminedthatthedelegationsresultingfromthefirstrounddidnotjeopardizerootzonesystemsecurityorstability.ItisthepolicyofICANNthattherebesubsequentapplicationrounds,andthatasystemizedmannerofapplyingforgTLDsbedevelopedinthelongterm.

The2007FinalReportandtheAGBbothassumethattherewillbesubsequentnewgTLDprocedures,implyingthatiftheprogramweretobediscontinued,itwouldbecontrarytotheexistingGNSOpolicy.Reviewsoftheprogramwereanticipated,andthereareseveraleffortsunderwaytoperformthoseprogramreviews,ordeveloppossiblerecommendations,whichinclude:

18TheFinalReportontheIntroductionofNewGenericTop-LevelDomains,approvedbytheICANNBoardin2007,canbereadhere:http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm19CurrentversionoftheAGB:http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb



o ICANNNewgTLDProgramReviews20,whichwillbelookingatseveralfacetsoftheprogram,including:

! RightsProtectionReviews! ProgramImplementationReviews! Security&StabilityReviews! Competition,ConsumerTrust,andConsumerChoiceDataReview

o AffirmationofCommitment(AoC)reviewsrelatedtoCompetition,ConsumerTrust,andConsumerChoice21

o TheSecurityandStabilityAdvisoryCommittee(SSAC)willbereviewingpreviousguidanceprovidedregardingtheNewgTLDProgramanddeterminingifnewrecommendationsareneeded.

o TheGovernmentalAdvisoryCommittee(GAC)hasformedworkinggroupsonthetopicsof:a)communityapplications,b)underservedregions,andc)geographicnames.

o TheCross-CommunityWorkingGrouponUseofCountry/TerritoryNamesasTLDs22isanalyzingthecurrentstatusofcountryandterritorynamesintheICANNecosystemanddeterminingthefeasibilityofcreatingaframeworkthatcouldbeappliedacrossSOsandACs.

*Communityidentification,aspartofthepubliccommentperiod,ofadditionaleffortstoreviewtheNewgTLDProgramarewelcometoensurethattheirfindingscanbetakenintoaccountbyapossiblePDP-WGonNewgTLDSubsequentProcedures.

• 4.2.1.2QuestionsandConcernsRelatedtoSubject

ExpandingtheDNSisconsideredconsistentwithICANN’sMissionandCoreValues23,inparticularArticle1,Section2,6oftheICANNBylaws:

Introducingandpromotingcompetitionintheregistrationofdomainnameswherepracticableandbeneficialinthepublicinterest.

HowevermultipleviewsregardingwhethernewgTLDsareneededandtheextenttowhichtheymaycauseharmtotheDNS,consumers,ortheglobalpublicinteresthavebeenarticulatedthroughoutthedevelopmentprocesstoexpandtheDNS.IntheReportfromWorkingGroupConNewgTLDsfromMarchof2000,severalconcernswereraised,chieflythepotentialforuserconfusionandtrademarkconcerns,whererightsholdersmayfeelcompelledtoprotecttheirmarksinanever

20TheICANNNewgTLDProgramReviewspagecanbefoundhere:https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/reviews21TheAoCreviewonCompetition,ConsumerTrust,andConsumerChoicecanbeviewedhere:https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/cctcc-2014-09-04-en22See:http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/ccwg-unct.htm23ICANN’sBylawscanbereviewedhere:https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#I



increasingnumberofregistries24.ThereportalsonotedthattherewereconcernsthatperceiveddemandfornewgTLDswasillusory.

Withtwoproofofconceptroundscomplete,onein200025andanotherin2003-200526,aswellasnearly800gTLDsdelegatedfromthe2012roundoftheNewgTLDProgram,thecommunitymaybeinabetterpositiontogatherdatainordertoassesscurrentconditionstodeterminetheneedforthecontinuationoftheprogram,aswellastoexaminetheeffectsoftheprogram.Asmentioned,theassumptionfromthe2007FinalReportisthattherewillbesubsequentroundsandcancellationoftheNewgTLDProgramneedstobeestablishedviapolicydevelopment.Factorsthatmaysupportthecancellationoftheprogramshouldbeweighedagainsttheharmthatmaybecausedbythecancellationoftheprogram,suchaspotentialapplicantshavingassumedthattherewouldbeanongoingprogramasdictatedbyexistingpolicy.SomeinthecommunityhavestatedthatconsumeradoptionofnewgTLDshavenotmetcertainexpectations,thoughsuccessorfailurewasnotpre-definedorquantified.Itmaybeusefultoexploreamoreprecisedefinitionofsuccessmetrics,althoughthissubjectwillbediscussedingreaterdetailinsection4.2.3onCompetition,ConsumerTrust,andConsumerChoice.

ThequestionofwhetherornotthereshouldbeadditionalNewgTLDroundsisafoundationalquestionandshouldbeansweredasearlyaspracticallypossible,toavoidpolicyworkthatmayendupbeingunneeded.However,thejustificationtohalttheprogrammayonlybedeterminedthroughdeliberationsonthenumberofothersubjectsidentifiedinthisIssueReport,aswellasparallelworkwithinthecommunity,suchastheAoCreviewsonCompetition,ConsumerTrust,andConsumerChoice.Finally,asofthewritingofthisdocument,itshouldbenotedthattheCrossCommunityWorkingGrouponEnhancingICANNAccountability(CCWG)hasrecommendedinits2ndDraftReport(WorkStream1)27,thatintheproposedICANNBylawamendmentsthatincorporatetheAffirmationofCommitments,thefollowingtextbeaddedtotheBylaws:

24TheReport(PartOne)oftheWorkingGroupC(NewgTLDs)canbereadinitsentiretyhere:http://archive.icann.org/en/dnso/wgc-report-21mar00.htm25Theyear2000proofofconceptroundcanbereadabouthere:http://archive.icann.org/tlds/app-index.htm26Theyears2003-2005proofofconceptroundcanreadabouthere:http://archive.icann.org/tlds/stld-apps-19mar04/27CrossCommunityWorkingGrouponEnhancingICANNAccountability(CCWG)2ndDraftReport(WorkStream1):https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ccwg-draft-2-proposal-work-stream-1-recs-03aug15-en.pdf



SubsequentroundsofnewgTLDsshouldnotbeopeneduntiltherecommendationsofthepreviousReviewrequiredbythissectionhavebeenimplemented.

APDP-WGshouldremaininformedofanychangesthattheCCWGrecommendsthatmayhaveanimpactonitswork.

• 4.2.1.3RelevantGuidance

o N/A

• 4.2.1.4RationaleforPolicyDevelopment

The2007GNSOFinalReportandtheAGBareconsistentinthepositionthatthepreviouspolicydevelopmentprocesswasintendedtoestablishanongoingmechanismforpotentialapplicantstoapplyforgTLDs.Assuch,adeviationfromthisposition,suchascancellingtheprogram,wouldwarrantpolicywork.Ifthedecisionismadetodeviatefromexistingpolicy,itshouldbebasedonfact-baseddecision-making.

4.2.2Predictability


Forpotentialapplicants,thewiderICANNcommunity,observersoftheNewgTLDProgram,andICANNstaff,predictabilityiscriticalforplanninganddecision-making.TheAGBwasestablishedasthevehicletoimplementthepolicyrecommendationsoftheGNSO,andtoserveastheapplicationsubmissionandevaluationroadmapforthecommunity.TheAGBwasdevelopedinaniterativemanner,witheachversionpublishedforpubliccommenttoencourageparticipationofcommunitystakeholdersinthefinalizationoftheAGB.ThisiterativeandinclusivenatureofeffortstodeveloptheAGBwasinparttoadheretoRecommendation1:

ICANNmustimplementaprocessthatallowstheintroductionofnewtop-leveldomains.TheevaluationandselectionprocedurefornewgTLDregistriesshouldrespecttheprinciplesoffairness,transparencyandnon-discrimination.AllapplicantsforanewgTLDregistryshouldthereforebeevaluatedagainsttransparentandpredictablecriteria,fullyavailabletotheapplicantspriorto



theinitiationoftheprocess.Normally,therefore,nosubsequentadditionalselectioncriteriashouldbeusedintheselectionprocess.

Recommendation9:

Theremustbeaclearandpre-publishedapplicationprocessusingobjectiveandmeasurablecriteria.

PrincipleA:

Newgenerictop-leveldomains(gTLDs)mustbeintroducedinanorderly,timelyandpredictableway

AlthoughinJune2011,ICANN’sBoardofDirectorsapprovedthefinalAGBandauthorizedthelaunchoftheNewgTLDProgram,subsequentrevisedversionsoftheFinalApplicantGuidebookwerereleasedbyICANNstaff,includingthefinalNewgTLDApplicantGuidebookdatedJune4,2012,afewmonthsaftertheapplicationwindowclosed,thoughchangeswerefocusedonprovidingguidanceonobjectionsinadvanceoftheopeningoftheobjectionfilingperiod28.


WhileitwasinthebestinterestofpresumablyallpartiestohaveeverydetailoftheNewgTLDProgramestablishedataminimum,priortoprogramlaunch,itprovedadifficulttasktofinalizeallfacetsoftheAGBandtheNewgTLDProgram.Asnotedabove,theAGBwasupdatedaftertheapplicationwindowclosedandthebaseregistryagreementwentthroughnumerouschangestoincludechangessuchasPublicInterestCommitments(PICs),Specification13,etc.Thedifficultyindevelopinganabsoluteandpredictableroadmapcanbetracedtoanumberofissues,althoughitshouldbeacknowledgedthatidentifyingandmitigatingeverycircumstanceisanearlyimpossibletask.ThisdifficultyinfactservedasonedrivingfactorintheestablishmentoftheNon-PDPPolicyandImplementationWorkingGroup29,whichdevelopedthreenewGNSOprocessestobetteraccountfordivergingopinionsthatmayariseduringtheimplementationofGNSOpolicyrecommendationsaswellasasetofpolicyandimplementationprinciples,whichareexpectedtobeadheredto.Thesemechanismsandprinciplesdidnotexistduringtheimplementationoftherecommendationsfrom2007FinalReport,makingitfarmoredifficulttocoursecorrectwhenthecommunitydeterminedthatguidancewaslacking,missing,orotherwiseinadequate.

28Seeannouncement:https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-4-2012-06-04-en29TheNon-PDPPolicyandImplementationWorkingGroupprojectpageisavailablehere:http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/policy-implementation



Somespecificelementsorareascontributingtothelackofpredictabilityinclude:Lackofspecificityinthe2007FinalReportDuringthedeliberationsoftheNewgTLDSubsequentProceduresDiscussionGroup(DG),itbecameapparentthattherewasgeneralsupportfortheprinciples,recommendations,andimplementationguidelines,buttherewerecircumstanceswheretheDGfelttheycouldberefinedormademorespecific,requiringlessinterpretationwheneventuallyimplementedbyICANNstaff.Morespecificandactionablerecommendationscouldreducethepotentialforanythingbeinglostintranslationfromthepolicyhandofftoimplementation.SomeexamplesofelementscontainedwithintheAGBthatwerenotdiscussedspecificallyinthe2007FinalReportincludeUniformRapidSuspension(URS),TrademarkClearinghouse(TMCH),andobjectionsprocedures,thoughtheGNSOwasconsultedtoensureproposalswereconsistentwithexistingpolicyrecommendations.Incircumstanceswherethepolicylanguagemayhavelackedspecificity,itmaywarrantthedraftingofadditional,supplementalpolicylanguagetoexistingrecommendations.Inothercircumstances,whereitappearsthatICANNimplementationmaynothavestemmeddirectlyfrompolicyorimplementationguidance,itmaybebeneficialtoconfirmtheimplementationinpolicylanguagewheretheimplementationisdeemedsatisfactory,orprovidespecificitytocoursecorrectwheretheimplementationmaybedeemedinadequate30.TransitionfromimplementationtoexecutionItisimportanttodistinguishbetweenpolicyimplementation,whichtooktheformoftheiterativelyandcommunitydevelopedAGB,andexecution,whichiseffectivelyICANNoperationalizationandoperatingoftheNewgTLDProgram.TheDGidentifiedanumberofexecutionphaseelementsoftheprogramthatitfeltweredrasticdeviationsfromornotdetailedwithintheAGB,includingdigitalarchery/applicationdraw,namecollisions,changestothebaseagreement,auctionrules,communitypriorityevaluation(CPE)rules,andpublicinterestcommitments(PICs).ItshouldbenotedthatalthoughsomeoftheseexecutionrelatedchangeswerenotenshrinedinpolicyortheAGB,theyweregenerallydebatedinthepubliceyeofthecommunity.TheNewgTLDProgramwasdevelopedinasequentialfashion,firsttheimplementationofthepolicyrecommendationsintheformoftheAGB,thensubsequentlytheexecution,whichinvolvedtheoperationalizationandoperatingof

30InthiscontextitmightbeworthnotingtherecommendationsofthePolicy&ImplementationWorkingGroup,whichwererecentlyadoptedbytheICANNBoard(seehttps://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2015-09-28-en#2.f).



theprogram.Minimizingthissequentialnatureofimplementationandexecutionmayhelpavoidsurprisestothecommunityduringtheoperationoftheprogram,thoughitmaybeproveimpracticaltodeveloptheprograminthisfashion.However,havingoperationalizationcompletepriortothelaunchofprogramasopposedtodevelopinginasortofchronologicalfashionastheneedarose(e.g.,changerequests,CPE,auction,contracting,etc.)mayimprovepredictability.LatearrivingprogramfeedbackSomechangestotheprogramweretheresultoffeedbackdeliveredoronlyconsideredaftertheNewgTLDProgramhadlaunched,suchasGACAdviceonSafeguards(andtheresultantPublicInterestCommitments)andnamecollisionsidentifiedbytheSecurityandStabilityAdvisoryCommittee(SSAC).Theseissuescouldbeattributabletosomedegree,toalackofearlyengagement,asdiscussedinsection4.2.4onCommunityEngagement,oraresimplyissuesnotidentifiedduringthepolicydevelopment,orperhapsevenduringtheimplementationstage.However,thereweresomeissuesidentifiedpriortoprogramlaunch,suchastheaforementionednamecollisions,whichwereinfactidentifiedbytheSSAC,thoughallissuesmaynothavebeenadequatelyresolved,forreasonsaPDP-WGmaywanttoinvestigateandseektorectify.


o Recommendation1o Recommendation9o PrincipleA


InregardstotheissuesidentifiedbytheDGregardingpredictability,theDGdidnotanticipateanychangestoorthedevelopmentofnewpolicy,thoughthismaychangeduringthecourseofdeliberationsbyapotentialPDP-WGonNewgTLDSubsequentProcedures.ItshouldbenotedandtakenintoaccountthattherehavebeenmeasurestakeninthewiderICANNcommunitythatmayhelpaddresssomeoftheissuesrelatedtothesubjectofpredictability,includingtheadventofnewliaisonsbetweenSupportingOrganizations(SOs)andAdvisoryCommittees(ACs)andtheGNSOactivelyseekingearlyengagementwithotherSOsandACs,particularlywiththeGAC.Inaddition,thenewGNSOprocessesdevelopedbytheNon-PDPPolicyandImplementationWorkingGroupshouldhelptoresolveproblemsthatareonlyidentifiedatalaterstage,inamoreconsistent,predictable,andtransparentmanner,fornotonlythisPDP-WG,butfutureGNSOefforts.



4.2.3Competition,ConsumerTrustandConsumerChoice


Theintenttoincreasecompetition,consumertrust,andconsumerchoicewithintheDNSwasadrivingrationaleindevelopingandlaunchingtheNewgTLDProgram.Thecommunity,priortothelaunchoftheNewgTLDProgram,wasconstrainedto22gTLDsinaneverexpandingInternetuserbase.Asnotedabove,expandingtheDNSisconsistentwithICANN’sMissionandCoreValues,inparticularArticle1,Section2,6oftheICANNBylaws:


IncreasingcompetitionandparticipationintheDNSenvironmentwasinfactaprincipalreasonfortheoriginalprivatizationofICANN.InaStatementofPolicyissuedin1998bytheUnitedStatesDepartmentofCommerce31,itnotedthatthe“…widespreaddissatisfactionabouttheabsenceofcompetitionindomainnameregistration”wasakeyreasonforseekingthechangeintheDNSmanagementstructure.

Asnotedinabovesections,theICANNcommunitybegantheprocessofexpandingtheDNSbyconductingtwo“proofofconcept”rounds,whichallowedalimitednumberofnewgTLDSin2000and2003-2005.Atthisstage,whiletherewasalreadysignificantcompetitionattheregistrarlevel,competitioncouldstillbeperceivedaslackingintheregistryfield.The2007FinalReportdeliveredbytheGNSOsoughttoaddressthisissuebyrecommendingthatICANNallowfortheexpansioninthenumberofgTLDs,withfarlessrestrictionsasimposedonthe“proofofconcept”rounds.Specifically,PrincipleCstates:

Thereasonsforintroducingnewtop-leveldomainsincludethatthereisdemandfrompotentialapplicantsfornewtop-leveldomainsinbothASCIIandIDNformats.Inadditiontheintroductionofnewtop-leveldomainapplicationprocesshasthepotentialtopromotecompetitionintheprovisionofregistryservices,toaddtoconsumerchoice,marketdifferentiationandgeographicalandservice-providerdiversity.

ThedecisiontoexpandtheDNSwassupportedinpartbyaseriesofeconomicstudiesthatattemptedtoexaminetheimpacts,benefits,andcostsofaddingnewgTLDs,topartiesdirectlyinvolvedintheprogram,aswellasthirdpartieswhomay

31TheStatementofPolicyfromtheUnitedStatesNTIAcanbereadhere:http://www.ntia.doc.gov/federal-register-notice/1998/statement-policy-management-internet-names-and-addresses



beindirectlyaffected.TheeconomicstudiesthatultimatelyledtheICANNBoardtodeterminethatnofurtherstudieswouldbecommissionedweredeliveredintwoparts:

1) Partoneofthestudywasdeliveredon16June2010322) Parttwowasdeliveredon3December201033.

TheBoarddeterminedthat,“alleconomicstudieshaveconfirmedtheoverallbenefitsofcontinuingtoopenthedomainnamespace,intermsofenablinginnovation,increasingchoiceandfosteringahealthiercompetitiveenvironment”inresolvingthatnofurthereconomicstudieswereneededtobetterinformtheBoard’sdecision34.Andfinally,inthePreambletotheAGB,itnotesthat:

NewgTLDshavebeenintheforefrontofICANN’sagendasinceitscreation.ThenewgTLDprogramwillopenupthetopleveloftheInternet’snamespacetofosterdiversity,encouragecompetition,andenhancetheutilityoftheDNS.


ManymembersoftheDGfeltthatthe2012NewgTLDroundlackeddiversityinregardstothetypesofapplicantsthatapplied.FromtheNewgTLDstatisticspage,onecanviewthepresentednumbersandreachconclusionsaboutthediversity,orlackthereof,withintheprogram.However,the2007GNSOFinalReportdidnotappeartoattempttoestablishmetricsbywhichdiversity,competition,consumerchoice,andotheraimsoftheprogramcouldbemeasuredagainsttodeterminethelevelofsuccess.Whilethestatisticspageonlypresentsalimitedsetofnumbersthatcouldbeexamined,theymaypresentsomeevidenceoflackofdiversity.Forinstance,lookingatthegeographicspreadofapplicationsintheICANNregions,about1%ofapplicationswerereceivedfromSouthAmericaandlessthan1%werereceivedfromAfrica.35TotalApplicationsReceived-1930Region Number PercentageNorthAmerica 911 47%

32Partoneoftheeconomicstudyisavailablehere:https://archive.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/economic-analysis-of-new-gtlds-16jun10-en.pdf33Parttwooftheeconomicstudyisavailablehere:https://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/phase-two-economic-considerations-03dec10-en.pdf34TheICANNBoardResolutionisavailablehere:https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=3117319735Current2012NewgTLDProgramroundstatisticscanbefoundhere:http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/statistics



Europe 675 35%AsiaPacific 303 15.5%SouthAmerica 24 1%Africa 17 <1%

Asnoted,therewasnotargetnumbertoachieve,butthismaybeconsideredanareaforimprovement.Asforapplicationtypes,themajorityofthe1930applicationsreceivedwouldbeconsideredstandard,with84identifyingascommunity,66asgeographic,and116asIDNs,withsomeoverlapofthesethreetypesamongstthatcollectionofapplications.TheWGthatdevelopedthe2007FinalReportconsideredthedefinitionoftypesandspecificrequirementsandneedsforeachtypetobetoodifficulttoaccuratelypredict.TheAGBfollowedsuitbyonlyallowingfortwotypes,standardandcommunity.Forfurtherdetailonapplicationtypes,seesection4.2.15onDifferentTLDTypes.Therearemanyotherstatisticsthatcouldbemeasured,suchasgeographicspreadofback-endproviders,diversityofbusinessplans,typesoforganizationsapplying,etc.Whatmaybeusefulisestablishingmetricsforsuccess,althoughitmustbenotedthattheImplementationAdvisoryGroupforCompetition,ConsumerTrust&ConsumerChoice(IAG-CCT)hasalreadyidentified66metrics36thatitrecommendsICANNbegincollectinginpreparationforfutureNewgTLDreviews,inparticulartheAffirmationofCommitments(AoC)37reviewforsection9.3,whichstates:

ICANNwillorganizeareviewthatwillexaminetheextenttowhichtheintroductionorexpansionofgTLDshaspromotedcompetition,consumertrustandconsumerchoice,aswellaseffectivenessof(a)theapplicationandevaluationprocess,and(b)safeguardsputinplacetomitigateissuesinvolvedintheintroductionorexpansion.

ApotentialPDP-WGonNewgTLDSubsequentProceduresconsideringthissubjectshouldtakeintoaccountthemetricsidentifiedbytheIAG-CCTandthefindingsoftheAoCreviews.ThePDP-WGcouldconsiderdiscussingthissubjectpriortoothereffortsconcluding,alertingrelevantteamstosuchwork,asindeed,itsfindingsmayinfluencetheAoCreview.However,thePDP-WGmayfinditbeneficialtofullyconsiderthefindingsfromtheAoCreviewpriortoreachingfinalconclusionsand/orrecommendations,orperhapsevenpriortoinitiatingdiscussionsaroundthissubject.


36ImplementationAdvisoryGroupforCompetition,ConsumerTrust&ConsumerChoice(IAG-CCT)recommendations:https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/reviews/cct/iag-metrics-final-recs-26sep14-en.pdf37AffirmationofCommitmentsreviewforsection9.3:https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/affirmation-of-commitments-2009-09-30-en



o ICANN’sMissionandCoreValues,inparticularArticle1,Section2,6oftheICANNBylaws:

o PrincipleCo IAG-CCTMetrics-

https://community.icann.org/display/IAG/Report+of+All+Consumer+Metricso ICANNstaffCompetition,ConsumerChoice&ConsumerTrustReviews-

https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/reviews/ccto AffirmationofCommitments-

https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/affirmation-of-commitments-2009-09-30-en


InregardstotheissuesidentifiedbytheDGregardingcompetition,consumertrust&consumertrust,theDGdidnotanticipateanychangestoorthedevelopmentofnewpolicy.However,theexistingprincipleinthe2007FinalReportisvagueintermsofwhatdeterminessuccessandtheidentificationofsuccesscriteriacouldbeconsidered.Indoingso,theworkoftheIAG-CCT,theoutcomeoftheAoCreviews,andtheICANNstaffledreviewsofCompetition,ConsumerChoice&ConsumerTrust(i.e.,RightsProtectionReviews,ProgramImplementationReviews,Security&StabiltyReviews,andCompetition,ConsumerTrust,andConsumerChoiceData&Review)shouldbetakenintoaccountinreachinganyconclusions.WhileaPDP-WGmaydeterminethatinfact,specificpolicydevelopmentisneededregardingthissubject,itcanbeenvisionedatthisstagethatthefindingsfromthissubjectmayataminimum,influenceoutcomesregardingothersubjects(e.g.,CancellingSubsequentProcedures,Second-level,RightsProtectionMechanisms,RegistrantProtections,Communications,etc.).

4.2.4CommunityEngagement

• 4.2.4.1ExplanationofSubjectInmanyways,thisCommunityEngagementsubjectforPDP-WGconsiderationisverymuchconnectedtosection4.2.2onPredictability,asincreasingthelevelofcommunityparticipationduringtheearlypartsandthroughoutthedevelopmentlifecycleshouldallowforbetterconsiderationandintegrationofissuesfromthevariousfacetsofthecommunitypriortothelaunchofNewgTLDSubsequentProcedures.Withoutrobustcommunityengagement,itisconceivablethatNewgTLDProgramrequirementscouldbealteredafterprogramlaunch,whichwouldbeadisservicetoallthoseinvolvedwiththeprogram,whoshouldbeabletorelyonpre-publishedrulesandguidelines.



ItshouldbenotedthatearlyengagementisnotanissuethatisisolatedtotheNewgTLDProgram.Earlyengagementisintegraltoallpolicydevelopmentprocessestoensurethatvariousviewpointsareshared,considered,andintegratedintofinalrecommendations.Assuch,improvementstothePolicyDevelopmentProcess(PDP)3839nowdictatethatoutreachbeconductedpriortotheIssueReport,priortotheinitiationofthePDP,uponinitiationofthePDP,andotherareas.


TheDGnotedthatanumberofelementsoftheprogramchangedpost-launch.Forinstance,GACEarlyWarningsandGACAdviceweredefinedintheAGBpriortoprogramlaunchandappearedtobeinregardstosingleapplications,notclassesofapplications.However,intheBeijingCommuniqué40,theGACadvisedtheICANNBoardthat,“stringsthatarelinkedtoregulatedorprofessionalsectorsshouldoperateinawaythatisconsistentwithapplicablelaws."TheGACproposedspecificsafeguardsthatwouldapplytoabroadcategoryofstringsrelatedto"consumerprotection,sensitivestrings,andregulatedmarkets."ToresolvetheissuesidentifiedintheGACSafeguardAdvice,apubliccommentperiodwasheldtocollectinput,andtheNewgTLDProgramCommittee(NGPC)ultimatelyadoptedanimplementationframeworkforGACCategory1SafeguardAdvice41.TheintegrationoftheframeworkcouldbeconstruedasasignificantchangetotheNewgTLDProgram.Whileadditionalearlyengagementmightnothaveavoidedthischange,itmayhavehelped.AnotherexampleofachangetotheprogrampostlaunchwastheidentificationofthenamecollisionsissuebytheSSAC,whichisdiscussedinfurtherdetailinsection4.6.3onNameCollisions.Again,earlyengagementmightnothavenecessarilyhelpedaddresstheissuepriortolaunch,thoughthisissuewasraisedpriortolaunch.IdentifyingthesetwoexamplesshouldnotcreatetheimpressionthattheGACandtheSSACdidnotfullyparticipateinthepolicydevelopmentprocess.However,theconceptofearlyandconsistentengagementthroughoutthepolicydevelopmentprocessisasoundprincipaltofollowandadditionalmechanismstoencouragecommunityengagementcouldbeexplored.Insomecircumstances,anissueraisedmaywarrantresolutionviaalternativemechanisms(e.g.,the3newmechanismsdevelopedbytheNon-PDPPolicyandImplementationWorkingGrouporacross-communityworkinggroupiftheissueisofmutualinterestandbetteraddressedbytwoormoreSO/ACs).

38PDPManual:http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-2-pdp-manual-16dec11-en.pdf39GNSOWorkingGroupGuidelines:http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-07apr11-en.pdf40GACBeijingCommuniqué:https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/27132037/Beijing%20Communique%20april2013_Final.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1365666376000&api=v241NGPCResolutionadoptingimplementationframeworkforGACCategory1SafeguardAdvice:http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-annex-2-05feb14-en.pdf




o PDPManual:http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-2-pdp-manual-16dec11-

en.pdfo GNSOWorkingGroupGuidelines:http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-

gnso-wg-guidelines-07apr11-en.pdfo GAC-GNSOConsultationGroupRecommendationsConcerningEarlyEngagement

oftheGACintheGNSOPolicyDevelopmentProcess-IssueScopingPhase:http://www.gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/gac-cg-issue-scoping-27jan15-en.pdf


ThesubjectofearlyengagementwasnotanticipatedbytheDGtorequireanytypeofpolicydevelopmentspecifictoNewgTLDs.ThisissueisnotisolatedtoNewgTLDs,andassuch,stepstoincreaseopportunitiesforearlyengagementoroutreachhavealreadybeenimplemented.Forinstance,theGNSOPDPManual42dictatesthatoutreachtoSupportingOrganizations(SOs),AdvisoryCommittees(ACs),StakeholderGroups,andConstituenciesbeconductedatcertainintervalstoensuretheyareawareoftheissuebeingdiscussed.Inaddition,manyoftheSOsandACsmaintainliaisonsbetweentheirgroupstoensuretheyremaininformedandareabletocommunicateconcernsbackandforth.Beyondtheseproactiveengagementmeasures,thePDPprocessisopenandtransparent,soanymemberofthecommunityiswelcometoparticipate.Aswell,theimplementationofNewgTLDpolicyviatheAGB,allowedforparticipationfromanyaspectofthecommunity,andthisisexpectedtobethecaseforanysubsequentimplementationactivities.

4.2.5ApplicantGuidebook


TheApplicantGuidebook(AGB)iseffectivelytheimplementationofGNSOpolicyrecommendationsfromtheits2007FinalReport,althoughatthetime,itwasreferredtoastheRequestforProposal(RFP).

Thispolicydevelopmentprocesshasbeendesignedtoproduceasystemisedandongoingmechanismforapplicantstoproposenewtop-leveldomains.TheRequestforProposals(RFP)forthefirstroundwillincludeschedulinginformationforthesubsequentroundstooccurwithinoneyear.Afterthefirstroundofnewapplications,theapplicationsystemwillbeevaluatedbyICANN'sTLDsProjectOffice

42GNSOPolicyDevelopmentManual:http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-2-pdp-manual-16dec11-en.pdf



toassesstheeffectivenessoftheapplicationsystem.Successmetricswillbedevelopedandanynecessaryadjustmentsmadetotheprocessforsubsequentrounds.

ThedevelopmentoftheAGB,asitbecameknown,wasintendedtoactasaroadmaptopotentialapplicantsandotherpartiesinterestedintheprocess.ThedevelopmentoftheAGBwasiterative,integratingpubliccommentandfeedbackreceivedthroughotherchannelsintoitsnumerousincarnations,asisnotedinthePreambletotheAGB:

ICANN’sworknextfocusedonimplementation:creatinganapplicationandevaluationprocessfornewgTLDsthatisalignedwiththepolicyrecommendationsandprovidesaclearroadmapforapplicantstoreachdelegation,includingBoardapproval.Thisimplementationworkisreflectedinthedraftsoftheapplicantguidebookthatwerereleasedforpubliccomment,andintheexplanatorypapersgivinginsightintorationalebehindsomeoftheconclusionsreachedonspecifictopics.Meaningfulcommunityinputhasledtorevisionsofthedraftapplicantguidebook.Inparallel,ICANNhasestablishedtheresourcesneededtosuccessfullylaunchandoperatetheprogram.ThisprocessconcludedwiththedecisionbytheICANNBoardofDirectorsinJune2011tolaunchtheNewgTLDProgram.

TheAGBservedastheguideforstaffindevelopingoperationalprocessesandprocedures.


TheAGBwasdevelopedoverthecourseofseveralyears,countlessvolunteerhours,withnumerousiterationsandexplanatorymemoranda,andmuchdebateinpubliccomments,duringICANNmeetings,onlineforaandotherchannels.Asaresult,itisapieceofdocumentationthatrepresentsbottomup,multistakeholdercompromiseandassuch,isunlikelytobeconsideredperfectbyallparties,ascompromisegenerallyrequiresconcessions.InthedeliberationsoftheDG,theviewsexchangedontheAGBwerediverse.AstheAGBwasasingulardocumentintendedtosupporttheprogram,itwaslikelyforeseeablethattherewouldbesectionsthatmaybelessrelevanttocertainpartiesthanothers.TheAGBprovidedtherequirementstobeconsideredbyapplicants,consultants,back-endproviders,registrars,rightsholders,governments,andothersinterestedintheprogram.SomemembersoftheDGsuggestedpartitioningtheAGBintodistinct,audiencedrivensections,believingthatitmayimprovereadabilityandunderstandingofrules.OtherssuggestedthattheAGBcouldbemademoreprocess-driven,providingstep-by-stepinstructions.Still,othersevensuggestedthattheAGBwasthewrongvehicleforimplementationofthepolicyentirely,althoughanalternativewasnotsuggested.



Asaresultofthemanyprogramreviewsbeingperformedbyvariousfacetsofthecommunity,itremainslikelythattherewillneedtoberevisionstotheAGB.Inaddition,intheeventthattherearesubstantivechangestotheexistingNewgTLDpolicy,theAGBmustbeadjustedaccordinglytoreflectthosechanges.AnychangestotheAGBforsubsequentproceduresmustbesubjecttocommunitydiscourse,asoccurredinthepast.


o CurrentAGB-http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/historical-documentation

• 4.2.5.4RationaleforPolicyDevelopmentTheDGdidnotanticipatepolicydevelopmentworkinregardstotheApplicantGuidebook,althoughitcouldbenecessaryifthereisbroadsupportforanalternatevehicleforimplementationofthenewgTLDpolicy.ApotentialPDP-WGonNewgTLDSubsequentProceduresmaywanttoconsiderprovidingimplementationguidance,particularlyaroundthestructureoftheAGB,forconsiderationbyICANNindevelopingthenextAGB,thoughmodificationstotheAGB(providedtheAGBremainsastheimplementationvehicle)wouldpresumablyremainaniterative,community-inclusiveprocess.


• 4.2.6.1ExplanationofSubjectThe2007FinalReportrecommendedthattheNewgTLDapplicationprocessprovideclarityandcertaintytopotentialapplicants,withRecommendation1stating:

ICANNmustimplementaprocessthatallowstheintroductionofnewtop-leveldomains.TheevaluationandselectionprocedurefornewgTLDregistriesshouldrespecttheprinciplesoffairness,transparencyandnon-discrimination.AllapplicantsforanewgTLDregistryshouldthereforebeevaluatedagainsttransparentandpredictablecriteria,fullyavailabletotheapplicantspriortotheinitiationoftheprocess.Normally,therefore,nosubsequentadditionalselectioncriteriashouldbeusedintheselectionprocess.

AndRecommendation9stating:



Theremustbeaclearandpre-publishedapplicationprocessusingobjectiveandmeasurablecriteria.

TheAGB,throughtheimplementationoftheGNSONewgTLDpolicy,soughttoprovidetheclarityandcertaintyascalledforintherecommendations.ThethemesofpredictabilityandtheAGBareexplainedinfurtherdetailinsections4.2.2onPredictabilityand4.2.5ontheApplicantGuidebook,respectively.


FromthediscussionsoftheDG,itappearedthattherewasgeneralagreementthattheAGB,developediterativelyandwithamplecommunityparticipation,wasthepropervehiclefortheimplementationoftheGNSONewgTLDpolicyrecommendations.However,intranslatingtheAGBintooperationalprocessesandprocedures,theDGfeltthattransparencyofdevelopmentwaslosttosomedegree.InJune2011,theICANNBoardapprovedtheAGBandprogramlaunch,withtheapplicationsubmissionperiodopeningapproximatelysevenmonthslaterinJanuaryof2012,whichservedasarelativelyshortperiodoftimetooperationalizethefinalizedrequirementsintheAGB.Oncetheapplicationsubmissionprocessbegan,thenumberofapplicationsreceivedexceededmuchofthecommunity’sestimates,makingoperationalizationofremainingprogramelementsmoredifficult.AccordingtomembersoftheDG,elementsoftheprogramappearedtobedevelopedonanas-neededbasis,citingexamplessuchastheprocessesgoverningclarifyingquestions,changerequests,customersupport,applicationprioritization,amongothers.

DGMembersnotedotherissuesaroundtheapplicationsubmissionprocess,thoughtheywerenotnecessarilyregardingclarityofprocess,butmoreinregardstothelackofefficiency.Thesememberscitedtheneedtocreatemultipleaccountswhensubmittingover50applicationsandthetreatmentofeveryapplicationasuniqueasparticularconcerns,withthelatterissuecreatinginefficienciesduringapplicationsubmissionandsubsequentstepsintheevaluationprocess.Theinefficienciesinapplicationsubmissionandevaluationwillbediscussedinfurtherdetailinsections4.2.8onAccreditationProgramsand4.2.9onSystems.


o Recommendation1o Recommendation9

• 4.2.6.4Rationaleforpolicydevelopment:

TheDGdidnotanticipatepolicydevelopmentinregardstoClarityoftheApplicationProcess.However,apotentialPDP-WGonNewgTLDSubsequentProceduresmaywant



toconsiderprovidingimplementationguidanceforconsiderationbyICANNifandwhenitseekstooperationalizeNewgTLDSubsequentProcedures.



The2007FinalReportrecommendedthatapplicationsbeassessedinrounds,astheformatbetterallowedforevaluationoftheperformanceoftheprogram.Recommendation13statesthat:

Applicationsmustinitiallybeassessedinroundsuntilthescaleofdemandisclear.

Pertherecommendation,theNewgTLDProgramisassessingapplicationsintheformatofaround.Therewasafixedapplicationsubmissionperiodafterwhichnoadditionalapplicationswereaccepted.


SomemembersoftheDGstatedthattheirpreferencewasthattheNewgTLDProgramoperateinaperpetuallyopenmanner,ratherthanindistinctrounds.Recommendation13assertsthatamechanismotherthanroundscanonlybeconsideredoncethescaleofdemandisclear.However,scaleofdemandwasnotdefinedandperhapsevenifitwas,asingleroundmaynotprovideadequatedatatocometoanymeaningfulconclusions.Asaresult,apotentialPDP-WGonNewgTLDSubsequentProceduresmaywanttoconsiderdefiningwhatscaleofdemandmeansandhowthecriteriacouldbemet.Inaddition,factorsotherthandemandmaybehelpfulindeterminingifanalternativeapplicationacceptancemechanismiswarranted.IntheexplanatorylanguageforRecommendation13,itstates:

Thisrecommendationmaybeamended,afteranevaluationperiodandreportthatmaysuggestmodificationstothissystem.Thedevelopmentofobjective"successmetrics"isanecessarypartoftheevaluationprocessthatcouldtakeplacewithinthenewTLDsProjectOffice.

Ifanothermethodforacceptingandassessingapplicationsisindeedpondered,theimpactonotherareasoftheprogrammustbefullyconsidered.Adifferentmechanism,suchasaperpetuallyopenprogram,mayimpactapplicantbehaviorandwouldlikelyrequiretherethinkingofmanyexistingprogramelements,suchasobjectionsandstringcontention,whichweredesignedwithfixedperiodsinmind.Asanexample,objectionscouldbeparticularlyproblematic,aspotentialobjectorswouldneedtobeconstantlyawareoftheprogramatalltimesinordertopotentiallyprotecttheirinterestsorrights.



Inaddition,aperpetuallyopenprogramcouldincreaseprogramcosts,asforexample,evaluatorsandotherserviceproviderswouldneedtoberetainedatalltimesaswell.Theseexamplesareinregardstoexistingelementsofthe2012NewgTLDProgramround.Ifsubstantivechangesaremadetoprogramelements,theywouldneedtobetakenintoconsiderationindecidingifanalternativeapplicationacceptancemechanismiswarranted.SomespecificconcernsidentifiedbytheDGregardingroundsinclude:

o Potentialapplicantsmustdecidewhethertheywanttocommittoapplying,notknowingexactlywhenthenextroundwilloccur.

o Inparticularforapplicantsincontentionsets,theymayhavetowaitforotherapplicantstoclearcertainphasesoftheprogram.

o Itcancausearushofactivitiesaroundcertainmilestones,potentiallyresultinginstrainsonapplicants,serviceproviders,ICANNstaff,andultimatelyresultinmisseddeadlines,confusion,andoverallinefficiency.


o Recommendation13:


The2007FinalReportacknowledgedthatRecommendation13couldbemodified,providedthereisdataandevidencethatsupportsanalternativemechanism.ApotentialPDP-WGonNewgTLDSubsequentProceduresmaywanttoconsiderthesesuggestedactions/questionstohelpdetermineifachangeiswarranted:

o Define,capturedata,andanalyzemetricstounderstand“scaleofdemand”o Define,capturedata,andanalyzemetricsotherthan“scaleofdemand”that

mayhelpindeterminingifanalternativeapplicationacceptancemechanismshouldbeconsidered

o DetermineifanyotherNewgTLDProgramreviewsmaybenefitdeliberationsonthissubject.

