.DOC File
The following is a listing of those elements of the New GTLD applicant guidebook and process that might be of interest to At-Large as it works on a statement for the open consultation.
Module 1
Page 1-2, para 1: The close of the application submission period is not specified, but is a minimum of 45 days according to present thinking.
Page 1-4, para 1.1.24. For filing objections, it is anticipated that objections will only be possible from those with ‘standing’, rather than any person or entity. Those with standing are enumerated in Module 3, on Page 3-2. Further, objections will only be possible within a specified (but currently unstated) period.
Page 1-5, Section 1.1.2.5, para 3: Technical issues can cause an application to be unsuccessful. Those versed with these matters may wish to review the requirements carefully.
Page 1-5, Section 1.1.2.6, para 2: Filing an objection will cost the objector as well as the applicant. Note further information on fees on page 1-18, and that it is not currently clear what the fees will be in most respects.
Page 1-8, Section 1.1.3, para 4: Note that public comments may be taken on objections made to applications, but it is not obligatory, or is it obligatory for these to be considered by DRPs.
Page 1-11, Section 1.2.1, para 1: Note the eligibility for application bars individuals and sole proprietorships or the equivalent. This may impact developing country applications but members of the community more expert in corporate law in those countries may wish to comment.
Page 1-12, Section 1.2.2.1, para 2: Note the definitional requirements for community-based TLDs on this page and subsequently in the documents.
Page 1-12, Section 1.2.2.1, para 2: It is stated that community based TLDs will be subject to post-delegation contractual obligations which are different than those of other TLDs, but these are not specified, nor does the draft registry agreement have any such provisions. It is also unclear when or if any compliance audits will be made to ensure that community-based TLDs are operating in support of the community as it has said it would in its application.
Page 1-14, Section 1.2.3, para 2 (Financial Statements): This provision appears to rule out an applicant organisation which had not been trading prior to the application being made.
Page 1-16, Section 1.3, paras 7 and 8: Note the language obligations for IDN gTLDs in certain respects are English-centric.
Page 1-19, Section 1.5.1: Note that the fee for application is USD185,000. You may wish to consider how this impacts developing country applicants and those for specialised TLDs which are not expected to have many second-level registrations.
Page 1-20, Section 1.2.3: Note the fees on this page for filing a dispute are stated as possibly ranging from USD1,000 to 5,000, and that the adjudication fees are estimated at a further USD2,000 to 122,000 depending upon the situation. You may wish to consider how this impacts those from developing countries.
Module 2
Page 2-2, Section 2.1.1.1: Note that string confusion reviews will be conducted by a panel of String Similarity Examiners, but it is not stated how these are to be chosen, what the requirements are for being appointed as one, or how many are on a single panel.
Page 2-3, Section 2.1.1.1, para 2: Note the definition for string confusion is contained in this paragraph, and in particular, confusion applies only to visually-confusing strings, not strings which are confusing in sound. No information about confusion between IDN and non-IDN strings is mentioned.
Pages 2-8 and 2-8, Requirements for Internationalised Domain Names: Those with the requisite background may wish to review these requirements.
Page 2-9, Section 2.1.1.4.1: Note the restrictions in this section with respect to applying for a TLD string which is identical to that of a country or territory name, a sub-national place name such as a county, province, or state, or city name, or continent or UN region.
Page 2-10, Section 2.1.1.4.2: Note that a Geographical Names Panel will evaluate applications which may contain a geographic term, however, no details are stated with respect to these panels, how they are empanelled, how many members the panel might have, or any other characteristics.
Page 2-12, para 1: Note that some sections of an application will be made confidential as specified by ICANN.
Page 2-12, Para 6: The application will include questions to adjudge the financial health of the application. You may wish to review these to assess their impact on developing country applicants.
Page 2-13 (and others): Evaluators of the application may only ask one round of questions of an applicant, and receive one round of replies. You may wish to consider if this is overly restrictive.
Attachment to Module 2
Page A-3, Part III, Para 4: Note that only one round of questions and answers during an evaluation will be possible.
Page A-3, Part III, Scoring, Para 2: Note that bonus points for applications which are the most well-funded will be given. You may wish to consider whether or not this disadvantages developing country applicants.
Page A-4, Para 1: Note that DNSSec and IDN questions on the application are optional.
Module 3
Page 3-2, Section 3.1.2: Note that string confusion objections are only possible from registries or applicants to become a registry, despite string confusion being related to consumer / end-user confusion. Note further that standing to raise an objection related to Morality and Public Order are unstated at the present time. Community objections may only be made by an ‘established institution’.
Page 3-4, Section 3.2: Note that the dispute resolution providers are listed here, though no further information about the institutions have been provided.
Page 3-5, Bullet 1: Objections may only be filed in English.
Page 3-9, Paras 2-5: Note the number of panellists is limited to one in some types of objection.
