Introduction
The role of the new gTLD working group is to-
· monitor the evolving gTLD process from the point of view of the end-user;
· propose mechanisms for generating awareness across the RALO regions about JAS and the new gTLD programs and specifically highlighting areas where this role can be shared by ICANN and At Large.
· bolster At-Large’s function in ensuring ICANN stays both transparent and accountable starting from the very first application round; and
· ensure that community applications are on a level playing field as other gTLD applications and succeed, not only because of the capacity building and awareness aspect but more importantly, because of the opportunity to generate innovation in the internet addressing space.
The working group achieves this by highlighting issues related to the new gTLD program that affect internet users, distilling and proposing mechanisms for objection by internet users, and monitoring the acceptance and implementation of the Joint Applicant Support (JAS) recommendations. Indeed this working group’s objectives compliment and coordinate with those of the JAS working group. We note that with every innovation come a number of resulting issues and solutions and obviously the first application round will help in generating a learning curve of what issues may arise and how ICANN will look at mitigating them, therefore some issues may not be directly foreseeable.
The Issues
A. Evaluation of the updated AGB assessing improvement in any of the areas of concern to ALAC/At-Large, as follows-
1. Fees: The $185,000 cost (and the many other indirect costs) was a barrier to entry for many deserving potential TLDs.
*Status: PENDING
The Board has yet to implement the Applicant Support Program coming out of the JAS report, and it is possible that some of its core cost-related recommendations will be rejected.
2. More categories were needed than "community" and "other". By pooling together controversial and non-controversial applications, IDNs, geoTLDs and everything else into a single pool ICANN, was making the process needlessly complex and expensive for many applicants.
*Status: REJECTED (although implementation of the JAS report implies a new sub-category of "needy")
3. The trademark protections of earlier DAG versions were too broad and sweeping, and gave too little protection against "bully" practises
Status:* PARTIALLY ACCEPTED*. The negotiations between the GAC and the ALAC Board changed some things for the better, but some excesses remain
4. TLD objections on Morality and Public Order. "We emphatically call for the complete abolition of the class of objections based on morality and public order. We assert that ICANN has no business being in (or delegating) the role of comparing relative morality and conflicting human rights.
*Status: WORSENED Despite many person-weeks of volunteer time spent in the "Rec 6" joint working group, a sweeping objection provision given to the GAC essentially allows objections to be made without publicly disclosed justification or appeal.
5. ALAC was (vehemently and unanimously) against the use of third-party Dispute Resolution Service Providers, as a sub-contracted arbiter of comparative subjective qualities of applicants
Status: *REJECTED*. DRSPs are very much still embedded in the current process
6. ALAC believed that the concept of "Independent Objector" was redundant with ALAC's own function, and that ALAC was able to serve thepublic interest.
*Status: ACCEPTED. In giving At-Large the ability to launch objections similar to the GAC, this request has been largely satisfied.*
So, if keeping score, that's:
ACCEPTED – 1 PARTIALLY ACCEPTED – 1 PENDING – 1 REJECTED – 2 WORSENED - 1
B. The JAS Implementation Model
With the ASP still in formation, Brand TLDs will be rolled out first; allowing trademark owners to establish billboards in the Internet's infrastructure ahead of open, generic spaces where users could register and use names would be a very unsatisfactory result for the public at large.
It is therefore crucial to ensure that the first batch includes a fair mix of TLDs designed for and targeted at people in diverse geographic regions and covering wide representations of language sets.
C. Timing of a second round
Several community organisations (interested in proposing gTLDs) have a concern whether this is the only round or whether/when there will be future rounds. Whilst the ASP is intended to alleviate this problem, the exorbitant application fees are a massive obstacle to communities. Therefore, many may consider waiting for the next round, when a more proportionate fee schema and attitude will have to prevail.
D. Evaluation of how ICANN decides which applications succeed
There should be investigation and evaluation of the applicant as relates* to *fraudulent domain use, park pages on domains (that should have content), WHOIS enforcement, user confusion, arbitrary domain takedowns and objectionable names.
E. Vertical Integration and Morality and Public Order While primarily restricted to the ICANN's legal-technical area, i.e. class 1 (IN) and to the "internal internet" (i.e. pre-IDNA2008) understanding of naming; there is impact on end-user in terms of intellectual property rights.
NOT SURE IF TO INCLUDE- [Also the exploration of the Class IN issues are of interest and in some cases may be transposed to the three other naming contexts up for debate (after the IAB has decided/commented on the organization of this debate).
The four naming contexts under consideration are:
1. referent: system unique allocator - using a non-phishable character recognition system (Unicode restriction) - no IP involved.
2. identification: (possibly delegated) authority decides - this is the Registries discussed area ICANN tries to control - IP issues being involved.
3. designation: user chooses - like when you class your own archives, open roots - no IP involved.
4. signification: common understanding - ex. IDNA, open naming - IP issues should be considered once the proper focal point has been identified.]
F. The GAC requested special protection of Red Cross/Red Crescent (RC/RC) and International Olympic Committee (IOC) names, due to the special protection given by a variety of unique international agreements and treaties. The Board reserved a specific list of names from being used during the first round of the new gTLD program, and remanded the issue to the GNSO for further deliberations. The Board action was implemented by means of provisions in the current Applicant Guidebook, Section 2.2.1.2.3 Page 2-10 to 2-11.To enable the GNSO to properly consider the GAC request, additional information was requested of the GAC and additional detail in answer was provided in September.
The Working Group shares ALAC’s concern and objections (both on substance and process) to the precedent and lack of consistency this action sets.
[to insert link to ALAC statement drafted by Evan]
G. Communication to to Application Support Vendors and Web-Based Service Providers
There is a lack of understanding by and promotion to Application Support Vendors and Web-Based Service Providers regarding the new gTLDs and change in naming conventions. They will be required to update their programs (such as email, form fill) to ensure that the end user experience is not negatively affected and new gTLDs are not unwittingly blocked. A previous incarnation of this problem was with .info having 4 characters rather than the previous 3 character norm for TLDs.
To date ICANN has not released any information regarding communications, deadlines or incentives sent to to Application Support Vendors and Web-Based Service Providers to update their systems in time for the first round approved gTLD launch.
H. ASP and SARP Communication
The Working Group considers that the ICANN Communications Team appears to be heavily reliant on the media and internet user blogs as a form of advertisement of these programs. These mechanisms only serve a segment of the internet community and is not sufficient for the promotion of the program in developing countries, where traditional media are more prevalent. Further this does not seem to have catered for organisations that are not online.
Whilst some ASP meetings that have taken place, the Working Group is not aware of there being any publication of the schedules for these meetings, facility for remote participation or archives of these meeting for distribution. Such request is for more detailed explanation and outreach for possible donors/applicants in the different under-funded regions.
The Working Group encourages the Communication Team to reach out to the community to form partnerships for planning ASP promotion and ensuring sufficient local coverage of these programs. It is critical that the developing regions be given as much (if not more) opportunity to participate in the programs, for consideration and review is the fact that Africa had only 4 events attended by ICANN representatives, while 6 events were attended by ICANN representatives in North America.