IfapotentialPDP-WGreachestheconclusionthatanalternativeapplicationacceptancemechanismisneeded,policydevelopmentwouldlikelybeneeded,whichmayincludemodifyingtheexistingrecommendation.

4.2.8AccreditationPrograms




IncreasingcompetitionwithintheregistryserviceprovidermarketplacewasidentifiedasakeydriverfortheintroductionofnewTLDsinthe2007FinalReport.PrincipleCstates:

Thereasonsforintroducingnewtop-leveldomainsincludethatthereisdemandfrompotentialapplicantsfornewtop-leveldomainsinbothASCIIandIDNformats.Inadditiontheintroductionofnewtop-leveldomainapplicationprocesshasthepotentialtopromotecompetitionintheprovisionofregistryservices,toaddtoconsumerchoice,marketdifferentiationandgeographicalandservice-providerdiversity.

Inthe2012NewgTLDRound,asubstantialnumberofapplicantsdidindeedemploytheuseofanexistingback-endprovidertobothprovidetheresponsestothetechnicalrequirementsquestionsdefinedintheAGBandperformthetechnicaloperationsoftheregistry.TheNewgTLDProgramwasdesignedtobeagnostictowhatpartywasprovisioningregistryservices,solongasthetechnicalrequirementsweremet.


TheNewgTLDProgramwasnotbuiltinawaythatwouldtakeadvantageofapplicants’useofback-endserviceproviders,bothfromanapplicant’sperspectiveoroperationallyforICANN.TheconceptofanaccreditationprogramreceivedamplesupportfromtheDG,citinganumberofissuesandreasonsforitsusefulness.EfficiencyApplicantswhodecidedtouseacontractedback-endproviderfortheirRSPwererequiredtoenterthetechnicalresponsesduringtheapplicationsubmissionperiod,whichwerelikelytohavebeenresponsesprovidedbytheirproviderforthepurposesofapplying.Asnotedinothersections,applicationsweretreatedindividually,sototheextentthatanapplicantwassubmittingmorethanoneapplicationwithessentiallyidenticalresponses,responseswouldneedtobeappliedtoeachindividualfieldforeachapplication.TheseresponseswereinturnpresumablyevaluatedindividuallyforeachapplicationbyICANN’sevaluators,leadingtoadditionalinefficienciesandpossibilityevenincreasingthelikelihoodformistakesorinconsistencies.ThePDP-WGcouldconsiderwhetheraccreditationofRSPswouldbedesirable.Forexample,iftherewasanaccreditationprograminplaceforfutureNewgTLDSubsequentProcedures,anapplicantcouldconceivably“clickabox”tosaytheyareusinganaccreditedRSP,reducingtimeperapplicationforapplicantsandevaluators,possiblyreducingconfusionsincetheapplicationprocesscouldpresumablybemade



simpler,andlikelyreducingoperationalcostsforICANN.Thiswouldnotremovetheneedtoevaluatecircumstanceswheretheapplicantisintendingtointroduceadditionalregistryservices.Nevertheless,makingtheprocesssimplerandloweringcosts,withoutcompromisingthegoalsoftheprogram,suchasfairnessandsecurityoftheDNS,mayresultinadditionalpotentialapplicants(i.e.,competition). SecurityandStabilityThereareseveralprinciplesandrecommendationsthatidentifytheimportanceofensuringthestabilityandsecurityoftheDNSwhenexpandingtheDNS,including:PrincipleD

AsetoftechnicalcriteriamustbeusedforassessinganewgTLDregistryapplicanttominimisetheriskofharmingtheoperationalstability,securityandglobalinteroperabilityoftheInternet.

PrincipleE

AsetofcapabilitycriteriaforanewgTLDregistryapplicantmustbeusedtoprovideanassurancethatanapplicanthasthecapabilitytomeetsitsobligationsunderthetermsofICANN'sregistryagreement.

Recommendation7

Applicantsmustbeabletodemonstratetheirtechnicalcapabilitytorunaregistryoperationforthepurposethattheapplicantsetsout.

PerPrincipleD,assessinganapplicant’stechnicalexpertiseiscriticaltohelpingpreventharmtotheDNS.ThecurrenttechnicalandoperationalrequirementsasdefinedintheAGBallowforsomevariabilitybasedonthetypeofregistryanapplicantintendstorun,whichisimportanttosupportinordertopromote,oratleastallowforinnovation.However,itispossiblethatthereisasecurityandstabilitybenefittohavingknown-quantityRSPs,thathavemetcertainagreeduponrequirementsandareintimatelyfamiliarwithprovidingregistryservices.


o PrincipleDo PrincipleEo Recommendation7o ImplementationGuidelineA




Asnotedabove,thePDP-WGcouldconsiderwhetheranaccreditationprogramwouldpromotebenefitsthatsupportICANN’sMissionandCoreValues,inparticular,Article1,Section2.1:

Preservingandenhancingtheoperationalstability,reliability,security,andglobalinteroperabilityoftheInternet

AndArticle1,Section2.6


Assuch,apossiblePDP-WGonNewgTLDSubsequentProceduresmaywanttoconsiderpolicydevelopmentonthesubjectofanaccreditationprogram.Thereareanumberofquestionsthatwouldneedtobeconsidered,includingthefollowing:

o IsanaccreditationprogramforRSPsdesirable?o Ifyes,whatwouldthecriteriabeforanaccreditationprogram?Howwould

scalabilityoftheRSPbemeasuredacrossanunknownnumberofregistries?o Howwouldtheprogrambefunded?o Whatpartywouldoperatetheprogramandperformaccreditation?o Howwouldtheapplicationprocessbechanged?Wouldquestionschange?

Wouldcostsbedifferent?o Wouldthecreationofasimpler,andpotentiallycheaperpathtoapproval,

createunintendedincentives?o BesidesRSPs,arethereotherareasoftheprogramthatmightbenefitfrom

anaccreditationprogramforserviceproviders?

4.2.9Systems


Theredidnotappeartobeanyguidancespecificallyrelatedtotechnicalsystemsinthe2007FinalReport.ICANNdevelopedanddeployedanumberofapplicant-facingsystemstofacilitateapplicationsubmissionandcommunicationsbetweenICANNoperationalstaffandapplicants.TheTLDApplicationSystem(TAS)wasusedtoallowapplicantstosubmittheirapplicationsandtoreceivetheresultsofthevariousevaluationprocedures,suchasFinancialCapability,Technical/OperationalCapability,RegistryServices,overallInitialEvaluationResults,etc.TheCustomerPortalwasresponsibleforallowingapplicantstosubmitquestionstoICANNandforICANNtoprovideresponses.



Inadditiontothesetwoprimarysystems,therewereadditionalsolutionsdevelopedtosupporttheprogram,includingDigitalArchery,CentralizedZoneDataService,andtheApplicationCommentsForum.


Therewereseveralsystemsthatapplicantshadtoutilizethroughouttheapplicationprocess,manyrequiringdifferentlogins,andmanypresentingadifferentuserexperience.MembersoftheDGsuggestedthatamoreintegratedsetofapplicant-facingsystemswouldbeamoreuserfriendly,robustapproach.Thereweredistinctissueswithsomeofthesystems,inparticulartheTASsystem.Forinstance,TASrequiredfirstloggingintotheCitrixZenApplayer,whichprovidedabrowseragnosticenvironment,thensubsequentlyloggedintoTASitself.Whiletherewerebenefitstocreatingabrowseragnosticenvironment,particularlysecuritybenefits,itprovedtobeapooruserexperiencewithapplicantshavingtroublekeepingtrackofmultiplesetsoflogincredentials,downloadingrequiredsoftwareproperly,uploadingsupportingdocumentation,andevenpastingtheirquestionresponsesintotheproperfields.Additionally,TASsufferedanapplicantdatasecurityglitch,whichrequiredthesystemtobetakenofflineinAprilof2012.Afteranextensiveaudit,ICANNfeltconfidentthatitunderstoodtheextentoftheissue.Afterhavingresolvedthecauseoftheglitch,thesystemwasbroughtbackonlineinMayof2012.43Asmentioned,manyoftheotherapplicant-facingsystemsdidnotsharearchitectureoracredentialdatabase,sotheyhadverylittleintegration,creatingwhatDGmembersfoundtobeafragmentedexperience.BecauseofissuesliketheTASglitch,DGmembersalsorecommendmorerobustsecuritytestingandasaresultofthenegativecommentsreceivedaboutuserexperience,userexperiencetestingislikelyalsobeneficial.

• RelevantGuidance

o Recommendation1o ImplementationGuidelineA

• Rationaleforpolicydevelopment:TheDGdidnotanticipatepolicydevelopmentworkinregardstosystems.However,apotentialPDP-WGonNewgTLDSubsequentProceduresmaywanttoconsiderprovidingimplementationguidance,suchasaminimumsetofsecurityandinfrastructurestandards,forconsiderationbyICANNduringimplementationofsubsequentprocedures.

43DetailsrelatedtotheTASGlitch:http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/tas/interruption-faqs



4.2.10ApplicationFees

• 4.2.10.1ExplanationofSubjectTheNewgTLDProgramwasdesignedtoberevenueneutral,whichisinsupportofImplementationGuidelineB:

ApplicationfeeswillbedesignedtoensurethatadequateresourcesexisttocoverthetotalcosttoadministerthenewgTLDprocess.Applicationfeesmaydifferforapplicants.

Insection1.5.1,theAGBcapturedthisguidancewiththefollowingtext:

ThegTLDevaluationfeeissettorecovercostsassociatedwiththenewgTLDprogram.ThefeeissettoensurethattheprogramisfullyfundedandrevenueneutralandisnotsubsidizedbyexistingcontributionsfromICANNfundingsources,includinggenericTLDregistriesandregistrars,ccTLDcontributionsandRIRcontributions.

AnapplicationfeethatisintendedtoberevenueneutralisalsoconsistentwithICANN’sstatusasanot-for-profitorganization.Theapplicationfeewasdevelopedusing“detailedcostingmethodologythatincludesprogramdevelopmentcosts,fixedandvariableapplicationevaluationcosts,andrisksorlowprobabilityeventcosts”asstatedintheUpdatetotheCostConsiderationsoftheNewgTLDProgram44.


TheNewgTLDapplicationfeewasdevelopedwiththeacknowledgementthatitwasbeingdesignedforanewprogram,whereitisdifficulttopredictcostsandvolumesofapplications.Withmanyelementsofthe2012NewgTLDroundhavingnowbeencompleted,datashouldbeavailabletorefinethecostingmethodologyforsubsequentprocedures.TheDGrecommendedthatICANN’scostingmodelbethoroughlyre-examined,evenintheabsenceofsignificantchangestotheprogram.Forinstance,someDGmemberspointedoutthatthereisasizeablesurplus(~$89millionUSD),mostlyattributabletothelitigationportionofthefeethathasremainedlargelyunspent.Althoughthereiscurrentlynoplanforutilizingexcessfunds,intheUpdatetotheCostConsiderationsoftheNewgTLDProgramdocument,ICANNenvisionedthatthecommunitywouldbeintegralindetermininghowthefundswouldbehandled,intheeventthatasurplusorashortfallwasrealized.

44UpdatetotheCostConsiderationsoftheNewgTLDProgramavailableinitsentiretyhere:https://archive.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/cost-considerations-04oct09-en.pdf



TheDGMembersfeltthattherelativelyhighcostofapplyingledtoanumberofissues,manyofwhichhadalreadybeenidentifiedincommunitydiscussionstoestablishtheoriginalamount.AsacknowledgedintheUpdatetotheCostConsiderationsoftheNewgTLDProgram,thereremainedconcernsthat$185,000USDmayactasadeterrenttoapplicantsfromdevelopingnations,not-for-profits,andotherswithlimitedfinancialresources.Somememberssuggestedthatthefeecontributedtotheperceivedlackofdiversityasdiscussedinsection4.2.3Competition,ConsumerTrust&andConsumerChoice.Thereweresuggestionsthatthehighcostoftheapplicationfeecouldbeoffsetbyfinancialassistanceorfeereductionprograms,althoughcarewouldneedtobetakenindesigningtheseprogramstoavoidhavingthembeingtakenadvantageofbyapplicantsthatmaynotinfacthavefinancialneed.Thistopicwillbediscussedinfurtherdetailinsection4.2.14SupportforApplicantsFromDevelopingCountries.DGmembersspecificallyidentifiedthelackofinvoicesasaparticularchallengeforapplicantstobeabletonavigatefinancialapprovalprocesseswithintheirrespectiveorganizations.AnothertopicthatDGmembersidentifiedwasthattheapplicationfeewasacontinuationoftheone-size-fits-allmethodologyingrainedintotheprogram,resultinginallapplicantsessentiallypayingthesameamountregardlessofthecomplexityoftheirevaluation,notwithstandingtheadditionalcostsforoptionalprogramelementslikeCommunityPriorityEvaluation(CPE),objections,etc.Thistopicwillbediscussedingreaterdetailinsection4.2.17VariableFees.Finally,althoughICANNhascommittedtoevaluatetheaccuracyofitscostingmodelforanysubsequentprocedures,itmayalsoneedtoaccountforanysignificantchangestotheprogramstemmingfrompolicydevelopment,operationalchanges,orotherchannels.Asexamples,thecreationofdifferentapplicationtypesandcorrespondingapplicationtracksorthecreationofanaccreditationprogrammayrequireconsiderationinevaluatingthecostingmethodology.


o ImplementationGuidelineBo Section1.5.1oftheAGBo UpdatetotheCostConsiderationsoftheNewgTLDProgram-

https://archive.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/cost-considerations-04oct09-en.pdf


TheDGdidnotanticipatepolicydevelopmentworkdirectlyrelatedtoApplicationFees.However,itmaybeusefultoevaluatehowwellcostingestimatescomparedtoactualcostsincurredbyICANN.TheresultsofthatreviewmayleadapotentialPDP-WGon



NewgTLDSubsequentProcedurestoconsiderprovidingimplementationguidancetobetakenintoaccountwhenICANNworkswiththecommunitytodevelopthecostingmethodologyforsubsequentprocedures.Andasnotedabove,significantchangestotheprogramstemmingfrompolicydevelopment,operationalchanges,orotherchannelswouldneedtobeproperlyaccountedforinanynewcostingmethodology.

4.2.11Communications

• 4.2.11.1ExplanationofSubjectImplementationGuidelineCstatesthat:

ICANNwillprovidefrequentcommunicationswithapplicantsandthepublicincludingcommentforums.

Thereareatleastafewaspectstocommunications.OneaspectrelatestoICANN’scommunicationsplanthatsoughttoincreaseglobalawarenessofthesignificantchangesthattheNewgTLDProgramrepresented.Theintentionwastotargetaudiencesbeyondpotentialapplicants,astheexpansionoftheDNSimpactsmorethanjustthatparticularaudience.ICANNpublishedaworkingdraftofitscommunicationsplaninMayof201145,whichwasauthorizedbytheICANNBoardtoserveasthebasisforICANN’sglobaloutreachandeducationactivitiesfortheprogram46.AnotheraspectofcommunicationsisrelatedtotheprocessestofacilitatedialoguebetweenapplicantsandICANN,whichwasprimarilysupportedthroughtheCustomerPortal,althoughICANNalsoemployedtheuseofwebinars,roadshows,andsessionsatICANNmeetings,amongothermethods,tofacilitatedialoguebetweenthecommunityandICANN.Lastly,asnotedinImplementationGuidelineC,ICANNhadneedtosupportamechanismtocollectpubliccomment,whichitaccomplishedbyestablishingtheApplicationCommentsForum47.


TheDGMembersraisedconcernsprimarilyaroundthecommunicationsbetweenICANNandapplicantsandICANN’soutreachactivities.

45ICANN’sdraftcommunicationsplan:http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/historical-documentation/matrix-plans46ICANNBoardresolutionapprovingthecommunicationsplan:https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2011-06-20-en47ApplicationCommentsForumavailablehere:https://gtldcomment.icann.org/comments-feedback/applicationcomment/login



ICANN-ApplicantCommunicationsDGMembersnotedissueswithreceivinganswerstoquestionssubmittedthroughtheCustomerPortal,bothrelatedtotheadequacyandconsistencyoftheresponseaswellastimelinessindelivery.Inaddition,membersalsofeltthatequalaccesstoinformationcouldbeimproved,perhapswiththecreationofarobustknowledgebase.WhileICANNcreatedknowledgebasearticlesforthepurposeofequalaccesstoinformation,thisapproachmaybelesstimelyandexpansivethanasearchableknowledgebaselikelycouldbe.SomeDGMembersexpressedconcernsinthewaythatICANNsharedinformation,highlightingwebinarsinparticularaspotentiallyinsufficientinproperlydistributinginformation.ThePDP-WGcouldconsiderreachingouttoICANN’sGDDteamtoseewhethertheymayhavestatisticsontheirabilitytoachieveServiceLevelAgreements(SLAs)andmetricstohelpthePDP-WGunderstand,forinstance,whatelementsoftheprogrammayhaveinducedthemostcustomersupportcases.OutreachTheDG’sconcernsrelatingtoICANN’soutreacheffortswereprimarilyfocusedaroundtheperceivedlackofoutreachtoDevelopingCountries,providingthelackofApplicantSupportProgramuptakeasevidenceoftheseshortcomings.Thistopicwillbediscussedingreaterdetailinsection4.2.14onSupportforApplicantsFromDevelopingCountries.Inadditiontothatspecificelement,apotentialPDP-WGonNewgTLDSubsequentProceduresmaywanttoconsidersuggestingtargetedgroupsorsectors,communicationmethods,aswellasmetricstohelpidentifyifthecommunicationsplanwaseffective.APDP-WGmayalsowanttoconsiderwhatthemesshouldbeconveyedandtowhatparties,asitmaybebeneficialtocustomizemessagingbasedontheneedsoftheparticulardemographic.


o ImplementationGuidelineCo ICANNDraftCommunicationsPlan-

http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/historical-documentation/matrix-plans

• 4.2.11.4RationaleforPolicyDevelopmentTheDGdidnotanticipatepolicydevelopmentworkdirectlyrelatedto



Communications.However,apotentialPDP-WGonNewgTLDSubsequentProceduresmaywanttoconsiderprovidingimplementationguidancerelatedtocommunicationmethods,goalsforcommunications,successcriteria,andotherelements.

4.2.12ApplicationQueuing

• 4.2.12.1ExplanationofSubjectImplementationGuidelineDstatesthat:

Afirstcomefirstservedprocessingschedulewithintheapplicationroundwillbeimplementedandwillcontinueforanongoingprocess,ifnecessary.Applicationswillbetimeanddatestampedonreceipt.

TheAGBhadadifferentimplementationthanthe2007FinalReportrecommended.TheAGBanticipatedthatforInitialEvaluationatleast,allapplicationswouldbecompletedandpublishedinatimeframeoffivemonths,unlessthenumberofapplicationsexceeded500,inwhichcasetheAGBcalledforasecondarytimestampmechanisminordertoestablishbatchesforevaluationandsubsequentapplicationprocessingsteps.Inthe2012NewgTLDround,1930completeapplicationswerereceived,greatlyexceeding500applications,andthusrequiringtheestablishmentofbatchesasdictatedintheAGB.Theinitialsecondarytimestampmechanismwasdigitalarchery,whichwassuspendedduetoapplicants’reportsofinaccuraciesandinconsistencieswithinthesystem48.TheuseofarandomselectionmechanismwasconsideredbythecommunitybutwasdecidedagainstastherewasthepossibilityofviolatingCalifornialotterylaws.ICANNultimatelyendeduputilizingaprioritizationdrawtoestablishtheapplicationprocessingorder49.Themethodwasselectedafterconsultationwiththecommunityandwasintendedtosupporttheprinciplesofreliabilityandequitability.Theorderwouldaffectevaluation,releaseofresults,andothersubsequentstepsoftheprocess.Itshouldalsobenotedthatinthe2012roundoftheNewgTLDProgram,IDNstringswerebatchedfirst.

• 4.2.12.2QuestionsandConcernsRelatedtoSubjectTheDGMembersnotedthatthesecondarytime-stampprocess,asdescribedintheAGB,wasnotdevelopedoroperationalizedpriortothelaunchoftheprogram.Theywereparticularlyconcernedwiththedigitalarcherymethod,whichwaslatercancelled48Announcementcancellingdigitalarchery:https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2012-06-23-en49Announcementregardingprioritizationdraw:https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2012-10-10-en



afterthecommunitydiscoveredinaccuraciesanderrors.Theprioritizationdrawdidnotelicitspecificcomment,butmembershadcommentsregardinghowprocessingtookplaceaftertheorderwasestablished.Somemembersobservedthatapplicationswithlowerprioritynumbersseemedtobeprocessedaheadofthosewithhighernumbers,thoughtheseobservationsappearedanecdotal.Establishinganorderforprocessingallowedforapplicantsandtherestofthecommunitytohavecertaintyandpredictabilityintheevaluationprocess.However,havingtheorderestablishedthrougharandommeasureintroducesoperationalinefficiencies,asevaluatorsarelessabletobuildineconomiesofscalewhenforinstance,anumberofapplicationsmightbeusingthesameback-endprovider,orasingleapplicanthassubmittednumerous,essentiallyidenticalapplications.Theprioritizationdrawassuch,emphasizesfairness,bywayofrandomness,overefficiency.Asnotedabove,theAGBimplementation,andthesubsequentoperationalization,didnotfollowtheguidanceinthe2007FinalReportthatrecommendedfirstcomefirstservedprocessingscheduling.Therewereanumberofreasonsforimplementingadifferentprocessingmethodology,asfirstcomefirstservedintroducesanumberofpotentialissues,including:

o Applicantsrushingtocompleteapplications,possiblyforsakingqualityo Favoringapplicantsmostfamiliarwiththeprocessandrequirementso FavoringapplicantswhoarelocatedclosertoICANN’sserverso Creatingthepossibilityofaself-inflicteddistributeddenialofserviceattack

asapplicantsrushtoclickthesubmitbuttonfirst

ApotentialPDP-WGonNewgTLDSubsequentProceduresmaywanttodeliberateonadifferentapplicationprocessingmethodology,althoughcareshouldbetakeninconsideringtheimpactonotherareasoftheprogram.Forinstanceiffirstcomefirstservedwasstrictlyobserved,wouldthishaveanimpactontheneedforstringcontentionresolution?Changesasaresultofdeliberationsregardingsection4.2.7onApplicationRoundsshouldalsobetakenintoconsiderationandthequestions/concernsposedinthissectionmayberelevanttothatdiscussion.


o ImplementationGuidelineDo “UseofaDrawingforPrioritizingNewgTLDApplications”plan-

https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2012-10-10-en


Theaspectofthe2007FinalReportthatprovidedguidancewasImplementationGuidelineD,thoughaftercommunityconsultation,thisguidancewasnotfollowedin



implementationoroperationalization.Assuch,apotentialPDP-WGonNewgTLDSubsequentProceduresmaywanttoconsidermodifyingtheexistinglanguagetocodifytheactualimplementation,ifthePDP-WGweretoagreewiththeimplementation.Else,ifanewmethodologywererecommended,itmayrequirenewpolicydevelopmentorimplementationguidance.


• 4.2.13.1ExplanationofSubjectSomeDGMembersidentifiedthetopicofthelengthoftheapplicationsubmissionwindow.The2007FinalReportdidnotappeartospeaktothistopic,thoughImplementationGuidelineEisrelatedtosomedegree:

TheapplicationsubmissiondatewillbeatleastfourmonthsaftertheissueoftheRequestforProposalandICANNwillpromotetheopeningoftheapplicationround.

Duringthecommunitydiscussionsaboutthelaunchoftheprogram,therewassomedebateabouttheintentofthisImplementationGuideline.Thecommunityagreedthatthe“RequestforProposal”intheguidancereferredtotheAGB,astheAGBwasnotnamedassuchduringdeliberationstodevelopthe2007FinalReport.Asaresult,thisguidelinewasinterpretedtomeanthattheopeningoftheapplicationsubmissionperiodwouldbeatleastfourmonthsaftertheAGBwasapprovedbytheICANNBoard,withtheintentthatthetimewouldserveatleasttwopurposes:

o ICANNwouldpromotetheprogramforcommunitywideawareness,includingbeyondthepartiesthatactivelyparticipateintheICANNcommunity.

o ApplicantswouldfamiliarizethemselveswiththefinalAGBrequirements.Assuch,thelengthoftheapplicationsubmissionperiodwaspresumablynotanelementdiscussedinthe2007FinalReport,butwasincludedintheAGB.InclusionintheAGBallowedforpubliccommenttodebatethemeritsoftheproposedthreemonthapplicationsubmissionperiod.Specificdetailsregardingtheapplicationsubmissiondatesforthe2012NewgTLDroundcanbefoundintheAGB,section1.1.1ApplicationSubmissionDates.

• 4.2.13.2ProblemsCausedbyIssue

TheDGMembersdidnotidentifythelengthoftimebetweentheapprovaloftheAGBandthelaunchoftheprogramasanissue.However,thiscouldbeatopicthatwarrants



additionaldiscussion,perhapsinthecontextofthediscussionsaroundsection4.2.11onCommunications.TheDGMembersdidexpressconcernsregardingthelengthoftheapplicationsubmissionperiodhowever,withafewpartiesstatingthatitmaybetoobrief.Itshouldbenotedthattheuseofanapplicationsubmissionwindowisinsupportoftheround-basedformatforthe2012NewgTLDProgram.ProvidedtheNewgTLDProgramcontinuesasrounds-based,theapplicationsubmissionwindowlengthmaywarrantadditionaldebatetodetermineifitistheproperamountoftime.Initsdeliberations,itmaybeusefulforapossiblePDP-WGonNewgTLDSubsequentProcedurestocollectdata,possiblythroughapplicantsurveysorothermethods,todetermineiftherewaswidespreaddissatisfactionwiththelengthoftime.Inaddition,thePDP-WGshouldtakeintoaccountanyotherrecommendedchangestotheprogramthatmaysimplifyorcomplicatetheapplicationsubmissionprocess,asthatmayplayaroleindeterminingiftheapplicationsubmissionperiodshouldbeadjustedaccordingly.


o ImplementationGuidelineE:

• 4.2.13.4RationaleforPolicyDevelopmentAsnotedabove,theredonotappeartoberecommendationsinthe2007FinalReportrelatedtotheapplicationsubmissionperiodlength.Assuch,apossiblePDP-WGonNewgTLDSubsequentProceduresmaywanttoconsidercollectingdata,analyzingrecommendedchangestotheprogram,anddetermineiftheapplicationsubmissionperiodlengthwarrantspolicydevelopmentand/orimplementationguidance.Inaddition,ImplementationGuidelineErelatedtotheoutreachperiodmaywarrantclarificationorrefinement,asitwasseenasvaguebymanyinthecommunityduringimplementation.

4.2.14SupportforApplicantsFromDevelopingCountries

• 4.2.14.1ExplanationofSubjectInanefforttoincreaseglobaldiversityandrepresentationacrossregionswithintheNewgTLDProgram,theICANNcommunitydevelopedtheApplicantSupportProgram(ASP)50.TheASPsoughttoprovidefinancialandnon-financialsupporttoapplicantsfromdevelopingeconomies,therebyreducingcompetitivedisadvantagesthatmay

50ApplicantSupportProgrampageavailablehere:https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/candidate-support



preventthemfromparticipatingintheNewgTLDProgram.TheASPisalsoinsupportofImplementationGuidelineN,whichstates:ICANNmayputinplaceafeereductionschemeforgTLDapplicantsfromeconomiesclassifiedbytheUNasleastdeveloped.TheASPwastheimplementationofthefinalreportdeliveredbytheJointSO/ACNewgTLDApplicantSupportWorkingGroup(JASWG),charteredbytheGNSOandtheALAC51.TheASPprovidedfinancialandnon-financialsupportviathreemechanisms:

o FinancialassistanceintheformofareductioninthenewgTLDevaluationfee(i.e.,$47,000USDasopposedto$185,000USD)forapplicantsmeetingqualifications.

o ProbonoservicesviatheApplicantSupportDirectory,whichwascreatedtoconnectpotentialapplicantswhowishtoestablishanewpublicinterestgTLDregistryintheircommunitywithorganizationswhowishtooffereitherfinancialornon-financialassistance.

o EstablishmentofafundingmechanismfortheASP,whichreceived$2,000,000USDinseedfunding.


ThetopicofsupportforapplicantsfromDevelopingCountriesreceivedconsiderableattentionfrommembersoftheDG.Membersnotedthatofthe1930completeapplicationsreceivedbyICANN,onlythreeappliedforfinancialassistanceviatheASPprogram,withasingleapplicationmeetingthecriteria52.DGMemberswereconcernedwiththelackofusageoftheApplicantSupportProgramandidentifiedanumberofpossiblereasonsthatmayhavecontributedtothelimitednumberofapplicationsfortheASPprogram:

o ThemeasuresintroducedtopreventgamingoftheASPmayhavediscouragedpossibleapplicants.

o TherewasashorttrajectoryfromtheJASWGFinalReport,implementationoftherecommendations,andthelaunchoftheNewgTLDProgram,inclusiveoftheASP.

o Thelackof,orotherwiseinadequate,outreacheffortsfortheASP.o Thelackoffinancialsupportbeyondtheapplicationfeereductionforother

aspectsoftheprogram,likeobjections,stringcontentionresolution,post-

51JointSO/ACNewgTLDApplicantSupportWorkingGroup(JASWG)FinalReportavailablehere:http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/jas-final-report-13sep11-en.pdf52ApplicantSupportProgramreviewresults:https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/candidate-support/sarp-results-20mar13-en.pdf



delegationoperations,andotherexpensesassociatedwithrunningagTLDregistry.

SomeDGMembersprovidedsuggestionsonhowtoaddresssomeoftheissuesidentifiedabove,hopefullyincreasingutilizationoftheASPorsimilarprogram,suchas:

o ImprovingtheoutreachfortheASPaswellasimprovedoutreachingeneralfortheNewgTLDPrograminDevelopingCountries.

o CreatingarounddedicatedtoapplicantsfromDevelopingCountries,whichisdiscussedingreaterdetailinsection4.2.16onApplicationSubmissionLimits.

o Makingtheassistancemorecomprehensive,sothatitextendsbeyondjusttheapplicationfeereduction.

WithonlythreeASPapplicationsoutofatotalof1930applications,itisclearthatusageoftheASPwasminimal.However,theremaybeanumberofreasonswhythismaybethecase.ApossiblePDP-WGonNewgTLDSubsequentProceduresshouldseekdatainunderstandingwhyusagewaslimited,asitwillhelpinformthedevelopmentofanyupdatedsolutions.ThePDP-WGmayalsowanttoconsideridentifyingsuccesscriteriafortheprogramrelatedtocommunications,fundsmadeavailable,usageoftheprogram,andotherfactors.


o ImplementationGuidelineNo JointSO/ACNewgTLDApplicantSupportWorkingGroup(JASWG)project

page:http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/inactive/2011/jaso ApplicantSupportProgrampage-

https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/candidate-support

• 4.2.14.4Rationaleforpolicydevelopment

SupportforapplicantsfromdevelopingcountrieswasidentifiedinImplementationGuidelineN,butthesubstantiverecommendationsarefoundintheJASWGFinalReport,togetherwiththeBoardworkinggroupthatdevelopedanimplementationmodel.InitsresolutiontoapprovetheASP,theICANNBoardnotedthatnotallJASWGrecommendationswereaccepted53.ApossiblePDP-WGonNewgTLDSubsequentProceduresmaywanttoreviewtheexistingImplementationGuidelineandconsiderpossibleadditionalrecommendationstoimprovethesupportforapplicantsfromdevelopingnations.Worktosupportthis

53ICANNBoardResolutionapprovingtheASPanddirectingstafftocompleteimplementation:https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2011-12-08-en#1.1



effortmayincludeidentifyingrecommendedsupportmechanisms,evaluationcriteria,clearobjectives,successcriteria,andotherelements.GiventheinterestinthesubjectwithintheDGandthewidercommunity,thissubjectmaywarrantpolicydevelopment.Finally,theASPwasidentifiedinICANNBoardguidanceoninitialinputonareasforpossiblepolicywork54.

4.2.15DifferentTLDTypes

• 4.2.15.1ExplanationofSubjectThe2012roundoftheNewgTLDProgramwasoperationalizedwiththegeneralintenttotreatallapplicationsequally,withthesameprocessexpectedtogoverntheevaluationforallapplicants.Consistentwiththisapproach,onlytwoapplicationcategorieswereidentifiedintheAGB,describedindetailinsection1.2.3.1below:

ForpurposesofthisApplicantGuidebook,acommunity-basedgTLDisagTLDthatisoperatedforthebenefitofaclearlydelineatedcommunity.Designationornon-designationofanapplicationascommunity-basedisentirelyatthediscretionoftheapplicant.Anyapplicantmaydesignateitsapplicationascommunity-based;however,eachapplicantmakingthisdesignationisaskedtosubstantiateitsstatusasrepresentativeofthecommunityitnamesintheapplicationbysubmissionofwrittenendorsementsinsupportoftheapplication.Additionalinformationmayberequestedintheeventofacommunitypriorityevaluation(refertosection4.2ofModule4).Anapplicantforacommunity-basedgTLDisexpectedto:

1. Demonstrateanongoingrelationshipwithaclearlydelineatedcommunity.

2. HaveappliedforagTLDstringstronglyandspecificallyrelatedtothecommunitynamedintheapplication.

3. HaveproposeddedicatedregistrationandusepoliciesforregistrantsinitsproposedgTLD,includingappropriatesecurityverificationprocedures,commensuratewiththecommunity-basedpurposeithasnamed.

4. Haveitsapplicationendorsedinwritingbyoneormoreestablishedinstitutionsrepresentingthecommunityithasnamed.

Forpurposesofdifferentiation,anapplicationthathasnotbeendesignatedascommunity-basedwillbereferredtohereinafterinthisdocumentasastandardapplication.AstandardgTLDcanbeusedforanypurposeconsistentwiththe

54Ibid



requirementsoftheapplicationandevaluationcriteria,andwiththeregistryagreement.Astandardapplicantmayormaynothaveaformalrelationshipwithanexclusiveregistrantoruserpopulation.Itmayormaynotemployeligibilityoruserestrictions.Standardsimplymeansherethattheapplicanthasnotdesignedtheapplicationascommunity-based.

The2007FinalReportprovidedguidancearoundcommunity-basedapplications,butnotinregardstoanyothercategoriesofTLDtypes.DuringthedeliberationsoftheGNSOandthewidercommunityincreatingthe2007FinalReport,thetopicofTLDtypeswasconsidered,butitwasthoughttobeextremelydifficulttopredictappropriatecategoriesandtodesignthecorrespondingrequirements.Asnotedabove,thecatch-allcategoryof“standardapplication”wasnotintendedtoberestrictiveandissimplyanapplicationthatisnot“community-based.”Theimplementationofminimalapplicationtypescarriedovertootheraspectsoftheprogram,whereeachapplicationhadessentiallythesameapplicationsubmissionprocessandevaluationpaths(withtheexceptionofCommunityPriorityEvaluationforcommunity-basedapplicationsinstringcontentionsets).ItshouldbenotedthatinMarchof2014,afterconsultingwiththeGNSOCouncil,theNGPCapprovedSpecification13totheRegistryAgreement,whicheffectivelyapprovedthe.Brandcategoryofapplications55.


TheNewgTLDProgram,utilizedamostlyonesizefitsallapplicationprocess,astherewereoriginallyonlytwocategoriesofapplications.TherewereconcernsraisedbyDGMembersthatthisonesizefitsallmethodologyhamperedinnovationandwasinefficient,whichwasdiscussedaboveinsections4.2.8onAccreditationProgramsand4.2.9onSystems.Asnotedabove,a.BrandcategorywascreatedinMarchof2014,longaftertheNewgTLDProgramlaunched,providingsomelevelofevidencethatonesizefitsallmayrequiresomeexceptions.However,thecreationofSpecification13requiredextensivecommunityinput,indicatingaswellthatcreatingcustomizedrequirementsforcertainapplicationtypesmayremaindifficult.ThetopicofApplicationTypesreceivedcommentfromtheDG,GDDStaff(viastaffinputtotheDG56),andtheICANNBoard(viaaBoardResolutionandAnnexArelatedtoaresolutiononPlanningforFuturegTLDApplicationRounds57).Someexamplesofcategoriesthatwereproposedtobeconsideredincludeclosedgenerics,further

55ICANNBoardResolutionregardingSpecification13:https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-new-gtld-2014-03-26-en56Ibid57Ibid



refinementsaround.Brand,sensitivestrings,andstringsrelatedtoregulatedmarkets.TheinputreceivedfromtheICANNBoardwasdescribedas“specialcaseconsiderations”butwasessentiallyconcerningthesubjectofapplicationtypesbeingdiscussedinthissection:

Existingpolicyadviceisbroadlyapplicablee.g.,policyadvicespecifiedrequirementstobeappliedtoallapplied-forstrings.Otherthanthecommunityconsiderationsnotedabove,policyadvicedoesnotprovideabasisfordifferingrequirementsforcertaintypesofapplications,TLDuses,orbusinessmodels.Followingthepublicationoftheapplicationsreceivedduringtheapplicationperiod,issueswereraisedtotheNGPCconcerningdevelopmentofrulesforspecialcases.Examplesinclude:

a) thediscussionof“closedgeneric”applications.TheNGPCrequestedguidance58fromtheGNSOonthistopicon2Feb13,ifitwishedtoprovidesuchguidance;theGNSOprovidedaresponseon597Mar13.

b) considerationofa“.brand”categoryandapplicablerequirements.TheNGPCpassedaresolution60on26March14onthisissue,alsoprovidingtheGNSOCouncilanopportunitytoadviseonwhethertheproposedamendmentwasinconsistentwiththeletterandintentofGNSOPolicy.TheGNSOprovideditsresponse61on9May14.

c) GACadvice62alsoincludedrecommendationsrelatingto“categories”ofstrings(e.g.,sensitivestringsorstringsrelatingtoregulatedmarkets)andrequirementsthatshouldbeappliedtothesestrings.

Additionalpolicyworkonidentifyingparticularcasesofstrings,applications,orTLDregistrationmodels,andwhetheranysuchshouldberecognizedasrequiringparticulartreatment,couldbeundertaken.

