Comment Close



Call for
Comments Open
Call for
Vote OpenVote CloseDate of SubmissionStaff Contact and EmailStatement Number

Request for Input - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures


Alan Greenberg

Cheryl Langdon-Orr

Olivier Crepin-Leblond

Ariel Liang

GNSO Secretariat

For information about this Public Comment, please click here 

GNSO's New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group (WG) sent an email to the ALAC Chair Alan Greenberg to request ALAC's assistance in establishing a historical record of Advice or Statements in regards to the policy development process and policy implementation related to the 2012 round of the New gTLD Program. 


Dear Alan

We write as the Co-Chairs of the GNSO’s New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group (WG), which was chartered by the GNSO Council to conduct a Policy Development Process (PDP) to determine what, if any changes may need to be made to the existing Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains policy recommendations from 8 August 2007. As the original policy recommendations as adopted by the GNSO Council and ICANN Board have “been designed to produce systemized and ongoing mechanisms for applicants to propose new top-level domains”, those policy recommendations remain in place for subsequent rounds of the New gTLD Program unless the GNSO Council would decide to modify those policy recommendations via a policy development process.

As policy development and policy implementation related to New gTLDs has already occurred related to the 2012 New gTLD round, this WG is seeking to ensure that a historical catalog of Advice or Statements is available for consideration during its deliberations on the number of subjects identified in its charter. Having existing Advice or Statements from all of the Supporting Organizations, Advisory Committees, Stakeholder Groups, and Constituencies available when reviewing each subject will help the WG to understand historical context, identify arguments that have already been made, consider risks that have already been identified, among other benefits. As such, this WG is seeking your assistance in building this catalog. The WG hopes to collect the following elements for each piece of Advice/Statement (The PDP WG has developed a preliminary document in Google Docs for capturing Advice/Statements, which can be viewed here:

  • Date submitted/published
  • Link to Advice/Statement
  • Subject matter of Advice/Statement
  • Form of Advice/Statement
  • Brief Summary of Advice/Statement
  • Date of Board action (if applicable)
  • Board action (if applicable)
  • Implementation in 2012 round (if applicable)
  • Notes for future New gTLDs (e.g., whether or not existing Advice/Statements still apply)

Thank you for the ALAC’s consideration of this request. We look forward to any comments and any input that you and the organization you Chair are able to provide to our WG. If possible, please forward your comments and input to us by Friday, 17 June 2016 so that we may fully consider it in our further deliberations.

Best regards,

Avri Doria, Jeff Neuman, and Stephen Coates, (WG Co-Chairs)

Original PDF document that contains the above text



Catalog of ALAC advice related to new gTLDs: (please note that the spreadsheet has two tabs; tab 1 is the comprehensive list and tab 2 groups advice based on subject matter. The ones highlighted in green in tab 1 is not included in tab 2).

 You may also download the consolidated PDF file of all the advice here: They are arranged based on ascending date order.







  • No labels


  1. These isn't yet a first statement, but I am assuming that the issues that loomed VERY large will be raised in the statement including

    PICS - requirements and enforceability

    Applicant support, starting with a fresh look at the Applicant Guidebook. (Are we also looking at the cost?)

    What are we doing to address the small number of applicants (even smaller number of successful applicants) outside of the US and Europe

    Dispute resolution - including a process that provides consistent rulings

    Maybe Edmon can add text on issues specific to the IDNs?

  2. I submitted comments, in support of a requirement that "informed consent" be part of applications for city-TLDs, to a previous ICANN study group looking at revisions to the 2012 process. Is this a request that I resubmit?