Page History

...

Slides: SubPro F2F 9March2019.pdf

AGENDA

Session 1:

1. Intro and Current Status
2. Open WG topics:
   1. ‘Closure’ of a Round:
      1. What are the elements of the New gTLD Program that may be impacted by defining “the Closure of a Round”?  Do these elements truly depend on “Closing the Round” or are there other potential triggers for these elements?
      2. What milestones are needed to start the next round?
      3. What milestones are needed to distribute excess funds, if applicable?
      4. Should an applicant be required to withdraw their application(s) upon a final action being taken that impacts such application(s)? If so, what events would trigger the required withdrawal of such applications?
      5. If applications are either still pending in one of the stages of the new gTLD Program, or if the time period for which an accountability mechanism or appeal can be filed before subsequent procedures begin, should applicants be able to apply for that/those string(s) in such subsequent procedures?  If no, should that/those string be “reserved”? If yes, what would be the impact on the process for those new applications?
      6. If a string was rejected (or alternatively all applications for a particular string are rejected), should there be anything preventing an applicant from applying for the same string
   2. Appeals Mechanisms, what still needs to be resolved?
      1. In the Initial Report we recommended the creation of a limited appeals mechanism be developed which is wholly separate from Accountability Mechanisms under the Bylaws. The comments we received to the Initial Report seemed to support this recommendation.
      2. More specifically, we see support in general for:
         1. Allowing both substantive and procedural challenges
            1. Identify specific program elements (evaluation, objections, CPE, etc.?).
            2. Confirm if it this intended to apply to inconsistent application of the AGB?
            3. Confirm if it this intended to apply to outcomes that an applicant simply does not agree with?
            4. See comments from Jamie Baxter, ALAC, RySG, Valideus, Council of Europe
         2. Standing for appeals being granted to directly aggrieved parties (applicants, either directly or indirectly affected (e.g., string contention))
            1. Any additional limitations? Any additional criteria for qualifying standing?
         3. A quick look mechanism to limit frivolous challenges
            1. What is the outcome/repercussion if an appeal is found to be frivolous?
         4. A Limit of one appeal per applicant relating to a particular cause of action/facts and circumstances giving rise to the appeal.  
         5. Establishing a loser pays model
         6. Allowing the remedy to determined by what is being appealed
            1. When should remedies be identified?
         7. A 3rd-party to be the arbiter of the appeals process
            1. How would the mechanism be paid for? Should it be built into application fees for instance?
         8. Ensuring that utilizing the limited appeals process will not limit access to Accountability Mechanisms.
   3. Application Queuing
      1. Is it worth discussing prioritizing any particular type of application?

...