Thecreationofcategoriesofapplicationscanhavefar-reachingimpactsontheprogram,sodifferencesintheapplicationsubmissionprocess,evaluationrequirements,contractualrequirements,fees,andotheraspectsoftheprogramshouldbethoroughlyconsidered.Byintroducingadditionalvariabilityintotheprogram,itcouldcreatefairnessissuesandincentunintendedbehaviors,suchasapplicantspickingthemost58NGPCCorrespondencetoGNSOregardingclosedgenerics:https://features.icann.org/closed-generic-top-level-domains59GNSOcorrespondencetoNGPCregardingclosedgenerics:http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/robinson-to-crocker-chalaby-07mar13-en.pdf60ICANNBoardresolutionregardingSpecification13:https://features.icann.org/approval-registry-agreement-specification-13-brand-category-applicants61GNSOcorrespondencetoNGPCregardingSpecification13”http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/robinson-to-chalaby-09may14-en.pdf62GACBeijingCommuniqué:https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/27132037/Beijing%20Communique%20april2013_Final.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1365666376000&api=v2



advantageouspathtoapproval.Subsequently,thoughtwouldneedtobegiveninhowrestrictivethesecategorieswillbeenforcedaftersigningaRegistryAgreement.Inrelationtothepossibletopicsofsensitivestringsorstringsrelatedtoregulatedmarkets,whichstemlargelyfromtheGAC’sBeijingCommuniquéonSafeguardsonNewgTLDs,itmaybeparticularlychallengingforICANN(andproviders)toattempttovalidate,forexample,applicants’compliancewithawidebreadthofindustrystandardsorprofessionallicensingorrequirements.ThoughtwouldneedtobegiventohowstringsrelatedtocertainhighlyregulatedindustriesormarketscouldbevalidatedandgovernedwithintheNewgTLDProgram.Thereisexperiencefromthe2012roundthatwillbetterinformtheidentificationofcategoriesofapplicationtypes,thoughitmaystillbechallengingtoensuretherightapplicationtypesareidentifiedanddefined.Itshouldthereforebeconsideredwhatrecourseshouldbeavailableshouldacertaincategorybecriticallyleftabsentwhenthenextround(orothermechanism)oftheNewgTLDProgramlaunches.

• 4.2.15.3RelevantGuidanceo GACBeijingCommuniqué-

https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/27132037/Beijing%20Communique%20april2013_Final.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1365666376000&api=v2

o GACAdvice:Category1Safeguards-http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/gac-advice/cat1-safeguards

o GACAdvice:Category2Safeguards-https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/gac-advice/cat2-safeguards

o GDDInputtotheDG-https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/49356545/Staff-input-to-DG-23jan15.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1425335232000&api=v2

o AnnexArelatedtoaresolutiononPlanningforFuturegTLDApplicationRounds-https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/resolutions-annex-a-17nov14-en.pdf


Definingapplicationcategorieswasdeemedtobechallengingduringthedevelopmentofthe2007FinalReportanditwilllikelyremainchallengingifapotentialPDP-WGonNewgTLDSubsequentProceduresdecidestoundertakethetask.Beyondsimplyidentifyingcategories,thePDP-WGwouldneedtoconsiderthedevelopmentofdistinctandenforceabledefinitions,developmentofseparaterequirementsandprocesses,validationandenforcementmeasures,andaprocesstoswitchcategoriespost-delegation,amongmanyotherareasofwork.



Giventhelikelycomplexityofestablishingapplicationcategories,policydevelopmentisexpectedifthissubjectisundertakenbythePDP-WG.


• 4.2.16.1ExplanationofSubjectTherewerenopolicyrecommendationsinthe2007FinalReportthatsoughttoplacerestrictionsonthenumberofapplicationsthatcouldbesubmittedfromasingleapplicant.Assuch,inthe2012NewgTLDProgramround,applicantswerenotlimitedinthenumberofapplicationstheycouldsubmit.


WiththecurrentimplementationoftheNewgTLDProgram,theDGnotedthatallowingunlimitedapplicationsfromanyapplicantcanmakeitmoredifficultforapplicantswithlimitedfundingtoadequatelycompete.Allowingunlimitedapplicationscreatesmorecompetitionforthemostvaluablestrings,makingitespeciallydifficultforapplicantsfromunderservedregionstorealisticallysecurecertainstrings.Withauctionsidentifiedasthemethodoflastresorttoresolvestringcontention,likelybenefittingapplicantswiththedeepestpockets,itmakesitchallengingforICANNtoachieveArticle1,Section2,6ofitsBylaws:


Inconsideringestablishinglimits,DGMembersidentifiedanumberofquestionsorconcernsthatwouldrequiredeliberations,including:

o Aretherequestionsoffairnessinestablishinglimits?Arethereanti-trustimplicationsforICANNinpossiblyrestrictingcompetitionforascarceresource?

o Whatisareasonablelimitofapplicationsperapplicant?o Withtheuseofshelf-companiesandconsultants,isitfeasibletorestrict

applicationsfromanapplicant?Besidesrestrictingthenumberofapplicationsthatanapplicantcansubmit,theDGalsoconsideredmeasuresthatcouldbetakenaftersubmission.Forinstance,alimitcouldbeestablishedafterstringcontentionsetsareestablished,requiringapplicantstoprioritizeintheselectionoftheirstrings.TheDGalsoidentifiedtheuseofacomparativeevaluationresolutionmethod,whichforinstancecouldweightcertainattributes,suchasthoserelatedtocommunities,higherthancommercialinterests.However,inconsideringalessobjectivemeasurelikecomparativeevaluation,itmaywarranttaking



intoaccountthechallengesinimplementingandoperatingCommunityPriorityEvaluation(CPE),discussedindetailinsection4.4.5onCommunityApplications.Acomparativeevaluationinherentlycreateswinnersandlosersandtheloserwillbeinclinedtochallengetheresultmoresothaninthecasewheremoreobjectivemeasuresareutilized(i.e.,auctions).TheDGnotedthepossibilityofadedicatedroundforcertaincategoriesofapplicants,suchasthosefromDevelopingCountries,tohelpaddresstheissuesidentifiedabove.TheDGalsonotedanalternativeapproachtoadedicatedroundcouldbeplacingcapsonapplicantsfromcertainregions,industries,etc.Theconceptofadedicatedroundorcapsonapplicationsfromcertainpartiesmaybeconsideredexclusionaryandcouldintroducefairnessissuesthatshouldbefullyconsidered.


o N/A

• 4.2.16.4Rationaleforpolicydevelopment:

Applicationlimitswerenotdiscussedinthe2007FinalReport.IfapotentialPDP-WGonNewgTLDSubsequentProceduresdecidestoundertakethetask,itmayneedtoconsiderdefiningtheapplicationlimitationmechanism,assessingandresolvinganyquestionsrelatedtothelegalityofthemechanism,establishingrequirements,establishingvalidationandenforcementmeasures,amongotherelements,assuggestedbytheDG.Giventhelikelycomplexityofestablishingapplicationlimits,policydevelopmentisanticipatedifthissubjectisundertakenbythePDP-WG.

4.2.17VariableFees


Forthe2012NewgTLDProgramround,theapplicationfeeof$185,000USDwasthesameforallapplicants,savefortwoexceptions-applicantseligiblefortheyear2000proofofconceptcreditandapplicantsapprovedviatheApplicantSupportProgram(ASP).Asapplicationtypeswerelimitedtostandardapplicationsandcommunity-basedapplications,asingleapplicationfeepricepointwasselected.Otherelementsthatonlyappliedtocertainapplicationsrequiredthesubmissionofadditionalfeesthatwerecollectedseparately,whichincludedobjections,registryservicesevaluation,andCommunityPriorityEvaluation(CPE).Thesingleapplicationfeepricepointwasalsoconsistentwiththeapproachtotreateveryapplicationindividuallyandconsistently.



Whiletherewaslittlevariabilityintheapplicationfeeamount,itcouldbeconsideredconsistentwithImplementationGuidelineB:

ApplicationfeeswillbedesignedtoensurethatadequateresourcesexisttocoverthetotalcosttoadministerthenewgTLDprocess.Applicationfeesmaydifferforapplicants.

TheASPwasareflectionofImplementationGuidelineN:

ICANNmayputinplaceafeereductionschemeforgTLDapplicantsfromeconomiesclassifiedbytheUNasleastdeveloped.


Asnotedabove,establishingthesingleapplicationfee,withfewexceptions,wasconsistentwiththeapproachofminimalapplicationtypesandevaluatingeachapplicationindividuallyandconsistently.DGMembersnotedthatprogramelementsthatlikelyresultedineconomiesofscale,suchasthesubmissionofessentiallyidenticalapplicationsortheutilizationofalimitedsetofback-endproviders,couldbeconsideredforareducedapplicationfeeamountinsubsequentprocedures.TheDGalsonotedthatthepossibleintroductionofdifferentTLDtypes,suchas.Brand,stringsrelatedtoregulatedindustries,orothertypesthatapotentialPDP-WGonNewgTLDSubsequentProceduresmayseektorecommend,couldresultindifferingapplicationevaluationtrackswhichmayaccordinglywarranttheconsiderationofdifferentapplicationsfees.ThetopicofvariableapplicationfeesislikelyanoutputofmanyothersubjectsthatthepossiblePDP-WGmayconsider,suchastheaforementionedapplicationtypes,ASP,accreditationprograms,orothernewdevelopments.Thissubjectshouldalsobeconsideredinconcertwithdiscussionsrelatedtosection4.2.10onApplicationFees(orcombined).


o ImplementationGuidelineBo ImplementationGuidelineN


Asnotedabove,theapplicationfeeislikelytobedrivenbyanychangestotheprogramandshouldremaindependentupontheprincipleofcostrecovery(asopposedtogeneratingexcessrevenues),asrecommendedinImplementationGuidelineB.In



addition,theexistinglanguageinImplementationGuidelineBsupportstheconceptofdifferingapplicationfeeamountsfordifferentapplicants.Thecreationofapplicationtypescouldresultintherequirementtoperformanewcostinganalysisexercisebasedonchangesthathavebeenrecommendedforimplementation.Thederivationofthefeeamountsmaybedrivenbychangestotheprogram,andassuch,policydevelopmentwasnotanticipatedbytheDG,thoughapossiblePDP-WGmayreachadifferentconclusion.Notably,subjectssuchastheASPdonotcurrentlyoperateundertheprincipleofcostrecoveryliketherestoftheprogramandmayrequirepolicydevelopment.

4.3Group2Legal/RegulatoryThesubjectsinthissectionareinrelationtothefollowingelementsfromthe2007FinalReport,ascategorizedbytheDG:

o Recommendations5,10,14,15,16,17and19;o ImplementationGuidanceI,J,KandL,and63;o NewTopics:“Second-levelRightsProtectionMechanisms”,

“Registry/RegistrarStandardization”,“GlobalPublicInterest”and“IGO/INGOProtections”

4.3.1ReservedNames

• 4.3.1.1ExplanationofSubjectInsupportofthePDPontheIntroductionofNewGenericTop-LevelDomains,theGNSOCouncilcreatedtheReservedNamesWorkingGroup(RN-WG),whichwastaskedwithdevelopingrecommendationsregardingtheroleandtreatmentofreserveddomainnamesatthefirstandsecondlevelwithinNewgTLDs.TheRN-WGworkedtodevelopasetofreservednamesdefinitionsthatwouldapply:

o Atthetop-levelregardinggTLDstringrestrictions;o Atthesecond-levelascontractualconditions,and;o Atthethird-levelascontractualconditions,whereapplicable.

TheRN-WGreviewed,considered,andintegratedrecommendationsfoundintheGACPrinciplesRegardingNewgTLDs64andtheIDN-WGFinalReport65,eventuallydevelopingasetoffinalrecommendations,availableinthegroup’sfinalreport,publishedinMayof

63Ibid64GACPrinciplesRegardingNewgTLDs:https://archive.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/gac-principles-regarding-new-gtlds-28mar07-en.pdf65IDN-WGFinalReport:http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/idn-wg-fr-22mar07.htm



200766.ThisreportwasreviewedandtherecommendationswereupdatedatICANN29inPuertoRico,inparticularaffectingrecommendationsrelatedtoIDNs.ThesefinalrecommendationswerethenintegratedintothePDPontheIntroductionofNewGenericTop-LevelDomains,wheretheycanbefoundintheFinalReportunderTermofReference-SelectionCriteria,section4,regardingRecommendation5.Recommendation5statesverysimplythat:

StringsmustnotbeaReservedWord.The2007FinalReportprovidesthespecifictop-level,second-level,andthird-levelstringrestrictions.TheimplementationofRecommendation5wasnotmerelyalistofstringsthatapplicantswerepreventedfromapplyingforandinstead,wereintegratedintoanumberofelementsregardingthestringreviewsdescribedintheAGB.Forinstance,whiletherewasalistoftop-levelreservednamesinsection2.2.1.2.1oftheAGB,theRN-WGrecommendationsalsoguidedthedevelopmentofthetechnicalstringrequirementsinsection2.2.1.3.2oftheAGBonstringcompositionforASCIIandIDNstringsaswellastheGeographicNamesrequirementsinsection2.2.1.4.2oftheAGB.

• 4.3.1.2QuestionsandConcernsRelatedtoSubjectTheReservedNameslistandstringrequirementswereintendedtoprovideameasureofcertaintytoapplicantsinselectingtheirstrings,whichgiventheinabilitytochangetheirstringafterapplicationsubmission,wasofupmostimportance.Itwasacknowledgedthattheseprovisionsmightnotbefullycomprehensive,asevidencedbytheexistenceoftheDNSStabilityreviewdescribedinsection2.2.1.3.1oftheAGB.DGmembersnotedthatthestringrequirementsshouldbere-examined,todetermineifthepolicycouldbechangedinregardstothingslikespecialcharacters,2letterstrings,singleletterstrings,etc.TheDGalsonotedthattherequirementsaroundgeographicnamesmayrequiredebateaswell,asissueswereencounteredaroundcertainstrings,especiallythosethatrelatedtogeographicregionsorregionalindicatorsasidentifiedintheGAC’sBeijingCommuniquéfrom201367.Additionally,countryorterritorynameswereunavailableinthe2012NewgTLDProgramroundpertheguidanceinsection2.2oftheGACPrinciplesRegardingNewgTLDs:

66RN-WGFinalReport:http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/final-report-rn-wg-23may07.htm67GACBeijingCommuniqué:https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/27132037/Beijing%20Communique%20april2013_Final.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1365666376000&api=v2



ICANNshouldavoidcountry,territoryorplacenames,andcountry,territoryorregionallanguageorpeopledescriptions,unlessinagreementwiththerelevantgovernmentsorpublicauthorities.

ApotentialPDP-WGonNewgTLDSubsequentProcedurescouldconsidercollaboratingwithotherpartsoftheICANNcommunity,suchastheGACorccNSOinparticular,indeterminingifstringsdescribedaboveshouldbeallowedandifso,whatrequirementswouldbeneededtogovernthatprocess.ThePDP-WGshouldalsoconsidertheworkoftheCross-CommunityWorkingGrouponUseofCountry/TerritoryNamesasTLDsbeforereachinganyconclusions.


o Recommendation2o Recommendation5o ReservedNamesWorkingGroup(RN-WG)FinalReport-

http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/final-report-rn-wg-23may07.htmo ExcerptsfromRN-WGReport-http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-

gtlds/excerpts-gnso-reserved-names-wg-report-22oct08.pdfo GACPrinciplesRegardingNewgTLDs-http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-

gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htmo Cross-CommunityWorkingGrouponUseofCountry/TerritoryNamesasTLDs

-http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/ccwg-unct.htmo ProtectionofIGO-INGOIdentifiersinallgTLDs-

http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/igo-ingo

• 4.3.1.4RationaleforPolicyDevelopmentIfapotentialPDP-WGonNewgTLDSubsequentProceduresrecommendsthatmaterialchangesareneededtoRecommendation5orthecompositionoftheReservedNameslist,asnotedinSpecification5ofthebaseagreement,anditsusagewithintheprogram,policydevelopmentislikelyneeded.

4.3.2Baseregistryagreement

• 4.3.2.1ExplanationofSubjectThe2007FinalReportrecommendedthatabaseregistryagreementbedevelopedinsupportoftheimplementationofthepolicyrecommendations.ThebaseagreementwouldbeavailabletopotentialapplicantsatleastfourmonthspriortotheopeningoftheNewgTLDProgramapplicationsubmittalperiod,allowingapplicantstobetterunderstandcontractualrequirementsandmakeamoreinformeddecisionabout



applyinganddesigningtheirbusinessplan.Therewereseveralrecommendationsthatwereapplicabletothebaseagreement.Recommendation10:

Theremustbeabasecontractprovidedtoapplicantsatthebeginningoftheapplicationprocess.

Recommendation14:

Theinitialregistryagreementtermmustbeofacommerciallyreasonablelength.

Recommendation15:

Theremustberenewalexpectancy.

ImplementationGuidelineJ

ThebasecontractshouldbalancemarketcertaintyandflexibilityforICANNtoaccommodatearapidlychangingmarketplace.

ThebaseagreementwasavailableinModule5oftheveryfirstdraftversionoftheAGBandonwardstothefinalversionAGB,andwasthereforeavailableforcommunityrefinementthroughouttheentireprocess.ThebaseagreementwasintendedtobethestartingpointforallregistriesforsigningtheRegistryAgreement,butitdidnotprecludeapplicantsfromnegotiatingspecificchangeswithICANN.Althoughtheprogram,theAGB,andbyextensionthebaseagreement,wereapprovedbytheICANNBoardinJune201168,anumberofsubsequentchangestothebaseagreementwereneeded.On11January2012,ICANNpublishedarevisedAGBthatincludedminorrevisionstoclarifysomeexistingprovisionsofthebaseagreement69,whichwastheversionofthebaseagreementmadeavailablepriortothelaunchoftheNewgTLDProgram.Althoughintendedtobethefinalformofthebaseagreement,itwasrevisedmultipletimesasadditionalprogramelementswereworkedoninthecommunityandrequiredintegrationintothebaseagreement.TheJune2012versionofthebaseagreementhadaminorcorrectiontoareferenceinSpecification3ofthebaseagreement.

68June2011AGB:https://archive.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/rfp-clean-30may11-en.pdf69June2012AGB:http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/historical-documentation/matrix-agb-v9



TheJuly2013versionintegratedPublicInterestCommitments(PICs)andtheNewgTLDregistryoperatorrequirementtouseregistrarsthatwereapartytothe2013RAAviaSpecification1170.TheOctober2013versionintegratedprotectionsforIntergovernmentalOrganizations(IGOs),theInternationalOlympicCommittee,andtheInternationalRedCrossandRedCrescentwithinSpecification5,aswellasintegratinga“NameCollisionOccurrenceManagement”sectionwithinSpecification671.TheJanuary2014version,whichisthecurrentformofthebaseagreement,insertedURLsinthesectionsbelow,whereplaceholdershadpreviouslyexisted72:

o Section2.19(RRDRP)o Section1ofSpecification7(TrademarkClearinghouseRequirements)o Section2(a)ofSpecification7(PPDRPandRRDRP)o Section2(b)ofSpecification7(URS)o Section2ofSpecification11(PICDRP)

InFebruaryof2014,theNGPCadoptedanimplementationframeworktoaddressGACCategory1SafeguardAdvicerelatedto“consumerprotection,sensitivestrings,andregulatedmarkets”73,whichrequiredstandardizedsafeguardstobeaddedtoSpecification11asPICs.InMarchof2014,theNGPCpassedaresolutionapprovingSpecification13for.BrandTLDs74.


TheDGmembersidentifiedspecificconcerns,butfewseemedtoapplydirectlytotheexisting2007FinalReportguidanceandtheimplementationofthoserecommendations.TheconcernsoftheDGweremostlyfocusedonthefactthatthebaseagreementwentthroughanumberofnewversionsafterthelaunchoftheprogram.

70July2013versionofthebaseagreement:https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/base-agreement-2013-02-05-en71October2013versionofthebaseagreement:https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/agreement-approved-16oct13-en.pdf72January2014versionofthebaseagreement:http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/agreement-approved-09jan14-en.pdf73ICANNBoardresolutionadoptingimplementationframeworkregardingGACCategory1SafeguardAdvice:https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-new-gtld-2014-02-05-en#1.a74ICANNBoardresolutionapprovingSpecification13:https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-new-gtld-2014-03-26-en#1.a



However,theDGidentifiedanumberofspecificquestions,manyregardingthecontractualrequirementsofregistries.Inaddition,publiccommentreceivedtothePreliminaryIssueReportsuggestedthatsomeelements,suchasregistrypricing,sunriseperiodsandpractices,andotherthingshavebeenperceivedbysomeinthecommunitytohavecircumventtheintendedgoals/protectionsdevelopedbythecommunity,especiallyinregardstopotentialregistrantsseekingtoprotecttheirrightsinnames.Thesetopicsmaybeappropriatetobediscussedinpartinthecontextof4.3.7onSecond-levelRightsProtectionMechanisms,buttheenforcementofanynewrequirementsthatmaybeagreeduponwouldbeviathebaseagreement/RegistryAgreement.Assuch,aPDP-WGcouldconsideramendingexistingbaseagreementlanguageinaccordancewithdefinedpolicygoals.Anyneworamendedrequirementsmayalsowarrantinclusioninsectionssuchas4.6.2onApplicantReviews:Technical/OperationalandFinancial,whereforinstance,questionscouldbeaskedintheEvaluationQuestionsandCriteria.Ensuringconsistencybetweenquestionsasked,therepresentationsmadeinapplications,andtheenforceabilityofthoserepresentationsviasignedRegistryAgreementsmaybeatopicforconsideration.

o Doesasinglebaseagreementmakesenseforalltypesofregistries?o Shouldthebaseagreementbeavailableindifferentlanguages?o HowcanSpecification13,relatedto.Brandregistries,beclarified,or

otherwiseimproved?o Shouldrules,definitions,andrequirementsbeestablishedaroundtheselling

andmaintenanceofpremiumnames?o Shouldthereberulesandrestrictionsaroundregistrypricing,particularly

aroundpremiumnames?IsitappropriateforICANNtohavearoleinenforcingrestrictionsaroundpricing?Arethereotherapproachesthatcanbetakentoaddressconcerns?

o Arepublicinterestcommitments(PICs),viaSpecification11,sufficienttoprotecttheinterestsofpotentiallyaffectedparties?

o Shouldtherulesaroundreservationofdomainnamesbytheregistrybechanged?

o ShouldthereadditionalcontractualobligationsforhighlyregulatedTLDsApotentialPDP-WGonNewgTLDSubsequentProceduresmaywanttoconsiderthesequestions,amongothers,duringtheirdeliberations.ThePDP-WGmayalsowanttosuggestmethodstoavoidchangestothebaseagreementafterthelaunchofsubsequentprocedures.AnadditionalareathatmayrequireattentionfromthePDP-WGisthedevelopmentofrequirementsarounddifferentapplicationtypes,asasinglebaseagreementmaybeimpracticalforthatsituation.




o Recommendation10:o Recommendation14:o Recommendation15:o ImplementationGuidelineJo BaseAgreement-https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/base-

agreement-contracting


Thedevelopmentofthebaseagreementappearedtobeconsistentwiththerecommendationsfromthe2007FinalReport.However,thereareanumberofelementsthatmayrequirediscussionswithinapotentialPDP-WGonNewgTLDSubsequentProcedures,notablyaroundthepossibledevelopmentofdifferentcontractualrequirementsfordifferentTLDsandsuggestionsonhowtopreventchangestothebaseagreementpostprogramlaunch.Consequently,policydevelopmentmaybenecessary.

4.3.3RegistrantProtections

• 4.3.3.1ExplanationofSubjectPrincipleDstatesthat:

AsetoftechnicalcriteriamustbeusedforassessinganewgTLDregistryapplicanttominimisetheriskofharmingtheoperationalstability,securityandglobalinteroperabilityoftheInternet.

AndintheattachmenttoModule2intheAGB75,itstates:

Registrantprotectionisemphasizedinboththecriteriaandthescoring.Examplesofthisincludeaskingtheapplicantto:• Planfortheoccurrenceofcontingenciesandregistryfailurebyputtingin

placefinancialresourcestofundtheongoingresolutionofnameswhileareplacementoperatorisfoundorextendednoticecanbegiventoregistrants,

• Demonstrateacapabilitytounderstandandplanforbusinesscontingenciestoaffordsomeprotectionsthroughthemarketplace,

• AdheretoDNSstabilityandsecurityrequirementsasdescribedinthetechnicalsection,and

• Provideaccesstothewidestvarietyofservices.

75Ibid



Thetechnicalevaluationrequirementsincludedseveralquestionsrelatedtoregistryfailureprotections,suchasregistrycontinuity,registrytransition,andfailovertesting.Inaddition,therewereprogramelementsliketheContinuingOperationsInstrument(COI)inQuestion50oftheevaluationcriteriaandSpecification8ofthebaseagreementandtheEmergencyBack-endRegistryOperator(EBERO)asadditionalregistrantprotectionmeasures.


Whiletherewerenoobjectionsraisedtoregistrantprotectionsinthegeneralsense,therewasaconcernraisedbytheDGthatregistrantprotectionscouldbeconsideredunnecessarywhentherearenoregistrantsintheregistry,outsideoftheregistryitself,thatpresumablywouldnotrequireprotections,asthecasemaybefor.Brandorotherpossibleclosedorexclusiveuseregistries.Thissubjectmaywarrantconsiderationduringwiderdiscussionsaroundapplicationtypes.Aswritten,theAGBappearstohaveassumedthattherewouldalwaysberegistrantsthatmayrequireprotectionintheeventofregistryfailure.ApossiblePDP-WGonNewgTLDSubsequentProceduresmaywanttoconsideriftherearepracticalchangesthatcanbemadetoaccountforcircumstanceswheretheremaybenoregistrantsthatrequireprotections.Thedevelopmentofaseparatestandardincertainspecifiedcasesmaybewarranted.


o PrincipleDo AttachmenttoModule2intheAGB


Registrantprotectionsareanimportantaspectoftheprogramanddeterminingiftheyareunneededincertaincircumstancesshouldbecarefullyconsidered.Assuch,apotentialPDP-WGonNewgTLDSubsequentProceduresmaywanttoconsiderpolicydevelopmentinestablishingtherequirementswhereexceptionsmaybeapplicable.

4.3.4ContractualCompliance

• 4.3.4.1ExplanationofSubjectWithinthebaseagreement,andsubsequentlytheRegistryAgreementsthatapplicantssign,areprovisionsspellingoutthecontractualrequirementsthattheapplicants,or



registriesatthatstage,mustmeet,orbesubjecttospecificenforcementmeasures.ThecontractualcompliancemechanismsrelatedtoregistriesareinsupportofPrincipleE:

AsetofoperationalcriteriamustbesetoutincontractualconditionsintheregistryagreementtoensurecompliancewithICANNpolicies.

AndRecommendation17:

Aclearcomplianceandsanctionsprocessmustbesetoutinthebasecontractwhichcouldleadtocontracttermination.

Asnotedinsection5.4.2oftheAGB:

ICANN’scontractualcompliancefunctionwillperformauditsonaregularbasistoensurethatgTLDregistryoperatorsremainincompliancewithagreementobligations,aswellasinvestigateanycomplaintsfromthecommunityregardingtheregistryoperator’sadherencetoitscontractualobligations.


TheDGdidnothavespecificconcernsrelatedtothissubject,butwanteditcapturedasapotentialtopicfordiscussionandtoensurethatcontractualcompliance,asitrelatestonewgTLDs,maybeconsideredwithinscopeintheeventthatthereareconcernsidentifiedduringthecourseofpossibledeliberations.However,itshouldbenotedthattheroleofcontractualcomplianceistoensurethatICANN’scontractedpartiesfulfilltherequirementssetforthintheiragreementwithICANN76;changingthisroleisnotwithintheremitofaGNSOPDP-WG.Publiccommentsidentifiedanumberofoperationalpracticesthatthecommentersfoundtroubling,thoughtheynotethatICANNcontractualcomplianceisonlyabletoenforcecontractualobligationsorprohibitionsagainstcertainconductthatareaccountedforintheRegistryAgreement.Introducingnewrequirementsonregistrieswouldneedtobedoneinthecontextofanagreement(i.e.,baseagreement/RegistryAgreement)forcontractualcompliancetobeabletoensurethefulfillmentofthoserequirements.Anothercommentnotedthatitisunclearhowmuchreliancecanbeplacedontherepresentationsmadebyapplicantsintheirsubmittedapplication.Thisposesachallengeastherepresentationsareintendedtobeusedforpubliccomment,GACAdvice,objections,etc.However,theabilitytorelyonapplicationstatementsmayhavebeenunderminedbychangerequeststotheserepresentations,orbythepossibilitythattheywerenotadequatelyintegratedintothesignedRegistryAgreementinordertobe

76Seehttps://www.icann.org/resources/pages/compliance-2012-02-25-en



enforceable,thoughSpecification11intheRAwasintendedtoaddressthisconcern,atleastinpart.Theseissuesmaybemoreappropriatelydiscussedandpossiblyaddressedbymakingchangestotheapplicationsubmission,evaluation,andcontractingprocesses,ratherthaninthecontextofcontractualcompliance.


o PrincipleEo Recommendation17


AstherewerenospecificconcernsidentifiedbytheDG,thesubjectofContractualComplianceisnotseentorequireanytypeofpolicydevelopment.Publiccommentsidentifiedconcernsaroundapplicantrepresentationsintheirapplications,thereliancethecommunitycanplaceonthoserepresentations,andhowthoserepresentationsareultimatelyintegratedintotheRegistryAgreement.Theseconcernsmaybebestaddressedviarecommendationsrelatedtotheapplicationsubmissionandevaluationprocesses,aswellaspotentiallytranslatingthoserepresentationsincontractualrequirements,aschangingtheroleofcontractualcomplianceisconsideredoutsidetheremitofaGNSOPDP-WG.


• 4.3.5.1ExplanationofSubjectThe2007FinalReportrequiredthatregistriesmustuseICANN-accreditedregistrars,whichareundercontractwithICANNandassuch,mustfulfilltheobligationsoftheirRegistrarAccreditationAgreement(RAA).Thisrequirementwasconsistentwithexistingpracticesatthattime,whichviewedthosecontractualrequirementsassupportingthesecurityandstabilityoftheDNSbypromotingbeneficialbehaviorsthroughadherencetotheRAA.Inaddition,Recommendation19statedthatregistriescouldnotdiscriminateamongaccreditedregistrars:

RegistriesmustuseonlyICANNaccreditedregistrarsinregisteringdomainnamesandmaynotdiscriminateamongsuchaccreditedregistrars.

Historically,registrieswereunabletoalsoactasregistrarsandthe2007FinalReport77recommendedthatthispracticebemaintained.Duringdeliberationsofthepolicy,theRegistryConstituency(RyC)notedthatsmall,specializedregistriesmayencounterissuesinfindingregistrarstooffertheirTLDifthereisperhapsnocompellingbusinessreason

77Ibid



forregistrarstodoso.Thoughregistryagreementspreventedregistriesfromalsoactingasregistrarsatthetime,theideawassuggestedthataregistryownercouldactasaregistrarforitsownTLDtoalleviatetheissuejustdescribed.However,inNovemberof2012,theICANNBoardapprovedtheremovaloftherestrictiononcrossownershipinRegistryAgreements78,theprinciplesofwhichwereintegratedintotheAGB,inthebaseagreementaswellasinsection5.1,whichstates:

Theapplicantmustreport:(i)anyownershipinterestitholdsinanyregistrarorresellerofregisterednames,(ii)ifknown,anyownershipinterestthataregistrarorresellerofregisterednamesholdsintheapplicant,and(iii)iftheapplicantcontrols,iscontrolledby,orisundercommoncontrolwithanyregistrarorresellerofregisterednames.ICANNretainstherighttoreferanapplicationtoacompetitionauthoritypriortoentryintotheregistryagreementifitisdeterminedthattheregistry-registrarcross-ownershiparrangementsmightraisecompetitionissues.Forthispurpose"control"(includingtheterms“controlledby”and“undercommoncontrolwith”)meansthepossession,directlyorindirectly,ofthepowertodirectorcausethedirectionofthemanagementorpoliciesofapersonorentity,whetherthroughtheownershipofsecurities,astrusteeorexecutor,byservingasamemberofaboardofdirectorsorequivalentgoverningbody,bycontract,bycreditarrangementorotherwise.


Asnotedabove,thesituationinwhichregistrarsmayhavenobusinessincentivetoofferaparticularTLDwasconsideredduringthepolicydevelopmentprocess.ConcernssimilartothoseraisedbytheRyCpreviously,wereagainnotedbyDGMembers,particularlyinregardsto.Brands.Registriesthatappliedforcorporateidentifiers,or.Brands,hadconcernswiththeRegistryCodeofConduct79,particularlythecontractualrequirementtouseaccreditedregistrars,butmorespecificallythenon-discriminationaspect.Assuch,theBrandRegistryGroupengagedwithICANNtodevelopasolutionthatwouldaddresstheconcernsofitsconstituents,whichledtothedraftingofSpecification13.Specification13establishedadefinitionforaBrandcategoryofapplicantsandallowedthosethatqualified,todesignateuptothreeICANNaccreditedregistrarstoserveastheexclusiveregistrarsfortheirTLD80.Specification13also,bydefault,includesanexemptiontotheRegistryCodeofConduct.

78ICANNBoardresolutionapprovingtheremovalofcrossownershiprestrictionsinregistryagreements:https://features.icann.org/2010-11-05-new-gtlds-cross-ownership-issues-registries-and-registrars79RegistryCodeofConduct:http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/base-agreement-contracting#conduct80Specification13:http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/base-agreement-contracting#spec13



InpassingaresolutiononSpecification1381,theNGPCacknowledgedthatSpecification13wascontrarytoRecommendation19andrequestedconsiderationofthematterbytheGNSO.Initsresponse82,theGNSOCouncilconfirmedthattheprovisionwasindeedinconsistentwithRecommendation19,butdidnotobjecttoadoptionofSpecification13initsentirety.ApotentialPDP-WGonNewgTLDSubsequentProceduresmaywanttoconsiderupdatingtheexistingpolicyrecommendationtoensureitisconsistentwiththecurrentenvironment,aswellasexploringwhetherotherwell-definedgroupsofapplicantsmightwarrantanexception.TheDGidentifiedseveralotheritemsforconsideration,including:

o Shouldregistriesbeabletomarketdirectlytoorotherwisecontactpotentialcustomers?

o Isthereaneedformoredistinctseparationofregistryandregistrarentities?


o Recommendation19:

• 4.3.5.4RationaleforPolicyDevelopmentAsnotedabove,Recommendation19shouldbemadeconsistentwiththechangesresultingfromtheadoptionofSpecification13.IfthereareadditionalchangesapotentialPDP-WGonNewgTLDSubsequentProceduresforesees,suchasidentifyingadditionalsituationswhereexceptionstotheregistrarnon-discriminationrecommendations,itmayalsorequirepolicydevelopment.

4.3.6TLDRollout

• 4.3.6.1ExplanationofSubjectThe2007FinalReportincludedlanguageintendedtopreventTLD“squatting”,whichiscapturedinImplementationGuidelineI:

AnapplicantgrantedaTLDstringmustuseitwithinafixedtimeframewhichwillbespecifiedintheapplicationprocess.

81ICANNBoardresolutionregardingSpecification13:https://features.icann.org/approval-registry-agreement-specification-13-brand-category-applicants82GNSOcorrespondencetoNGPCregardingSpecification13:http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/robinson-to-chalaby-09may14-en.pdf



IntheAGB,thespiritofthisguidancewascapturedinbothcontractinganddelegation.ApplicantsthathavecompletedtheevaluationprocessareexpectedtoexecutetheirRegistryAgreementwithinninemonths,asstatedinsection5.1oftheAGB:

Eligibleapplicantsareexpectedtohaveexecutedtheregistryagreementwithinnine(9)monthsofthenotificationdate.Failuretodosomayresultinlossofeligibility,atICANN’sdiscretion.Anapplicantmayrequestanextensionofthistimeperiodforuptoanadditionalnine(9)monthsifitcandemonstrate,toICANN’sreasonablesatisfaction,thatitisworkingdiligentlyandingoodfaithtowardsuccessfullycompletingthestepsnecessaryforentryintotheregistryagreement.

Perthebaseagreement,afterexecutionoftheRegistryAgreement,applicantsareexpectedtohavehadtheirTLDdelegatedintotherootzonewithin12monthsoftheEffectiveDate,asstatedinArticle4.3.bofthebaseagreement:

ICANNmay,uponnoticetoRegistryOperator,terminatethisAgreementifRegistryOperatorfailstocompletealltestingandprocedures(identifiedbyICANNinwritingtoRegistryOperatorpriortothedatehereof)fordelegationoftheTLDintotherootzonewithintwelve(12)monthsoftheEffectiveDate.RegistryOperatormayrequestanextensionforuptoadditionaltwelve(12)monthsfordelegationifitcandemonstrate,toICANN’sreasonablesatisfaction,thatRegistryOperatorisworkingdiligentlyandingoodfaithtowardsuccessfullycompletingthestepsnecessaryfordelegationoftheTLD.AnyfeespaidbyRegistryOperatortoICANNpriortosuchterminationdateshallberetainedbyICANNinfull.

Theimplementationsoughttocapturetheintentoftheguidancefromthe2007FinalReport,butalsoallowsomelevelofflexibilitywhereapplicantsmighthavedifficultyinmeetingthespecifieddeadlines,butareworkingingoodfaithtocompletenecessarysteps.

• 4.3.6.2QuestionsandConcernsRelatedtoSubjectTheDGquestionedwhetheradequatetimewasallowedfortherolloutofTLDs,notingthatupondelegationoftheTLDtotheRegistryOperator,recurringregistry-levelfeesareduetobepaidtoICANN.TherequirementsintheAGBandbaseagreementseektofollowtheguidanceprovidedinthe2007FinalReport,whileaccountingforcircumstancesthatmaycauseanapplicant(orregistry)tohavedifficultyinmeetingthetimelinerequirements.Itisuncleariftheconcernsrelatedtodelegationtimelinerequirementsarewidelyheld,soapotentialPDP-WGonNewgTLDSubsequentProceduresmaywanttocollectdata,possiblythroughapplicantsurveysorothermechanisms,todeterminethescopeofthe



issue,andtotheextentthatthereisasignificantissue,seekinformationonwhatthecommunitythinksisamoreappropriatetimeline.


o ImplementationGuidelineI

• 4.3.6.4RationaleforPolicyDevelopmentApotentialPDP-WGonNewgTLDSubsequentProceduresmaywanttodeterminetheextentoftheconcernsrelatedtodelegationtimelinerequirementsandthenconsiderdevelopingsolutionsaccordingly.Ifmitigationisneeded,itmaywarrantexpandinguponthelanguageinImplementationGuidelineI,orotherdevelopmentofpolicylanguage.


• 4.3.7.1ExplanationofSubjectThe2007FinalReportdiscussedtheprotectionoflegalrightsofothers,butitwasseeminglyinthecontextoftop-levelstrings,asdescribedinRecommendation3:

Stringsmustnotinfringetheexistinglegalrightsofothersthatarerecognizedorenforceableundergenerallyacceptedandinternationallyrecognizedprinciplesoflaw.

Examplesoftheselegalrightsthatareinternationallyrecognizedinclude,butarenotlimitedto,rightsdefinedintheParisConventionfortheProtectionofIndustryProperty(inparticulartrademarkrights),theUniversalDeclarationofHumanRights(UDHR)andtheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights(ICCPR)(inparticularfreedomofexpressionrights).

However,minimalguidancewasprovidedforRightsProtectionMechanisms(RPMs)atthesecond-level.RPMssuchastheTrademarkClearinghouse(TMCH)83andtheUniformRapidSuspension(URS)84whichweredevelopedduringtheimplementationphaseoftheNewgTLDProgramandnotviapolicyrecommendationsorpolicydevelopment.However,theGNSOhadtheopportunitytoreviewtheseproposedRPMs,doneviatheSpecialTrademarkIssueReviewTeam(STI)85,whichproducedendorsementsand

83TrademarkClearinghousepage:http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse84UniformRapidSuspensionpage:http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/urs85STIProjectpage:http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/inactive/2010/sti



revisionstotheTMCHandURSthatwereultimatelyintegratedintothefinalversionsoftheprotectionmechanisms.WhiletherewaslimitedRPMsguidanceinthe2007FinalReport,itshouldbenotedthattheProtectingtheRightsofOthersWorkingGroup(PROWG)haddiscussed,“…whatadditionalprotectionsbeyondthecurrenttermsintheregistrationagreementandexistingdisputeresolutionmechanismsshouldbeinplacetotheprotectthelegalrightsofothersduringthedomainnameregistrationprocess,particularlyduringtheinitialstartupofanewgTLDwherethereiscontentionforwhatRegistrantsperceiveasthe"best"names,”86indicatingthattheneedforfutureworkwasunderstoodatthetime.


