Scope of Work:
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 Use of 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 avoid duplicative 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.
- TLD Rollout: Was adequate time allowed for rollout of TLD? When should recurring fees due to ICANN begin? - Suggestion to move this topic to Track 1.
- Second-Level Rights Protection Mechanisms: Proposing recommendations directly related to RPMs is beyond the remit of this PDP. There is an anticipated PDP on the "current state of all rights protection mechanisms (RPMs) implemented for both existing and new gTLDs, including but not limited to the UDRP and the URS...".Duplication or conflicting work between the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP and the PDP on RPMs must be avoided. If topics related to RPMs are uncovered and discussed in the deliberations of this PDP, those topics should be relayed to the PDP on RPMs for resolution. To assure effective coordination between the two groups, a community liaison, who is a member of both Groups, is to be appointed jointly by both Groups and confirmed by the GNSO Council.
- Registry/Registrar Standardization: Consider whether the registry/registrar relationship should have additional standardization and regulation.
- Global Public Interest: Existing policy advice does not define the application of “Public Interest” analysis as a guideline for evaluation determinations. Consider issues identified in GAC Advice on safeguards, public interest commitments (PICs), and associated questions of contractual commitment and enforcement. It may be useful to consider the global public interest in the context of ICANN’s limited technical coordination role, mission and core values and how it applies specifically to the New gTLD Program.
- IGO/INGO Protections: The PDP for Protection of IGO and INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs and PDP for IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms are expected to address a number of issues. While no additional work is envisioned, if there are any remaining or new issues for discussion, they could be deliberated in the context of this PDP.
- Closed Generics: Should there be restrictions around exclusive use of generics TLDs?
- Misc - Suggestion to add selection and guidance provided to New gTLD Program service providers. Was brought up in the context of objection service providers, so may be more appropriate for Track 3. Or if the topic is to be broadened to all service providers, perhaps Track 1.
- Misc - Terms and Conditions
