Page History

Recommendations 5, 10, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 19; Implementation Guidance I, J, K and L; New Topics “Second-level Rights Protection Mechanisms”, “Registry/Registrar Standardization”, “Global Public Interest” and “IGO/INGO Protections”

• Reserved Names: Review the composition of the reserved names list to determine if additions, modifications, or subtractions are needed (e.g., single letter, two letters, special characters, etc.). Evaluate if the implementation matched expectations (e.g., recommendations of the Reserved Names Working Group). Review whether geographic names requirements are appropriate.
  • Note, the GNSO/ccNSO-chartered Cross Community Working Group on the Useof Country and Territory Names as Top-Level Domains is focused on a policy framework for country and territory names and efforts should be made to avoidduplicative work. In addition, capital city names, city names, etc. may also warrant discussion.

• Base agreement: Perform comprehensive review of the base agreement, including investigating how and why it was amended after program launch, whether a single base agreement is appropriate, whether Public Interest Commitments (PICs) are the right mechanism to protect the public interest, etc. Should the Article 7.7 review process be amended to allow for customized reviews by different registry types.
• Registrant Protections. The original PDP assumed there would always be registrants and they would need protecting from the consequences of Registry failure, although it may not make sense to impose registrant protection obligations such as EBERO and the LOC when there are no registrants to protect, such as in a closed registry. Should more relevant rules be established for certain specific cases?
• Contractual Compliance: While no specific issues were identified, contractual compliance as it relates to New gTLDs may be considered in scope for discussion, though the role of contractual compliance (i.e., enforcing agreements) would not be considered within scope. 
• Registrar Non-Discrimination: Are registrar requirements for registries still appropriate?
  • Note, the development and implementation of Specification 13 for .brands was agreed to by the GNSO Council but deemed to be inconsistent with the historic Recommendation 19 because brands had not been considered in the original PDP.