TheDGraisedanumberofconcernsrelatedtotheRPMsdevelopedtosupporttheNewgTLDProgram.MembersidentifiedconcernsregardingthedevelopmentandimplementationofboththeTMCHandURS.TheDGnotedthefollowingissues,comments,andsuggestions,takenlargelyverbatimfromgroupmembers’commentsasfoundintheworkingmaterialsofthegroupontheDG’scommunityWikispace87:• TrademarkClearingHouse(TMCH)

o Customerconfusioncausedbypre-registrationclaimsnoticerequiremento AllegedabuseofTMCHprotectionmechanismforgenericreservationso WhiletheTMCHwasintroducedin2013,thereremainunresolvedissueso Lackofinputfromregistries/registrarsduringdevelopmento Canthescope,orvalue,oftheTMCHregistrationbeextended,forexample,

integratingtobeusedasprooffortheUDRPo AsTMCHrecordalisapre-requisiteforqualifyingasa.Brandunder

Specification13,shouldthetrademarkrequirementberemoved?o Arethemandatorypre-registrationTMCHnoticestoregistrantsnecessary?o IssuesarounddecisionnottoallowTMClaimsforconfusinglysimilarstrings

and“markplus”,wherethe“plus”isadescriptivetermo ConsidermakingtheTMClaimsserviceagenuinelyprotectivemechanismby

givingtheTMowneradvancenoticeofregistrationwithamechanismforobjection

o Rulesareinsufficientlyclearandthusopentointerpretationandabusetocircumventthesunrise.Considerationneededastowhetherthereshouldbelimitsonthenumberofreservednames,prohibitionsagainstreserving

86ProtectingtheRightsofOthersWorkingGroup(PROWG)FinalReport:http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/GNSO-PRO-WG-final-01Jun07.pdf87Seehttps://community.icann.org/download/attachments/49356545/New%20gTLD%20Subsequent%20Procedures_MM_6Oct2014.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1412728208000&api=v2



TMCHterms,and/orallsubsequently-releasednamesbeingofferedonasunrise.

o Considerleveloffees,inparticularfordotBrandregistrieswhodonotrunaSunrise

• UniformRapidSuspensiono ShouldtheURSbeexpandedbeyondsuspendingthedomain,like

transferringthedomainnametothetrademarkowner?o Considerwhetherappropriatetodispensewithfullassessmentonmeritsif

theregistrantdefaults,sincedenovoreviewisavailableo Istherealackofbalancebetweencomplainantandregistrant?Forinstance,

theComplainantcannotcorrectadministrativeerrorsandthereisrelativelylimitedfinancialrisktotheregistrant.

! Complainantoneyearbanfortwoabusivecomplaints,possiblepermanentbanthereafterwithoutappealprocess

Whiletherewereanumberofcommentsmadebymembersinregardstorightsprotectionmechanisms,itshouldbenotedthatthereisapendingrequestfromtheGNSOCouncilforaPreliminaryIssueReportonRPMs,whichmayleadtoaPDPdedicatedtothetopic.Assuch,careshouldbetakentoavoidconflictingwork,ifthePDPonRPMsisinfactinitiated.PubliccommentreceivedonthePreliminaryIssueReportforNewgTLDSubsequentProceduressuggestedsomespecificquestionsandtopicsthatshouldbeconsidered,thoughasnoted,thepotentialPDP-WGonRPMsmayserveasamoreoptimalvehicleforresolution:

1. WhetherRPMsareworkingasanticipated;2. Whetherandwhytrademarkownersareavoidingorunder-utilizingcertain

RPMs;3. Whetherregistrarandregistrypracticesareinterferingwiththeeffective

operationoftheRPMs,and;4. AnyotherissuesimpactingtheuseoreffectivenessoftheRPMs.

Thecommenthighlightedpremiumnames,reservednames,trademarkblocks,sunrisepricingandtheTMCH,trademarkclaimsservices,URS,andpost-delegationdisputeresolutionproceduresasareasthatshouldspecificallybeconsidered88.Anyresultingrecommendationscouldresultinchangestothebasecontract,totheapplicationsubmissionprocess(e.g.,EvaluationQuestionsandCriteria),andotherperhapsotherareas.


88Seethefullpubliccommenthere:http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-new-gtld-subsequent-prelim-31aug15/msg00004.html



o ProtectingtheRightsofOthersWorkingGroup(PROWG)FinalReport-http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/GNSO-PRO-WG-final-01Jun07.pdf

o InformationabouttheSpecialTrademarkIssueReviewTeam(STI)-http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/inactive/2010/sti

o InformationabouttheTrademarkClearinghouse(TMCH)-http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse

o InformationaboutUniformRapidSuspension(URS)-http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/urs


ItiscriticaltonotethatthereisarequestforaPreliminaryIssueReportonthe“currentstateofallrightsprotectionmechanisms(RPMs)forbothexistingandnewgTLDs,includingbutnotlimitedtotheUDRPandtheURS…”89,whichwaspublishedforpubliccomment90inOctober2015andmaypotentiallyleadtoaPDPonthatsubject.Assuch,apotentialPDP-WGonNewgTLDSubsequentProceduresshouldconsiderhoweffortsshouldbecoordinatedtoavoidduplicationorcreationofconflictingwork.Onepossibleoutcome,asanexample,couldbethatthePDP-WGonRPMscoulddeterminethataparticularelementoftheirscopeisbetteraddressedbythePDP-WGonNewgTLDs,orperhapstheeffortisaddressedintandembythetwoWGs,althoughpresumablyonlyoneWGwouldbeexpectedtoprovidepolicyrecommendationsonthesubject.Alsoofnote,insupportofthepotentialPDP-WGonRPMs,ICANNstaffhasperformedRPMreviewactivitiesinsupportoftheCCTreview,whichmayalsohelpidentifyareasforpolicydevelopmentorimplementationguidancethatmightbebeneficialtoconsider91.


• 4.3.8.1ExplanationofSubjectTheRegistry-RegistrarAgreement(RRA)istheagreementbetweenaregistryandaregistrar.ThecontentsoftheRRAarenotentirelydictatedbyICANNandmayvaryfromregistrytoregistry.TheNewgTLDProgram,northe2007FinalReportsoughttoestablishabsoluterequirementsfortheRRA,thoughtherearesomeprovisionsinthebaseagreementthatdoestablishconsistentrequirementsthatregistriesmustadheretowhendealingwithanyICANN-accreditedregistrarswhohaveenteredintoitsRRA,including:89GNSOCouncilresolutionrequestingRPMsPreliminaryInitialReport:http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20111290Seehttps://www.icann.org/public-comments/rpm-prelim-issue-2015-10-09-en91Seehttps://newgtlds.icann.org/en/reviews/rpm



o Provisionofnon-discriminatoryaccesstoitsregistryserviceso Provisionofadvancewrittennoticeofanypriceincreases,includingthose

relatedtoQualifiedMarketingProgramso Notificationofthepurposefordatacollectedaboutanypersonally

identifiableinformationcollectedbytheRegistryOperatoro Etc.92


DGMembersnotedthatRRAscanvaryfromregistrytoregistry,andwithagrowingpopulationofregistries,theincreasingvariabilitywillmakeitmorechallengingforregistrars.InstitutingsomeadditionalmeasuresforRRAstandardizationmaybehelpful.Mostofthespecificconcernswererelatedtonon-discriminatorytreatmentoraccesstoregistryservicesandincluded:

o RequiringtheprovisionofRRAinlanguagesotherthanEnglishasanon-bindingreferencecopy

o ResponsetimerequirementsforRegistriestoaccreditationrequestso Sunrisenoticerequirementexpandedtoavailabilityofcomplete

accreditationdocumentationandagreementsatthetimeofthesunrisenoticetoallowtimelyaccreditation

o Registryrequirementstodiscloseallpromotionalprogramsofferedtoregistrars.

o Moretransparencyincontracting(NDAs,RRA,sideletters,etc.)o Removalofmandatorypre-registrationTMCHnoticestoregistrants

Theissuesidentifiedherecouldpossiblybediscussedinconcertwithdiscussionsrelatedtosection4.3.5onRegistrarNon-Discrimination,orthecategoriescouldbecombined.


o DescriptionofAgreements&Policiesonicann.org-https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/agreements-policies-2012-02-25-en


Asnotedabove,thecontentsoftheRRAareestablishedbytheregistry,notICANN,althoughtherearecertainrequirementsplacedonregistriesviatheregistryagreement.IfthereiscommunitysupporttoestablishadditionalstandardizationofrequirementswithinRRAs,itcouldbeconsideredinthecontextofthebaseagreement.However,thesubjectmaybebeyondthescopeofapotentialPDP-WGforNewgTLDSubsequentProcedures,whichispresumablyfocusedmorenarrowlyonNewgTLDs.

92BaseagreementIbid



4.3.9GlobalPublicInterest

• 4.3.9.1ExplanationofSubjectOneofthegoverningelementsinintroducingnewgTLDswasthattheyadheretoICANN’sMissionandCoreValues,withthesubjectofGlobalPublicInterestspecificallyidentifiedinArticle1,Section2.6,whichstates:


The2007FinalReportdidnotattempttodefine,ormeasuretheimpactoftheintroductionofnewgTLDsonthepublicinterest.OnlyRecommendation6appearedtoprovideguidanceonthesubject,thoughitwaslimitedtothecompositionofthestring,notregardingthebehavioroftheregistry:

Stringsmustnotbecontrarytogenerallyacceptedlegalnormsrelatingtomoralityandpublicorderthatarerecognizedunderinternationalprinciplesoflaw.Examplesofsuchprinciplesoflawinclude,butarenotlimitedto,theUniversalDeclarationofHumanRights(UDHR),theInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights(ICCPR),theConventionontheEliminationofAllFormsofDiscriminationAgainstWomen(CEDAW)andtheInternationalConventionontheEliminationofAllFormsofRacialDiscrimination,intellectualpropertytreatiesadministeredbytheWorldIntellectualPropertyOrganisation(WIPO)andtheWTOAgreementonTrade-RelatedAspectsofIntellectualProperty(TRIPS).


TheICANNBoardprovidedsuggestionsonareasforpossiblepolicyworkinAnnexAtoaresolutionpassedon17November2014onPlanningforFuturegTLDApplicationRounds93.Oneofthoseareasidentifiedwasfocusedon“publicinterestguidance”,whichtheDGfoundtocapturetheirissuesufficientlyandsuccinctly:

TheNewgTLDProgramwasdevelopedinthespiritofadvancingthepublicinterest;however,existingpolicyadvicedoesnotdefinetheapplicationof“publicinterest”analysisasaguidelineforevaluationdeterminationsonindividualapplications.IssuessuchasthoseidentifiedinGACadviceonsafeguards,thedevelopmentofPublicInterestCommitments(PICs),andassociatedquestionsof

93Ibid



contractualcommitmentandenforcementmaybeanareaforpolicydevelopment.

Section4.4.1onApplicantFreedomofExpressioncontainssubstantialanalysisaroundhumanrightsandtheglobalpublicinterestandmaybeofsomeusetothediscussionaroundthissubject.


o AnnexA-https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/resolutions-annex-a-17nov14-en.pdf


ICANN’smissionisprimarilyofatechnicalcoordinationrole,thoughitscorevaluesnotethatincarryingoutthismission,itshouldbedoneinafashionthattakesintoaccountthepublicinterest.ApotentialPDP-WGonNewgTLDSubsequentProceduresmaywanttoconsidertheissuesidentifiedaboveforpossiblepolicydevelopment.ItshouldbenotedthatthediscussionofglobalpublicinterestisnotisolatedtotheNewgTLDProgramandispossiblybeyondthescopeofthispotentialPDP-WGonNewgTLDSubsequentProcedures.ItmaybemoreappropriatetointegratethedefinitionofglobalpublicinterestandICANN’spoliciestowardsthoseinterests,whichwouldpresumablybedevelopedwithinthewidercommunity.Inparticular,thedevelopmentandimplementationofaglobalpublicinterestframeworkispartofICANN’sStrategicPlan94andtheworkrelatedtothiseffortshouldbetakenintoaccountduringPDP-WGdeliberations.

4.3.10IGO/INGOProtections

• 4.3.10.1ExplanationofSubjectSomelevelofIGO/INGOprotectionswereincludedintheAGB,thoughtherewasnoguidancefromthe2007FinalReport.TheAGBincludedalistofRedCrossandInternationalOlympicCommittee(IOC)namesthatwereprohibitedfromdelegationduringthe2012NewgTLDround.Inaddition,anIOC,RedCross,andIGOreservednameslistwasestablishedtopreventtheregistrationofcertainnamesatthesecond-level95.Thesetemporaryprotectionswereputinplaceuntilamorepermanentpolicycouldbedeveloped.94See:https://features.icann.org/plan/objective/9622286347d80fd5fd89d3b537417aeb95ReservednamesXMLlist:https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/packages/reserved-names/ReservedNames.xml



• 4.3.10.2QuestionsandConcernsRelatedtoSubjectThePDPforProtectionofIGOandINGOIdentifiersinAllgTLDs96providedrecommendationsforpreventativeprotections,thoughsomewereidentifiedtobeinconsistentwithGACAdvice.TheGNSOhasbeenaskedtoconsidermodifyingitspolicyrecommendationstoaddressconflictswithGACAdvice.ThePDPonCurativeRightsProtectionsforIGO/INGOsisactivelyconsideringsolutionstoallowaccessbyIGOsandINGOstocurativerightsmechanisms97.TheDGdidnotraiseanyconcernsrelatedtothissubject,thoughitwasanareaidentifiedinAnnexAtoaresolutionpassedon17November2014onPlanningforFuturegTLDApplicationRounds98.


o PDPforProtectionofIGOandINGOIdentifiersinAllgTLDs-http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/igo-ingo

o PDPonCurativeRightsProtectionsforIGO/INGOs-http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/igo-ingo-crp-access


Asofthiswriting,therearetwoactivePDP-WGsaddressingtheissueofIGOandINGOprotections.AstheDGdidnotidentifyanyissuesbeyondthescopeofthesetwoPDP-WGs,theDGdidnotanticipatethatanyadditionalpolicydevelopmentwouldbeneeded.

4.3.11ClosedGenerics

• 4.3.11.1ExplanationofSubjectThe2007FinalReportdidnotprovideguidancerelatedtoclosedgenerics(e.g.,restrictionsonregistrationpolicies)andconsequently,theAGBdidnotnecessarilyprovidespecificspecificationsorguidelinesontheissue.However,thebaseagreement

96PDPforProtectionofIGOandINGOIdentifiersinAllgTLDsprojectpage:http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/igo-ingo97PDPonCurativeRightsProtectionsforIGO/INGOsprojectpage:http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/igo-ingo-crp-access98BoardResolutionIbid



didincludeaprovisionthatallowedanexemptiontotheRegistryOperatorCodeofConductinspecificinstances:

RegistryOperatormayrequestanexemptiontothisCodeofConduct,andsuchexemptionmaybegrantedbyICANNinICANN’sreasonablediscretion,ifRegistryOperatordemonstratestoICANN’sreasonablesatisfactionthat(i)alldomainnameregistrationsintheTLDareregisteredto,andmaintainedby,RegistryOperatorforitsownexclusiveuse,(ii)RegistryOperatordoesnotsell,distributeortransfercontroloruseofanyregistrationsintheTLDtoanythirdpartythatisnotanAffiliateofRegistryOperator,and(iii)applicationofthisCodeofConducttotheTLDisnotnecessarytoprotectthepublicinterest.

Afterapplicationsfromthe2012NewgTLDProgramroundwerepublished,concernswereraisedinpubliccommentsandbytheGAC,viaEarlyWarningsandlaterviaGACAdvice,thatsomeregistriesproposedtousetheirapplied-forgenericstringinaninappropriatelyexclusivemanner,whichsomefeltcreatedanunfaircompetitiveadvantageandwasagainstthepublicinterest.Asaresultoftheseconcerns,theICANNBoardrequestedthatICANNstaffopenapubliccommentforumonthetopicof“closedgeneric”TLDs99.Accordingly,staffopenedthepubliccommentperiodon5February2013andclosingiton7March2013100.Coincidingwiththeclosureofthepubliccommentforumonthetopic,theGNSOsubmittedcorrespondencetotheICANNBoard101,notingthattheGNSOdidnothaveadequatetimeduringtheshortperiodtoestablishformalpolicyguidance,thoughGNSOStakeholderGroupsandConstituenciesGroupshadsubmittedtheirviewsthroughthepubliccommentforum.ICANNstaffcompiledandanalyzedthepubliccomments,publishingtheirreportofpubliccommentson8July2013102.

• 4.3.11.2QuestionsandConcernsRelatedtoSubjectThesubjectofclosedgenericsisnotnew,asindicatedbythetextabove.WhiletheDGidentifiedclosedgenericsasatopicofconcern,wonderingwhethertheyshouldbeallowed,specificconcernswerenotidentified.However,thepubliccommentforumforclosedgenericsreceivedsubstantialinputinidentifyinganumberofkeyissues,whichwillbebrieflysummarizedhereandcanbeviewedintheirentiretyinthestaffpubliccommentsummaryandanalysisdiscussedabove.Somequestions,concerns,andsuggestionsinclude:

99SeeICANNBoardResolution:https://features.icann.org/closed-generic-top-level-domains100Seehttps://www.icann.org/resources/pages/closed-generic-2013-02-05-en101GNSOCorrespondence:http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/robinson-to-crocker-chalaby-07mar13-en.pdf102Seehttps://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-closed-generic-08jul13-en.pdf



o Allowingasingleentitytoexclusiveuseofagenerictermmayallowthemtohaveaninappropriatelevelofcontroloverthattermatthetop-level,inparticularforindustryterms,wherethatexclusivecontrolcouldresultinanti-competitivebehavior.

o Exclusiveaccessiscontrarytocompetitionandconsumerchoice,andmayinfactresultinuserconfusion

o Suggestionfordefininggenericincludingusingprinciplesoftrademarklaw(i.e.,atermthatcouldnotbetrademarkedshouldnotbeeligibletobeoperatedina“closed”fashion).

o SuggestionthatitmaybemorepracticaltodefineconditionsunderwhichaTLDcouldbeoperatedina“closed”mannerratherthantryingtodefinegeneric.

ThislistisbynomeansexhaustiveandisintendedtobemerelyillustrativeofthetypesofquestionsandsuggestionsthathavealreadybeenraisedandshouldbetakenintoaccountifandwhenapotentialPDP-WGonNewgTLDSubsequentProceduresdeliberatesonthissubject.ThePDP-WGmayalsowanttotakeintoaccountmorerecentconcernsaroundclosedgenerics,whereacombinationofextremelyhighregistrationcostsanddifficulttoachieveregistrantrestrictionscouldeffectivelymakeagenericTLDasingleregistrantinpractice.


o Closedgenericspubliccommentsummaryandanalysis:https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-closed-generic-08jul13-en.pdf

o GACAdviceSafeguardsCategory2.2:https://gacweb.icann.org/display/GACADV/2013-04-11-Safeguards-Categories-2

o BoardResolution:https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-new-gtld-2015-06-21-en#2.a

o SteveCrockerICANNBOARDChairtoJonathanRobinsonGNSOCouncilchair(27July2015)-https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/crocker-to-robinson-27jul15-en.pdf

o JonathanRobinsontoDrSteveCrockerChairmanICANNBoard(15September2015)-http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/robinson-to-crocker-15sep15-en.pdf

o DrStevenCrocker,chairmanICANNBoardtoJonathanRobinson,GNSOCouncilchair(12October2015)-http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/crocker-to-robinson-gtld-strings-12oct15-en.pdf



o VolkerGreimann&DavidCakeGNSOCouncil,InterimCo-ChairstoICANNBoard(24November2015)-http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/gnso-council-to-crocker-24nov15-en.pdf

• 4.3.11.4RationaleforPolicyDevelopmentThetopicofclosedgenerics,andwhenexclusiveregistryaccessmaybeappropriate,hasbeenatopicforextensivediscussionwithinthecommunityandthereremainmanyopenquestions.Inaresolution103,theICANNBoardhasspecificallyrequestedthattheGNSOincludethistopicinitspolicyworkfornewgTLDsubsequentprocedures,stating:

NGPCrequeststhattheGNSOspecificallyincludetheissueofexclusiveregistryaccessforgenericstringsservingapublicinterestgoalaspartofthepolicyworkitisplanningtoinitiateonsubsequentroundsoftheNewgTLDProgram,andinformtheBoardonaregularbasiswithregardstotheprogressontheissue.104

Withsubstantialcommunityinterestinthetopic,andthespecificrequestfromtheICANNboard,exclusiveregistryaccessforgenericstringswilllikelyrequirepolicydevelopment.AssuggestedintheNGPCtextabove,thissubjectmaybeapplicabletothediscussionaroundglobalpublicinterestaswell.

4.4Group3:StringContention/Objections&Disputes

Thesubjectsinthissectionareinrelationtothefollowingelementsfromthe2007FinalReport,ascategorizedbytheDG:

o PrincipleG;o Recommendations2,3,6,12and20,and;o ImplementationGuidanceF,H,PandR105


• 4.4.1.1ExplanationoftheSubjectThe2007FinalReportattemptedtobalancetherightsofapplicants,asnotedinPrincipleG,andothersrelatedtotheprogram,asnotedinRecommendation3.

103Boardresolution:https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-new-gtld-2015-06-21-en#2.a104Seesection4.3.11.3forcorrespondencebetweentheICANNBoardandtheGNSOrelatedtoexclusiveRegistryAccessforgTLDstringsrepresentinggenericterms.105Ibid



PrincipleG:

Thestringevaluationprocessmustnotinfringetheapplicant'sfreedomofexpressionrightsthatareprotectedunderinternationallyrecognizedprinciplesoflaw.

Recommendation3:

Stringsmustnotinfringetheexistinglegalrightsofothersthatarerecognizedorenforceableundergenerallyacceptedandinternationallyrecognizedprinciplesoflaw.Examplesoftheselegalrightsthatareinternationallyrecognizedinclude,butarenotlimitedto,rightsdefinedintheParisConventionfortheProtectionofIndustryProperty(inparticulartrademarkrights),theUniversalDeclarationofHumanRights(UDHR)andtheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights(ICCPR)(inparticularfreedomofexpressionrights).

Theissue,asidentifiedbytheDG,iswhetherICANNgivesadequateconsiderationtotheprotectionofhumanrights,particularlywithrespecttonewgTLDsandrighttofreedomofexpression,freedomofassociation,freedomofreligion,andprincipleofnon-discrimination.ThisissuereceivedparticularattentionuponthepublicationofareportbytheCouncilofEurope,originallypresentedduringtheICANN50meetinginLondonthattookplacefrom22to26June2014,entitled,“ICANN’sProceduresandPoliciesintheLightofHumanRights,FundamentalFreedomsandDemocraticValues.”106Theissueraisedbythereport,andalsobyothergroupswithinICANN,isICANN’simpactonfundamentalhumanrights,suchastherighttofreedomofexpressionortherighttoprivacy.Morespecifically,theCouncilofEuropeseekstodetermineICANN’sglobalpublicinterestresponsibilitiesfromaninternationalhumanrightsperspective.ThereportreferencestheUniversalDeclarationofHumanRights(UDHR),107theInternationalCovenantonEconomic,SocialandCulturalRights(ICESCR),108the

106See“ICANN’sProceduresandPoliciesintheLightofHumanRights,FundamentalFreedomsandDemocraticValues,”CouncilofEurope,Updated08October2014athttp://www.coe.int/t/informationsociety/Source/DGI_2014_12E%20Report%20ICANN%20and%20Human%20Rights%20updated%208%20Oct%202014.pdf107SeeUniversalDeclarationofHumanRights(UDHR)athttp://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/108SeeInternationalCovenantonEconomic,SocialandCulturalRights(ICESCR)athttp://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CESCR.aspx



InternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights(ICCPR),109andtheEuropeanConventiononHumanRights(ECHR).110Whilethereportnotesthat“ICANN’sremitdoesnotgenerallyextendtoanyexaminationofthecontentcomprisedinortobehostedunderTLDs”itfurthernotesthat“theapprovalorrejectionofapplied-fornewgTLDstringsmayinvolveanevaluationprocesswherejudgmentsrelatedtocontentaremade.”111IfsuchjudgmentsresultinthedenialofanapplicationforanewgTLDstringtheymayviolatetheapplicant’srighttofreedomofexpression.Tobetterunderstandthisissue,itmaybeusefultobrieflyreviewtheInitialEvaluationprocessasdescribedintheApplicantGuidebook(AGB).TheAGBnotesthatoneofthetwomainelementsoftheInitialEvaluationisthestringreview(concerningtheapplied-forgTLDstring).Thisevaluationincludesadeterminationthattheapplied-forgTLDstringisnotlikelytocausesecurityorstabilityproblemsintheDNS,includingproblemscausedbysimilaritytoexistingTLDsorreservednames.112(A“string”isthestringofcharacterscomprisinganappliedforgTLD.113)Inaddition,asdescribedinModule3oftheApplicantGuidebook,theGovernmentalAdvisoryCommittee(GAC)mayprovideAdviceonNewgTLDstotheICANNBoardofDirectorsconcerningaspecificapplication,oradisputeresolutionproceduremaybetriggeredbyathirdparty’sformalobjectiontoanapplication.114Objectionsthattriggerthedisputeresolutionprocedureinclude:1)“StringConfusionObjection”:astringisconfusinglysimilartoanexistingtop-leveldomainoranotherstringappliedforinthesameroundofapplications;2)“ExistingLegalRightsObjection”:astringcomprisingthepotentialnewgTLDinfringestheexistinglegalrightsofothers;3)“LimitedPublicInterestObjection”:thestringcomprisingthepotentialnewgTLDiscontrarytogenerallyacceptedlegalnormsrelatingtomoralityandpublicorderthatarerecognizedunderprinciplesofinternationallaw;or4)“CommunityObjection”:

109SeeInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights(ICCPR)athttp://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx110SeeEuropeanConventiononHumanRights(ECHR)athttp://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf111See“ICANN’sProceduresandPoliciesintheLightofHumanRights,FundamentalFreedomsandDemocraticValues,”CouncilofEurope,Updated08October2014,Chapter2,athttp://www.coe.int/t/informationsociety/Source/DGI_2014_12E%20Report%20ICANN%20and%20Human%20Rights%20updated%208%20Oct%202014.pdf112SeeApplicantGuidebookModule1,IntroductiontothegTLDApplicationProcessathttps://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/intro-04jun12-en.pdf113SeenewgTLDglossaryat:http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/glossary114SeeApplicationGuidebookModule3,ObjectionProceduresathttps://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/objection-procedures-04jun12-en.pdfandNewgTLDDisputeResolutionProcedureathttps://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/evaluation-questions-criteria-04jun12-en.pdf



substantialoppositiontotheapplicationfromasignificantportionofthecommunitytowhichthestringmaybeexplicitlyorimplicitlytargeted.115Finally,Module4oftheApplicantGuidebook,StringContentionProcedures,notesthat“ICANNwillnotapproveapplicationsforproposedgTLDstringsthatareidenticalorthatwouldresultinuserconfusion.Ifeithersituationaboveoccurs,suchapplicationswillproceedtocontentionresolutionthrougheithercommunitypriorityevaluation,incertaincases,orthroughanauction.”116AccordingtotheCouncilofEuropereport,“Theuseofdomainnames,includinggTLDs,concernsformsofexpressionthatareprotectedbyinternationalhumanrightslawwhich,inEurope,the47memberstatesoftheCouncilofEuropehaveundertakentosecureaspartoftheframeworkofcivilandpoliticalrightsandfreedomsprovidedintheECHR.”117ThereportfurthernotesthattheEuropeanCourtofHumanRightshasemphasizedthattheInternethasbecomeoneoftheprincipalmeansforindividualstoexercisetheirrighttofreedomofexpression.118Thereportemphasizesthat“freedomofexpressionisoneoftheclassicfundamentalrightslaiddownintheconstitutionsofmanycountriesandinmanyinternationaltreaties,includingArticle29oftheUniversalDeclarationofHumanRightsand,Article19oftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights.”119

• 4.4.1.2QuestionsandConcernsRelatedtoSubjectInSection2.4HumanRightsAnalysisoftheNewgTLDApplicationProceduresthereportnotesthattherehavebeen“severalcasesanddisputesinvolvingpotentially‘sensitiveexpressions’inapplied-forgTLDswhichexemplifythedelicatebalanceneededtoprotectthefundamentalrightsofapplicantsandotherInternetusers.”120ItalsonotesthatinadditiontotheGAC’s“EarlyWarning”channel,theCommunityObjection

115SeeNewgTLDDisputeResolutionProcedureathttps://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/evaluation-questions-criteria-04jun12-en.pdf116SeeApplicantGuidebookModule4,StringContentProceduresathttps://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/string-contention-procedures-04jun12-en.pdf117See“ICANN’sProceduresandPoliciesintheLightofHumanRights,FundamentalFreedomsandDemocraticValues,”CouncilofEurope,Updated08October2014,2.3.HumanRightsFrameworkApplicabletogTLDathttp://www.coe.int/t/informationsociety/Source/DGI_2014_12E%20Report%20ICANN%20and%20Human%20Rights%20updated%208%20Oct%202014.pdf118JudgmentoftheEuropeanCourtofHumanRightsof18December2012,§54.119Ibid,2.3.2.RelevantProvisionsathttp://www.coe.int/t/informationsociety/Source/DGI_2014_12E%20Report%20ICANN%20and%20Human%20Rights%20updated%208%20Oct%202014.pdf120Ibid,2.4.1ProblematicandSensitiveApplied-forStringsathttp://www.coe.int/t/informationsociety/Source/DGI_2014_12E%20Report%20ICANN%20and%20Human%20Rights%20updated%208%20Oct%202014.pdf



proceduremightinvolvehumanrightsconsiderationsandcitesthecaseofthe.xxxgTLDapplication.Inaddition,thereportnotesthatatrademarkprotectionobjectioncouldbeusedasameanstolimitthefreedomofexpression.121ThereportrecommendsthatwhenassessingthepossiblerestrictionofoffensiveexpressionICANNshould“considerlegalmodelsoutsideoftrademarklawtobetteraddressthebalanceofspeechrights.”122TheCouncilofEuropereportusestheproblemsasnotedbymanyinthecommunityinregardstotheCommunityPriorityEvaluation(CPE)process.AccordingtotheApplicantGuidebook,ifthereisnoself-resolutionstringcontentionforcommunity-basedapplicantsofidenticalstringsaCPEmayberequested.123TheCouncilofEuropereportnoted,“Thescopeof‘community’couldhaveanimpactonhumanrights.Anarrowinterpretationcouldrestricttheabilityofcommunityorganizationstoassociate,forexample,togroupthemtogethertoachievegoals.TheCommunityPriorityEvaluationGuidelinesaspublishedbytheEconomistIntelligenceUnit(EIU)useastringentinterpretationofcommunities,withtheresultthatcertaindiverseandheterogeneouscommunitiesarenotprotected.”ItshouldbenotedthattheCPEGuidelinesstemdirectlyfromtherequirementsasdefinedintheAGB.ThereportrecommendsthatICANNshoulduseasabasistoprioritizebetweendifferentapplicantstheconceptofvulnerablegroups,whichwouldenableICANNtotakepositivemeasurestoproactivelyservethepublicinterest124.TheApplicationGuidebooknotesthatmostcasesofstringcontentionwillberesolvedbytheCPEorbeself-resolved.Inthosecasesthatarenotresolved,theauctionmaybeusedasatie-breakermethod.125TheCouncilofEuropereportstatesthat“theauctionprocedureconstitutesaninappropriatemethodtoservethepublicinterest,sinceithasthepotentialtodisproportionatelyawardgTLDstofinanciallyricherentities.”126121Ibid,2.4.2FreedomofExpressionandTrademarksathttp://www.coe.int/t/informationsociety/Source/DGI_2014_12E%20Report%20ICANN%20and%20Human%20Rights%20updated%208%20Oct%202014.pdf122Ibid,2.4.3.SensitivitiesandVaryingLevelsofAcceptableCriticismathttp://www.coe.int/t/informationsociety/Source/DGI_2014_12E%20Report%20ICANN%20and%20Human%20Rights%20updated%208%20Oct%202014.pdf123SeeApplicantGuidebookModule4,StringContentProceduresathttps://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/string-contention-procedures-04jun12-en.pdf124See“ICANN’sProceduresandPoliciesintheLightofHumanRights,FundamentalFreedomsandDemocraticValues,”CouncilofEurope,Updated08October2014,2.4.4.CaseStudyonStringContentionProcedures:CommunityApplicationsathttp://www.coe.int/t/informationsociety/Source/DGI_2014_12E%20Report%20ICANN%20and%20Human%20Rights%20updated%208%20Oct%202014.pdf125SeeApplicantGuidebookModule4,StringContentProceduresathttps://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/string-contention-procedures-04jun12-en.pdf126See“ICANN’sProceduresandPoliciesintheLightofHumanRights,FundamentalFreedomsandDemocraticValues,”CouncilofEurope,Updated08October2014,2.4.5.AuctionProcedures:Equality&Non-Discriminationat



TheCouncilofEuropereportrecommendedthat1)referencetohumanrightsshouldbeincludedinICANN’sBylaws;2)ICANNshoulddefinepublicinterestobjectives;3)ICANNshouldimprovethehumanrightsexpertiseandearlyengagementintheGAC;4)developanearlyengagementmechanismforthesafeguardofhumanrights;and5)reviewICANN’slegalbasisandexploreinnovativesolutionsfordevelopinganinternationalorquasi-internationalstatusofICANN.TheCouncilofEuropereportgeneratedconsiderableinterestintheICANNcommunitysuchthatthecommunityisalreadydiscussingvariousapproachestoaddresstheissue.Initscommentsonthereport,theICANNNon-CommercialStakeholderGroup(NCSG)notedthatwhileitdisagreedwithsomeofthedefinitionsandrecommendationsofferedinthereport,itwelcomedthereport,“whichconfirmsmanyoftheviewssubmittedbyICANN’snoncommercialusersovertheyears”anditfullyagreed“withtheauthors’assessmentthatseveralofICANN’spoliciesfallshortofinternationalhumanrightsstandardsandthatthosestandardsmustbemainstreamedandmoresystematicallyappliedwithinICANN.”Inaddition,theNCSGnotedthatitshared“theviewthatthepublicinterestisastandardthatlackssufficientspecificitytoappropriatelyguidepolicyorconstrainICANN’sdecisionsinseveralpolicyareasofrelevancetohumanrights.”127TheNCSGsubsequentlycreatedaCrossCommunityWorkingPartyonICANN'sCorporateandSocialResponsibilitytoRespectHumanRights,whichheldapublicsessionattheICANN53meetinginBuenosAires,Argentinaon24June2015.Inaddition,theGACLondonCommuniquéon25June2015noted,“thewrittenanalysisonICANN'sproceduresandpoliciesinthelightofhumanrights,fundamentalfreedomsanddemocraticvalues,preparedbyexpertsoftheCouncilofEurope.TheGACnotedthatthereisadevelopinginterestintheICANNcommunitytoincludehumanrightsissuesinfuturediscussions.”128TheGACsubsequentlycreatedtheGACHumanRightsandInternationalLawWorkingGroup,whichpresenteditsTermsofReferenceattheICANN53meetinginBuenosAires.129

• 4.4.1.3RelevantGuidanceo PrincipleGo Recommendation3

http://www.coe.int/t/informationsociety/Source/DGI_2014_12E%20Report%20ICANN%20and%0Human%20Rights%20updated%208%20Oct%202014.pdf127SeeNCSGCommentsCouncilofEuropeReportonICANNandHumanRights,August2014at:https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/49356853/NCSGCommentonCOEICANNreport2014.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1412646434000&api=v2128Seehttps://gacweb.icann.org/display/GACADV/2014-06-25+Safeguards+-+Human+Rights129Seehttps://buenosaires53.icann.org/en/schedule/mon-human-rights-law




StaffnotesthatthecommunityhasonlyjustestablishedgroupsdedicatedtoadiscussionofthepossibleimpactofnewgTLDsonhumanrightsandwhetherICANN’spoliciesandproceduresshouldbemodifiedtomoresystematicallytakeintoaccountinternationalhumanrightsstandards.StaffrecommendsthatifaPDP-WGisinitiatedonNewgTLDSubsequentProcedures,itshouldreachouttothecommunity,andparticularlytheNCSGandtheGACastheyhaveshownsignificantinterestinthetopic,todeterminethestatusofcurrentcommunitydiscussionsonthisissue.ItshouldalsobenotedthattheCrossCommunityWorkingGrouponEnhancingICANNAccountability(CCWG)seekstointegratehumanrightsimpactanalyseswithinitsmission,whichshouldprovideguidancetothisPDP-WGinitsdeliberations.

4.4.2StringSimilarity

• 4.4.2.1ExplanationoftheSubjectRecommendation2statesthat:

Stringsmustnotbeconfusinglysimilartoanexistingtop-leveldomainoraReservedName.

AsimplementedintheAGB,inModule2itdescribesstringsimilarityreviewsthattest“Whethertheapplied-forgTLDstringissosimilartootherstringsthatitwouldcreateaprobabilityofuserconfusion.”Thisreviewinvolvesapreliminarycomparisonofeachapplied-forgTLDstringagainstexistingTLDs,ReservedNames(seesubsection2.2.1.2),andotherapplied-forstrings.TheobjectiveofthisreviewistopreventuserconfusionandlossofconfidenceintheDNSresultingfromdelegationofsimilarstrings.(IntheAGB“similar”meansstringssosimilarthattheycreateaprobabilityofuserconfusionifmorethanoneofthestringsisdelegatedintotherootzone.)ThevisualsimilaritycheckthatoccursduringInitialEvaluationisintendedtoaugmenttheStringConfusionobjection(Module3,DisputeResolutionProcedures)thataddressesalltypesofsimilarity.AStringSimilarityPanelconductsthisreview.ThePanelusesthefollowingstandardwhendeterminingstringconfusion:

Stringconfusionexistswhereastringsonearlyresemblesanothervisuallythatitislikelytodeceiveorcauseconfusion.Forthelikelihoodofconfusiontoexist,itmustbeprobable,notmerelypossiblethatconfusion



willariseinthemindoftheaverage,reasonableInternetuser.Mereassociation,inthesensethatthestringbringsanotherstringtomind,isinsufficienttofindalikelihoodofconfusion.130

Thepanelassessessimilaritiesthatwouldleadtouserconfusioninfoursetsofcircumstanceswhencomparing:

o Applied-forgTLDstringsagainstexistingTLDsandreservednames;o Applied-forgTLDstringsagainstotherapplied-forgTLDstrings;o Applied-forgTLDstringsagainststringsrequestedasIDNccTLDs;ando Applied-for2-characterIDNgTLDstringsagainst:

! Everyothersinglecharacter.! Anyother2-characterASCIIstring(toprotectpossiblefuture

ccTLDdelegations).Inadditiontotheabovereviews,anapplied-forgTLDstringthatisa2-characterIDNstringisreviewedbytheStringSimilarityPanelforvisualsimilarityto:a)Anyone-characterlabel(inanyscript),andb)Anypossibletwo-characterASCIIcombination.Anapplied-forgTLDstringthatisfoundtobetoosimilartoa)orb)abovewillnotpassthisreview.TheAGBnotes:

TheStringSimilarityPanelisinformedinpartbyanalgorithmicscoreforthevisualsimilaritybetweeneachapplied-forstringandeachofotherexistingandappliedforTLDsandreservednames.Thescorewillprovideoneobjectivemeasureforconsiderationbythepanel,aspartoftheprocessofidentifyingstringslikelytoresultinuserconfusion.Ingeneral,applicantsshouldexpectthatahighervisualsimilarityscoresuggestsahigherprobabilitythattheapplicationwillnotpasstheStringSimilarityreview.Thepanelwillalsotakeintoaccountvariantcharacters,asdefinedinanyrelevantlanguagetable,initsdeterminations.Forexample,stringsthatarenotvisuallysimilarbutaredeterminedtobevariantTLDstringsbasedonanIDNtablewouldbeplacedinacontentionset.VariantTLDstringsthatarelistedaspartoftheapplicationwillalsobesubjecttothestringsimilarityanalysis.Thepanelwillexamineallthealgorithmdataandperformitsownreview

130Ibid



ofsimilaritiesbetweenstringsandwhethertheyrisetothelevelofstringconfusion.Incasesofstringsinscriptsnotyetsupportedbythealgorithm,thepanel’sassessmentprocessisentirelymanual.

