Page History

Notes/ Action Items

Actions:

ACTION ITEM 1: 2.2.4.e.2: -- Line 43, FairWinds Partners -- Send the comment to Sub Group B.

Notes:

1. Update to Statements of Interest (SOIs): No updates provided.

2. Discussion of Public Comments:

a. 2.2.4: Different TLD Types:

Line 4, Google: Agreement.

Line 5, Government of India -- Concerns (since it is not fully clear if this comment supports the approach suggested in preliminary recommendation 1 or expects a more extensive list of categories, it is marked here as concern).

Line 6, Government of India: New Idea: India would like to propose that ICANN lower the application fee for a string in multiple IDN scripts, particularly where simultaneous IDNs are required in countries of great linguistic diversity.

Line 7, GAC -- New Idea (note, these ideas are not entirely new. They reiterate previous advice.)

2.2.4.c.1:

Lines 9-13: Agreement

Line 14, Dot Trademark -- Agreement New Idea (Again, not really a new idea. This portion of the comment may belong under the section on communities.)

Line 15, GeoTLD -- New Idea: If there was a demand (in later rounds) to differentiate TLD types and therefore create new categories of TLD types, we recommend discussing their creation within the framework of a bespoke PDP.

Line 16, dotBERLIN -- New Idea (same as above): If there was a demand (in later rounds) to differentiate TLD types and therefore create new categories of TLD types, we recommend discussing their creation within the framework of a bespoke PDP.

Line 17, Hamburg Top-Level-Domain -- New Idea (same as above).

Line 18, Council of Europe -- Agreement New Idea (the ideas presented here are not entirely new. It may be helpful to consider them with other comments on Communities).

Line 19, Business Constituency -- Agreement, New Idea: Agreement New Idea (the ideas presented here are not entirely new. It may be helpful to consider them with other comments on Communities).

Line 20, Valideus -- Agreement New Idea (this proposal has been previously discussed, consider moving under string similiarity?)

Line 21, INTA -- Agreement/Divergence: INTA is does not agree that geographic TLDs constitute a separate specific category. In the 2012 Round, the AGB recognized certain listed geographic names as requiring governmental consent or non- objection to proceed. Provided this pre-qualification was met, however, then the application and contract proceeded in the same way as a "standard" TLD. Unless different contractual provisions are envisaged for "geographic TLDs" or some other significant point of difference is adopted, it is not clear what the purpose or benefit is in identifying geographic TLDs as a separate category, or in adopting other categories. The work of work track 5 may obviously impact on this.

-- Bring the divergence to the full WG.

From the chat:

Anne Aikman-Scalese: YES  - I think new ideas may go to Parking LOT - Divergence on geo category should be noted as needs to be discussed by full WG

Jim Prendergast: agree with that too

Line 22, FairWinds Partners -- Agreement Concerns (conditions of support): However, applicants and future Registry Operators should not be precluded to apply for and be granted Specification 13 status during or post-contracting, even if they did not establish themselves as a .BRAND applicant during the application period.

Line 23, ICANN Org -- Concerns (suggestions for further work)

2.2.4.e.1:

From the chat:

Anne Aikman-Scalese: full WG consideration of geo category seems relevant to 2.2.4. e 1 re public comment on whether or not new categories are needed?

Lines 25-29 -- Agreement

Line 30, NABP -- Concerns (suggestions for further work): NABP recognizes that granting priority to verified TLDs over unrestricted TLDs would necessitate the recognition of verified TLDs as a distinct type of TLD. Thus, in response to question 2.2.4.e.1, the benefit of adding a further category, namely, verified TLDs, would be to protect consumer safety, where consumers are defined as end users.

-- Refer to the full WG -- issue of safeguards and verifying.

From the chat:

Donna Austin, Neustar: Anne, I think you're right in the sense that verified TLDs adopted the GAC advice requirements.

Donna Austin, Neustar: Many registry operators are also abiding by the same GAC advice requirements, but don't consider themselves to be 'verified' TLDs.

Anne Aikman-Scalese: Were there not eligibility requirements?

Jim Prendergast: @Anne - not required

Anne Aikman-Scalese: Were there credentials to be verified for .bank for instance?  Any credentials for medical professionals?

Donna Austin, Neustar: I believe .bank actively verifies credentials, where as others may required the registrant to warrant that they have the necessary credentials.

Line 31, Council of Europe -- New Idea: (iii) the proposal to include a new category "not-for-profit or non-profit gTLDs" could also be considered together with the relevant procedures for gTLDs as well as specific rules on lowered application-related fees. Although it seems that not-for-profit organisations serving principally GPI could be qualified as "communities" anyway.

Line 32, RrSG -- New Idea: Additional Categories should be established (e.g., Brand TLDs to encapsulate current Specification 13 Brand TLDs, etc.), with potentially ascribing Application requirement characteristics on a per Category basis (e.g., "Generics" only in rounds, Brand TLDs as FCFS, etc.).

Line 33, INTA -- New Idea: Consideration should first be given to whether any TLD type requires different treatment or contractual provisions. Only if so, is there a need for a separate category.

Line 34, Google -- New Idea: Restricted TLDs that align with user expectations present a major opportunity for increasing innovation and utility...Incentives for these TLDs, such as a sliding scale for registry fees that accounted for the prospective registrant pool, could encourage a more diverse set of TLD business models.

-- Question: How will the new ideas be addressed by the full WG: Answer: They need to be looked at by the WG; but as the Sub Team is reviewing them we can see if there are trends.

From the chat:

Justine Chew: Well if each new idea is different then they will need to be considered separately

Jim Prendergast: im not sure how you dont consider them on their own (assuming they are not the same idea)

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO PDP Co-Chair): Yes @Justine and Jim, where we can find a cluster or agregation we will note it but ... ... ...

Anne Aikman-Scalese: @ Jim-  wondering if the new ideas in each section can somehow be summarized  - but I agree with you it's problematic

Line 35, RySG -- See 2.2.4.c.1 above.

2.2.4.e.2:

Lines 37-38: Agreement

Line 39, NABP -- New Idea: Applications for verified TLDs, like Community TLDs, should be given priority during the application evaluation process...

Line 40, Ming.LTD Group -- New Idea: We also believe that ICANN should adjust the application procedures to make the local brand owners more easily to apply for the IDN TLDs of their brands.

From the chat:

Jim Prendergast: on that last one (ming)- would be helpful to have specific recommendations on what could be done

Line 41, Business Constituency -- New Idea (Question): Can we anticipate any different treatment for a .Brand category, other than Spec 13?

-- Should this be cross-referenced to the Neustar proposal?

From the chat:

Donna Austin, Neustar: Don't we cover this under another topic, ie whether categories should be evaluated or treated differently?

Line 42, RrSG -- New Idea: This new category of Brand TLD closed to the public could be reviewed on a fast track. However, if the Trademark on which the application is based isn't renown on a worldwide basis or is objected to, then the application should have to follow the regular application process.

Line 43, FairWinds Partners -- This comment may better fit under topic Registrant Protections (Sub Group B).  ACTION ITEM: Send to SG B.

Notes/ Action Items