Page 3-9, Section 3.4.5, Para 2: Note that discovery (as that term is understood in legal processes) of documents will be discouraged or made impossible.
Page 3-9, last para: It will be up to the DRSP to decide whether hearings will be public or private.
Page 3-10, Section 3.4.7, para 2: Note fee structures for different objections.
Page 3-11, Section 3.5, Para 2: Note that the objector bears the burden of proof.
Page 3-11, Section 3.5, Para 2: Note that the principles related to objections are subject to evolution, though the processes by which this is to take place, and when, are unspecified.
Page 3-12, Section 3.5.2: The delineation of what legal rights objections principles are to be used is contained here.
Page 3-13, Section 3.5.3: It states that detailed reviews of legal systems related to Morality and Public Order have been done, but no further details about these is stated. You may wish to consider requesting the publication of this material.
Page 3-13-15: Those concerned with community-based TLDs may wish to consider these pages closely.
Module 4
Page 4-7, Section 4.2.3, Criteria Section: Note the scoring system will give an application automatic preference on a community basis if it receives 11 of 12 possible points. You may wish to review this section closely.
Page 4-8, Section 4.3, para 4: Note that here, and in other places, auctions are stated as a way of resolving conflicts between applications. You may wish to consider whether or not this disadvantages wealthier applicants over those less well-off.
Page 4-9, Para 2: Note that auction proceeds are not to go to general ICANN funds, but to be reserved for use after a community consultation. You may wish to consider whether or not auctions are the way you wish to have conflicts resolved in the first instance, and if so, whether a community consultation on the proceeds should take place before the first round of applications begins.
Module 5
Page 5-3, Question 5: Note that the community is asked to comment on whether or not it should be an obligation of all TLD applicants that the registry must be reachable using IPv6, as this may restrict, for instance, where geographically registry data services may be hosted.
Page 6-3, Para 7: Note that some elements of an application are to be kept confidential.
Explanatory Memorandum on Cost Considerations
Page 6, Para 2 and 3: Note that the cost structures for applications are based around the idea that there will be approximately 500 new TLD applications in the first round. Substantially more applications will mean that the fee is too low to cover costs; the reverse is also true.
Page 7, Para 1: Note that USD26,000 of each application is to be used to recoup previously-expensed costs associated with the New GTLD programme; these funds will be put to ICANN’s reserve fund.
Page 10, Para 2 and 3: Note that outside consultants Willis Inc. have been engaged to estimate the risk elements of the application round. You may wish to consider requesting the full reports of Willis to understand their perception of the risks associated with the programme in more detail.
Page 10, Section 3.5, para 2: Note that all new GTLDs will be obliged to pay an annual fee of USD75,000 at a minimum. You may wish to consider the effect this will have on the ability of small TLDs with limited second-level registrations to be successful.
Explanatory Memorandum on Geographic Name Applications
For those interested in Geo-TLDs this document is recommended. Note that the core element of evaluating Geo-TLD applications is whether or not a governmental entity has agreed to support, or at least not object, to the application. This must be done in writing.
Explanatory Memorandum on Morality and Public Order
Community members concerned with this area of the new GTLD programme are encouraged to read this text in full.
Page 2: Note that detailed legal research has been done, but this has not been published.
Page 3, Section II, para 4: Note that the three categories of possible objections on the basis of Morality and Public Order are outlined in this paragraph.
Page 4, para 5: Note that the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) is stated to be a ‘useful point of reference’ for disputes.
Page 5, Section IV, para 2: It is proposed not to enumerate a list of specific categories of public order and morality objections, though this is proposed earlier in the document on Page 3, Section II.
Page 5, Section IV, para 3: Note that it is proposed to add three additional treaties in addition to the CCPR as reference texts for these objections.
Page 5, Section IV, para 4: Note that this paragraph appears to make clear that only one expert has given an opinion on whether or not it would be difficult to interpret and apply Morality and Public Order standards as described in the GNSO policy recommendation. You may wish to consider what number of experts, and what type, would be sufficient to rely upon for such a judgment for the GTLD programme as a whole.
Explanatory Memorandum on Resolving String Contention
Page 6, Section 3.2: Note that it is stated that ICANN believes auctions are the best way to resolve conflicts as a last resort. The following paragraphs expose more about the reasoning than is available in the modules of the applicant guidebook.
Page 21, para 2: Note that a successful community-based application is stated as being obliged to operate in a way that serves that community, however, there is not detail on how that will be accomplished or compliance ensured. Further, it is stated that the obligations will be incorporated into the registry agreement but no further information is provided.
Explanatory Memorandum on Protection of Rights of Others in New gTLDs
Page 4, para 2: It is stated that a placeholder will be inserted into registry agreements for development of a post-delegation dispute resolution process. You may wish to consider whether or not this should be a part of these agreements at the outset.