AnapplicationthatfailstheStringSimilarityreviewduetosimilaritytoanexistingTLDwillnotpasstheInitialEvaluation,andnofurtherreviewswillbeavailable.WhereanapplicationdoesnotpasstheStringSimilarityreview,theapplicantwillbenotifiedassoonasthereviewiscompleted.Anapplicationforastringthatisfoundtoosimilartoanotherapplied-forgTLDstringwillbeplacedinacontentionset.AnapplicationthatpassestheStringSimilarityreviewisstillsubjecttoobjectionbyanexistingTLDoperatororbyanothergTLDapplicantinthecurrentapplicationround.Inaddition,applied-forgTLDstringsarereviewedduringtheStringSimilarityreviewtodeterminewhethertheyaresimilartoaReservedName.AnapplicationforagTLDstringthatisidentifiedastoosimilartoaReservedNamewillnotpassthisreview.StringSimilarityresultsforthenewgTLDapplicationswerepublishedon26February2013.131ForthosecasesofcontentionthatarenotresolvedthroughCPEorvoluntaryagreement,auctionisthetie-breakermethodoflastresort.Anauctionoftwoormoreapplicationswithinacontentionsetproceedsasanascending-clockauctionasdescribedinsection4.3.1oftheAGB.

• 4.4.2.2QuestionsandConcernsRelatedtoSubjectTheDGnotedseveralissuesrelatingtostringsimilarityandauctions.Inparticular,theDGwonderedwhetherstringcontentionmechanismswereeffectiveinresolvingcontention.Theynotedthatinordertodetermineeffectiveness,adefinitionofsuccessmayberequired.Inaddition,theDGaskedwhetherstringsimilarityresolutionmethodscouldbeimprovedorsubstitutedfornewmechanisms,suchasallowingforstringchangesorforthesubstitutionofalternatestrings.Accordingtothecurrentmethodologyforreviewingstringsimilaritythereisnooptionfortheapplicanttoaltertheappliedforstringinresponsetoconcernsaboutsimilaritywithexistingorotherappliedforstrings.Thus,ifastringisrejectedduetoissuesofsimilarity,anapplicantwouldhavetosubmitanewapplicationforanalternatestring,whichwouldhavetooccurinasubsequent

131ICANN.(26February2013)NewgTLDProgram:StringSimilarityContentionSets.Retrievedfromhttp://newgtlds.icann.org/en/announcements-and-media/announcement-26feb13-en



round.TheDGalsoaskedwhetherstringcontentionresultswereconsistentandeffectiveinpreventingconsumerconfusion.Moreover,theresultsofthestringsimilarityreviewwerereleasedtwoweeksbeforethedeadlinetofileaStringConfusionObjection,sopartieswhowishedtofileaStringConfusionObjectionbasedontheresultsoftheStringSimilarityReview(i.e.,createcontentionwheretheStringSimilarityReviewdidnot)hadaverylimitedamountoftimetoprepareanobjection.ThedelayedStringSimilarityresultsinthisroundwerecausedbythehighvolumeofuniquestrings,butforfuturerounds,considerationshouldbegiventohowtobestpositiontherelativetimingofthesetwoprocesses,takingintoconsiderationunknownfactorssuchasthevolumeofuniquestrings.Regardingtheresults,manymembersinthecommunity,includingtheDG,theGAC,andtheALAC,raisedconcernsregardingthesimilarityofsingularsandplurals.Astheguidanceprovidedonwhatconstitutedconfusingsimilarityinthisapplicationrounddidnotprovidethislevelofdetail,thestandardsforconfusionmaybenefitfromfurtherrefinementforfutureapplicationrounds.WithrespecttoauctionstheDGquestionedwhetheradditionalanalysisshouldbeconductedtodeterminewhetherauctionsaretherightmechanismoflastresort.Theynotedthatthismayrequiredefiningtheidealcharacteristicsofamechanismoflastresort.


o Recommendation2

• 4.4.2.4RationaleforPolicyDevelopmentWithrespecttothequestionsandpotentialissuesraisedbytheDG,itmaybeusefulforICANNtocollectdataconcerningtheresultsofthestringsimilarityreviewsthatwereconducted.ThiscouldbeintheformofasurveytotheICANNcommunity.AstheresultswereperceivedtobeinconsistentbytheDGandothers,apotentialPDP-WGmaywanttoconsiderprovidingclearerdefinitionsaroundwhatconstitutesstringsimilaritytohopefullyreducethepossibilityofreachinginconsistentevaluation,oreventheperceptionofinconsistency.Specifically,thetopicsofpluralsandtheexplorationofdifferentwaystoresolvestringcontentionhavebeenidentifiedaslikelyrequiringpolicydevelopment..Withrespecttoauctions,apotentialPDP-WGonNewgTLDSubsequentProcedurescouldconsiderwhethertodefine“mechanismoflastresort”tohelpdeterminewhetherauctionsfitthedefinitionand/orwhetherthereareothermechanismsthatcouldbeconsidered.



4.4.3Objections

• 4.4.3.1ExplanationoftheSubjectGuidanceinthe2007FinalReport,intendedtoprotecttherightsofvariouspartiescanbefoundinthefollowingrecommendations.Recommendation2:

Stringsmustnotbeconfusinglysimilartoanexistingtop-leveldomainoraReservedName.

Recommendation3:

Stringsmustnotinfringetheexistinglegalrightsofothersthatarerecognizedorenforceableundergenerallyacceptedandinternationallyrecognizedprinciplesoflaw.

Examplesoftheselegalrightsthatareinternationallyrecognizedinclude,butarenotlimitedto,rightsdefinedintheParisConventionfortheProtectionofIndustryProperty(inparticulartrademarkrights),theUniversalDeclarationofHumanRights(UDHR)andtheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights(ICCPR)(inparticularfreedomofexpressionrights).

Recommendation6:

Stringsmustnotbecontrarytogenerallyacceptedlegalnormsrelatingtomoralityandpublicorderthatarerecognizedunderinternationalprinciplesoflaw.Examplesofsuchprinciplesoflawinclude,butarenotlimitedto,theUniversalDeclarationofHumanRights(UDHR),theInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights(ICCPR),theConventionontheEliminationofAllFormsofDiscriminationAgainstWomen(CEDAW)andtheInternationalConventionontheEliminationofAllFormsofRacialDiscrimination,intellectualpropertytreatiesadministeredbytheWorldIntellectualPropertyOrganisation(WIPO)andtheWTOAgreementonTrade-RelatedAspectsofIntellectualProperty(TRIPS).

Recommendation20:

Anapplicationwillberejectedifanexpertpaneldeterminesthatthereissubstantialoppositiontoitfromasignificantportionofthecommunitytowhichthestringmaybeexplicitlyorimplicitlytargeted.



ImplementationGuidanceP:

Oppositionmustbeobjectionbased.Determinationwillbemadebyadisputeresolutionpanelconstitutedforthepurpose.Theobjectormustprovideverifiableevidencethatitisanestablishedinstitutionofthecommunity(perhapsliketheRSTEPpoolofpanelistsfromwhichasmallpanelwouldbeconstitutedforeachobjection).132

Module3oftheAGB,ObjectionProcedures,describestwotypesofmechanismsthatmayaffectanapplication:1)TheprocedurebywhichtheGACmayprovideGACAdviceonNewgTLDstotheICANNBoardofDirectorsconcerningaspecificapplication;and2)thedisputeresolutionproceduretriggeredbyaformalobjectiontoanapplicationbyathirdparty.133GACAdvice:WithrespecttoGACadvicetheAGBstates,

TheGACmayprovideadviceonnewgTLDs.TheprocessforGACAdviceonNewgTLDsisintendedtoaddressapplicationsthatareidentifiedbygovernmentstobeproblematic,e.g.,thatpotentiallyviolatenationallaworraisesensitivities.GACmemberscanraiseconcernsaboutanyapplicationtotheGAC.TheGACasawholewillconsiderconcernsraisedbyGACmembers,andagreeonGACadvicetoforwardtotheICANNBoardofDirectors.TheGACcanprovideadviceonanyapplication.FortheBoardtobeabletoconsidertheGACadviceduringtheevaluationprocess,theGACadvicewouldhavetobesubmittedbythecloseoftheObjectionFilingPeriod(seeModule1).TheGACcanprovideadviceonanyapplication.FortheBoardtobeabletoconsidertheGACadviceduringtheevaluationprocess,theGACadvicewouldhavetobesubmittedbythecloseoftheObjectionFilingPeriod(seeModule1).134

TheAGBdescribesthefollowingformsofGACAdvice:I. TheGACadvisesICANNthatitistheconsensusoftheGACthata

particularapplicationshouldnotproceed.ThiswillcreateastrongpresumptionfortheICANNBoardthattheapplicationshouldnotbeapproved;

132SeefurtherdetailsconcerningIGPGuidelinesat:http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm133SeeModule3,ObjectionProcedures,athttps://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/objection-procedures-04jun12-en.pdf134Ibid



II. TheGACadvisesICANNthatthereareconcernsaboutaparticularapplication“dot-example.”TheICANNBoardisexpectedtoenterintodialoguewiththeGACtounderstandthescopeofconcerns.TheICANNBoardisalsoexpectedtoprovidearationaleforitsdecision.

III. TheGACadvisesICANNthatanapplicationshouldnotproceedunlessremediated.ThiswillraiseastrongpresumptionfortheBoardthattheapplicationshouldnotproceedunlessthereisaremediationmethodavailableintheGuidebook(suchassecuringtheapprovalofoneormoregovernments),thatisimplementedbytheapplicant.135

AsstatedintheAGB,whentheBoardreceivesGACAdviceconcerninganapplication,ICANNwillpublishtheadviceandendeavortonotifytherelevantapplicant(s)promptly.Theapplicantwillhaveaperiodof21calendardaysfromthepublicationdateinwhichtosubmitaresponsetotheICANNBoard.AccordingtotheAGB:

ICANNwillconsidertheGACAdviceonNewgTLDsassoonaspracticable.TheBoardmayconsultwithindependentexperts,suchasthosedesignatedtohearobjectionsintheNewgTLDDisputeResolutionProcedure,incaseswheretheissuesraisedintheGACadvicearepertinenttooneofthesubjectmatterareasoftheobjectionprocedures.ThereceiptofGACadvicewillnottolltheprocessingofanyapplication(i.e.,anapplicationwillnotbesuspendedbutwillcontinuethroughthestagesoftheapplicationprocess).136

PublicObjectionandDisputeResolutionProcess:AsnotedintheAGB:

Theindependentdisputeresolutionprocessisdesignedtoprotectcertaininterestsandrights.Theprocessprovidesapathforformalobjectionsduringevaluationoftheapplications.Itallowsapartywithstandingtohaveitsobjectionconsideredbeforeapanelofqualifiedexperts.Aformalobjectioncanbefiledonlyonfourenumeratedgrounds,asdescribedinthismodule.Aformalobjectioninitiatesadisputeresolutionproceeding.InfilinganapplicationforagTLD,theapplicantagreestoaccepttheapplicabilityofthisgTLDdisputeresolutionprocess.Similarly,anobjectoracceptstheapplicabilityofthisgTLDdisputeresolutionprocessbyfilingitsobjection.

135Ibid136Ibid



AccordingtotheAGB,objectionsthattriggerthedisputeresolutionprocedureinclude:1)“StringConfusionObjection”:astringisconfusinglysimilartoanexistingtop-leveldomainoranotherstringappliedforinthesameroundofapplications;2)“ExistingLegalRightsObjection”:astringcomprisingthepotentialnewgTLDinfringestheexistinglegalrightsofothers;3)“LimitedPublicInterestObjection”:thestringcomprisingthepotentialnewgTLDiscontrarytogenerallyacceptedlegalnormsrelatingtomoralityandpublicorderthatarerecognizedunderprinciplesofinternationallaw;or4)“CommunityObjection”:substantialoppositiontotheapplicationfromasignificantportionofthecommunitytowhichthestringmaybeexplicitlyorimplicitlytargeted.137TheAGBnotesthatobjectorsmustsatisfystandingrequirementstohavetheirobjectionsconsidered.Aspartofthedisputeproceedings,apanelofexpertswillreviewallobjectionsdesignatedbytheapplicableDisputeResolutionServiceProvider(DRSP)todeterminewhethertheobjectorhasstandingtoobject.TheAGBdescribesthestandardsforentitiestohavestandingtoobjectforeachtypeofobjection.InthecasewhereagTLDapplicantsuccessfullyassertsstringconfusionwithanotherapplicant,theonlypossibleoutcomeisforbothapplicantstobeplacedinacontentionsetandtobereferredtoacontentionresolutionprocedure.AsnotedintheAGB,applicantswhoseapplicationsarethesubjectofanobjectionhavethefollowingoptions:1. Theapplicantcanworktoreachasettlementwiththeobjector,resultingin

withdrawaloftheobjectionortheapplication;2. Theapplicantcanfilearesponsetotheobjectionandenterthedisputeresolution

process(refertoSection3.2);or3. Theapplicantcanwithdraw,inwhichcasetheobjectorwillprevailbydefaultand

theapplicationwillnotproceedfurther.Ifforanyreasontheapplicantdoesnotfilearesponsetoanobjection,theobjectorwillprevailbydefault.ForadescriptionoftheprocessbywhichDRSPsadministerdisputeproceedingsthathavebeeninitiatedseetheNewgTLDDisputeResolutionProcedure.138DisputeResolutionCosts:

137SeeNewgTLDDisputeResolutionProcedureathttps://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/evaluation-questions-criteria-04jun12-en.pdf138SeeModule3,NewgTLDDisputeResolutionProcedure,athttps://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/dispute-resolution-procedure-04jun12-en.pdf



AsstatedintheAGB:

Beforeacceptanceofobjections,eachDRSPwillpublishascheduleofcostsorstatementofhowcostswillbecalculatedfortheproceedingsthatitadministersunderthisprocedure.ThesecostscoverthefeesandexpensesofthemembersofthepanelandtheDRSP’sadministrativecosts.ICANNexpectsthatstringconfusionandlegalrightsobjectionproceedingswillinvolveafixedamountchargedbythepanelistswhileLimitedPublicInterestandcommunityobjectionproceedingswillinvolvehourlyrateschargedbythepanelists.139

ObjectionConsolidation:TheAGBdescribestheprocessfortheconsolidationofobjections:

OncetheDRSPreceivesandprocessesallobjections,atitsdiscretiontheDRSPmayelecttoconsolidatecertainobjections.TheDRSPshallendeavortodecideuponconsolidationpriortoissuingitsnoticetoapplicantsthattheresponseshouldbefiledand,whereappropriate,shallinformthepartiesoftheconsolidationinthatnotice.

Anexampleofacircumstanceinwhichconsolidationmightoccurismultipleobjectionstothesameapplicationbasedonthesameground.Inassessingwhethertoconsolidateobjections,theDRSPwillweightheefficienciesintime,money,effort,andconsistencythatmaybegainedbyconsolidationagainsttheprejudiceorinconvenienceconsolidationmaycause.TheDRSPswillendeavortohaveallobjectionsresolvedonasimilartimeline.Itisintendedthatnosequencingofobjectionswillbeestablished.NewgTLDapplicantsandobjectorsalsowillbepermittedtoproposeconsolidationofobjections,butitwillbeattheDRSP’sdiscretionwhethertoagreetotheproposal.ICANNcontinuestostronglyencouragealloftheDRSPstoconsolidatematterswheneverpracticable.140

IndependentObjector:139Ibid140Ibid,ConsolidationofObjections



TheAGBnotesthataformalobjectiontoagTLDapplicationmayalsobefiledbytheIndependentObjector(IO)andprovidesthefollowingdetails:

TheIOdoesnotactonbehalfofanyparticularpersonsorentities,butactssolelyinthebestinterestsofthepublicwhousetheglobalInternet.Inlightofthispublicinterestgoal,theIndependentObjectorislimitedtofilingobjectionsonthegroundsofLimitedPublicInterestandCommunity.TheIOmayfileobjectionsagainst“highlyobjectionable”gTLDapplicationstowhichnoobjectionhasbeenfiled.TheIOislimitedtofilingtwotypesofobjections:(1)LimitedPublicInterestobjectionsand(2)Communityobjections.TheIOisgrantedstandingtofileobjectionsontheseenumeratedgrounds,notwithstandingtheregularstandingrequirementsforsuchobjections(seesubsection3.1.2).TheIOmayfileaLimitedPublicInterestobjectionagainstanapplicationevenifaCommunityobjectionhasbeenfiled,andviceversa.TheIOmayfileanobjectionagainstanapplication,notwithstandingthefactthataStringConfusionobjectionoraLegalRightsobjectionwasfiled.Absentextraordinarycircumstances,theIOisnotpermittedtofileanobjectiontoanapplicationwhereanobjectionhasalreadybeenfiledonthesameground.


TheDGonNewgTLDSubsequentRoundsnotedthefollowingpotentialproblems:

o Objectionscriteria:WereobjectionscriteriasufficientlydetailedforDSRPsandPanels?

o Highfees:Theprohibitivelyhighfeestoaccess(e.g.,WIPOcharged$10,000forLegalRightsObjectionsandICCchargedmorethan$90,000forCommunityObjections.

o Objectionconsolidation:Lackofdetailedrulesforconsolidation.o IndependentObjections:Therole,functions,andpowersofIndependent

objection.Inparticular,ICANNshouldconsiderwhatprocessshouldbeusedtoaddressanindependentobjector'sconflictofinterest,withouthavingtopursueobjectionprocesstoconclusion.Considerapenalizationstructureforobjectorsthatmakemultiplefrivolousobjections.



Therewerechallengesinimplementingthedisputeresolutionstandardsperhapsbecausetheobjectionstandardswerenewanduntestedconceptsinthisround.InrelationtoGACEarlyWarnings,theywereissuedfor187applicationson20November2012.141Twoofthe187applicationsthatreceivedGACEarlyWarningwithdrewtheirapplicationswithin21daysofreceivingGACEarlyWarningandreceivedthe80%refund.TheAGBanticipatedthatGACAdvicewouldbeonsingleapplicationsasopposedtocategoriesofstrings,andthusthistypeofadvicepresentedchallengesinresolving.TheunanticipatedformofGACAdviceandtheissuesthatwereraisedwerethesubjectofmultipleconversationsbetweenICANNandthecommunity.Ultimately,changesweremadetotheNewgTLDProgramandtotheRegistryAgreement,reducingthelevelofpredictabilityavailabletoapplicants.Publiccommentsuggestedthatallobjectionmechanismsbeexamined,butinparticular,theLegalRightsObjectionbestudied.Anumberofspecificconcernswereprovided,suchasalackofdefinitionsaroundtermslike“legalrights,”thenatureofexpertdeterminations,andreview/appealmechanisms,whichapossiblePDP-WGshouldtakeintoconsiderationwhenaddressingthissubject142.


o Recommendation2o Recommendation3o Recommendation6o Recommendation20o ImplementationGuidelineP

• 4.4.3.4RationaleforPolicyDevelopmentWithrespecttoGACAdviceandEarlyWarnings,inrelationtotheNewgTLDProgram,thesemechanismswaywarrantcommunitydiscussion.DiscussionmaybeneededaroundwhattypesofguidelinesmightsatisfytheintentionoftheGACAdviceprocesswhilesupportinggreaterpredictabilityforapplicants.FortheissuestheDGraisedthefollowingsuggestionsmaybeconsideredbyapotentialPDP-WG:

141Seehttps://gacweb.icann.org/display/gacweb/GAC+Early+Warnings142Seefullcommenthere:http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-new-gtld-subsequent-prelim-31aug15/msg00004.html



o Objectionscriteria:ConsiderexpandingthedescriptionofobjectionscriteriaforDSRPsandpanelsintheAGB.

o Highfees:ConsiderreviewingthefeescheduleintheAGB.o Objectionconsolidation:Considerprovidingmoredetailedrulesfor

consolidation.o Appeals:Considerhavinganoversightbodyormechanismtoensure

consistency,andfairnessinadjudicationandmediation.Considerwhethertodevelopanappealsmechanismandwhatfactorswouldbeimportanttoconsiderforameaningfulandequitableappealsprocess.

o IndependentObjections:Considerwhatprocessshouldbeusedtoaddressanindependentobjector'sconflictofinterest,withouthavingtopursueobjectionprocesstoconclusion.Considerapenalizationstructureforobjectorsthatmakemultiplefrivolousobjections.

o Consistency:Examinetheobjectionproceedingsandresultingoutcomestodetermineifthereisapatternofinconsistencies,andifso,suggestwaystomitigate.

o Access:Howcanparties,particularlygovernmentsandcommunities,accesstheobjectionmechanismseasiertoprotecttheirrights/expresstheirconcerns?

Withanumberofchallengesidentified,policydevelopmentmaybewarranted.


• 4.4.4.1ExplanationoftheSubjectICANNhasAccountabilityMechanismsthatmaybeinvokedbythecommunity.TheAccountabilityMechanismswereutilizedbyapplicants,inparticulartheRequestforReconsiderationprocess,invokedforanumberCommunityPriorityEvaluations.OnitsAccountabilityMechanismwebsiteICANNstates:143

ICANNhasaprovencommitmenttoaccountabilityandtransparencyinallofitspractices.ICANNconsiderstheseprinciplestobefundamentalsafeguardsinensuringthatitsbottom-up,multi-stakeholdermodelremainseffective.ThemechanismsthroughwhichICANNachievesaccountabilityandtransparencyarebuiltintoeverylevelofitsorganizationandmandate–beginningwithitsBylaws,detailedinitsAccountabilityandTransparencyFrameworksandPrinciples144(adoptedbyICANN'sBoardin2008)andannuallyreinforcedinitsStrategicand

143Seehttps://www.icann.org/resources/pages/mechanisms-2014-03-20-en144Seehttp://archive.icann.org/en/accountability/frameworks-principles/contents-overview.htm



OperationalPlan145.Inordertoreinforceitstransparencyandaccountability,ICANNhasestablishedaccountabilitymechanismsforreviewofICANNactions.

Thesemechanismsareasfollows:(Seefurtherdetailsontheabove-mentionedsite)ReconsiderationProcess:ReconsiderationisamechanismprovidedbyArticleIV,Section2oftheBylaws146bywhichanypersonorentitymateriallyaffectedbyanaction(orinaction)ofICANNmayrequestrevieworreconsiderationofthatactionbytheBoard.IndependentReviewProcess(“IRP”):InadditiontotheReconsiderationProcess,ICANNhasalsoestablishedaseparateprocessforindependentthird-partyreviewofBoardactions(orinactions)allegedbyanaffectedpartytobeinconsistentwithICANN'sArticlesofIncorporationorBylaws.SeeArticleIV,Section3oftheICANNBylaws147.Ombudsman:TheICANNOmbudsmanisanindependentandimpartialneutralwhosefunctionistoprovideanindependentinternalevaluationofcomplaintsbymembersoftheICANNcommunitywhobelievethattheICANNstaff,BoardoranICANNconstituentbodyhastreatedthemunfairlyformatterswhichhavenototherwisebecomethesubjectoftheReconsiderationProcessortheIndependentReviewProcess.

• 4.4.4.2QuestionsandConcernsRelatedtoSubjectTheDGnotedseveralareaswhereadditional,ormodifiedAccountabilityMechanismsmayneedtobedevelopedtoensurefairness,counterabuse,andtofacilitateappeals.TheDGnotedthatahighpercentageofCPEresultstriggeredAccountabilityMechanisms,whichtheDGsuggestedmeantthatapplicantsfeltthattheprocesswasnotproperlyconducted,thoughthefrequentusageofanAccountabilityMechanismisnotnecessarilyanindicationofanaccountabilityissue.FeedbackfromtheDGsuggestedthatforCPE,thereappearedtobealackoftransparency,thatthePanelmisinterpretedtheapplicationsandreviewguidelines,andthatthePanelimproperlyappliedtheCPEcriteriainreachingitsdeterminations.Inaddition,theDGnotedthelackofamechanismforappealstoanobjection,aswellastothedeterminationofpanelsintheevaluationandobjectionsprocesses.


o AccountabilityMechanisms:https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/mechanisms-2014-03-20-en

145Seehttps://www.icann.org/en/about/planning146Seehttps://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#IV147Ibid




WithrespecttoaccountabilitymechanismsICANNshouldconsiderwhatfactorswouldbeimportantforameaningfulandequitableappealsprocess.Inparticular,ICANNcouldconsiderthefollowingquestions:

o Shouldtheprocessmakeadistinctionbetweenappealsrelatingtosubstantiveandproceduralissues?

o Whoisanappropriatefinalarbiter?o Shouldredressbeavailableonlyforcertainissuesbutnotforothers?o Shouldtherebesafeguardsagainstabuseandpenalties?

ItshouldbenotedthatthescopeofAccountabilityMechanismsextendsbeyondtheNewgTLDProgram.Forinstance,theCrossCommunityWorkingGrouponEnhancingICANNAccountability(CCWG-Accountability)148islookingatthisspecifictopic,amongstotherbroadertopicsrelatedtoICANN’saccountability.ThediscussionsandoutputsoftheCCWG-AccountabilitymaybebeneficialinaddressingissuesidentifiedbytheDGandthewidercommunity.

4.4.5CommunityApplications

• 4.4.5.1ExplanationoftheSubjectApplicantswhenapplyingcoulddesignatetheirapplicationascommunity-based,oneofonlytwoapplicationtypesavailableinthe2012NewgTLDProgramround,withtheotherbeingstandard.Intheabsenceofstringcontention,claimstosupportaparticularcompanyweresimplyaccepted,asrecommendedinImplementationGuidelineH:

WhereanapplicantlaysanyclaimthattheTLDisintendedtosupportaparticularcommunitysuchasasponsoredTLD,oranyotherTLDintendedforaspecifiedcommunity,thatclaimwillbetakenontrustwiththefollowingexceptions:(i)theclaimrelatestoastringthatisalsosubjecttoanotherapplicationandtheclaimtosupportacommunityisbeingusedtogainpriorityfortheapplication;and(ii)aformalobjectionprocessisinitiated.

148DetailsregardingtheworkoftheCCWG-Accountabilitycanbefoundhere:https://community.icann.org/display/acctcrosscomm/CCWG+on+Enhancing+ICANN+Accountability



Undertheseexceptions,StaffEvaluatorswilldevisecriteriaandprocedurestoinvestigatetheclaim.Underexception(ii),anexpertpanelwillapplytheprocess,guidelines,anddefinitionssetforthinIGP.

However,intheeventthattherearemultipleapplicantsvyingforthesameorsimilarstring,the2007FinalReportprovidedguidanceforresolvingthatstringcontentionwhenacommunity-basedapplicantwasinvolved,asnotedinImplementationGuidelineF:

Ifthereiscontentionforstrings,applicantsmay:i)resolvecontentionbetweenthemwithinapre-establishedtimeframeii)ifthereisnomutualagreement,aclaimtosupportacommunitybyonepartywillbeareasontoawardprioritytothatapplication.Ifthereisnosuchclaim,andnomutualagreementaprocesswillbeputinplacetoenableefficientresolutionofcontentionand;iii)theICANNBoardmaybeusedtomakeafinaldecision,usingadvicefromstaffandexpertpanels.

AccordingtoModule4,StringContention,oftheApplicantGuidebook,in4.2CommunityPriorityEvaluation,ifthereisnoself-resolutionofstringcontentionforcommunity-basedapplicantsofidenticalorconfusinglysimilarstrings,aCommunityPriorityEvaluationmayberequested.149TheAGBnotesthefollowingdetails

Communitypriorityevaluationwillonlyoccurifacommunity-basedapplicantselectsthisoption.Communitypriorityevaluationcanbeginonceallapplicationsinthecontentionsethavecompletedallpreviousstagesoftheprocess.Thecommunitypriorityevaluationisanindependentanalysis.Scoresreceivedintheapplicantreviewsarenotcarriedforwardtothecommunitypriorityevaluation.Eachapplicationparticipatinginthecommunitypriorityevaluationbeginswithascoreofzero.

AccordingtotheAGB,allapplicantsmustidentifywhethertheyaresubmittingacommunity-basedorstandardapplication.TheAGBnotesthefollowing:

149SeeApplicantGuidebookModule4,StringContentionProcedures,4.2CommunityPriorityEvaluationathttps://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/string-contention-procedures-04jun12-en.pdf



Atthestartofthecontentionresolutionstage,allcommunity-basedapplicantswithinremainingcontentionsetswillbenotifiedoftheopportunitytooptforacommunitypriorityevaluationviasubmissionofadepositbyaspecifieddate.Onlythoseapplicationsforwhichadeposithasbeenreceivedbythedeadlinewillbescoredinthecommunitypriorityevaluation.Followingtheevaluation,thedepositwillberefundedtoapplicantsthatscore14orhigher.Beforethecommunitypriorityevaluationbegins,theapplicantswhohaveelectedtoparticipatemaybeaskedtoprovideadditionalinformationrelevanttothecommunitypriorityevaluation.150

AcommunityprioritypanelappointedbyICANNwillreviewcommunity-basedapplicationstodeterminewhetheranyofthemfulfillsthecommunityprioritycriteria.Ifasinglecommunity-basedapplicationisfoundtomeetthecommunityprioritycriteriathatapplicantwillbedeclaredtoprevailinthecommunitypriorityevaluationandmayproceed.Ifmorethanonecommunity-basedapplicationisfoundtomeetthecriteria,theremainingcontentionbetweenthemwillberesolvedasdescribedintheAGBasfollows:

Inthecasewheretheapplicationsareinindirectcontentionwithoneanother(seesubsection4.1.1),theywillbothbeallowedtoproceedtothenextstage.Inthiscase,applicationsthatareindirectcontentionwithanyofthesecommunity-basedapplicationswillbeeliminated.Inthecasewheretheapplicationsareindirectcontentionwithoneanother,theseapplicantswillproceedtoanauction.Ifallpartiesagreeandpresentajointrequest,ICANNmaypostponetheauctionforathree-monthperiodwhilethepartiesattempttoreachasettlementbeforeproceedingontoauction.Thisisaone-timeoption;ICANNwillgrantnomorethanonesuchrequestforeachsetofcontendingapplications.Ifnoneofthecommunity-basedapplicationsarefoundtomeetthecriteria,thenallofthepartiesinthecontentionset(bothstandardandcommunity-basedapplicants)willproceedtoanauction.151

TheCommunityPriorityPanelwillreviewandscoretheoneormorecommunity-basedapplicationsagainstfourcriteria:1. CommunityEstablishment(0-4points);2. NexusbetweenProposedStringandCommunity(0-4points);150Ibid151Ibid



3. RegistrationPolicies(0-4points);and4. CommunityEndorsement(0-4points).Anapplicationmustscoreatleast14pointstoprevailincommunitypriorityevaluation.Therewasconsiderabledebateaboutwhattheproperthresholdshouldbeforaprevailingscore.Theimplicationsofaprevailingscorearethatthecommunity-basedapplicationreceivespriorityoverallotherapplicationsinthecontentionset,socareneededtobetakentoensurethatthethresholdwassetadequatelyhightopreventillegitimateuseofthemechanism,whilealsoallowingcommunitiesthatmetthedefinitionsasestablishedintheAGBtohavealegitimateopportunitytopasstheevaluation.

• 4.4.5.2QuestionsandConcernsRelatedtoSubjectDGmembersvoicedcriticismandconcernsregardingCPEresults,includingfeedbackthattherewasalackoftransparency,thatthePanelmisinterpretedtheapplications,thatthePanelimproperlyappliedtheCPEcriteriainreachingitsdeterminations,andthatthescoringthresholdasdefinedintheAGBwastoohigh.Ofthe18CPEresultsthathavebeenpublished,11haveresultedinanICANNAccountabilityMechanism,152filedeitherbytheapplicantifitdidnotprevailinCPE,orbytheothermembersofthecontentionsetifthecommunityapplicantprevailed.CPEwastheonlyareaoftheprogramthatreliedonacomparativeevaluationthatcreated“winners”and“losers”andassuch,thestakeswereunderstoodtobehighbyallparties.WhiletheusageofaccountabilitymechanismswashighrelativetothenumberofCPEs,itshouldbenotedthattodate,thereisonlyasingleinstancewheretheCPEresultsandprocesswerenotupheld,whichseemstoindicatethatICANNanditsevaluatorscarriedouttheprocessproperly.Assuch,CPE,andperhapsthebroadertopicofhowcommunitiesshouldbeconsideredwithintheNewgTLDProgram,maywarrantconsiderablediscussiononthedefinitionofcommunity,theconceptofpriorityforcommunity-basedapplications,theprocessforawardingsuchpriority,andthecriteriafordeterminingifpriorityisapplicable.GACAdvicewasprovidedtoICANNinmultipleCommuniquésregardingcommunity-basedapplicationsandCPE.InitsCommuniquésfromBeijing,Durban,andSingapore,theGACreferredto“preferentialtreatment”thatshouldbegivenapplicationswith“demonstrablecommunitysupport”ora“collectiveandclearopinion.”153

152See:https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/mechanisms-2014-03-20-en153Seehere:https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/gac-to-board-18apr13-en.pdf;http://durban47.icann.org/meetings/durban2013/presentation-gac-communique-18jul13-en.pdf;http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/gac-to-board-27mar14-en.pdf



Inthe14May2014scorecard154,theNGPCrespondedtotheGACthatit“willcontinuetoprotectthepublicinterestandimproveoutcomesforcommunities,andtoworkwiththeapplicantsinanopenandtransparentmannerinanefforttoassistthosecommunitieswithintheexistingframework.”ByadheringtotheAGBandensuringeachCPEisconsistentwiththeAGBcriteria,ICANNhassoughttomeettheGAC’sadvice.

• 4.4.5.3RelevantGuidanceo ImplementationGuidelineFo ImplementationGuidelineH


CommunityPriorityEvaluation(CPE)wasunderstoodtobeachallengingaspectoftheprogramandintakingintoaccountthenumberofreconsiderationrequestsfrombothcommunity-basedapplicantsthatdidnotprevailandnoncommunity-basedapplicantsthatwereoustedbyaprevailingcommunity-basedapplicant,thosechallengeswererealized.Assuggestedabove,thetopicofacommunityframeworkwithintheNewgTLDProgram,whichcouldseektorefinethedefinitionofcommunity,theconceptofpriorityforcommunity-basedapplications,theprocessforawardingsuchpriority,andthecriteriaandscoringthresholdfordeterminingifpriorityisapplicablecouldbeexplored.GiventhewidespreaddissatisfactionoftheresultsofCPE,apotentialPDP-WGonNewgTLDSubsequentProceduresmaywishtoreviewwhethertheimplementationmeetstheGNSO’sintendedgoals.Asofthewritingofthisreport,notallpossiblecasesofCPEhaveconcluded;apossiblePDP-WGmaywanttotakethisintoconsideration,ifthesituationpersists,beforereachinganyconclusions.

4.5Group4:InternationalizedDomainNames:

Thesubjectsinthissectionareinrelationtothefollowingelementsfromthe2007FinalReport,ascategorizedbytheDG:

o PrincipleB,and;o Recommendation18

4.5.1InternationalizedDomainNamesandUniversalAcceptance

• 4.5.1.1ExplanationoftheSubject

154Scorecardavailablehere:https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/resolutions-new-gtld-annex-1-14may14-en.pdf



AsdescribedbyICANN,155InternationalizedDomainNames(IDNs)permittheglobalcommunitytouseadomainnameintheirnativelanguageorscript.Thisisenabledbyallowingdomainnamestohavecharactersfromdifferentscripts,beyondtheletters(atoz),digits(0to9)andhyphen(-),asencodedbytheUnicodestandard156andasallowedbyrelevantIDNprotocols(RFC5890157,5891158,5892159,5893160,and5894161).ICANNhasinstitutedtheIDNProgramtoassistandpromotethemultilingualInternetusingIDNs.TheprogramisprimarilyfocusedontheplanningandimplementationoftheIDNTop-levelDomains(TLDs)thatincludeccTLDsandgTLDs.TheIDNProgramalsosupportsandundertakesprojectsgearedtowardseffectivedeploymentofIDNsatthesecond-level,asguidedbythecommunity.TheIDNProgramhasbeenimplementingthefollowingprojectsfocusedonIDNTop-levelDomains.Top-levelDomains

• RootZoneLabelGenerationRules(LGR)162acommunitydrivenprojectaimingtodefineconservativemechanismforintroducingIDNtop-leveldomainsintotheInternet'sRootZoneinastableandsecuremanner.

• LGRToolset163projectisbeingundertakentomakeiteasierforthecommunitytoformallyrepresent,create,useandmanagedatarelatedtotheLabelGenerationRulesfordifferentlanguagesandscripts.ICANNintendstousetheLGRToolsettoassistcommunityindeterminingthevalidTop-LevelDomains(TLDs)andtheirvariants(ifany)forthedifferentscripts.

CountryCodeTop-levelDomains• Thecommunityhascreatedaspecialprocess–theIDNccTLDFastTrack

Process164–toevaluateTop-LevelDomainlabelsindifferentlanguagesandscriptsforcountriesandterritories.IDNProgramimplementsvariousaspectsofthisprocess.

IDNProgramisimplementingthefollowingprojectsfocusedonIDNsattheSecond-level

155Seehttps://www.icann.org/resources/pages/idn-2012-02-25-en156Seehttp://www.unicode.org/157Seehttp://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5890.txt158Seehttp://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5891.txt159Seehttp://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5892.txt160Seehttp://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5893.txt161Seehttp://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5894.txt162Seehttps://www.icann.org/resources/pages/root-zone-lgr-2015-06-21-en163Seehttps://www.icann.org/resources/pages/lgr-toolset-2015-06-21-en164Seehttps://www.icann.org/resources/pages/fast-track-2012-02-25-en



• IDNImplementationGuidelines165documenttherecommendedpracticeforregistriesimplementingIDNsatthesecond-levelthroughacommunityledprocess.Theseguidelinesaredesignedtopromoteconsistencyandminimizetheriskofcybersquattingandconsumerconfusion.

• Second-levelLGRReference166arebeingdevelopedontherequestofthecommunitytoimproveconsistencyintestingoftheIDNtablesduringPre-DelegationTestingandRegistryServiceEvaluationProcess.

OntheICANNUniversalAcceptancewebsite,ICANNexplainstheissueasfollows:167

IntheearliestdaysoftheInternet,theDomainNameSystem(DNS)containedarelativelysmallsetoftop-leveldomains(TLDs)suchas.com,.netand.org.ThesewerenamesintheASCIIcharactersetcontainingthreeA-Zletters.ThoseavailableTLDswerelaterexpandedtoincludetwocharacterCountryCodeTLDs(ccTLDs).Inearly2001top-leveldomainspacegrewtoincludenameswithmorethanthreecharacters.In2008top-leveldomainsoutsidetheASCIIcharactersetarrived(Chinese,Cyrillic,Arabic,etc[GC1].)enablingamulti-lingualInternet.In2013thetop-leveldomainnamespacebegangrowingevenmorerapidlyasnewgenerictop-leveldomains(gTLDs)weredelegatedintotherootzone.SomeinternetservicesandsoftwareapplicationshavenotsufficientlyevolvedtoproperlyrecognizeandconsistentlyhandlenewgTLDsandInternationalizedDomainNames(IDN),thusimpedingtheaddedbenefitsofuserchoice,userconfidenceandnamespacecompetitiontotheconsumer.Softwareandserviceprovidershavehistoricallybeenunawareoftheseproblemsorhadlittlemarketorregulatoryincentivetoinvestinsolutionsthatwouldbringtrueinteroperabilitytoplatformsorapplications.Acoordinatedindustryeffortisunderwaytoensureatimely,practical,andcontinuingresolutiontothesechanges.

