The call for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Group C will take place on Thursday, 13 December 2018 at 21:00 UTC for 60 minutes.

13:00 PST, 16:00 EST, 22:00 Paris CET, (Friday)02:00 Karachi PKT,  (Friday)06:00 Tokyo JST, (Friday) 08:00 Melbourne AEDT

For other times:


  1. Agenda review/SOIs
  2. Continued: Discussion of Public Comments: 2.8.1: Objections (starting with 2.8.1.e.8)
  3. AOB


For agenda item 2, please find the relevant public comment review document:



AC Recording

GNSO transcripts are located on the GNSO Calendar


Attendance and AC Chat

Apologies: Katrin Ohlmer, Malgorzata Pek,

Notes/ Action Items


1. Statements of Interest: No Updates

2. Continued: Discussion of Public Comments:

2.8.1: Objections (starting with 2.8.1.e.8)



Summary: Some support for the idea that objections may have been filed with the intent to delay. Suggestions provided for addressing this issue. (Note that many of the suggestions have previously been raised in WG discussions. While they are flagged "new idea," many are not actually new in that sense.)

Line 150, #1 NCSG -- Agreement: Yes, we need to build safeguards into the objection process that protect against potential gaming and other manipulations of the process that lead to unfair and unintended results.

Line 151, #2 RySG -- Agreement, New Idea (three recommendations for addressing bad faith objections)

Line 152, #3 INTA -- New Idea (note that these are ideas that have been previously raised in WT discussions)

-- Think this should be changed to Agreement and New Idea


Summary: Most comments reiterate support for expanding the quick look mechanism. Several suggestions are put forward with respect to implementing the quick look mechanism.


Line 154, #1 Jamie Baxter -- New Idea, objector : The objector should be responsible for covering the initial cost to establish standing, and only if standing is confirmed should the applicant be required to respond. Applicants named in the objection should also have the opportunity to submit materials in rebuttal to the objector's claim of standing (at no cost to the applicant).

-- Why not just clarify that an objector has standing.

Line 155, #2 ALAC -- New Idea: We suggest that analysis of the 2012 round objections which were found to be frivolous be undertaken to establish commonly identifiable traits and add those criteria to the “quick look” mechanism if not already present.

Line 156, #3 RySG -- New Idea: CANN should develop clearer criteria to assist the DRSP in accurately identifying objections that meet the standard of an abuse of the right to object. ICANN should also develop additional appropriate sanctions for parties who are subject to a finding of abuse of the right to object, including financial penalties and the loss of the ability to make additional objections.

Line 157, #4 MarkMonitor -- Agreement: We support the proposition raised by the Work Track members that community objectors' standing should be substantiated, via "quick look" or otherwise, before applicants are assessed associated fees.

Line 158, #5 NCSG -- Agreement: A "quick look" mechanism is a critical component to ensuring that frivolous objections do not backlog the system, consume limited resources, and unfairly keep a gTLD on hold.


Summary: Some support expressed for continuing ALAC funding, a few suggestions for programmatic adjustments (not all are truly "new" ideas), and some opposition expressed to continuing ALAC funding.


Line 160, #1 ALAC -- Agreement: Yes, the ALAC believes strongly that ICANN should continue to fund all objections filed by us in the future rounds; New Idea

Line 161, #2 Council of Europe -- Agreement: ALAC should be provided with necessary funds for this activity by ICANN also within subsequent procedures; New Idea: it would be advisable to clarify the ALAC's task in the also at the ICANN Bylaws;

Line 162, #3 RySG -- Agreement: upports ICANN’s continued funding of objections; New Idea: ICANN and ALAC should prioritize cost-controlling mechanisms, where possible, associated with any objection funded by ICANN.

Line 163, #4 RrSG -- Divergence: The RrSG would like to see limitation on objections and funding, if allowed to continue.

Line 164, #5 NCSG -- Divergence: It is not recommended that any groups be provided special rights and privileges to interject in the objection process unless they have been found to have legitimate legal standing in the dispute at issue.

-- Might be concerns, not divergence.  Conditionally support the recommendation if there is standing -- not opposed to funding altogether.  ACTION: Change to Concerns.

-- The ALAC can only object on behalf of someone who has standing.

-- Says, "No" so its divergent.

-- Refer to full WG to consider and whether clarification is needed.


Summary: General support for the idea of allowing remediation measures. Additional guidance provided, including several ideas that have been previously discussed.


Line 166 & 167 -- Agreement

Line 168, #3 MARQUES -- Agreement  New Idea (note that this is an idea that has previously been discussed)

Line 169, #4 INTA -- Agreement  New Idea (not that ideas raised have been previously discussed)

Line 170, #5 RySG -- Agreement  New Idea (items categorized as "new ideas" here may better be described as specific guidance related to remediation measures.)

