Comment Close



Call for
Comments Open
Call for
Vote OpenVote CloseDate of SubmissionStaff Contact and EmailStatement Number
 Preliminary Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures


Main penholder: Olivier Crepin-Leblond

Assisted by: Carlton Samuels



ALAC & Regional Leadership Wrap-Up Session


ALAC & Regional Leadership Wrap-Up Session



For information about this Public Comment, please click here 



Click here to download the PDF below. 


Final Draft (Word DOCX format)

Final Draft (PDF format)  



Draft V02 - redline - dated 08 October 2015 (PDF format)

Draft V02 - redline - dated 08 October 2015 (Word DOCX format) 

Draft V01 dated 23 September 2015 (PDF format)

Draft V01 dated 23 September 2015 (Word DOCX format)

  • No labels


  1. Comment from Carlton Samuels


    For those of you who care about what should happen in the event another round of gTLDs is forked by ICANN, this Preliminary Issues Report on Subsequent Procedures would be very important.

    It also a signal it is time for you to get engaged in this process.  

    I have read the Executive Summary and gone straight to the details of matters that were of particular interest to me and in my estimation, the folks whose interests I advocate; developing country economies and social systems where the Internet is about social and economic development and could be our final game changer.  

    I hope my friend and our colleague Evan Leibovitch is taking note here too. For although he has decreased his activities due to changes in his circumstances, his voice and consistent advocacy for positions that impact us still rings in my head on several of the matters raised in the Report.

    The domain name market remains largely the province of the dominant economies.  Developing economies are still largely excluded by one or other barriers, some of them finely tuned for preference and aided and abetted, consciously and unconsciously, by ICANN policies. 

    The Report groups the matters in five (5) broad categories which is quite useful in digesting. But speaking directly to those of us from developing economies and informed by my experience as Co-Chair of the Applicant Support Working Group in the last round, I urge you read closely the details of matters raised in:

    4.2.3  - Competition, Consumer Trust and Choice

    4.2.4  - Community Engagement

    4.2.5  - Applicant Guide Book (AGB)

    4.2.6  - Clarity of Application Process

    4.2.7  -  Application Accessed in Rounds

    4.2.10 -  Application Fees

    4.2.11  -  Communications

    4.2.14  -  Support for Applicants from Developing Countries

    4.2.15  - Different TLD Types

    4.2.17  -  Variable Fees

    4.3.5   -  Registrar Discrimination

    4.3.9   -  Global Public Interest

    4.4.5   -  Community Applications

    You will find the report (in English) here:

    Please ensure if you have comments you record them in the areas provided by the At-Large or GNSO.  

    -Carlton Samuels

  2. Comment from Holly Raiche


    Absolutely agree with Carlton. In the first round, it was so very clear that very few applicants outside of the developed world, in fact outside of the US, were a clear sign that the few measures ALAC managed to get had not worked and one of ALAC’s cries was for a review on why there were to few applicants for the developing world.  So find time (I will) to go through this to see what should be improved for the second round. 


  3. I also agree with Carlton.. and Holly. For example, in the Pacific we just don't have the knowledge, expertise or funds to make an application although it is not that we don't have the wish to be able to pursue or even look into the potential of something in this. For example, the idea of .pacific among several entities within the Pacific which could be used across our region is something that has been bandied around since the new gTLD process began.  I would suspect this lack of capacity,  as well as other important criteria, is the problem for many developing countries for whom the whole new gTLD process is a major divide.

  4. And to add - on the list, many (including myself) believe there should be a moratorium until the any issues surrounding  the initial issue of new gTLDs have been addressed.  Tijani and Carlton particularly need to look at the application book, and funding etc to - once again - look at why there were so few successful applications outside of the US, and to a much lesser extent, Europe.  The whole issue of PICS needs to be rethought - how to put the requirements in from the start.  I note that compliance is listed as an issue in the discussion paper - an issue that has not yet been solved. And the issues surrounding consumer confidence, trust and competition need work - go back to what we originally listed as metrics - and look again at both what has been measured - and what has not been measured.  Finally, IDNs are listed as a subset of the new GTLS, so let's ask Edmon (and Lianna - ISOC Armenia - since they were behind the first country sponsored IDN) to see what issues need to be addressed.  That said, in the TLDCON (TLDs in the CIS counries and Russia, there was criticism on ICANN's role as well.  All of which says that there should be a moratorium until all of the issues are addressed.