ICANNnotes:“UniversalAcceptancewillbeconsideredcompletewhenanypersoncanregisteranduseadomainnameinanytop-leveldomaininwidelydistributedwebbrowsers,emailclients,mobileapps,andsettinguponlineaccountsforInternetandotherservices.”UniversalAcceptanceRoadmapTheuniversalacceptanceroadmapwasoriginallypublished11September2014.168TheRoadmapstates:

165Seehttps://www.icann.org/resources/pages/implementation-guidelines-2012-02-25-en166Seehttps://www.icann.org/resources/pages/second-level-lgr-2015-06-21-en167Seehttps://www.icann.org/resources/pages/universal-acceptance-2012-02-25-en#overview



TheUniversalAcceptanceinitiativeisanefforttoaddresspotentialuserissuesandobstaclesobservedintheuseofnewTopLevelDomains,issuesandobstaclesrootedprimarilyinassumptionsbasedontheTLD.Thisabridgedroadmap,anoutcomeoftheJIGFinalReportonUniversalAcceptanceofIDNTLDs169plusotherwork,presentsaproposal,basedoncommunityinputincludingpubliccomment170,astohowICANN'senergy,resources,andactionsshouldbeappliedaspartoftheinitiative.TheabridgedroadmapemphasizesICANN'smulti-stakeholdermodelbylimitingitsscopetoICANN'sroleandpossibleactions.Identifyingandaddressingtheissuesandobstaclesrequireworkandcollaborationamongmanystakeholdergroupswhohavedocumentedtheiractivityindependently.ICANNviewsitsprimaryroleasoneofactivecoordinationandfacilitation,actingasacatalystinconnectingrelevantstakeholderswitheachotherandwithpartieswhoareinapositiontoremovetheseobstacles.Thevisionincludesimplementinga'corporatememory'asacentralinformationdepositoryofprogress.

Further,inFebruary2015,thecommunitycreatedtheUniversalAcceptanceSteeringGroup(UASG)171toleadtheefforttopromoteUniversalAcceptanceofallvaliddomainnamesandemailaddresses.RelevantRequirementsintheAGBTheAGBstatesinPartII,RequirementsforInternationalizedDomainNames:

Theserequirementsapplyonlytoprospectivetop-leveldomainsthatcontainnon-ASCIIcharacters.Applicantsfortheseinternationalizedtop-leveldomainlabelsareexpectedtobefamiliarwiththeInternetEngineeringTaskForce(IETF)IDNAstandards,Unicodestandards,andtheterminologyassociatedwithInternationalizedDomainNames.

2.1ThelabelmustbeanA-labelasdefinedinIDNA,convertedfrom(andconvertibleto)aU-labelthatisconsistentwiththedefinitioninIDNA,andfurtherrestrictedbythefollowing,non-exhaustive,listoflimitations:2.1.1MustbeavalidA-labelaccordingtoIDNA.

168Seehttps://www.icann.org/resources/pages/universal-acceptance-initiative-2014-10-03-en169Seehttps://ccnso.icann.org/announcements/announcement-18nov13-en.htm170Seehttps://www.icann.org/public-comments/tld-acceptance-initiative-2014-06-18-en171UniversalAcceptanceSteeringGroup(UASG)Wiki:https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=47255444



2.1.2ThederivedpropertyvalueofallcodepointsusedintheU-label,asdefinedbyIDNA,mustbePVALIDorCONTEXT(accompaniedbyunambiguouscontextualrules).2.1.3Thegeneralcategoryofallcodepoints,asdefinedbyIDNA,mustbeoneof(Ll,Lo,Lm,Mn,Mc).2.1.4TheU-labelmustbefullycompliantwithNormalizationFormC,asdescribedinUnicodeStandardAnnex#15:UnicodeNormalizationForms.Seealsoexamplesinhttp://unicode.org/faq/normalization.html.2.1.5TheU-labelmustconsistentirelyofcharacterswiththesamedirectionalproperty,orfulfilltherequirementsoftheBidiruleperRFC5893.2.2ThelabelmustmeettherelevantcriteriaoftheICANNGuidelinesfortheImplementationofInternationalisedDomainNames.Seehttp://www.icann.org/en/topics/idn/implementation-guidelines.ht.

Thisincludesthefollowing,non-exhaustive,listoflimitations:

2.2.1AllcodepointsinasinglelabelmustbetakenfromthesamescriptasdeterminedbytheUnicodeStandardAnnex#24:UnicodeScriptProperty(Seehttp://www.unicode.org/reports/tr24/).2.2.2Exceptionsto2.2.1arepermissibleforlanguageswithestablishedorthographiesandconventionsthatrequirethecommingleduseofmultiplescripts.However,evenwiththisexception,visuallyconfusablecharactersfromdifferentscriptswillnotbeallowedtoco-existinasinglesetofpermissiblecodepointsunlessacorrespondingpolicyandcharactertableareclearlydefined.

IDNVariantsThe2007FinalReportdidnotprovideguidanceonIDNvariants,buttheAGBstatedin1.3.3that:

AvariantTLDstringresultsfromthesubstitutionofoneormorecharactersintheapplied-forgTLDstringwithvariantcharactersbasedontheapplicant’stopleveltables.Eachapplicationcontainsoneapplied-forgTLDstring.TheapplicantmayalsodeclareanyvariantstringsfortheTLDinitsapplication.However,novariantgTLDstringswillbedelegatedthroughtheNewgTLDProgramuntilvariantmanagementsolutionsaredevelopedandimplemented.Declaringvariantstrings



isinformativeonlyandwillnotimplyanyrightorclaimtothedeclaredvariantstrings.Whenavariantdelegationprocessisestablished,applicantsmayberequiredtosubmitadditionalinformationsuchasimplementationdetailsforthevariantTLDmanagementmechanism,andmayneedtoparticipateinasubsequentevaluationprocess,whichcouldcontainadditionalfeesandreviewsteps.ThefollowingscenariosarepossibleduringthegTLDevaluationprocess:

a) Applicantdeclaresvariantstringstotheapplied-forgTLDstringinitsapplication.Iftheapplicationissuccessful,theapplied-forgTLDstringwillbedelegatedtotheapplicant.Thedeclaredvariantstringsarenotedforfuturereference.Thesedeclaredvariantstringswillnotbedelegatedtotheapplicantalongwiththeapplied-forgTLDstring,norwilltheapplicanthaveanyrightorclaimtothedeclaredvariantstrings.

VariantstringslistedinsuccessfulgTLDapplicationswillbetaggedtothespecificapplicationandaddedtoa“DeclaredVariantsList”thatwillbeavailableonICANN’swebsite.Alistofpending(i.e.,declared)variantstringsfromtheIDNccTLDFastTrackisavailableathttp://icann.org/en/topics/idn/fast-track/stringevaluation-completion-en.htm.

ICANNmayperformindependentanalysisonthedeclaredvariantstrings,andwillnotnecessarilyincludeallstringslistedbytheapplicantontheDeclaredVariantsList.

b) MultipleapplicantsapplyforstringsthatareidentifiedbyICANNas

variantsofoneanother.TheseapplicationswillbeplacedinacontentionsetandwillfollowthecontentionresolutionproceduresinModule4.

c) ApplicantsubmitsanapplicationforagTLDstringanddoesnot

indicatevariantstotheapplied-forgTLDstring.ICANNwillnotidentifyvariantstringsunlessscenario(b)aboveoccurs.

Eachvariantstringdeclaredintheapplicationmustalsoconformtothestringrequirementsinsection2.2.1.3.2.Variantstringsdeclaredintheapplicationwillbereviewedforconsistencywiththetop-leveltablessubmittedintheapplication.Shouldanydeclaredvariantstringsnotbebasedonuseofvariantcharactersaccordingtothesubmittedtop-



leveltables,theapplicantwillbenotifiedandthedeclaredstringwillnolongerbeconsideredpartoftheapplication.Declarationofvariantstringsinanapplicationdoesnotprovidetheapplicantanyrightorreservationtoaparticularstring.VariantstringsontheDeclaredVariantsListmaybesubjecttosubsequentadditionalreviewperaprocessandcriteriatobedefined.Itshouldbenotedthatwhilevariantsforsecondandlower-levelregistrationsaredefinedfreelybythelocalcommunitieswithoutanyICANNvalidation,theremaybespecificrulesandvalidationcriteriaspecifiedforvariantstringstobeallowedatthetoplevel.Itisexpectedthatthevariantinformationprovidedbyapplicantsinthefirstapplicationroundwillcontributetoabetterunderstandingoftheissuesandassistindeterminingappropriatereviewstepsandfeelevelsgoingforward.

TheIDNVariantTLDProgramcontinuestoworkonthe“creationandmaintenanceofalabelgenerationrulesetprocessfortheroot,whichisonthecriticalpathtoavariantmanagementprocessfortherootzone.AbasicassumptionisthatnovariantTLDscanactuallybeimplementeduntilthenecessarycommunityworkonthecodepointrepertoireandlabelgenerationrulesfortheroothavebeenfinalized.172• 4.5.1.2QuestionsandConcernsRelatedtoSubject

ICANNstatesthatthegoalof"domainnamesinaTLDmustbeuseableinapplicationsregardlessofthewrittenscript,andlengthornewnessoftheTLD,"whichroughlycapturestheobservedissuesandobstaclesdrivingthediscussionofuniversalacceptance.TheuseofnamesintheIDNTLDscombinesallofthechallengesmentionedinthegoalaswellastouchingareasofconcernsofgenericandcountry-codeTLDs.ICANNstates,“Registrationofnamesmustwork,protocolsmustwork,andservices/applicationsimpactingtheusermustwork;workalsointhesensethatdomainnamesandtheidentifiersbuiltonthemareuseableinadministrativelypermittedways.Includedinthisgoalistheusabilityofinternationalizedemailaddresses(RFC6530).”173ICANNnotesthatbasedonitsresearchofthechallenges,thelistofissuesandobstaclesasdocumentedbystakeholdersishighlydynamic,diverse,andsometimesoverlapping.ICANN'sroleaspartoftheinitiativeistofosterrelationshipsamongstakeholdersinvolvedwithuniversalacceptanceissues.ICANNwillalsopromoteinternationalizedemailasawaytoenablefullfunctionalityofIDNTLDs.Inaddition,

172InformationabouttheIDNVariantTLDProgram:https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/variant-tlds-2012-05-08-en#history173Ibid



ICANNwill“developameanstoacceptreportsofproblems,aswellassuccesses,topassinformationamongststakeholdersforresolution[and]engagestakeholdersintheefforttoexchangeinformationonuniversalacceptance,whetherthisisseenasinformationalorameanstogaininsightintoissuesandobstacles.”Finally,asnotedabove,thereiscurrentlynovariantmanagementprocessfortherootzoneandassuch,IDNgTLDscurrentlyhavenomechanismtodelegateIDNvariantswheretheymaybeneficial.


o PrincipleBo PrincipleCo Recommendation18


Therearecurrentlycommunity-ledinitiativesrelatedtoUniversalAcceptanceandIDNVariants.ItisnotanticipatedthatapotentialPDP-WGonNewgTLDSubsequentProcedureswouldneedtoproducesubstantiveworkonUniversalAcceptanceastheUASGhasbeendesignatedbythecommunitytoleadthiseffort.However,theremaybeaneedtoconsidertheoutcomesoftheIDNVariantsProgramtodetermineanddevelopguidelinesforintegrationintotheNewgTLDspace,sopolicydevelopmentmaybeneededinthatregard.

4.6Group5:TechnicalandOperationsThesubjectsinthissectionareinrelationtothefollowingelementsfromthe2007FinalReport,ascategorizedbytheDG174:

o PrinciplesD,EandF;o Recommendations4,7,and8,and;o NewTopic“NameCollisions”

4.6.1SecurityandStability• 4.6.1.1ExplanationoftheSubject

IntheAGBtherearethreeaspectsoftheInitialEvaluationthatinvolvesecurityconsiderations.Thefirstispartofthestringreviewanddetermineswhetherthe

174Ibid



applied-forgTLDstringmightadverselyaffectDNSsecurityorstability.Thesecondandthirdrelatetotheapplicantreviewanddetermine:

o Whethertheapplicanthastherequisitetechnical,operational,andfinancialcapabilitytooperatearegistry;and

o WhethertheregistryservicesofferedbytheapplicantmightadverselyaffectDNSsecurityorstability.

DNSStabilityAccordingtotheAGB:175

TheDNSStabilityReviewdetermineswhetheranapplied-forgTLDstringmightcauseinstabilitytotheDNS.Inallcases,thiswillinvolveareviewforconformancewithtechnicalandotherrequirementsforgTLDstrings(labels).Insomeexceptionalcases,anextendedreviewmaybenecessarytoinvestigatepossibletechnicalstabilityproblemswiththeapplied-forgTLDstring.Note:AllapplicantsshouldrecognizeissuessurroundinginvalidTLDqueriesattherootleveloftheDNS.AnynewTLDregistryoperatormayexperienceunanticipatedqueries,andsomeTLDsmayexperienceanon-trivialloadofunanticipatedqueries.Formoreinformation,seetheSecurityandStabilityAdvisoryCommittee(SSAC)’sreportonthistopicathttp://www.icann.org/en/committees/security/sac045.pdf.Somepubliclyavailablestatisticsarealsoavailableathttp://stats.l.root-servers.org/.ICANNwilltakestepstoalertapplicantsoftheissuesraisedinSAC045,andencouragetheapplicanttopreparetominimizethepossibilityofoperationaldifficultiesthatwouldposeastabilityoravailabilityproblemforitsregistrantsandusers.However,thisnoticeismerelyanadvisorytoapplicantsandisnotpartoftheevaluation,unlessthestringraisessignificantsecurityorstabilityissuesasdescribedinthefollowingsection.

ConcerningtheStringReviewProceduretheAGBstates:

NewgTLDlabelsmustnotadverselyaffectthesecurityorstabilityoftheDNS.DuringtheInitialEvaluationperiod,ICANNwillconductapreliminaryreviewonthesetofapplied-forgTLDstringsto:

175SeeModule2,2.2.1.3DNSSecurityReview,athttps://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/evaluation-procedures-04jun12-en.pdf



• ensurethatapplied-forgTLDstringscomplywiththerequirements

providedinsection2.2.1.3.2,and• determinewhetheranystringsraisesignificantsecurityorstability

issuesthatmayrequirefurtherreview.…Thepanelwilldeterminewhetherthestringfailstocomplywithrelevantstandardsorcreatesaconditionthatadverselyaffectsthethroughput,responsetime,consistency,orcoherenceofresponsestoInternetserversorendsystems,andwillreportonitsfindings.Ifthepaneldeterminesthatthestringcomplieswithrelevantstandardsanddoesnotcreatetheconditionsdescribedabove,theapplicationwillpasstheDNSStabilityreview.176

ItwasnotedintheAGBthatastringthatcomplieswiththetechnicalrequirementsdetailedinSection2.2.1.3.2StringRequirements,largelyenforcedbytheTLDApplicationSystem,wouldhaveaverylowprobabilityofrequiringadditionalreview,Intheeventthattheevaluationpaneldeterminesthatthestringdoesnotcomply,theapplicationwillnotpasstheInitialEvaluation,andnofurtherreviewsareavailable.InthecasewhereastringisdeterminedlikelytocausesecurityorstabilityproblemsintheDNS,theapplicantwillbenotifiedassoonastheDNSStabilityreviewiscompleted.RegistryServicesReviewAccordingtotheAGB:

…ICANNwillreviewtheapplicant’sproposedregistryservicesforanypossibleadverseimpactonsecurityorstability.Theapplicantwillberequiredtoprovidealistofproposedregistryservicesinitsapplication.

Section2.2.3.1intheAGBprovidesdefinitionsofregistryservices,security,andstabilityastheyrelatetotheRegistryServicesReview.Section2.2.3.2definescustomaryservicesandstatesthat:

TheapplicantmustdescribewhetheranyoftheseregistryservicesareintendedtobeofferedinamanneruniquetotheTLD.AnyadditionalregistryservicesthatareuniquetotheproposedgTLDregistryshouldbedescribedindetail.

176Ibid



Thereviewmethodologyisasstatedin2.2.3.4oftheAGB:

Reviewoftheapplicant’sproposedregistryserviceswillincludeapreliminarydeterminationofwhetheranyoftheproposedregistryservicescouldraisesignificantsecurityorstabilityissuesandrequireadditionalconsideration.Ifthepreliminarydeterminationrevealsthattheremaybesignificantsecurityorstabilityissues(asdefinedinsubsection2.2.3.1)surroundingaproposedservice,theapplicationwillbeflaggedforanextendedreviewbytheRegistryServicesTechnicalEvaluationPanel(RSTEP),seehttp://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/rstep.html).Thisreview,ifapplicable,willoccurduringtheExtendedEvaluationperiod(refertoSection2.3).Intheeventthatanapplicationisflaggedforextendedreviewofoneormoreregistryservices,anadditionalfeetocoverthecostoftheextendedreviewwillbeduefromtheapplicant.Applicantswillbeadvisedofanyadditionalfeesdue,whichbereceivedbeforetheadditionalreview.

Technical/OperationalReviewAgain,accordingtotheAGB:

Initsapplication,theapplicantwillrespondtoasetofquestions(seequestions24–44intheApplicationForm)intendedtogatherinformationabouttheapplicant’stechnicalcapabilitiesanditsplansforoperationoftheproposedgTLD.ApplicantsarenotrequiredtohavedeployedanactualgTLDregistrytopasstheTechnical/Operationalreview.Itwillbenecessary,however,foranapplicanttodemonstrateaclearunderstandingandaccomplishmentofsomegroundworktowardthekeytechnicalandoperationalaspectsofagTLDregistryoperation.Subsequently,eachapplicantthatpassesthetechnicalevaluationandallotherstepswillberequiredtocompleteapre-delegationtechnicaltestpriortodelegationofthenewgTLD.RefertoModule5,TransitiontoDelegation,foradditionalinformation.

Pre-DelegationTestingOnceanapplicantcompletestheevaluationportionoftheprocess,thereareseveralfinalstepsremaining,includingPre-DelegationTesting,whichisapre-requisitetobeingdelegatedintotherootzone.Insection5.2oftheAGB,itstatesthefollowing



regardingPre-DelegationTesting:

Thepurposeofthepre-delegationtechnicaltestistoverifythattheapplicanthasmetitscommitmenttoestablishregistryoperationsinaccordancewiththetechnicalandoperationalcriteriadescribedinModule2.ThetestisalsointendedtoindicatethattheapplicantcanoperatethegTLDinastableandsecuremanner.Allapplicantswillbetestedonapass/failbasisaccordingtotherequirementsthatfollow.ThetestelementscoverboththeDNSserveroperationalinfrastructureandregistrysystemoperations.InmanycasestheapplicantwillperformthetestelementsasinstructedandprovidedocumentationoftheresultstoICANNtodemonstratesatisfactoryperformance.AtICANN’sdiscretion,aspectsoftheapplicant’sself-certificationdocumentationcanbeauditedeitheron-siteattheservicesdeliverypointoftheregistryorelsewhereasdeterminedbyICANN.


InregardstotheDNSStabilityreview,theexpectationwasthatstringscomplyingwiththestringrequirementswouldhaveaverylowprobabilityofpresentingarisktotheDNS,andtheevaluationresultsboreoutthisexpectation.However,challengesdidexist,andariskthatwasidentifiedafterprogramlaunchbytheSecurityandStabilityAdvisoryCommittee(SSAC)viaareporttitledSAC057:SSACAdvisoryonInternalNameCertificates,notedthepossibleissueof“namecollision”andprovidedsuggestionsonhowtheissuecouldbemitigated177.InAugustof2014,ICANNpublishedtheNameCollisionOccurrenceManagementFramework(seefurtherdiscussioninsection4.6.3.1below),intendedtoprovidealong-termsolutionforallregistryoperatorstomitigatetheriskofnamecollision.ThestudyNameCollisionintheDNS178andtheNameCollisionOccurrenceManagementFramework179identifiedthreehigh-riskstrings(HOME,CORP,MAIL)thatwereappliedforinthisapplicationround.However,beforetheFrameworkcanbeadoptedforuseinfutureapplicationrounds,aprocessforidentifyingadditionalhigh-riskstrings(whichmaynothavebeenappliedforinthisround)shouldbedevelopedandagreedupon.

177Reportavailablehere::https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-057-en.pdf178InterisleConsultingGroup,LLC.(2August2013).NameCollisionintheDNS.Retrievedfromhttps://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/name-collision-02aug13-en.pdf179ICANN.(30July2014).NameCollisionOccurrenceManagementFramework.Retrievedfromhttps://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/name-collision-framework-30jul14-en.pdf



Thoughonlythreehigh-riskstringswerespecificallyidentifiedtoposeasignificantrisktotheDNSifdelegated,otherstringswerenotedtopossiblyposealesserrisk.IfpolicydevelopmentonNameCollisionsisenvisioned,collaborationwiththeSSACisadvised.Fromanoperationalperspective,theportionofthereviewthatwasmostintensiverelatedtoIDNswastheDNSStabilityreview.LabelGenerationRulesforIDNsareintheprocessofbeingestablishedandshouldbeleveragedfortheDNSStabilityreviewinthefuturetoreducetheamountofreviewrequiredforIDNs.RegardingtheRegistryServicesReview,ahighpercentageofapplicationsreceivedaclarifyingquestion,indicatingperhapsthatguidanceprovidedtoapplicantscouldbeimproved.However,avastnumberofapplicantsemployedtheservicesofalimitedfewRSPs,whichmayaccountforthehighnumberofclarifyingquestions.TheRegistryServicesReviewcouldpossiblybeimprovedwithknowledgethatmostapplicantswilluseaRSP,allowingforefficiencygains,consistency.Inaddition,thepotentialcreationofRSPaccreditationprogramwouldalsolikelysimplythisreviewprocesswithoutsacrificingthesecurityandstabilityofDNS.InregardstotheTechnicalandOperationalCapabilityEvaluation,itwasdesignedtoevaluatetheapplicants’knowledgeandunderstandingofthecriteria,astheywerenotrequiredtohavetheirinfrastructuredeployedforactualtesting.Withexperiencefromthe2012NewgTLDProgramround,withthemajorityofapplicantsengagingaRSP,theevaluationprocesscouldbestructureddifferently,sinceinfrastructurewouldlikelybeavailableandcouldactuallybetestedduringevaluation,asopposedtoduringpre-delegationtesting.Or,ifanaccreditationprogramwasdevelopedanddeployed,theevaluationprocesscouldpotentiallybegreatlysimplified,again,withoutsacrificingthesecurityandstabilityoftheDNS.InregardtoPre-DelegationTesting,thescopeoftestingmaywarrantanalysistoensurethatapplicantsaretestedforreadinessonallrequirementsintheirRegistryAgreement,aswellasanyreferencedtechnicalspecifications.Finally,publiccommentsidentifiedtheEmergencyBack-endRegistryOperator(EBERO)asanadditionalpossiblesubjectforconsideration,whereforinstance,criteriaforapprovingEBEROprovidersandthemonitoringtheEBERO’slong-termabilitytocontinuetomeetthoserequirementscouldbeexamined,amongotherelements180.


180Seefullcommenthere:http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-new-gtld-subsequent-prelim-31aug15/msg00000.html



o PrincipleDo Recommendation4o Recommendation7o Recommendation18


TheconcernsidentifiedregardingtheDNSStabilityReview,RegistryServicesReview,andTechnical&OperationalCapabilitiesEvaluationtendedtobemoreinregardstooperationalefficiencyasopposedtoconcernsaboutsecurityandstability.Assuch,implementationguidancecouldbeprovidedtostreamlineandoptimizetheevaluationprocesses,althoughtheDGdidnotanticipatethatpolicydevelopmentwouldbeneeded.However,aPDP-WGcouldconsiderlookingatsecurityandstabilitybeyondthemoreoperationallyfocusedanalysisaboveandcouldinvestigateforinstance,theimpactontheDNSfromdelegatingadditionalTLDsatasimilarscaleandpaceasthe2012round.Ifthistopicisundertaken,collaborationwiththeSSACisadvisable.Inaddition,itshouldbenotedthatICANNstaffisperformingSecurityandStabilityReviewsinsupportoftheCCTandthefindingsfromthesereviewsmaybeusefulduringpossiblePDP-WGdeliberations181.

4.6.2ApplicantReviews:Technical/OperationalandFinancial• 4.6.2.1ExplanationoftheSubject

The2007FinalReportprovidedgeneralguidanceabouthowtoensureapplicantswerefinanciallyandtechnicallycapabletorunaregistry,butstoppedshortinprovidingspecificguidanceonhowanevaluationquestionnaireshouldbecomprised.OverthecourseofthemanyiterationsoftheAGB,theTechnical/OperationalandFinancialcriteriawererefinedwithacollaborativeeffortfromthecommunity,ICANN,anditsselectedevaluators.AccordingtoModule2oftheAGB,ICANNwillreviewtheapplicant’stechnicalandoperationalcapability,itsfinancialcapability,anditsproposedregistryservices.ThosereviewsaredescribedingreaterdetailinthefollowingsubsectionsintheAGB:2.2.2.1Technical/OperationalReview:Intendedtogatherinformationabouttheapplicant’stechnicalcapabilitiesanditsplansforoperationoftheproposedgTLD.

181See:http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/reviews/ssr



Note,thisreviewisdiscussedinadifferentcontextaboveinsection4.6.1onSecurityandStability.2.2.2.2FinancialReview:Intendedtogatherinformationabouttheapplicant’sfinancialcapabilitiesforoperationofagTLDregistryanditsfinancialplanninginpreparationforlong-termstabilityofthenewgTLD.Theevaluationquestions,1-50,arefoundintheAttachmenttoModule2.2.2.2.3EvaluationMethodology:Dedicatedtechnicalandfinancialevaluationpanelswillconductthetechnical/operationalandfinancialreviews,accordingtotheestablishedcriteriaandscoringmechanismincludedasanattachmenttothismodule.ThesereviewsareconductedonthebasisoftheinformationeachapplicantmakesavailabletoICANNinitsresponsetothequestionsintheApplicationForm.2.2.3RegistryServicesReview:Reviewtheapplicant’sproposedregistryservicesforanypossibleadverseimpactonsecurityorstability.Note,thisreviewisdiscussedingreaterdetailaboveinsection4.6.1onSecurityandStability.


WhilethepassrateforInitialEvaluationwasextremelyhigh,theroadtoachievingthatoutcomerequiredsubstantialbackandforthbetweenICANN’sevaluators,throughICANN,totheapplicants(sometimestoRSPsand/orconsultants)toprovideresponses,whichwentbacktoICANN,andfinallybacktotheevaluators.AgreatnumberofDGmembersnotedthatavastmajorityofapplicantsreceivedclarificationquestions,meaningeitheranadjustmentisneededinthecompositionofthequestionsandassociatedguidance,orthereisadisconnectbetweenthecriteria,theevaluators,andapplicants,otherissue,oracombinationofissues.Analyzingtheclarificationquestionsshouldprovideguidanceonhowthequestions,communications,andevaluationprocesscanbeimproved.Inaddition,asnotedabove,thevastmajorityofapplicantsengagedaRSPtoprovidetheirregistryservicesandothertechnicalfunctions,whichmayhavecontributedtoacommunicationgapasclarifyingquestionsweredirectedatapplicantswhointurnneededtoseekanswersfromtheirRSPs.Theapplicationsubmissionandevaluationprocessesmaybenefitfromdiscussionsabouthowtostreamlinetheprocess.AcknowledgingthatmostapplicantswilluseaRSPwillgreatlybenefitapplicantsandICANNoperationally,evenintheabsenceofanaccreditationprogram.Aswell,facilitatingthesubmissionandevaluationofessentiallyidenticalapplicationswillalsohelptostreamlinetheprocess.



AnumberofDGmembershighlightedtheContinuingOperationsInstrument(COI)asadistinctsourceoffrustration,asittookgreateffortinmanycircumstancestogetsatisfactorylanguage.Manyapplicantsinthepreviousroundfoundthefinancialinstrumentrequirementstobeonerousandrequiredextensivemultilateralnegotiationsbetweentheapplicant,theirfinancialinstitutions,andICANN.TheDGsuggestedthatataminimum,theprocessandguidanceneededtobeevaluated,butthemechanismitself,anditsapplicabilityforallapplicantsmayneedtobeevaluated(e.g.,a.Brandregistrymaynotneedextensiveregistrantprotectionmechanisms).Publiccommentnotedthatitmaybevaluabletocollectdataonapplicantbackgroundscreeningcheckstodeterminetheireffectivenessinidentifyingbadactorstohelpdeterminetheirapplicabilityforsubsequentprocedures.Inaddition,itwassuggestedthatanybackgroundscreeningissuesidentifiedbeaddressedpriortoRegistryAgreement(RA)negotiations,ratherthanperhapsbeingincludedintheRA.


o PrincipleDo PrincipleEo Recommendation7o Recommendation8


Asnoted,the2007FinalReportdidnotprovidespecificguidanceontheactualcriteriatoevaluateapplicationsagainst.Consequently,thecriteriawasdevelopedduringtheimplementationphase,leveragingthequestionnairesfromthe“proofofconcept”rounds,overthecourseofseveralyearsandwithconsiderableinputfromthecommunity.ApotentialPDP-WGonNewgTLDSubsequentProcedureswaywanttoconsiderprovidingspecificguidanceonthecriteriatobeusedfortheprogram.Otherpotentialchangestotheprogramthathavebeendiscussed,suchasapplicationtypesoranaccreditationprogram,wouldfactorheavilyinthisdiscussion.Policyworkmaybeneededtorefinetheevaluationcriteria.AstheCOIwashighlightedasanacutepainpointformanyDGmembers,aPDP-WGmaywanttoconsiderproceduralissuesrelatingtotheCOIandhowtheymayberesolved,orperhapsanalternativemechanismthatachievesdefinedpolicygoals.

4.6.3NameCollisions• 4.6.3.1ExplanationoftheSubject



NamecollisionsarenotanewconceptandnotexclusivetonewgTLDs.TheSecurityandStabilityAdvisoryCommittee(SSAC)identifiedthepotentialfornamecollisionsinNovemberof2010inSAC045“InvalidTopLevelDomainQueriesattheRootLevel”182:

Inthisreport,wecallattentiontothepotentialproblemsthatmayariseshouldanewTLDapplicantuseastringthathasbeenseenwithmeasurable(andmeaningful)frequencyinaqueryforresolutionbytherootsystemandtherootsystemhaspreviouslygeneratedaresponse.WefindthatanynewTLDregistryoperatormayexperienceunanticipatedqueriesandthatsomeTLDsmayexperienceanon-trivialloadofunanticipatedqueriesifthelabelitchoosescorrespondstoTLDsthathavehistoricallyseenqueries.WerecommendthatICANNinformnewTLDapplicantsoftheproblemsthatcanarisewhenapreviouslyseenstringisaddedtotherootzoneasaTLDlabelandthatICANNshouldcoordinatewiththecommunitytoidentifyprinciplesthatcanserveasthebasisforprohibitingthedelegationofstringsthatmayintroducesecurityorstabilityproblemsattherootleveloftheDNS.

Aftertheapplicationsubmissionwindowwascompleteandthepopulationofapplied-forTLDsthatmaybedelegatedintotherootzonewasknown,itwaspossibletohaveamorefocusedanalysisofpotentialnamecollisions.InMarch2013,ICANN’sSecurityandStabilityAdvisoryCommittee(SSAC)issuedareportSAC057:SSACAdvisoryonInternalNameCertificates,whereintheSSACreferredtotheissueof“namecollision”andprovidedICANNwithstepsformitigatingtheissue.183Broadcommunityparticipationwasenlistedtodevelopasolutionandtofurtherstudytheimpactonapplied-forstringssincetheSSAC’slistwasnotexhaustive.

AlthoughitwasconsideredtobeunlikelythatdomainnamecollisionswouldaffectsignificantnumbersofcorporatenetworkoperatorsorInternetusers,ICANNactedconservativelyandtooknumerousstepstominimizethepotentialimpactofnamecollision.Final“PhaseOneReportonMitigatingtheRiskofDNSNamespaceCollisions”184185On04June2014ICANNpublishedtheFinal“PhaseOneReportonMitigatingtheRiskofDNSNamespaceCollisions”Thisreportnotedthat,“collisionsintheglobal

182Seereport:https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-045-en.pdf183Seethereporthere:https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-057-en.pdf184See“PhaseOneReportonMitigatingtheRiskofDNSNamespaceCollisions”184athttps://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/name-collision-mitigation-study-06jun14-en.pdf185Note,the“MitigatingtheRiskofDNSNamespaceCollisionsFinalReport”waspublishedon30November2015:https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2015-11-30-en



DomainNameSystem(DNS)namespacehavethepotentialtoexposeserioussecurity-relatedissuesforusersoftheDNS.”Theauthorsstatedthatthey:

didnotfindthattheadditionofnewTopLevelDomains(TLDs)fundamentallyorsignificantlyincreasesorchangestherisksassociatedwithDNSnamespacecollisions.Themodalities,risks,andetiologiesoftheinevitableDNSnamespacecollisionsinnewTLDnamespaceswillresemblethecollisionsthatalreadyoccurroutinelyintheotherpartsoftheDNS.TheadditionofmultiplenewTLDsoverthepastdecade(genericandcountrycode)hasnotsuggestedthatnewfailuremodalitiesmightexist;rather,theindicationisthatthefailuremodalitiesaresimilarinallpartsoftheDNSnamespace.Ourresearchhasshownthataveryfewrootcausesareresponsiblefornearlyallcollisions,andtheserootcausesappearinnearlyeveryclassificationofTLD,albeitinvaryingproportions.

TherecommendationsinthereportdescribeacomprehensiveapproachtoreducingcurrentandfutureDNSnamespacecollisions,alertingoperatorsofpotentialDNSnamespacerelatedissues,andprovidingemergencyresponsecapabilitiesintheeventthatcritical(e.g.,lifesafety)systemsareadverselyimpacted.Overthecourseofthestudy,JASfoundnoevidencetosuggestthatthesecurityandstabilityoftheglobalInternetDNSitselfisatrisk.ThisfindingconfirmstheresultsoftheDNSStabilityStringReviewperformedoneachstringduringInitialEvaluationpursuanttoSection2.2.1.3.1oftheApplicantGuidebook(AGB).Theremainderoftheirresearchisfocusedonissuesfromtheperspectiveofend-systemsasconsumersoftheglobalDNS.Todate,neitherJASnorICANNhasidentifiedanyinstanceswhere“anewlydelegatedgTLDcreatesaclearandpresentdangertohumanlifeasaresultofcollidinguseasadotlessname...”,whichistheunlikelycasewhereanemergencyresponsewouldbeneeded,pertheNameCollisionOccurrenceManagementFramework186.SeealsoSAC066,“SSACCommentConcerningJASPhaseOneReportonMitigatingtheRiskofDNSNamespaceCollisions.”187InitsCommenttheSSACnotedthatithadreviewedtheDraftReportpreparedforICANNbyJASGlobalAdvisorsentitled“MitigatingtheRiskofDNSNamespaceCollisions:AStudyonNamespaceCollisionsintheGlobalInternetDNSNamespaceandaFrameworkforRiskMitigation,PhaseOneReport.”TheDraftReportwaspublishedbyICANNon24February2014and

186ICANN.(30July2014).NameCollisionOccurrenceManagementFramework.Retrievedfromhttps://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/name-collision-framework-30jul14-en.pdf187SeeSAC066,“SSACCommentConcerningJASPhaseOneReportonMitigatingtheRiskofDNSNamespaceCollisions.”athttps://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-066-en.pdf



putoutforpubliccomment.188TheSSACCommentidentifiedeightissueswiththeDraftReport,andmaderecommendationsinrelationtoeachofthem.ICANN,thecommunity,andtheSSACworkedtogetheronamitigationplan,reviewinghistoricalquerytraffic,identifyingmitigationsteps,anddevelopingeducationalmaterialsforITadministrators.On30July2014,theNGPCpassedaresolutiondirectingstafftodeferdelegationofthehigh-riskstrings(i.e.,HOME,CORP,MAIL)indefinitely,andoutlinedproceduresforControlledInterruptionfornewgTLDs189.Inaddition,theNGPCaskedthatICANN“workwiththeGNSOtoconsiderwhetherpolicyworkondevelopingalong-termplantomanagegTLDnamecollisionissuesshouldbeundertaken.”InAugust2014,ICANNpublishedtheNameCollisionManagementFramework190,whichprovidesalong-termsolutionforregistryoperatorstomitigaterisksofnamecollisioninthefuture.


TheDGdidnothighlightspecificconcernsasitrelatestonamecollisions,otherthannotingthatitwasnotmentionedintheAGBandwasthereforenotsomethingthatcouldhavebeenadequatelyplannedfor.However,thereisthepossiblyforadditionalworkrelatedtonamecollisions,including:

o Developingaprocesstoidentifyhigh-riskstringsforfutureprocedures.o Asmostmeasuresundertheframeworkceaseaftertwoyearsofdelegation,

areadditionalmeasuresneededtomanagenamecollisionrisksthatmayposeariskfor2012-roundgTLDsbeyondthattimeframe?

o AremeasuresneededforgTLDsdelegatedpriortothe2012NewgTLDProgramround?

o Aretheresuggesteddatapointsthatshouldbecollectedtohelpdeterminetheeffectivenessofcurrentmitigationmeasures?


o Recommendation4o NameCollisionOccurrenceManagementFramework:

https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/name-collision-framework-30jul14-en.pdf

188See“MitigatingtheRiskofDNSNamespaceCollisions:AStudyonNamespaceCollisionsintheGlobalInternetDNSNamespaceandaFrameworkforRiskMitigation,PhaseOneReport”athttps://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/name-collision-mitigation-26feb14-en.pdf189ICANNBoardresolution:https://features.icann.org/name-collision-occurrence-management-framework190Ibid.




Inlate2014,theGNSOconsideredwhetherpolicyworkwasneededtodevelopalong-termplantomanagegTLDnamecollisions.TheGNSOCouncildetermined:

…thatpolicyworkbytheCouncilonthenamecollisionissueatthistimewouldbepremature,particularlyastheNameCollisionframeworkhasonlyrecentlybeenimplementedandassuchthereislimiteddataavailableaboutwhetherthishasbeensuccessfulorotherwise.WeappreciatethatsituationcouldrapidlychangeasnewgTLDscontinuetobeintroducedandifthatwerethecase,thentheGNSOwouldthenreconsiderthisissue.Further,itshouldbenotedthatanypolicyprocessundertakenwouldnotimpact2012gTLDregistryoperatorsgiventhetimeittakestoconductaformalpolicyprocess.Therefore,thisissuemaybebestdiscussedinthebroadercontextoffutureroundsofnewgTLDs.191

ApotentialPDP-WGonNewgTLDSubsequentProceduresmaywanttodeterminewhatdatapointsshouldbecollectedandanalyzedtohelpdrivenextsteps,ifany,todevelopalong-termplantomitigateissuesthatmayarisefromgTLDnamecollisions.

