Versions Compared


  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

Scope of Work:

  • Cancelling Subsequent Procedures: Should there in fact be new gTLD subsequent procedures and if not, what are the justifications for and ramifications of discontinuing the program
  • Predictability: How can changes to the program introduced after launch (e.g., digital archery/prioritization issues, name collision, registry agreement changes, public interest commitments (PICs), etc.) be avoided?
  • Community Engagement: How can participation from the community be better encouraged and integrated during the policy development process, implementation, and execution.
  • Applications Assessed in Rounds: Has the scale of demand been made clear? Does the concept of rounds affect market behavior and should factors beyond demand affect the type of application acceptance mechanism?
  • Different TLD Types: Does the one-size-fits-all application and review process hamper innovation? Should things such as the application process, requirements, annual fees, contractual requirements, etc. be variable based on the TLD type? For instance, should an existing Registry Operator, that is fulfilling the requirements of its Registry Agreement, be subject to a different, more streamlined, application process?
  • Application Submission Limits: Should there be limits to the number of applications from a single applicant/group? Consider if the round could be restricted to a certain applicant type(s) (e.g., from least-developed countries) or other limiting factor.
  • Variable Fees: Should the New gTLD application fee be variable based on such factors as application type (e.g., open or closed registries), multiple identical applications, or other factor?



Preliminary Findings:

PDF Export from 18 July 2016 at 23:22 UTC