  5. As  to the issue of a low application rate from  Developing  Nation participation as pointed out by Carlton,  I  would  suggest that  this  was  predictable  from  the start  due to the inherent flaws in the  design.   In  Ontario we have an intervenor/animator function in government to underwrite disadvantaged groups to provide feedback on legislation, since  it's recognized that special interest groups can dominate and push their own agendas.  Perhaps  with the special fund from the  proceeds of  the sale we can push for  such a function  to be implemented

  6. Let me first note that my focus is narrow, on the .nyc TLD and to a lesser extent other city/geo TLDs.

    With regard to .nyc, I don't see how a review is possible when the opportunity to appraise the operation of the TLD does not exist.

    1. There is no public engagement with the planning and operation of the .nyc TLD. There was for a time a .NYC Community Advisory Board, but it was abolished on December 31, 2014. Nothing has replaced it and residents are unable to fruitfully participate in the planning process. Opacity rules.
    2. There are no publicly available metrics for evaluating the operation of the .nyc TLD. So even if there was transparency, one would not have a basis for appraisal.
    3. Our organization has sought basic information on registrants - the zip codes of where they live - and been refused this basic information by city government. With the city not having any metrics we thought we should minimally know if registrants were broadly representative of the city population, or perhaps only from certain areas. The city's refusal to provide even this info has made it impossible to determine if there is equity in the allocation process.

    Under the circumstances I find it unfathomable that an evaluation process that includes the .nyc TLD is underway.

  7. Thank you for the draft ALAC statement which has been thoroughly researched and drafted.
    I would only wish to add two points regarding competition and consumer protection:


    1. The IAG-CCT has worked extensively on developing and collecting statistics ('metrics') on the economic performance of the new gTLDs. The first results have only just been published; they should be reviewed, analysed and included in the final Review Report.

      Also, the results of the first economic studies commissioned by ICANN on the advice of the IAG-CCT have only recently been published. (I have not had time to read them yet.)

      The Review Report should report on the results of these studies, for the sake of completeness and consistency.

    2. At first sight the draft Review Report is blithely over optimistic about the effects of the new GTLD programme on competition and consumer choice:

      (a) A successful TLD becomes a monopoly within the market for its domain names. (Domain names are not 'portable'.) Furthermore, consumer choice is limited to the initial choice of a domain name. This is why ICANN has a permanent responsibility to maintain Registrar Competition and consumer/user protection in the gTLD space, including both legacy and new TLDs.

      (b) A basic principle for creating a more competitive DNS market has been the separation between Registries and Registrars. This has been over-ridden for the time being by the unfortunate Board decision to remove the prohibition on cross-ownership thereby permitting reverse vertical integration, and the creation of new Registries by Registrars that own them. Thus Registries are no longer obliged to treat all accredited Registrars on a non-discriminatory basis.

      Several of the abuses that have already emerged among the new gTLDs can be attributed to this decision.

      In this context the draft Review Report recounts that:

      “ICANN retains the right to refer an application to a competition authority prior to entry into the registry agreement if it is determined that the registry-registrar cross-ownership arrangements might raise competition issues.”

      This is a monumental cop-out which should never have been entertained. Apart from the fact that there are very few competition authorities world-wide with jurisdiction and competence to address such question at the gTLD level, ICANN is the relevant competition authority.

      (It would be interesting to know how many times in the whole new gTLD programme, this clause has been invoked.)

      These issues of competition and consumer/user protection are not new and were foreseen.
      For my part, the document archived by ICANN under <pdfeyxusif4LO.pdf> addressed these issues some time ago, but was not taken into account by ICANN at the time.


  8. Kindly see attached Christopher Wilkinson's comments, sent on 2 October 10:45 UTC, in the PDF form.