4.7WorkProcesses

4.7.1OverviewAscanbeseeninsections4.2through4.6,theNewgTLDSubsequentProceduresDiscussionGroupwasinstrumentalinidentifyinganumberofconcernsrelatedtothe2012NewgTLDProgramround.ThesubjectsdescribedandanalyzedinthosesectionsrepresentastartingpointforapotentialPDP-WGonNewgTLDSubsequentProcedures,meaningadditionalsubjectscouldbeidentifiedinadvanceoftheinitiationofthePDP-WG,orduringthecourseofdeliberations.Assuch,thevolumeofworkthatthePDP-WGmayundertakewillbeextensiveandtheprojectshouldbemanagedtoreachaneffectiveoutcomeinareasonableamountoftime.Therearemanywaystoorganizethesubjectsfordisposition,butbelowinthefollowingsectionareseveraloptionsthatmaybeworthconsidering,thoughthePDP-WGwouldofcoursebefreetoemployalternativemethodsitdeemedmoreeffective.191GNSOCorrespondencetoCyrusNamaziregardingnamecollisions:http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/robinson-to-namazi-28jan15-en.pdf



Tobetterunderstandthescopeofwork,belowisarepresentationoftheidentifiedsubjectsandthepreliminarystaffdesignationsofwhichsubjectsmayrequirepolicydevelopment,takingguidancefromtheDGonhowitenvisionedtheissuestoberesolved,whichcanbeviewedingreaterdetailinthegroup’sfinaldeliverables192,particularlyanissuematrixthatwasdeveloped(whichsoughttoassigneachidentifiedissuetoaparticularprinciple,recommendation,orimplementationguidelineasapplicable,ornotingthattheissuemaybecausefornewpolicydevelopment).Thesedesignationsareintendedtodifferentiatethenatureofthework,asthesubjectsarecurrentlyunderstood,butthisanalysisispurelypreliminaryinnatureandisabsolutelydependentuponthedeliberationsandoutcomesfromthePDP-WG.Forinstance,whileasubjectsuchasaccreditationprograms(section4.2.8)mayhavea“X”underPolicyDevelopment,ifthePDP-WGweretodeterminethataccreditationprogramswerenotinthebestinterestsoftheoverallprogram,thedevelopmentofpolicyrecommendationsmaynotactuallybenecessaryinthatcircumstance.Orconversely,ifthePDP-WGwantedtodictatethatsomethingotherthantheAGB(section4.2.5)serveastheimplementationvehiclefortheNewgTLDPolicy,thenitmayinfactrequirepolicydevelopment.Inaddition,thisanalysisdoesnotattempttopredictlevelofeffort,asthisisentirelydependentuponthedeliberationsofthePDP-WG.Inconsideringthebestwaytoorganizework,itisusefultoexamineifthesubjectcanbeworkedonindependently,isdependentonoutcomesfromworkonothersubjects,orperhapsbetterforprioritizingwork,whatsubjectsaredrivingfactorsforothersubjects.Forinstance,asubjectsuchasSupportforApplicantsFromDevelopingCountries(section4.2.14)maybeappropriatetoworkonindependently,andcouldbeacandidateforadedicatedsub-group.Or,forinstance,DifferentTLDTypes(section4.2.15)maybeasubjectthatwillhaveprofoundeffectsonothersubjects,suchasApplicationFees(section4.2.10),VariableFees(section4.2.17),BaseAgreement(section4.3.2),amongperhapsothers.Whilepossiblycomplicated,itmaybeusefultodevelopamindmaporsimilartotryanddeterminewhichsubjectsfeedintoothers.Thepreliminarygroupingsaremerelyasuggestedapproachtoorganizethework.Itwasnotedinanumberofpubliccommentsthatthewaythesubjectsarecurrentlyorganizedinthepreliminarygroupings,aswellasthesequencingofsubjects,maynotbeoptimalorentirelylogicalfromallperspectives.Forclarificationpurposes,itshouldbenotedthatthepreliminarygroupingswereestablishedbytheDGandthesequencingineachrespectivegroupisaccordingtothesequencingfromthe2007FinalReport,unlessthetopicisanewone.Commentsnotedthattheorganizationofsubjectscanmakeitchallengingtofindcertainspecifictopics,maycreateoverlapbetweensubjects,andmaynotrepresentalogicalprogressionofworkforaPDP-WG.HowaPDP-WGchoosestoaddressthesubjectsinthisIssueReportisfortheWGtodefineindevelopingitswork

192Ibid



plan.However,staffhasattemptedtoprovidesomeinputonthissubjectforconsiderationbyapossiblePDP-WG.Therearemanywaystoorganizethesubjects,whichmayinfactdrawoutadditionalsubjectsforanalysis,suchasorganizingthesubjectsinamorechronologicalfashiontohowtheyoccurredinthecontextoftheNewgTLDProgram.Forinstance,thesubjectscouldbeassociatedaroundtheproceduralstepsbelow,althoughthisapproachmayrelytooheavilyontheassumptionthattheseexistingstepswouldcarryforwardtosubsequentprocedures:

! ApplicantGuidebookDevelopment! ApplicationSubmissionWindow! ApplicationReveal! ApplicationProcessingandEvaluation! ObjectionProcedures! StringContention/CPE/Auctions! ApplicationApproval/Rejection! RegistryAgreementProcessing/Signing! Pre-DelegationTesting! RegistryOnboarding&Systems! Delegation! Start-Up/LaunchInformation! ZonefileAccess! Sunrise! TrademarkClearingHouse! Pre-Registration! GeneralAvailability! RegistryCompliance

Anothermethodofgroupingthesubjectscouldbearoundprogressingthroughlogicalquestionsandaddressingtherelatedsubjects.Forinstance:

1. ShouldtherebeNewgTLDsubsequentprocedures(e.g.,§§4.2.1,4.2.3,etc.)?2. Ifyes,whatarethehighlevelprinciplesthatshouldgoverntheprogram(e.g.,

§§4.2.3,4.2.6,4.3.11,4.2.14,etc.)?3. Whatrequirementsandrulesshouldgovern:

a. Applicationacceptancemechanisms(e.g.,§§4.2.7,4.2.12,4.2.13,4.2.16,etc.)

b. Applicationrequirements(e.g.,§§4.2.8,4.2.15,4.3.11,4.4.5,etc.)Stringrequirements(e.g.,§§4.3.1,4.4.2,4.5.1,etc.)

c. ObjectionsandRightsProtectionMechanisms(e.g.,§§4.3.3,4.3.7,4.4.3,etc.)

e.Contractualrequirementsofregistries(e.g.,§§4.3.10,4.3.8,4.3.5,4.3.6,etc.)



4. Whatsubjectsaredependentontheoutcomesfromotherdevelopmentaroundothersubjects(e.g.,§§4.3.2,4.6.2,etc.)

5. Operationalandmiscellaneous(e.g.,4.2.4,4.2.9,4.2.11,etc.)ThepossiblePDP-WGwouldultimatelyberesponsiblefordeterminingwhichmethodoforganizingthesubjectsbestserveitspurposes.ThepossibleDP-WGshouldalsoconsiderwhetherallsubjectsincludedinthisreportshouldbeundertakenastherearecertainsubjectsthatmayeitherextendbeyondthescopeofapotentialPDP-WGonNewgTLDSubsequentProcedures(e.g.,accountabilitymechanisms)orhaveothereffortsdedicatedtothosesubjects(e.g.,Competition,ConsumerTrustandConsumerChoiceinthecontextofAffirmationofCommitments,potentialPDP-WGonRPMreviews,etc.).Finally,whilementionedinsection4.2.2Predictability,itshouldbenotedthattheoutputsfromthePolicyandImplementationWorkingGroup(i.e.,theGNSOInputProcess(GIP),GNSOGuidanceProcess(GGP),andtheGNSOExpeditedPolicyDevelopmentProcess(EPDP))193maybeofuseinaddressingcertainsubjects,especiallywhenpolicydevelopmentisnotnecessary(e.g.,implementationguidanceismoreappropriate),orasubjectcanbedemarcatedfromotherstobedealtwithalone.Essentially,theseprocessesmaybeusefulinallowingtheworkonsomesubjectstopossiblyconcludeearlier,ratherthanhavingtowaitforafullPDP-WGFinalReportandsubsequentsteps.

Section Subject Description PolicyDevelopment

Group1


ShouldthereinfactbenewgTLDsubsequentproceduresandifnot,whatarethejustificationsforandramificationsofdiscontinuingtheprogram? X

4.2.2 Predictability

Howcanchangestotheprogramintroducedafterlaunch(e.g.,digitalarchery/prioritizationissues,namecollision,registryagreementchanges,publicinterestcommitments(PICs),etc.)beavoided?

4.2.3

Competition,ConsumerTrustandConsumerChoice

Didtheimplementationmeetordiscouragethesegoals? X

193SeeFinalReport:http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/policy-implementation/pi-wg-final-recommendations-01jun15-en.pdf



4.2.4 CommunityEngagement

Howcanparticipationfromthecommunitybebetterencouragedandintegratedduringthepolicydevelopmentprocess,implementation,andexecution?

4.2.5 ApplicantGuidebook

IstheAGBtherightimplementationoftheGNSOrecommendations?Ifso,howcanitbeimprovedtoensurethatitmeetstheneedsofmultipleaudiences(e.g.,applicants,thosemonitoringthepolicyimplementation,registryserviceproviders,escrowproviders,etc.)


Howcantheapplicationprocessavoiddevelopingprocessesonanas-neededbasis(e.g.,clarifyingquestionprocess,changerequestprocess,customersupport,etc.)


Hasthescaleofdemandbeenmadeclear?Doestheconceptofroundsaffectmarketbehaviorandshouldfactorsbeyonddemandaffectthetypeofapplicationacceptancemechanism? X

4.2.8 AccreditationPrograms

AsthereappearstobealimitedsetoftechnicalserviceandEscrowproviders,wouldtheprogrambenefitfromanaccreditationprogramforthirdpartyserviceproviders?Ifso,wouldthissimplifytheapplicationprocesswithasetofpre-qualifiedproviderstochoosefrom?Arethereotherimpactsthatanaccreditationprogrammayhaveontheapplicationprocess? X

4.2.9 Systems

HowcanthesystemsusedtosupporttheNewgTLDProgram,suchasTAS,CentralizedZoneDataService,Portal,etc.bemademorerobust,userfriendly,andbetterintegrated?

4.2.10 ApplicationsFees

Evaluateaccuracyofcostestimatesand/orreviewthemethodologytodevelopthecostmodel,whilestilladheringtotheprinciplesofcostrecovery.Examinehowpaymentprocessingcanbeimproved.

4.2.11 Communications

ExamineaccesstoandcontentwithinknowledgebaseaswellascommunicationmethodsbetweentheICANNandthecommunity.

4.2.12 ApplicationQueuing

Reviewwhetherfirstcomefirstservedguidanceremainsrelevantandifnot,whetheranothermechanismismoreappropriate. X




Isthreemonthstheproperamountoftime?Istheconceptofafixedperiodoftimeforacceptingapplicationstherightapproach?

4.2.14

SupportforApplicantsFromDevelopingCountries

EvaluateeffectivenessofApplicantSupportprogramtoassessifthecriteriawereproperlydesigned,outreachsufficient,monetarysupportsufficient,etc.Inparticular,wasthereenoughoutreachindevelopingeconomiesto1)contributetothedesignandnatureoftheprocessand2)toensureawarenessoftheopportunityafforded? X

4.2.15 DifferentTLDTypes

Doestheone-size-fits-allapplicationandreviewprocesshamperinnovation?Shouldthingssuchastheapplicationprocess,requirements,annualfees,contractualrequirements,etc.bevariablebasedontheTLDtype?Forinstance,shouldanexistingRegistryOperator,thatisfulfillingtherequirementsofitsRegistryAgreement,besubjecttoadifferent,morestreamlined,applicationprocess? X


Shouldtherebelimitstothenumberofapplicationsfromasingleapplicant/group?Consideriftheroundcouldberestrictedtoacertainapplicanttype(s)(e.g.,fromleastdevelopedcountries)orotherlimitingfactor. X

4.2.17 VariableFees

ShouldtheNewgTLDapplicationfeebevariablebasedonsuchfactorsasapplicationtype(e.g.,openorclosedregistries),multipleidenticalapplications,orotherfactors?

Group2

4.3.1 ReservedNamesList

Reviewthecompositionofthereservednameslisttodetermineifadditions,modifications,orsubtractionsareneeded(e.g.,singleletter,twoletters,specialcharacters,etc.).Evaluateiftheimplementationmatchedexpectations(e.g.,recommendationsoftheReservedNamesWorkingGroup).Reviewwhethergeographicnamesrequirementsareappropriate. X



4.3.2 BaseRegistryAgreement

Performcomprehensivereviewofthebaseagreement,includinginvestigatinghowandwhyitwasamendedafterprogramlaunch,whetherasinglebaseagreementisappropriate,whetherPublicInterestCommitments(PICs)aretherightmechanismtoprotectthepublicinterest,etc.ShouldtheArticle7.7reviewprocessbeamendedtoallowforcustomizedreviewsbydifferentregistrytypes? X

4.3.3 RegistrantProtections

TheoriginalPDPassumedtherewouldalwaysberegistrantsandtheywouldneedprotectingfromtheconsequencesofRegistryfailure,althoughitmaynotmakesensetoimposeregistrantprotectionobligationssuchasEBEROandtheLOCwhentherearenoregistrantstoprotect,suchasinaclosedregistry.Shouldmorerelevantrulesbeestablishedforcertainspecificcases? X

4.3.4 ContractualCompliance

Whilenospecificissueswereidentified,contractualcomplianceasitrelatestoNewgTLDsmaybeconsideredinscopefordiscussion,thoughtheroleofcontractualcompliance(i.e.,enforcingagreements)wouldnotbeconsideredwithinscope.


Areregistrarrequirementsforregistriesstillappropriate? X

4.3.6 TLDRollout

WasadequatetimeallowedforrolloutofTLD?WhenshouldrecurringfeesduetoICANNbegin? X


RevieweffectivenessandimplementationofRPMssuchasTMCH,URS,etc.


Considerwhethertheregistry/registrarrelationshipshouldhaveadditionalstandardizationandregulation. X

4.3.9 GlobalPublicInterest

Existingpolicyadvicedoesnotdefinetheapplicationof“PublicInterest”analysisasaguidelineforevaluationdeterminations.ConsiderissuesidentifiedinGACAdviceonsafeguards,publicinterestcommitments(PICs),andassociatedquestionsofcontractualcommitmentandenforcement.ItmaybeusefultoconsidertheglobalpublicinterestinthecontextofICANN’slimitedtechnical X



coordinationrole,missionandcorevaluesandhowitappliesspecificallytotheNewgTLDProgram.

4.3.10 IGO/INGOProtections

ThePDPforProtectionofIGOandINGOIdentifiersinAllgTLDsandPDPforIGO-INGOAccesstoCurativeRightsProtectionMechanismsareexpectedtoaddressanumberofissues.Whilenoadditionalworkisenvisioned,ifthereareanyremainingornewissuesfordiscussion,theycouldbedeliberatedinthecontextofthisPDP.

4.3.11 ClosedGenericsShouldthereberestrictionsaroundexclusiveuseofgenericsTLDs? X

Group3


ExaminewhetherGACAdvice,communityprocesses,andreservednamesimpactedthisgoal. X

4.4.2 StringSimilarity

Werestringcontentionevaluationresultsconsistentandeffectiveinpreventinguserconfusion?Werethestringcontentionresolutionmechanismsfairandefficient? X

4.4.3 Objections

Reviewrulesaroundstanding,fees,objectionconsolidation,consistencyofproceedingsandoutcomes.Reviewfunctionsandroleoftheindependentobjector.Consideroversightofprocessandappealmechanisms. X


Examinewhetherdisputeresolutionandchallengeprocessesprovideadequateredressoptionsorifadditionalredressoptionsspecifictotheprogramareneeded.

4.4.5 CommunityApplications

Wastheoverallapproachtocommunitiesconsistentwithrecommendationsandimplementationguidance?DidtheCommunityPriorityEvaluationprocessachieveitspurposeandresultinanticipatedoutcomes?Weretherecommendationsadequateforcommunityprotection? X

Group4

4.5.1

InternationalizedDomainNamesandUniversalAcceptance

ConsiderhowtoencourageadoptionofgTLDs.EvaluatewhetherrulesaroundIDNsproperlyaccountedforrecommendationsfromIDNWG.Determineandaddresspolicyguidanceneeded X



fortheimplementationofIDNvariantTLDs.

Group5

4.6.1 SecurityandStability

WeretheproperquestionsaskedtominimizetherisktotheDNSandensurethatapplicantswillbeabletomeettheirobligationsintheregistryagreement?Shouldtherebenon-scoredquestionsandifso,howshouldtheybepresented?Werethepropercriteriaestablishedtoavoidcausingtechnicalinstability?IstheimpacttotheDNSfromnewgTLDsfullyunderstood? X

4.6.2

ApplicantReviews:Technical/OperationalandFinancial

WereFinancialandTechnicalcriteriadesignedproperlytoallowapplicantstodemonstratetheircapabilitieswhileallowingevaluatorstovalidatetheircapabilities?Howcanthecriteriabestreamlinedandmadeclearer? X

4.6.3 NameCollisions

HowshouldnamecollisionsbeincorporatedintofuturenewgTLDrounds?Whatmeasuresmaybeneededtomanagerisksfor2012-roundgTLDsbeyondtheir2yearanniversaryofdelegation,orgTLDsdelegatedpriortothe2012round? X

4.7.2OtherCommunityProgramReview-RelatedEffortsBeyondtheeffortsoftheGNSO,thereareanumberofotherinitiativesinprogressorexpectedtobegin,thatarerelatedtoprogramreviewsofthe2012NewgTLDProgramround.Thelistofknowneffortswasmentionedpreviouslyinthisreport,butitwarrantsrepeating:

! ICANNNewgTLDProgramReviews194,whichwillbelookingatseveralfacetsoftheprogram,including:

• RightsProtectionReviews• ProgramImplementationReviews195• Security&StabilityReviews• Competition,ConsumerTrust,andConsumerChoiceDataReview

194Ibid195ProgramImplementationReviewreportavailablehere:http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/reviews/implementation



! AffirmationofCommitment(AoC)reviewsrelatedtoCompetition,ConsumerTrust,andConsumerChoice196

! TheSecurityandStabilityAdvisoryCommittee(SSAC)willbereviewingpreviousguidanceprovidedregardingtheNewgTLDProgramanddeterminingifnewrecommendationsareneeded.

! TheGovernmentalAdvisoryCommittee(GAC)hasformedworkinggroupsonthetopicsof:a)communityapplications,b)underservedregions,andc)geographicnames.

! Cross-CommunityWorkingGrouponUseofCountry/TerritoryNamesasTLDs197isanalyzingthecurrentstatusofcountryandterritorynamesintheICANNecosystemanddeterminingthefeasibilityofcreatingaframeworkthatcouldbeappliedacrossSOsandACs.

AcommonthemementionedbyanumberofparticipantsatICANN53inBuenosAireswasthatmoreclaritywasneededtounderstandhowvariouseffortsaretointeract,whichserveasdependenciesuponeitherthestartorconclusionofotherefforts,andultimately,whenthecommunitycanreasonablyexpecttheNewgTLDsubsequentprocedurestobegin.Whilestaffhasattemptedtonotewherethereareparalleleffortsrelatedtoacertainsubject,ithastriedtoavoidpredefininganexactrelationshipandhastendedtosuggestthatthoseeffortsbetakenintoconsiderationduringdeliberations.Determiningthedirectionofdependencies,totheextentthattherearedependencies,ismoreafunctionofthecommunityratherthanthisstaffdevelopedIssueReport.

4.7.3WorkProcessOptions

4.7.3.1Simultaneous

Allfivepreliminarygroupingswouldbeworkedonsimultaneously,likelybreakingintosub-groupstotakeadvantageofexpertiseoncertainsubjects.Whilethegroupscouldworksimultaneously,thiswouldnotpreventprioritizationofsubjectswithineachgroup.Itwouldalsobehighlybeneficialtohaveregularmeetings,whichcouldinvolvemembersfromeachofthegroupsasasortofleadershipsteeringcommittee,orperhapsfunctionasfullPDP-WGmeetings,oranyothermechanismthatpromotesaholisticviewpointofdevelopment.Pros:

! Possiblymoreexpeditioustocompletework(thoughtheremaybeexternalworkthatcouldserveasadependencyincompletingcertainelementsofthework).

196Ibid197Ibid



! Takesadvantageofexpertiseandallowsthosethatonlywanttoworkoncertainaspectsofthedevelopmenttodosomoreeasily.

Cons:

! ChallengingonICANNstaffandcommunitytoconsidersomanytopicsatonce,frombeingabletoproperlyconsiderthesubjecttohavingcapacitytosupportsomuchindependentwork.CouldbeparticularlychallengingforcommunityparticipantsforwhomICANN-relatedworkdoesnotconstitutetheirdayjob.

! MorechallengingonICANNstaffandcommunitytoensureaholisticviewistakenoverallnewdevelopmentsandtheirimpactonprogram

! Morechallengingforparticipantsthatmaywanttoworkonallaspectsofthedevelopment.

! Assumingtherearesub-groupsinvolved,moredifficulttoensuredependenciesbetweenareasofworkareproperlytakenintoaccount.

4.7.3.2Sequential

WorkcouldbeperformedasasinglePDP-WG,withsub-groupsasthepossibleexceptionratherthanthenorm,toensurethatallsubjectsareconsideredholistically,asmanyaredependentonotherareasofwork(e.g.,VariableFeesmaybeinfluencedheavilybasedonoutcomesrelatedtoApplicationTypes,AccreditationPrograms,ClosedGenerics,amongothers).Certainsubjects,thataredrivingfactorsforothersubjectscouldbeprioritized,andsubjectsthatarepossiblymostdependentonmanyotherelements,suchasthebaseagreementandtheapplicationcriteria,couldbepushedfurthertowardstheendoftheprocesssothatitcanconsumetherecommendedchangesfromotheraspectsofdevelopment.Pros:

! Easiertoaccountforallwork,allowingamoreholisticviewofpotentialprogramchanges.

! Easiertostaffandtoencouragerobustcommunityparticipation.! Easiertomanageresourcesandoutputs.! MostPDPsdonotextensivelyutilizesub-groups,somorefamiliarapproachto

functionlargelyasasinglegroupCons:

! Likelyresultsinamoreprotracteddevelopmentcycle.! Maymakeitmoredifficulttoallowforlimitedparticipationfrommemberswith

certainexpertiseorfocusedinterest.



5.StaffRecommendation

5.1GeneralCounselRecommendation

ScopeconsiderationsIndeterminingwhethertheissueiswithinthescopeoftheICANNpolicyprocessandthescopeoftheGNSOtheGeneralCounsel’sofficehaveconsideredthefollowingfactors:WhethertheissueiswithinthescopeofICANN’smissionstatementICANN’smissionstatementincludesthecoordinationoftheallocationofcertaintypesofuniqueidentifiers,includingdomainnames,andthecoordinationofpolicydevelopmentreasonablyandappropriatelyrelatedtothesetechnicalfunctions,whichincludesnewgTLDs.WhethertheissueisbroadlyapplicabletomultiplesituationsororganizationsAsnewgTLDpolicyaffectsapplicants,registries,registrars,andregistrants,theissueisbroadlyapplicabletomultiplesituationsororganizations.Anychangestothepolicy,itsrulesorprogrammechanismsthatmayresultfromaPDPwouldalsobebroadlyapplicabletomultiplesituationsororganizations.

Whethertheissueislikelytohavelastingvalueorapplicability,albeitwiththeneedforoccasionalupdatesUpdatesorrefinementstotheexistingNewgTLDPolicywouldguidethedevelopmentandmanagementoffutureNewgTLDsubsequentprocedures,whichwouldpresumablyremain“designedtoproduceasystemisedandongoingmechanismforapplicantstoproposenewtop-leveldomains.”Whethertheissuewillestablishaguideorframeworkforfuturedecision-makingTheNewgTLDpolicyisexpectedtogovernfutureNewgTLDsubsequentprocedures,whichagain,wouldpresumablyremain“designedtoproduceasystemisedandongoingmechanismforapplicantstoproposenewtop-leveldomains.”WhethertheissueimplicatesoraffectsICANNpolicyThegoalofthePDPwouldbetodevelopnewpolicyormodifyexistingNewgTLDpolicy,whichwouldreplacethepolicyasestablishedintheTheFinalReportontheIntroductionofNewGenericTop-LevelDomains.



5.2StaffRecommendationICANNstaffhasconfirmedthattheproposedissueiswithinthescopeoftheGNSO’sPolicyDevelopmentProcessandtheGNSO.ThefinaldeliverablesoftheNewgTLDSubsequentProceduresDiscussionGroupprovidedarecommendedminimumsetofsubjectstobethefocusofthePDP-WG.ThePDP-WGshouldbefocusedonanalyzingtheserecommendedsubjectsfromtheDG.IntheviewofICANNstaff,asuccessfuloutcomeofthePDP-WGisofutmostimportancegiventhenumberofissuesidentifiedbytheDG,aswellasbytheICANNBoard.Withexperiencesgainedfromthe2012NewgTLDProgramround,thePDP-WGhasacriticalroleinimprovingthepoliciesthatgoverntheNewgTLDProgram.ICANNstaffthereforerecommendsthatthePDP-WGproceedbyconsideringcarefullytherecommendedsubjectsoftheDG,paralleleffortsthatarereviewingtheNewgTLDProgram,includingthoseperformedbyICANNinthecontextoftheAffirmationofCommitments,orotherareaswithinthecommunity,andworkconstructivelytowardsnewormodifiedpolicyrecommendationsforNewgTLDsubsequentprocedures.ThisworkwillbetterinformtheGNSOCouncilonNewgTLDsubsequentprocedures.Toenablebroadcommunityinputonthisproposedprocessandpathforward,AnnexAofthisreportalsocontainsthedraftWGcharterdevelopedbytheDG,withminorrevisions.

6.NextSteps

FollowingreviewofthepubliccommentsreceivedregardinginformationmissingfromthePreliminaryIssueReport,ornecessarycorrectionsandupdatestoinformationinthePreliminaryIssueReport(seeAnnexB),theStaffManagerhasupdatedtheIssueReportaccordinglytoreflectpubliccomments,whichisnowsubmittedastheFinalIssueReporttotheGNSOCouncilforitsconsideration.IntheeventaPDPisinitiated,theGNSOCouncilmay,usingitsownmethods,refinetheIssueReport’sproposedWorkingGroupCharterbeforeadoptingaCharter.Inaddition,publiccommentsreceivedregardingthePDP-WGworkprocessesand/orsubstantiveinputthatmayultimatelybeconsideredbythePDPWorkingGroupwillberelayedtotheGNSOCouncilandthenewly-formedWorkingGrouponNewgTLDSubsequentProceduresforconsiderationatappropriatepointsthroughoutthisPDP.



AnnexA–NewgTLDSubsequentProceduresDiscussionGroupFinalDeliverables

DeliverablesoftheNewgTLDSubsequentProcedures

DiscussionGroup



TABLEOFCONTENTS

1. ExecutiveSummary

2. AnnexA–IssuesMatrix

3. AnnexB–DraftCharter



ExecutiveSummaryBackgroundIn2005,theGenericNamesSupportingOrganization(GNSO)beganapolicydevelopmentprocess(PDP)toconsidertheintroductionofnewgTLDs.Thetwo-yearPDPprocessresultedinasetof19GNSOpolicyrecommendationsforimplementingnewgTLDs.InordertoimplementthepolicyrecommendationsoftheGNSO,andtotakeintoconsiderationsubsequentadditionalpoliciesandrecommendationsfromthecommunity(includingtheGNSO,GAC,ccNSO,ALAC,SSACandtheICANNBoardthroughtheNewgTLDProgramCommittee(NGPC)),anumberofdraftApplicantGuidebooks(AGBs)weredevelopedbyICANNstaff.NumerouscommentperiodswereheldtoencourageparticipationofcommunitystakeholdersinthefinalizationoftheAGB.TheiterativeandinclusivenatureofeffortstodeveloptheAGBwasinparttoadheretoRecommendation1:

ICANNmustimplementaprocessthatallowstheintroductionofnewtop-leveldomains.TheevaluationandselectionprocedurefornewgTLDregistriesshouldrespecttheprinciplesoffairness,transparencyandnon-discrimination.AllapplicantsforanewgTLDregistryshouldthereforebeevaluatedagainsttransparentandpredictablecriteria,fullyavailabletotheapplicantspriortotheinitiationoftheprocess.Normally,therefore,nosubsequentadditionalselectioncriteriashouldbeusedintheselectionprocess.

AlthoughinJune2011,ICANN’sBoardofDirectorsapprovedthefinalAGBandauthorizedthelaunchoftheNewgTLDProgram,subsequentrevisedversionsoftheFinalApplicantGuidebookwerereleasedbyICANNstaff,includingtheultimatefinalNewgTLDApplicantGuidebookdatedJune4,2012(afewmonthsaftertheapplicationwindowclosed)198.Theapplicationwindowopenedon12January2012.Atotalof1930completeapplicationswerereceivedandthefirstsetofInitialEvaluationresultswerereleasedon22March2013,followedbythefirstsetofnewgTLDdelegationson21October2013.Evenafterthesubmissionsofapplications,completionofinitialevaluations,contractsignaturesandsomedelegations,changestopartsoftheAGB,includingtheRegistryAgreement,proceduresinvolvingcontentionsets,geographicnames,objections,namecollision,etc.wereintroducedandapprovedbytheNGPC.

198 http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb



CurrentAllapplicationshavecompletedtheevaluationprocess.Asofthestartof2015,therearenearly500gTLDsdelegatedandapproximately1000applicationsstillproceedingthroughtheremainingstepsoftheprogram,whichincludescontentionresolution,contracting,accountabilitymechanismsincludingtheIndependentReviewProcess(IRP),andotherprocesses199.Thoughthecurrentroundisongoing,effortstoexaminetheroundhavealreadybegun,whichincludesbutisnotlimitedto:

• Staffledanalysisoftheimpactoftheprogramonthesecurityandstabilityoftherootzonesystem;

• Staffledassessmentoftheeffectivenessofrightsprotectionmechanisms;• Staffledefforttoprovideaninitialassessmentoftheeffectivenessofrights

protectionsafeguardsputinplacetomitigatepotentialissuesintheNewgTLDProgram200

• GNSOrequestforanIssueReportonthestatusofrightsprotections,tobedelivered18monthsafterthedelegationofthefirstnewgTLD;

• PerSection9.3oftheAffirmationofCommitments,acommunitydrivenreviewoftheprogram’simpactonCompetition,ConsumerTrust,andConsumerChoice201;

• ThecreationbytheGNSOCouncilofaDiscussionGrouptoreviewthefirstroundofthenewgTLDprogramtocommencetheprocessofconsideringpossibleadjustmentsforsubsequentnewgTLDapplicationprocedures.

ThecreationoftheGNSODiscussionGroupwasviathefollowingGNSOCouncilresolution202:

“TheGNSOCouncilcreatesanewDiscussionGrouptodiscusstheexperiencesgainedbythefirstroundofnewgTLDapplicationsandidentifysubjectsforfutureissuereports,ifany,thatmightleadtochangesoradjustmentsforsubsequentapplicationprocedures”

DeliberationsoftheDiscussionGroupAstheoriginalpolicyrecommendationsasadoptedbytheGNSOCouncilandICANNBoardhas“beendesignedtoproduceasystemizedandongoingmechanismsforapplicantstoproposenewtop-leveldomains203”,thosepolicyrecommendationsremaininplaceforsubsequentroundsofthenewgTLDProgramunlesstheGNSO

199 Currentstatisticsfromthe2012newgTLDprogramareavailablehere:http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/statistics200 https://www.icann.org/public-comments/rpm-review-2015-02-02-en201 https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/affirmation-of-commitments-2009-09-30-en202 FulltextoftheGNSOCouncilresolutioncanbefoundhere:http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#201406203 TheGNSOFinalReportontheIntroductionofNewGenericTop-LevelDomainsisavailablehere:http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm



Councilwoulddecidetomodifythosepolicyrecommendationsviaapolicydevelopmentprocess.TheDiscussionGroup(DG)agreedtopursueitstaskofreviewingthefirstroundoftheNewgTLDPrograminaseriesofiterativeworkplansteps:1. TheDGhasreflectedupontheirexperiencesfromthefirstroundandidentified

issuesthatmayneedtobeaddressedforsubsequentprocedures.Theissueshavebeenportrayedinamindmaptohelporganizetheissuesintologicalcategories.

2. TheDGhascreatedamatrix,availableinAnnexA,thatattemptstomaptheissues

totheoriginalpolicyprinciples,recommendations,andimplementationguidance.Itisenvisionedthatthisexercisewillaidindeterminingiftheissueraisedispotentially:• Aclarification,expansion,orotheramendmentofanexistingpolicy

recommendation;• Anewpolicyissue(whentheissuecannotbemappedtoanyexistingpolicy

principle,recommendation,orimplementationguidance);• Anissueinvolvingtheimplementationofanexistingornewpolicytoserveas

guidanceforwhensubsequentproceduresbegin.• Identificationof‘cross-cutting’issuesthataffectmultipleaspectsofthe

programme(e.g.notionofcommunitywillimpactapplication,contentionresolution,evolution,appeals,accountability,etc.)

• InterplaybetweenthegTLDprogram–includingappeals–andICANNaccountabilitymechanisms.

ItmayalsohelpestablishwhatpolicyrecommendationsdonotrequirefurtherclarificationormodificationandaretoremainaspreviouslyapprovedbytheICANNBoard.

TheobjectiveofthisanalysisistoaidtheDGinitsdevelopmentofrecommendationstotheGNSOCouncilonwhichissuesshouldbeworkedonwithinoneormorepolicyprocesses(whichmayincludeoneormoreformalPDPs)andhowthisworkcouldbebeststructured(seealso3).

3. Followingthisinitialanalysis,theDGwasinapositiontoproposehowitenvisions

theissuescanbegroupedandworkedon.TheGNSOCouncilmaywanttoconsiderthefollowingfactorsindeterminingthepathforward:• CantheissuesbeaddressedinasinglePDPorshouldseparatePDPsbeinitiated

(eachwithitsownIssueReportandcharter)?• CancertainissuesbeworkedonthroughprocessesotherthantheformalPDP?• Cantheissuesallbeworkedonsimultaneously?Ifnot,whatarethefactorsthat

affecttheorder?



o Aretheredependenciesbetweenissues?o Aresomeissuesmorecriticaltoaddressimmediately?Doallissuesneed

toberesolvedpriortolaunchingsubsequentprocedures?o Aresufficientcommunityandstaffresourcesavailable?o Arethereparallelprocessesthatmightaffecttheoutcomeofthe

workinggroupdeliberations?o Areexternalresources,suchasindependentlegalcounsel,academicor

internationalexpertguidancerequired?TheDGconsideredmanyofthesequestionsanddeterminedthatitconsiderskeepingallissuescontainedtoasingleIssueReport/singlepossiblePDPasthepreferableoutcome.TheDGfeelsthattheissuesidentifieddonotnecessarilyneedtobeworkedonconcurrently,butshouldbeconsideredinaholisticfashiontoensurethattheproperfactorsareconsideredinreachingoutcomes.Inaddition,theDGisconcernedwithbandwidthissuesinregardstobothICANNstaffandcommunitymembers,whichmayarisefromhavingseparateIssueReports/PDPs.4. Theissuesasidentifiedinthematrixwillbeorganizedandpresentedinadraft

charter,availableinAnnexB,whichisexpectedtobeincludedinapotentialICANNstaffpreparedIssueReport.Inadditiontothedraftcharter,amotiontorequestanissuereportandanissuereportrequestwillalsobeprepared.Collectively,thesedocumentsshouldprovidetheelementsbelow:• Suggestedgroupingsoftheissues.• Descriptionoftheissues.• Descriptionoftheimpactofsuchissueonaffected.• Fromsteptwoabove,therecommendedmechanismneededtoresolvetheissue

(e.g.,newpolicy,policyclarification,implementationrecommendation,orother).

• AseriesofproposedquestionsorconsiderationsforeachissuethatmaybeusedforapotentialIssueReport/possiblePDPeffort.

5. Thissummarydocument,supportingAppendices,anddescriptionsoftheidentified

issues,willbepresentedtotheGNSOCouncilfortheirdeliberationindetermininghowtoproceedinadvancingthedevelopmentofnewgTLDSubsequentProcedures,whichtheDGanticipateswillbearequestforanIssueReport.

TheDGunderstandsthatasubstantialamountofanalysiswillbeneededifandwhenthelistofissuesisconsideredduringtheIssueReportdraftingbyICANNstaff.ItisexpectedthatanIssueReportwouldbedrivenbythetopicsdescribedinthedraftcharterandinfluencedbytheadditionaldetailcontainedwithinthematrix,describedin2.TheDGalsowelcomesICANNstafffurtherconsideringthesetoffactorsaslistedin3,andhopestoseeoptionsforundertakingthework.TheDG



looksforwardtotheopportunitytoprovidecommentandguidanceinthefuture,includinginregardstoanIssueReportifandwhenitispublishedforpubliccomment.



AnnexA–IssuesMatrixReviewmatrixhere:http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/subsequent-procedures-issues-matrix-01jun15-en.xls



AnnexB–DraftCharter

WorkingGroup(WG)Charter

WGName: TBD

SectionI:WorkingGroupIdentificationCharteringOrganization(s): GNSOCouncil

CharterApprovalDate: NameofWGChair: Name(s)ofAppointedLiaison(s):

WGWorkspaceURL: WGMailingList:

GNSOCouncilResolution:

Title:

Ref#&Link:

ImportantDocumentLinks:

•

SectionII:Mission,Purpose,andDeliverablesMission&Scope:TheNewgTLDSubsequentProceduresPDPWorkingGroup(WG)istaskedwithcallinguponthecommunity’scollectiveexperiencesfromthe2012NewgTLDProgramroundtodeterminewhat,ifanychangesmayneedtobemadetotheexistingIntroductionofNewGenericTop-LevelDomainspolicyrecommendationsfrom8August2007204.AstheoriginalpolicyrecommendationsasadoptedbytheGNSOCouncilandICANNBoardhave“beendesignedtoproduceasystemizedandongoingmechanismsforapplicantstoproposenewtop-leveldomains”,thosepolicyrecommendationsremain

204http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm



inplaceforsubsequentroundsoftheNewgTLDProgramunlesstheGNSOCouncilwoulddecidetomodifythosepolicyrecommendationsviaapolicydevelopmentprocess.TheworkofthisWGfollowstheeffortsoftheNewgTLDSubsequentProceduresDiscussionGroup(DG),whichidentifiedasetofissuesforafuturePDP-WGtoconsiderintheirdeliberations.TheDGsawtheissuestoaddressinthisWorkingGroupas:

• Clarifying,amendingoroverridingexistingpolicyprinciples,recommendations,and

implementationguidance;• Developingnewpolicyrecommendations;• Supplementingordevelopingnewimplementationguidance

InadditiontotheworkoftheDG,anumberofrevieweffortsareunderwaywhichmayhaveanimpactonthefutureworkofthisWG.Therefore,thisWGshouldnotbelimitedtotheissuesidentifiedbytheDGandshouldtakeintoaccountthefindingsfromtheparalleleffortsexternaltotheWG.AspartoftheWGdeliberations,theWGshouldconsiderataminimum,theelementsbelow,whicharefoundinfurtherdetailintheFinalIssueReport.TheseelementshavebeenorganizedingroupingssuggestedbytheDGthatmayfacilitateestablishingteamstoundertakethework.However,additionalworkmethods,suchasthosedescribedintheFinalIssueReport,orothermethodsidentifiedbytheWGmaybemoreappropriatetoundertakethework.Thelistbelowinthischarterisastartingpoint,andasuggestedmethodoforganization,butitisnotintendedtobeexhaustiveorimposeconstraintsonthisWGonhowitoperatesortheissuesitdiscusses,providedthattheissuesaredirectlyrelatedtonewgTLDsubsequentprocedures.ThisWGmayneedtosupplementthislist,orreorganizeit,tomeettheneedsoftheWGasitmovesdeeperintothesubstantivepolicydiscussions.Ifadditionalmaterialstopicsareidentified,theWGshouldinformtheGNSOCouncil,especiallyifamendmentofthisCharterisrequired.ThefactthatsomeissuesarelistedintheFinalIssueReportandAppendicestotheoutputsoftheDG,asopposedtoinsidethetextofthisCharter,isnotintendedtoelevatesomeissuesoverothers;thehigh-levelissuesbelowaresimplytoprovideanillustrativeguidetotheissuesthatthisWorkingGroupwillconsider.

