.DOC File
NEW gTLDs applicant guidebook – Notes on specific passages:
ATTACHMENT TO MODULE 2:
Page A2, suggested subpoint to bullet 2 (or can be placed in another appropriate place in evaluation criteria; there are many. Can also use Danny’s language, which is attached to this e-mail):
- New GTLD applicants may not be convicted felons, nor previously nor jointly involved with any party sanctioned by ICANN for domain abuse.
- New GTLD applicants must make a firm commitment to providing complete and accurate WHOIS data in accordance with existing contractual language, with the goal to provide reliable and usable data for law enforcement to deal with bad actors in the business sector while allowing for measures of privacy for individuals to avoid persecution by governments or other individuals.
Page A4, paragraph 1: DNSSEC and IDN implementation questions should not be optional. Applicants must demonstrate an understanding of DNSSEC and its implications for security and be required to present an implementation strategy. Same for IDNs.
MODULE 3
Page 3-2, section 3.1.2: Objectors status is unreasonably circumscribed. For string confusion, it is limited to existing registries or applicants to become a new registry. This excludes consumers, end-users and others who may have legitimate objection on the basis of confusion. For morality and public order, no objector is listed. It is understood that this is a work in progress, but the plan cannot go into implementation with this factor undecided, or simply excluded from the ICANN process and deferred to individual governments. For community objection eligibility, only an established institution is listed, a term that is vague and undefined and possibly exclusive to an aggrieved member of a community, or someone unfairly excluded from one. Section 3.1.2.4 does little to assuage this concern, and places undue weight and power in the hands of institutions over individuals.
Page 3-4, Section 3.2, paragraphs 2-4: DRSPs are listed but not described. As noted in previous overview text, the International Chamber of Commerce is a business association, hardly suited to adjudicating morality and public order disputes. The International Centre for Dispute Resolution is undefined. Who is its sponsor? Is it a not-for-profit or NGO? What are its membership requirements?
Page 3-5, Bullet 1: ICANN should be prepared to accept objections in other languages besides English – at minimum, French, Spanish, Chinese, and Arabic.
• Bullet 2: The fee structure is overly burdensome for individuals or non-profits. Each objection, if reasonable and legitimate and submitted by an individual or not-for-profit whose primary mission is the advocacy of consumer and/or business rights, should not be charged discrete fees and should be allowed submission in a single document for a single fee.
Page 3-6, section 3.3.1, bullet 1: Same concern about English cited above.
Page 3-9, paragraphs 2, 3, 5. Establishes a single panelist to resolve disputes, with no particular ICANN guideline for requiring independence, should a DSRP not have such a provision. A single panelist is not sufficient.
Page 3-9, section 3.4.5, paragraph 2: Limiting discovery is not concurrent with judicial due process in the United States and should not be the standard here. Discovery should be permitted.
Page 3-9, section 3.4.5, final paragraph: Hearings should be public except under extremely unusual circumstances. The right to privacy cannot be solely declared by the DRSP.
Page 3-10, Section 3.4.6, final paragraph: Describe circumstances under which ICANN could reject the decision of a dispute resolution panel, whether unanimous or by majority.
Page 3-11, Section 3.5: The “loser” of an objection dispute should bear the cost of an objection, not the objector. Such a circumstance will discourage legitimate objections by individuals unable or afraid to bear the cost.
Page 3-13, Section 3.5.3: The ALAC requests publication of ICANN reviews mentioned here, of legal systems and its consultations with legal experts.
MODULE 4
Page 4-8, paragraph 1: The explanation for awarding preference does not make clear the circumstances that occur when two or more community applicants reach a score of 11. How would it be determined whether one applicant “represents a much larger share of the relevant community” than another? Who would determine this?
Page 4-8, Section 4.3, paragraph 4: Auctions should be a means of no resort in the public and community space at least. Auctions favor the party with the most money to spend, placing individuals, small communities and non-profits at a serious disadvantage. One possible solution to this problem at the individual or non-profit level might be to conduct auctions with “reverse reserves.”
Page 4-9, paragraph 2: It is stated: “Proceeds from auctions will be reserved until the uses of the proceeds are determined through a community consultation.” Which community will consult, and when, via what format? This should be established before the first round of applications begins.
—
We will complete by 24th April, so your help supporting the construction industry At-Large participation in this key element of the new gTLD programe will be a real help.replica handbags
contributed by guest@socialtext.net on 2010-07-03 05:37:50 GMT