Line 171, #6 NCSG -- Agreement  New Idea (note that this idea has been previously discussed)

Line 172, #7 ALAC -- New Idea


Summary: One response considers this ICANN's role. A second response indicates that an independent organization should have the role. A third response states "not ICANN organization." All three responses provide guidance on methods to ensure there are no conflicts of interest. Two comments suggest that there should be a means for the community to raise concerns.


Line 174, #1 Jamie Baxter, dotgay -- New Idea

Line 175, #2 INTA -- New Idea

-- But slightly answer a different question.  Administering the process versus evaluating the fitness of the providers.

Line 176, #3 RySG -- New Idea


Summary: Comments are split on whether this should be allowed. ALAC suggests that a community-based gTLD applicant may file a Community Objection OR a String Contention Objection.


Line 178, #1 Council of Europe -- Agreement:  it is legitimate to allow a concerned community to file an objection in respect to the other applicant for the same string provided that applicant has the possibility to answer to the critical comments within the Community Objection procedure (see sec. 2.8.1.e.13 Initial Report).

Line 179, #2 ALAC -- Agreement, Concerns: we are concerned with the situation where a community-based gTLD applicant were to file two different types of objections resulting in diverging determinations based on different definitions of “community” adopted by each DRSP .  On this basis, and unless the evaluation of criteria for “community” can be harmonized across all DRSPs, we suggest that it be stipulated that a community-based gTLD applicant may one file a Community Objection OR a String Contention Objection.

Line 180, #3 RySG -- Divergence: Applying for a TLD as a community while also filing a Community Objection offers an entity an unfair ability to game the system to their advantage.

Line 181, #4 NCSG -- Divergence: The practice of filing for a community TLD and filing a community objection for the same string is an inappropriate form of "double-dipping" that should be discouraged in the next round as it encourages wealthy objectors to file multiple actions for the same goal and overwhelm a competitor with ICANN objection processes.


Summary: Suggestions provided for managing costs and increasing predictability. Some of the ideas referenced have been previously discussed.


Line 183, #1 Jamie Baxter of dotgay LLC  -- New Idea (note that while these comments are categorized as "New Idea" they have been raised previously in discussions)

Line 184, #1 ALAC -- Agreement  New Idea (suggestions for controlling costs)

Line 185, #2 Neustar -- New Idea (again, these ideas have been discussed previously): ensuring fees are clear and communicated to participants up front

Line 186, #3 RySG -- New Idea (again, these ideas have been discussed previously): Costs should be transparent up front to participants in objection processes with a fixed fee

Line 187, #4 NCSG -- New Idea: a) the arbitrator forums might want to provide some education and DNS background for their arbitrators before bringing them into Objection proceedings. Such a process -- especially if it would done upfront for the pool of possible arbitrators, and before any specific objection were brought, might help shorten the learning curve each arbitrator must face in reviewing New gTLD Objections.


Summary: One comment supports this proposal with the caveat that applicants should be able to withdraw applications. Four responses provide, in some form, guidance that any PICs specified should be subject to discussion/negotiation between parties. One response opposes this proposal.

Line 189, #1 ALAC -- Agreement, New Idea: The ALAC welcomes this proposal but the AGB must reflect this possibility and the applicant be given the choice of withdrawing its application in the event the objector prevails. The WG is urged to also give consideration to the matter of refunds for withdrawals as well as an appeals mechanism for the Community Objection dispute resolution process.

Line 190, #2 Jamie Baxter of dotgay LLC -- Agreement, New Idea

Line 191, #3 INTA -- Divergence, New Idea: NTA would not support imposing mandatory PIC commitments on Applicants; COs could include some PIC suggestions and the parties could use these as a starting point for discussions to resolve the objection by way of negotiated settlement

Line 192, #4 Neustar -- Divergence, New Idea: We echo the RySG in cautioning against giving a Panel authority to impose remedies beyond that of the decision; If an objector identifies PICs that they believe could be applied to the TLD to resolve the objection, the parties should resolve the issue cooperatively.

Line 193, #5 RySG -- Divergence, New Idea: cautions against giving the panel the authority to go beyond the remedies requested in a decision. Any PIC made to resolve an objection should be binding on the applicant; Where the objector identifies a PIC that the applicant can agree do, the parties should be permitted to resolve the issue.

Line 194, #6 NCSG -- Divergence: NCSG respectfully submits that this is a terrible idea. Comment: Community-based applications were limited in their ability to modify their applications.

-- Seems to be a slight misunderstanding about how community applications work.  Community applications did not have the ability to do any sort of bilateral negotiation.


-- The settlement idea is not a new idea.

-- Could group RySG, Neustar, and NCSG as agreement in divergence.

  • No labels