• Group1:OverallProcess/Support/Outreach:PrinciplesAandC;Recommendations1,9,

10,12and13;ImplementationGuidanceA,B,C,D,E,M,N,OandQ;NewTopics“DifferentTLDTypes”,“ApplicationSubmissionLimits”and“VariableFees”

o CancellingSubsequentProcedures:ShouldthereinfactbenewgTLDsubsequentproceduresandifnot,whatarethejustificationsforandramificationsofdiscontinuingtheprogram?

o Predictability:Howcanchangestotheprogramintroducedafterlaunch(e.g.,digitalarchery/prioritizationissues,namecollision,registryagreementchanges,publicinterestcommitments(PICs),etc.)beavoided?

o Competition,ConsumerTrust,andConsumerChoice:Didtheimplementationmeetordiscouragethesegoals?

! NotethatperSection9.3oftheAffirmationofCommitments,thereistobea



communitydrivenreviewoftheNewgTLDProgram’simpactonCompetition,ConsumerTrust,andConsumerChoice,takingintoaccounttherecommendedmetricsasidentifiedbytheImplementationAdvisoryGroupforCompetition,ConsumerTrust,andConsumerChoice(IAG-CCT).

o CommunityEngagement:Howcanparticipationfromthecommunitybebetterencouragedandintegratedduringthepolicydevelopmentprocess,implementation,andexecution?

o ApplicantGuidebook(AGB):IstheAGBtherightimplementationoftheGNSOrecommendations?Ifso,howcanitbeimprovedtoensurethatitmeetstheneedsofmultipleaudiences(e.g.,applicants,thosemonitoringthepolicyimplementation,registryserviceproviders,escrowproviders,etc.)

o ClarityofApplicationProcess:Howcantheapplicationprocessavoiddevelopingprocessesonanas-neededbasis(e.g.,clarifyingquestionprocess,changerequestprocess,customersupport,etc.)

o ApplicationsAssessedinRounds:Hasthescaleofdemandbeenmadeclear?Doestheconceptofroundsaffectmarketbehaviorandshouldfactorsbeyonddemandaffectthetypeofapplicationacceptancemechanism?

o AccreditationPrograms:AsthereappearstobealimitedsetoftechnicalserviceandEscrowproviders,wouldtheprogrambenefitfromanaccreditationprogramforthirdpartyserviceproviders?Ifso,wouldthissimplifytheapplicationprocesswithasetofpre-qualifiedproviderstochoosefrom?Arethereotherimpactsthatanaccreditationprogrammayhaveontheapplicationprocess?

o Systems:HowcanthesystemsusedtosupporttheNewgTLDProgram,suchasTAS,CentralizedZoneDataService,Portal,etc.bemademorerobust,userfriendly,andbetterintegrated?

o ApplicationFees:Evaluateaccuracyofcostestimatesand/orreviewthemethodologytodevelopthecostmodel,whilestilladheringtotheprincipleofcostrecovery.Examinehowpaymentprocessingcanbeimproved.

o Communications:ExamineaccesstoandcontentwithinknowledgebaseaswellascommunicationmethodsbetweenICANNandthecommunity.

o ApplicationQueuing:Reviewwhetherfirstcomefirstservedguidanceremainsrelevantandifnot,whetheranothermechanismismoreappropriate.

o ApplicationSubmissionPeriod:Isthreemonthstheproperamountoftime?Istheconceptofafixedperiodoftimeforacceptingapplicationstherightapproach?

o SupportforApplicantsFromDevelopingCountries:EvaluateeffectivenessofApplicantSupportprogramtoassessifthecriteriawereproperlydesigned,outreachsufficient,monetarysupportsufficient,etc.Inparticular,wasthereenoughoutreachindevelopingeconomiesto1)contributetothedesignandnatureoftheprocessand2)toensureawarenessoftheopportunityafforded?

o DifferentTLDTypes:Doestheone-size-fits-allapplicationandreviewprocesshamperinnovation?Shouldthingssuchastheapplicationprocess,requirements,annualfees,contractualrequirements,etc.bevariablebasedontheTLDtype?Forinstance,shouldanexistingRegistryOperator,thatisfulfillingtherequirementsofitsRegistryAgreement,besubjecttoadifferent,morestreamlined,applicationprocess?



o ApplicationSubmissionLimits:Shouldtherebelimitstothenumberofapplicationsfromasingleapplicant/group?Consideriftheroundcouldberestrictedtoacertainapplicanttype(s)(e.g.,fromleast-developedcountries)orotherlimitingfactor.

o VariableFees:ShouldtheNewgTLDapplicationfeebevariablebasedonsuchfactorsasapplicationtype(e.g.,openorclosedregistries),multipleidenticalapplications,orotherfactor?

• Group2:Legal/Regulatory:Recommendations5,10,14,15,16,17and19;ImplementationGuidanceI,J,KandL;NewTopics“Second-levelRightsProtectionMechanisms”,“Registry/RegistrarStandardization”,“GlobalPublicInterest”and“IGO/INGOProtections”

o ReservedNames:Reviewthecompositionofthereservednameslisttodetermineifadditions,modifications,orsubtractionsareneeded(e.g.,singleletter,twoletters,specialcharacters,etc.).Evaluateiftheimplementationmatchedexpectations(e.g.,recommendationsoftheReservedNamesWorkingGroup).Reviewwhethergeographicnamesrequirementsareappropriate.

! Note,theGNSO/ccNSO-charteredCrossCommunityWorkingGroupontheUseofCountryandTerritoryNamesasTop-LevelDomainsisfocusedonapolicyframeworkforcountryandterritorynamesandeffortsshouldbemadetoavoidduplicativework.Inaddition,capitalcitynames,citynames,etc.mayalsowarrantdiscussion.

o Baseagreement:Performcomprehensivereviewofthebaseagreement,includinginvestigatinghowandwhyitwasamendedafterprogramlaunch,whetherasinglebaseagreementisappropriate,whetherPublicInterestCommitments(PICs)aretherightmechanismtoprotectthepublicinterest,etc.ShouldtheArticle7.7reviewprocessbeamendedtoallowforcustomizedreviewsbydifferentregistrytypes?

o RegistrantProtections.TheoriginalPDPassumedtherewouldalwaysberegistrantsandtheywouldneedprotectingfromtheconsequencesofRegistryfailure,althoughitmaynotmakesensetoimposeregistrantprotectionobligationssuchasEBEROandtheLOCwhentherearenoregistrantstoprotect,suchasinaclosedregistry.Shouldmorerelevantrulesbeestablishedforcertainspecificcases?

o ContractualCompliance:Whilenospecificissueswereidentified,contractualcomplianceasitrelatestoNewgTLDsmaybeconsideredinscopefordiscussion,thoughtheroleofcontractualcompliance(i.e.,enforcingagreements)wouldnotbeconsideredwithinscope.

o RegistrarNon-Discrimination:Areregistrarrequirementsforregistriesstillappropriate?

! Note,thedevelopmentandimplementationofSpecification13for.brandswasagreedtobytheGNSOCouncilbutdeemedtobeinconsistentwiththehistoricRecommendation19becausebrandshadnotbeenconsideredintheoriginalPDP.

o TLDRollout:WasadequatetimeallowedforrolloutofTLD?WhenshouldrecurringfeesduetoICANNbegin?

o Second-LevelRightsProtectionMechanisms:RevieweffectivenessandimplementationofRPMssuchasTMCH,URS,etc.

! NotethatthereisaPreliminaryIssuereportonthe"currentstateofallrights



protectionmechanisms(RPMs)implementedforbothexistingandnewgTLDs,includingbutnotlimitedtotheUDRPandtheURS..."whichmayleadtotheinitiationofaPDPonthesubject.

o Registry/RegistrarStandardization:Considerwhethertheregistry/registrarrelationshipshouldhaveadditionalstandardizationandregulation.

o GlobalPublicInterest:Existingpolicyadvicedoesnotdefinetheapplicationof“PublicInterest”analysisasaguidelineforevaluationdeterminations.ConsiderissuesidentifiedinGACAdviceonsafeguards,publicinterestcommitments(PICs),andassociatedquestionsofcontractualcommitmentandenforcement.ItmaybeusefultoconsidertheglobalpublicinterestinthecontextofICANN’slimitedtechnicalcoordinationrole,missionandcorevaluesandhowitappliesspecificallytotheNewgTLDProgram.

o IGO/INGOProtections:ThePDPforProtectionofIGOandINGOIdentifiersinAllgTLDsandPDPforIGO-INGOAccesstoCurativeRightsProtectionMechanismsareexpectedtoaddressanumberofissues.Whilenoadditionalworkisenvisioned,ifthereareanyremainingornewissuesfordiscussion,theycouldbedeliberatedinthecontextofthisPDP.

o ClosedGenerics:ShouldthereberestrictionsaroundexclusiveuseofgenericsTLDs?• Group3:StringContention/Objections&Disputes:PrincipleG;Recommendations2,3,6,

12and20;ImplementationGuidanceF,H,PandRo Applicant’sFreedomofExpression:ExaminewhetherGACAdvice,community

processes,andreservednamesimpactedthisgoal.o StringSimilarity:Werestringcontentionevaluationresultsconsistentandeffectivein

preventinguserconfusion?Werethestringcontentionresolutionmechanismsfairandefficient?

o Objections:Reviewrulesaroundstanding,fees,objectionconsolidation,consistencyofproceedingsandoutcomes.Reviewfunctionsandroleoftheindependentobjector.Consideroversightofprocessandappealmechanisms.

o AccountabilityMechanisms:Examinewhetherdisputeresolutionandchallengeprocessesprovideadequateredressoptionsorifadditionalredressoptionsspecifictotheprogramareneeded.

! NotethattheCrossCommunityWorkingGrouponEnhancingICANNAccountability(CCWG-Accountability)iscomprehensivelyreviewingaccountabilitymechanisms,soaportionofthistopicmaybebeyondthescopeoftheNewgTLDSubsequentProceduresPDP

o CommunityApplications:Wastheoverallapproachtocommunitiesconsistentwithrecommendationsandimplementationguidance?DidtheCommunityPriorityEvaluationprocessachieveitspurposeandresultinanticipatedoutcomes?Weretherecommendationsadequateforcommunityprotection?

• Group4:InternationalizedDomainNames:PrincipleB;Recommendation18o InternationalizedDomainNamesandUniversalAcceptance:Considerhowto

encourageadoptionofgTLDs.EvaluatewhetherrulesaroundIDNsproperlyaccountedforrecommendationsfromIDNWG.DetermineandaddresspolicyguidanceneededfortheimplementationofIDNvariantTLDs.



! NotethattheUniversalAcceptanceSteeringGrouphascommunitysupporttoleadtheUniversalAcceptanceeffortsandthatconflictingeffortandoutcomesshouldbeavoided.

• Group5:TechnicalandOperations:PrinciplesD,EandF;Recommendations4,7,and8;NewTopic“NameCollisions”

o SecurityandStability:WeretheproperquestionsaskedtominimizetherisktotheDNSandensurethatapplicantswillbeabletomeettheirobligationsintheregistryagreement?Shouldtherebenon-scoredquestionsandifso,howshouldtheybepresented?Werethepropercriteriaestablishedtoavoidcausingtechnicalinstability?IstheimpacttotheDNSfromnewgTLDsfullyunderstood?

o ApplicantReviews:Technical/OperationalandFinancial:WereFinancialandTechnicalcriteriadesignedproperlytoallowapplicantstodemonstratetheircapabilitieswhileallowingevaluatorstovalidatetheircapabilities?Howcanthecriteriabestreamlinedandmadeclearer?

o Namecollisions:HowshouldnamecollisionsbeincorporatedintofuturenewgTLDrounds?Whatmeasuresmaybeneededtomanagerisksfor2012-roundgTLDsbeyondtheir2yearanniversaryofdelegation,orgTLDsdelegatedpriortothe2012round?

TheWG,duringitsdeliberations,shouldkeepinmindthatmakingsubstantivechangestotheNewgTLDProgrammayresultinsignificantdifferencesbetweenregistriesfromthe2012roundandfuturerounds.Wheresignificantdifferencesareidentified,theWGshoulddiscussthebenefitstoberealizedfromrecommendedchangesagainstanypossiblenegativeimpacts,suchascreatinganunevenplayingfield.AsoutlinedinthePDPManual,recommendationsmaytakedifferentformsincluding,forexample,recommendationsforconsensuspolicies,bestpracticesand/orimplementationguidelines.ThePDPWGisrequiredtofollowthestepsandprocessesasoutlinedinAnnexAoftheICANNBylawsandthePDPManual.Objectives&Goals:TodevelopanInitialReportandaFinalReportaddressingtheissueofNewgTLDSubsequentProcedurestobedeliveredtotheGNSOCouncil,followingtheprocessesdescribedinAnnexAoftheICANNBylawsandthePDPManual.Deliverables&Timeframes:TheWGshallrespectthetimelinesanddeliverablesasoutlinedinAnnexAoftheICANNBylawsandthePDPManual.AspertheGNSOWorkingGroupGuidelines,theWGshalldevelopaworkplanthatoutlinesthenecessarystepsandexpectedtiminginordertoachievethemilestonesofthePDPassetoutinAnnexAoftheICANNBylawsandthePDPManualandsubmitthistotheGNSOCouncil.SectionIII:Formation,Staffing,andOrganizationMembershipCriteria:TheWorkingGroupwillbeopentoallinterestedinparticipating.Newmemberswhojoinafterworkhasbeencompletedwillneedtoreviewpreviousdocumentsandmeetingtranscripts.

GroupFormation,Dependencies,&Dissolution:ThisWGshallbeastandardGNSOPDPWorkingGroup.TheGNSOSecretariatshouldcirculatea‘CallForVolunteers’aswidelyaspossibleinordertoensurebroadrepresentationandparticipationinthe



WorkingGroup,including:• PublicationofannouncementonrelevantICANNwebsitesincludingbutnotlimitedtotheGNSOandotherSupportingOrganizationsandAdvisoryCommitteewebpages;and• DistributionoftheannouncementtoGNSOStakeholderGroups,ConstituenciesandotherICANNSupportingOrganizationsandAdvisoryCommittees

WorkingGroupRoles,Functions,&Duties:TheICANNStaffassignedtotheWGwillfullysupporttheworkoftheWorkingGroupasrequestedbytheChairincludingmeetingsupport,documentdrafting,editinganddistributionandothersubstantivecontributionswhendeemedappropriate.StaffassignmentstotheWorkingGroup:

• GNSOSecretariat• 2ICANNpolicystaffmembers(SteveChan,JulieHedlund)

ThestandardWGroles,functions&dutiesshallbeapplicableasspecifiedinSection2.2oftheWorkingGroupGuidelines.StatementsofInterest(SOI)Guidelines:EachmemberoftheWorkingGroupisrequiredtosubmitanSOIinaccordancewithSection5oftheGNSOOperatingProcedures.SectionIV:RulesofEngagementDecision-MakingMethodologies:{Note:ThefollowingmaterialwasextractedfromtheWorkingGroupGuidelines,Section3.6.IfaCharteringOrganizationwishestodeviatefromthestandardmethodologyformakingdecisionsorempowertheWGtodecideitsowndecision-makingmethodology,thissectionshouldbeamendedasappropriate}.TheChairwillberesponsiblefordesignatingeachpositionashavingoneofthefollowingdesignations:

• Fullconsensus-whennooneinthegroupspeaksagainsttherecommendationinitslastreadings.ThisisalsosometimesreferredtoasUnanimousConsensus.

• Consensus-apositionwhereonlyasmallminoritydisagrees,butmostagree.[Note:ForthosethatareunfamiliarwithICANNusage,youmayassociatethedefinitionof‘Consensus’withotherdefinitionsandtermsofartsuchasroughconsensusornearconsensus.Itshouldbenoted,however,thatinthecaseofaGNSOPDPoriginatedWorkingGroup,allreports,especiallyFinalReports,mustrestrictthemselvestotheterm‘Consensus’asthismayhavelegalimplications.]

• Strongsupportbutsignificantopposition-apositionwhere,whilemostofthegroupsupportsarecommendation,thereareasignificantnumberofthosewhodonotsupportit.

• Divergence(alsoreferredtoasNoConsensus)-apositionwherethereisn'tstrongsupportforanyparticularposition,butmanydifferentpointsofview.Sometimesthisisduetoirreconcilabledifferencesofopinionandsometimesitisduetothefactthatnoonehasaparticularlystrongorconvincingviewpoint,butthemembersofthegroupagreethatitis



worthlistingtheissueinthereportnonetheless.• MinorityView-referstoaproposalwhereasmallnumberofpeoplesupportthe

recommendation.ThiscanhappeninresponsetoaConsensus,Strongsupportbutsignificantopposition,andNoConsensus;or,itcanhappenincaseswherethereisneithersupportnoroppositiontoasuggestionmadebyasmallnumberofindividuals.

IncasesofConsensus,Strongsupportbutsignificantopposition,andNoConsensus,aneffortshouldbemadetodocumentthatvarianceinviewpointandtopresentanyMinorityViewrecommendationsthatmayhavebeenmade.DocumentationofMinorityViewrecommendationsnormallydependsontextofferedbytheproponent(s).InallcasesofDivergence,theWGChairshouldencouragethesubmissionofminorityviewpoint(s).Therecommendedmethodfordiscoveringtheconsensusleveldesignationonrecommendationsshouldworkasfollows:

i. Afterthegrouphasdiscussedanissuelongenoughforallissuestohavebeenraised,understoodanddiscussed,theChair,orCo-Chairs,makeanevaluationofthedesignationandpublishitforthegrouptoreview.

ii. AfterthegrouphasdiscussedtheChair'sestimationofdesignation,theChair,orCo-Chairs,shouldreevaluateandpublishanupdatedevaluation.

iii. Steps(i)and(ii)shouldcontinueuntiltheChair/Co-Chairsmakeanevaluationthatisacceptedbythegroup.

iv. Inrarecase,aChairmaydecidethattheuseofpollsisreasonable.Someofthereasonsforthismightbe:o Adecisionneedstobemadewithinatimeframethatdoesnotallowforthenatural

processofiterationandsettlingonadesignationtooccur.o Itbecomesobviousafterseveraliterationsthatitisimpossibletoarriveata

designation.ThiswillhappenmostoftenwhentryingtodiscriminatebetweenConsensusandStrongsupportbutSignificantOppositionorbetweenStrongsupportbutSignificantOppositionandDivergence.

Careshouldbetakeninusingpollsthattheydonotbecomevotes.Aliabilitywiththeuseofpollsisthat,insituationswherethereisDivergenceorStrongOpposition,thereareoftendisagreementsaboutthemeaningsofthepollquestionsorofthepollresults.BasedupontheWG'sneeds,theChairmaydirectthatWGparticipantsdonothavetohavetheirnameexplicitlyassociatedwithanyFullConsensusorConsensusview/position.However,inallothercasesandinthosecaseswhereagroupmemberrepresentstheminorityviewpoint,theirnamemustbeexplicitlylinked,especiallyinthosecaseswherepollswheretaken.ConsensuscallsshouldalwaysinvolvetheentireWorkingGroupand,forthisreason,shouldtakeplaceonthedesignatedmailinglisttoensurethatallWorkingGroupmembershavetheopportunitytofullyparticipateintheconsensusprocess.ItistheroleoftheChairtodesignatewhichlevelofconsensusisreachedandannouncethisdesignationtotheWorkingGroup.Member(s)oftheWorkingGroupshouldbeabletochallengethedesignationoftheChairaspartoftheWorkingGroup



discussion.However,ifdisagreementpersists,membersoftheWGmayusetheprocesssetforthbelowtochallengethedesignation.Ifseveralparticipants(seeNote1below)inaWGdisagreewiththedesignationgiventoapositionbytheChairoranyotherconsensuscall,theymayfollowthesestepssequentially:

1. SendemailtotheChair,copyingtheWGexplainingwhythedecisionisbelievedtobeinerror.

2. IftheChairstilldisagreeswiththecomplainants,theChairwillforwardtheappealtotheCOliaison(s).TheChairmustexplainhisorherreasoningintheresponsetothecomplainantsandinthesubmissiontotheliaison.Iftheliaison(s)supportstheChair'sposition,theliaison(s)willprovidetheirresponsetothecomplainants.Theliaison(s)mustexplaintheirreasoningintheresponse.IftheCOliaisondisagreeswiththeChair,theliaisonwillforwardtheappealtotheCO.ShouldthecomplainantsdisagreewiththeliaisonsupportoftheChair’sdetermination,thecomplainantsmayappealtotheChairoftheCOortheirdesignatedrepresentative.IftheCOagreeswiththecomplainants’position,theCOshouldrecommendremedialactiontotheChair.

3. Intheeventofanyappeal,theCOwillattachastatementoftheappealtotheWGand/orBoardreport.ThisstatementshouldincludeallofthedocumentationfromallstepsintheappealsprocessandshouldincludeastatementfromtheCO(seeNote2below).

Note1:AnyWorkingGroupmembermayraiseanissueforreconsideration;however,aformalappealwillrequirethatthatasinglememberdemonstratesasufficientamountofsupportbeforeaformalappealprocesscanbeinvoked.InthosecaseswhereasingleWorkingGroupmemberisseekingreconsideration,thememberwilladvisetheChairand/orLiaisonoftheirissueandtheChairand/orLiaisonwillworkwiththedissentingmembertoinvestigatetheissueandtodetermineifthereissufficientsupportforthereconsiderationtoinitialaformalappealprocess.Note2:ItshouldbenotedthatICANNalsohasotherconflictresolutionmechanismsavailablethatcouldbeconsideredincaseanyofthepartiesaredissatisfiedwiththeoutcomeofthisprocess.

StatusReporting:AsrequestedbytheGNSOCouncil,takingintoaccounttherecommendationoftheCouncilliaisontothisgroup.Problem/IssueEscalation&ResolutionProcesses:{Note:thefollowingmaterialwasextractedfromSections3.4,3.5,and3.7oftheWorkingGroupGuidelinesandmaybemodifiedbytheCharteringOrganizationatitsdiscretion}TheWGwilladheretoICANN’sExpectedStandardsofBehaviorasdocumentedinSectionFoftheICANNAccountabilityandTransparencyFrameworksandPrinciples,January2008.IfaWGmemberfeelsthatthesestandardsarebeingabused,theaffectedpartyshouldappealfirsttotheChairandLiaisonand,ifunsatisfactorilyresolved,totheChairoftheCharteringOrganizationortheirdesignatedrepresentative.Itisimportanttoemphasizethatexpresseddisagreementisnot,byitself,groundsforabusivebehavior.Itshouldalsobetakenintoaccountthatasaresultofculturaldifferencesandlanguagebarriers,statementsmayappeardisrespectfulorinappropriatetosomebut



arenotnecessarilyintendedassuch.However,itisexpectedthatWGmembersmakeeveryefforttorespecttheprinciplesoutlinedinICANN’sExpectedStandardsofBehaviorasreferencedabove.TheChair,inconsultationwiththeCharteringOrganizationliaison(s),isempoweredtorestricttheparticipationofsomeonewhoseriouslydisruptstheWorkingGroup.AnysuchrestrictionwillbereviewedbytheCharteringOrganization.Generally,theparticipantshouldfirstbewarnedprivately,andthenwarnedpubliclybeforesucharestrictionisputintoplace.Inextremecircumstances,thisrequirementmaybebypassed.AnyWGmemberthatbelievesthathis/hercontributionsarebeingsystematicallyignoredordiscountedorwantstoappealadecisionoftheWGorCOshouldfirstdiscussthecircumstanceswiththeWGChair.Intheeventthatthemattercannotberesolvedsatisfactorily,theWGmembershouldrequestanopportunitytodiscussthesituationwiththeChairoftheCharteringOrganizationortheirdesignatedrepresentative.Inaddition,ifanymemberoftheWGisoftheopinionthatsomeoneisnotperformingtheirroleaccordingtothecriteriaoutlinedinthisCharter,thesameappealsprocessmaybeinvoked.Closure&WorkingGroupSelf-Assessment:TheWGwillcloseuponthedeliveryoftheFinalReport,unlessassignedadditionaltasksorfollow-upbytheGNSOCouncil.SectionV:CharterDocumentHistoryVersion Date Description1.0

StaffContact: SteveChan Email: [email protected]:Iftranslationswillbeprovidedpleaseindicatethelanguagesbelow:



AnnexB–ReportofPublicComments

ReportofPublicComments

Title: PreliminaryIssueReportonNewgTLDSubsequentProcedures

PublicationDate: 4December2015PreparedBy: SteveChan

CommentPeriod:CommentOpenDate: 31August2015CommentCloseDate: 30October2015

ImportantInformationLinksAnnouncement

PublicCommentBox

ViewCommentsSubmitted

StaffContact: SteveChan Email: [email protected]:GeneralOverviewandNextStepsInaccordancewithPolicyDevelopmentProcess(PDP)rules,thePreliminaryIssueReportonNewgTLDSubsequentProcedures[PDF,1.28MB]waspostedforpubliccommenton31August2015.ThisPreliminaryIssueReportfollowstheeffortsoftheDiscussionGrouponNewgTLDSubsequentProcedures,whichproducedasetofoutputsthatservedasthebasisforthisreport.ThisIssueReportsoughttoexploreindetailthesetofissues/subjectsthattheDiscussionGroupidentifiedduringitsproceedings.FollowingthecloseofthepubliccommentperiodandthepublicationofthisReportofPublicComments,aFinalIssueReportwillbepreparedfortheGNSOCouncil,whichwillthenconsideraCharterforaPDPWorkingGrouponthisissue.TheFinalIssueReportwillreflectconsiderationofallfeedbackreceivedthroughthepubliccommentforumwhichidentifiedspecificclarifications,corrections,orenhancementstothePreliminaryIssueReport.SectionII:Contributors

Atthetimethisreportwasprepared,atotalofthirteen(13)communitysubmissionshadbeenpostedtotheForum.Thecontributors,bothindividualsandorganizations/groups,arelistedbelowinchronologicalorderbypostingdatewithinitialsnoted.Totheextentthatquotationsareusedintheforegoingnarrative(SectionIII),suchcitationswillreferencethecontributor’sinitials.

OrganizationsandGroups:

Name Submittedby InitialsCyberInvasion,Ltd. JamesGannon CILAt-LargeAdvisoryCommittee(ALAC) At-LargeStaff ALACUNINETTNoridAS AnnebethB.Lange NORID



GovernmentalAdvisoryCommittee(GAC) TomDale GACInternationalTrademarkAssociation(INTA) LoriSchulman INTABigRoomInc. JacobMalthouse BRRegistriesStakeholderGroup(RySG) StephaneVanGelder RySGIntellectualPropertyConstituency(IPC) GregShatan IPCBusinessConstituency(BC) SteveDelBianco BCFairWindsPartners SamanthaDemtriou FPGoogleRegistry StephanieDuchesneau GRDomainMondo.com JohnPoole DMGovernmentsofPeru,Uruguay,Venezuela,ParaguayandArgentina

OlgaCavalli GPUVPA

DotgayLLC JamieBaxter DGLIndividuals:

Name Affiliation(ifprovided) InitialsN/A N/A N/A

SectionIII:SummaryofComments

GeneralDisclaimer:ThissectionisintendedtobroadlyandcomprehensivelysummarizethecommentssubmittedtothisForum,butnottoaddresseveryspecificpositionstatedbyeachcontributor.Staffrecommendsthatreadersinterestedinspecificaspectsofanyofthesummarizedcomments,orthefullcontextofothers,referdirectlytothespecificcontributionsatthelinkreferencedabove(ViewCommentsSubmitted).

AsnotedinSection1,thePreliminaryIssueReportfollowedandwasinspiredbytheeffortsoftheDiscussionGroup(DG)onNewgTLDSubsequentProcedures.InthePreliminaryIssueReport,thesubjectsidentifiedbytheDGwereexploredindetail,providingbackgroundandanalysisofeachtopic.ThePreliminaryIssueReportalsoincludedadraftPDP-WGCharterforcommunityconsiderationasdevelopedbytheDG.CommentsreceivedonthisPreliminaryIssueReportfellbroadlyintotwocategories:

• Commentssuggestingclarifications,corrections,orenhancementstothePreliminaryIssueReport.ThesearefurthersummarizedbelowandwillbereflectedintheFinalIssueReport.

• CommentsrelatedtotheorganizationandsequencingofsubjectswithinthePreliminaryIssueReport.

Commentssuggestingclarifications,corrections,orenhancementsWithinthe13setsofcommentsreceived,therewereapproximately20specificcommentsthatrespondeddirectlytothepubliccommentforum’scallforcommunityinputoninformationthatmightbemissingfromthePreliminaryIssueReport,necessarycorrections,orupdatestoinformationinthePreliminaryIssueReport,orwhetherthereareanyquestionsorsubjectsthatshouldbeexploredinthisPDPin



additiontothosealreadydescribedinthePreliminaryIssueReport.

• Therewereafewcommentssuggestingnewtopics,whichledtotheintegrationofnewcontentintoexistingsubjectsheadings,whichwouldnotprecludethePDP-WGfromaddressingthesetopicsasdiscretesubjects.Forinstance:

o IPCstated“Sincethelaunchofthe2012round,theIPChasconsistentlyrequestedthatICANNexamineissuesconcerningnewgTLDpremiumnameandpricingpractices,particularlyinviewofabusivepracticesperpetratedbycertainnewgTLDregistryoperatorsvis-à-vispremiumnamesandpricing.DespitetheimportanceoftheseissuestotheIPCandotherstakeholders,theReportprovidesverylittlediscussiononmattersrelatingtopremiumnamesandpricing.”

o IPCalsostated“Inaddition,theIPCnotesthatsomeofthetasksandquestionsidentifiedasbeingappropriateforaPDPmightthemselvesbebetterdevelopedthroughtheuseofoneormoreofthenewproceduresdevelopedbythePolicy&Implementationworkinggroup–i.e.,theFastTrackPDPProcess,theGNSOGuidanceProcessandtheGNSOInputProcess.”

• §4.2.3:Competition,ConsumerTrustandConsumerChoice–Commentssuggestedthatthissubjectwouldbelikelytorequirepolicydevelopment:

o ALACstated“Wewouldwishthecommunitytoneitherdenigratenorignorethemetricsdefinedbytheevaluationofthelastround’sKPIs.APDPexaminingtheresultsofthisanalysisis,intheALAC’sview,mandatory.”

• §4.3.2:BaseAgreement–Therewereseveralcommentsaboutthebaseagreement,aswellassubjectsthatmaybecloselyrelated,astheypertaintopossibleregistryrequirementsthatcouldbeincludedinarevisedbaseregistryagreement.

o BCstates“Pricingofreserved/premiumnamesisacriticalissue.Designatingbrandsaspremiumnamesshouldnotbedesignedtocreatecommercialopportunityforregistryoperators.ApplicantsshouldberequiredtodescribetheirpremiumnameprogramandincludepricingevaluationsintheirapplicationandthenbeheldtowhatwasproposedbyICANNcompliance.”

o IPCstates“TheIPCstronglyencouragesICANNtoprovideadditionalbackground,context,andguidanceregardingpremiumnames,pricingpoliciesandimplementationintheFinalReportandCharter,toensurethatthePDPWorkingGrouphasanadequatebasisforconsideringtheseissues.”

• §4.3.4:ContractualCompliance–Therewereseveralcommentsconcerningcontractualcompliance.

o IPCstates“INTAisconcernedthattheDGdidnotidentifyanyspecificissueswithrespecttocontractualcomplianceinlightofthenumberoftroublingoperationalpracticesengagedinbyregistryoperatorsduringthefirstnewgTLDround.Thesepracticesincludearbitraryandabusivepricingforpremiumdomainstargetingtrademarks,useofreservednamestocircumventSunriseandoperatinglaunchprogramsthatdifferedmateriallyfromwhatwasapprovedbyICANN.Thesetroublingpracticesseemtoviolatethespirit,ifnottheletterofvariouscontractualobligationsintheRegistryAgreement.”

o BCstates“ConcernsaboutpremiumpricingandpredatorypricingwereidentifiedbytheBC,butICANNdidnotconsiderthisacomplianceissue.Werecommendrequiringregistry



operatorstoincludeadetaileddescriptionoftheirproposedSunriseandpremiumpricingprogramsintheirapplications.”

• §4.3.7:SecondLevelRightsProtectionMechanisms–Therewereseveralcommentsrelatedtosecond-levelRPMs,someexpressingsurprisethatthesubjectmaynotrequirepolicydevelopmentwithinthisPDP-WG.OthershighlightedissuesthatmaysupporttheeffectivenessofRPMs.

o ALACstates“TheALACunderstandsthepossibilityofaPDPdedicatedtoRightsProtectionMechanismsmustbeindependentlyinitiated.ButwewishtoensurethatsuchworkisnotoverlookedordoesnotfallbetweenthecracksifitisnottreatedasapolicymatterinthePDP-WGonsubsequentprocedures.Inourviewthesemattersareclearlylinkedandbestaddressedintandem.”

o INTAstates“TheReportcorrectlyacknowledgesthatoneoftherationalesforcreatingthenewRPMswas“tomitigatepotentialrisksandcoststotrademarkrightsholdersthatcouldariseintheexpansionofthenewgTLDnamespace.”Asageneralmatter,anysubstantivereviewoftheRPMsmustaskthequestionwhethereachRPMisactuallyachievingtheunderlyinggoalofmitigatingthepotentialrisksandcoststotrademarkowners.”

o BCstates“TheBChasmanyconcernswithalloftheissuesdescribedinthissection,includingreservationofpremiumgenericdomains,TMCHnotices,NameCollisionsandtheURS.WelookforwardtoparticipatinginthePDPandthein-depthdiscussion.”

• §4.4.2:StringSimilarity–Commentershadconcernsaroundconsistencyandpluralnames.o ALACstates“…wehaveexperiencedthecurrentprocessofdeterminationanditsdelivery

ofcompletelyinconsistentoutcomeseventothepointofabsurdityinsomecases,werecommendtheprocessbereviewedsothatasfaraspossible,inconsistentevaluationisremoved.WewouldrecommendthattheexplanationofstringsimilaritycasesintheIssuesReportbeexpandedtoincludethepluralofwords.”

• 4.4.3:Objections–Commentershadconcernsaroundconsistencyandeffectivenessofparticularobjectionsgrounds:

o ALACstates“Wearetroubledbyinconsistencyofproceedingsandthedefinitionof“community”embracedbyobjectionexaminers.”

o INTAstates“WhileINTAappreciatesICANN’seffortstoprotectexistingtrademarkrights,INTArecommendsthatanyPDP-WGconductsageneralreviewoftheobjectionpossibilities,particularlyofthefollowingprovisionsoftheLRO:”

• §4.6.1:SecurityandStability–SeveralcommentsnotedtheabsenceofstudiesintotheeffectofofnewgTLDsontheDNSandothersecurityrelatedquestions.

o CILstates“WewouldsupporttherecommendationthattheevaluationcriteriaandotheraspectsrelatedtoSSRissuesbeingexaminedaspartofanypolicydevelopmenteffortspriortotheannouncementofanypotentialsubsequentrounds.”

o ALACstates“thewaythistopicisaddresseddoesnottakeintoaccountanyfurtherassessmentaboutSecurityandStabilityconsiderationsbeyondthefirstroundofdelegations.Forexample,thereisthequestionastowhethertheDNScanincorporatemorenewgTLDstothesamescaleasthecurrentroundwithoutjeopardisingSecurityandStability?”

o IPCStates“However,theoneissuethatcouldbemoredirectlyaddressedbytheReportiswhethertherapidexpansionoftherootzone(fromtheaggregateissuanceofmanygTLDs)



couldaffectthesecurityandstabilityoftheDNS.”• §4.7:WorkProcesses–Therewereseveralcommentsadvocatingforeitherofthetwosuggested

methodsfororganizingthework(i.e.,simultaneousversussequential),thoughtheworkprocesswillultimatelybedecidedbytheWorkingGroupitself.TherewerealsocommentsnotingthatadditionalmechanismsdevelopedbythePolicy&ImplementationWGmaybenefitthedispositionofcertainsubjects.

o IPCstates“Inaddition,theIPCnotesthatsomeofthetasksandquestionsidentifiedasbeingappropriateforaPDPmightthemselvesbebetterdevelopedthroughtheuseofoneormoreofthenewproceduresdevelopedbythePolicy&Implementationworkinggroup–i.e.,theFastTrackPDPProcess,theGNSOGuidanceProcessandtheGNSOInputProcess.”

CommentsrelatedtotheorganizationandsequencingofsubjectsWithinthe13setsofcommentsreceived,therewereapproximately3specificcommentsthatexpressedconcernregardingtheorganizationsandsequencingofsubjectsinthePreliminaryIssueReport.

• IPCstates“However,wehavefoundthepresentReportverydifficulttograpplewithduetothemannerinwhichthegroupingshavebeenselected,theissuesallocatedtothoseGroups,andtheorderinwhichissuesarediscussedwithintheGroups.”

• INTAstates“However,theteamofINTAmemberstaskedwithpreparingthiscommenthavefounditdifficultattimestoidentifywhereaspecificissueisdealtwithwithintheReportandwhetheritissatisfactorilyaddressedornot.ThisisduetoissuesnotalwaysbeingallocatedtothemostlogicalGroup,ortothemostlogicalsectionwithinaGroup,andtothesubstantialoverlapbetweensections.

SectionIV:AnalysisofComments

GeneralDisclaimer:Thissectionisintendedtoprovideananalysisandevaluationofthecommentsreceivedalongwithexplanationsregardingthebasisforanyrecommendationsprovidedwithintheanalysis.

Withafewnotableexceptions,commenterseitherconfirmedordidnotchallengethesubstantiveresearchandbackgroundinformationprovidedinthePreliminaryIssueReport.Commentssuggestingclarifications,corrections,orenhancementstotheIssueReporthaveallbeenreviewedbytheStaffManagertoensurethatrequestedadditionswereeitheralreadypresentoraddedtotheFinalIssueReport,andthatrequestedcorrectionshaveeitherbeenincorporatedoraddressedthroughclarificationsintheFinalIssueReport.AhighnumberofcommentswereinregardstoregistryrequirementsinRegistryAgreements,whichcurrentlymaynotincludeprovisionsthatmightallowforcontractualcomplianceactionrelatedtopricing,sunriseprograms,andotherareas.Thesecommentshavebeenincorporatedinto§4.3.2ontheBaseAgreementand§4.3.7onSecond-levelRightsProtections,althoughthiswouldnotprecludeaPDP-WGfromdebatingnewcontractualrequirementsasadiscretetopic.



Therewerealsoseveralcommentsexpressingconcernwiththeorganizationofthereport,notingthatitcanbedifficulttolocatespecificissues,thatthereareinstanceswheretheremaybeoverlaporduplication,andthatthesequencingofsubjectsdoesnotappeartobeideal.Staffhasresistedthetemptationtomakewholesalechangesinthesequencingororganizationofsubjects,asdevelopingaworkplanisafunctionofthePDP-WG.However,staffhasprovidedadditionalproposalsaroundtheorganizationofwork,whichmayhopefullyassistthedevelopmentoftheworkplan.ItisStaff’srecommendationthatallcommentswhichdidnotdirectlyaddresstheIssueReport,butratherwereintendedassubstantiveinputs,beconsideredduringdeliberationsbythePDP-WGattheappropriatepointsduringthePDPprocess.ThecommentsunderscorethediverseconcernsofvariousstakeholdersandwillservetoinformthePDP,alongwithotheravailableinputssummarizedintheFinalIssueReport.TheFinalIssueReportwillincludethisReportandanalysisofpubliccommentsreceived,toenabletheGNSOCounciltofullyconsideralltheissuesandconcernsexpressedbythecommunityinordertomoveforwardonthisPDP,whilepossiblyadoptingtheincludedPDP-WGCharter.

Final Issue Report New gTLD Subsequent Procedures · Final Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent...

Documents

Transcript of Final Issue Report New gTLD Subsequent Procedures · Final Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent...