AT-LARGE GATEWAY

At-Large Website

ALAC

RALOs

At-Large Regional Policy Engagement Program (ARPEP)

At-Large Governance

At-Large Reports

Policy Comments & Advice

Working Groups

ICANN Meetings

At-Large Summit (ATLAS III)

At-Large Review Implementation Plan Development

ALAC and RALO Elections, Selections, and Appointments

At-Large Priority Activities - 2021

Comment Close
Date		Statement
Name 

Status

Assignee(s)

Call for
Comments Open		Call for
Comments
Close 		Vote OpenVote CloseDate of SubmissionStaff Contact and EmailStatement Number
 Preliminary Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures

ADOPTED14Y, 0N, 1A

Main penholder: Olivier Crepin-Leblond

Assisted by: Carlton Samuels

  

 

ALAC & Regional Leadership Wrap-Up Session

 

ALAC & Regional Leadership Wrap-Up Session

 
Steve Chan
policy-staff@icann.org

AL-ALAC-ST-1015-04-00-EN

For information about this Public Comment, please click here 

 

Brief Overview

Purpose: This public comment proceeding is being opened to obtain community input on the Preliminary Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures.

Current Status: This new Preliminary Issue Report on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures is posted for public comment and submitted to the GNSO Council in response to the Council's request, pursuant to a Resolution passed during its meeting on 24 June, 2015.

Next Steps: Following review of public comments received on this report, the Staff Manager will update the Issue Report as appropriate to reflect public comment. The Staff Manager will submit a summary of the public comments received together with the Final Issue Report to the GNSOCouncil for consideration.

Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose

This Preliminary Issue Report [PDF, 1.28 MB] was created in response to the GNSO Council request to analyze subjects that may lead to changes or adjustments for subsequent New gTLDProcedures, utilizing a set of deliverables from the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Discussion Group (DG) as the basis for analysis. This Preliminary Issue Report is intended to help establish a baseline scope of subjects and to provide analysis that will hopefully further the work of the potential PDP Working Group, but it is not intended to discuss and provide solutions, as that is work expected to be accomplished by the PDP-WG.

This Preliminary Issue Report seeks to review the subjects identified by the DG in depth, to help the community in determining what, if any changes may be needed in regards to the existingGNSO Final Report on Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains, which has "been designed to produce a systemized and ongoing mechanisms for applicants to propose new top-level domains," meaning those policy recommendations remain in place for subsequent rounds of the New gTLD Program unless the GNSO Council would decide to modify those policy recommendations via a policy development process. The DG saw the subjects it identified as possibly being addressed in the following ways:

  • Clarifying, amending or overriding existing policy principles, recommendations, and implementation guidelines;
  • Developing new policy recommendations, and/or;
  • Supplementing or developing new implementation guidance.

There are a number of New gTLD-related review efforts underway or planned within the community, which to the extent that they are known, are discussed in this report. A potential Policy Development Process (PDP) should not be expected to be limited to the subjects identified in this Issue Report, and should take into account the findings from these related efforts. In some cases, it may be determined that certain subjects can be fully addressed in these related efforts. The subjects identified by the DG have been organized in suggested groupings that could facilitate establishing teams to undertake the work. The list of subjects is a starting point, and a suggested method of organization, but it is not intended to be exhaustive or impose constraints on how a potential PDP-WG operates or the issues it discusses, provided that the issues are directly related to new gTLD subsequent procedures. The list of subjects may need to be supplemented, shrunk, or reorganized, to meet the needs of the substantive policy discussions of the PDP-WG.

The provisional groupings suggested by the DG and discussed in this Issue Report are enumerated directly below, which each contain a set of discrete subjects that have been researched and analyzed for the purposes of this Issue Report, and are likely to warrant additional discussion and possibly the development of recommendations by a potential PDPWorking Group:

  1. Overall Process / Support / Outreach
  2. Legal / Regulatory
  3. String Contention / Objections & Disputes
  4. Internationalized Domain Names
  5. Technical and Operations

This document is being published for public comment to seek community input particularly with regards to information that may be missing from this Preliminary Issue Report, or necessary corrections or updates to information, as well as any feedback on the proposed PDP Working Group Charter. Furthermore, comments are sought on whether there are any issues that should be explored in the PDP in addition to those described above and in the Preliminary Issue Report.

Section II: Background

In 2005, the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) began a policy development process (PDP) to consider the introduction of new gTLDs. The two-year PDP process resulted in a set of 19 GNSO policy recommendations for implementing new gTLDs. In order to implement the policy recommendations of the GNSO, and to take into consideration subsequent additional policies and recommendations from the community (including the GNSO, GAC, ccNSO, ALAC,SSAC and the ICANN Board through the New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC)), a number of draft Applicant Guidebooks (AGBs) were developed by ICANN staff.

In June 2011, ICANN's Board of Directors approved the final AGB and authorized the launch of the New gTLD Program, although subsequent revised versions of the Final Applicant Guidebook were released by ICANN staff, including the ultimate final New gTLD Applicant Guidebook dated June 4, 2012, a few months after the application window closed.

The New gTLD Program application window opened on 12 January 2012 and a total of 1930 complete applications were received. The first set of Initial Evaluation results were released on 22 March 2013, followed by the first set of new gTLD delegations on 21 October 2013.

All applications have completed the evaluation process and as of the writing of this Preliminary Issue Report, there are over 700 gTLDs delegated and approximately 600 applications still proceeding through the remaining steps of the program. Though the 2012 round is ongoing, efforts to examine the round have already begun, which includes the creation of the GNSO NewgTLD Subsequent Procedures Discussion Group (DG), was created to discuss the experiences gained by the first round of new gTLD applications and identify subjects for future issue reports, if any, that might lead to changes or adjustments for subsequent application procedures.

The DG prepared a set of final deliverables, which included a set of subjects that it anticipated should be analyzed in detail in the context of an issue report. On 24 June, 2015 the GNSOCouncil passed a resolution requesting the drafting of this Preliminary Issue Report on NewgTLD Subsequent Procedures.

Section III: Relevant Resources

Section IV: Additional Information

Section V: Reports

Staff Contact

Steve Chan
policy-staff@icann.org

 

FINAL VERSION TO BE SUBMITTED IF RATIFIED

Click here to download the PDF below. 


FINAL DRAFT VERSION TO BE VOTED UPON BY THE ALAC

Final Draft (Word DOCX format)

Final Draft (PDF format)  

 

FIRST DRAFT SUBMITTED

Draft V02 - redline - dated 08 October 2015 (PDF format)

Draft V02 - redline - dated 08 October 2015 (Word DOCX format) 


Draft V01 dated 23 September 2015 (PDF format)

Draft V01 dated 23 September 2015 (Word DOCX format)

  • No labels

8 Comments

  1. Ariel Liang

    Comment from Carlton Samuels: http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/lac-discuss-en/2015-September/013384.html

    ==

    For those of you who care about what should happen in the event another round of gTLDs is forked by ICANN, this Preliminary Issues Report on Subsequent Procedures would be very important.

    It also a signal it is time for you to get engaged in this process.  

    I have read the Executive Summary and gone straight to the details of matters that were of particular interest to me and in my estimation, the folks whose interests I advocate; developing country economies and social systems where the Internet is about social and economic development and could be our final game changer.  

    I hope my friend and our colleague Evan Leibovitch is taking note here too. For although he has decreased his activities due to changes in his circumstances, his voice and consistent advocacy for positions that impact us still rings in my head on several of the matters raised in the Report.

    The domain name market remains largely the province of the dominant economies.  Developing economies are still largely excluded by one or other barriers, some of them finely tuned for preference and aided and abetted, consciously and unconsciously, by ICANN policies. 

    The Report groups the matters in five (5) broad categories which is quite useful in digesting. But speaking directly to those of us from developing economies and informed by my experience as Co-Chair of the Applicant Support Working Group in the last round, I urge you read closely the details of matters raised in:

    4.2.3  - Competition, Consumer Trust and Choice

    4.2.4  - Community Engagement

    4.2.5  - Applicant Guide Book (AGB)

    4.2.6  - Clarity of Application Process

    4.2.7  -  Application Accessed in Rounds

    4.2.10 -  Application Fees

    4.2.11  -  Communications

    4.2.14  -  Support for Applicants from Developing Countries

    4.2.15  - Different TLD Types

    4.2.17  -  Variable Fees

    4.3.5   -  Registrar Discrimination

    4.3.9   -  Global Public Interest

    4.4.5   -  Community Applications

    You will find the report (in English) here: http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/subsequent-procedures-prelim-issue-31aug15-en.pdf

    Please ensure if you have comments you record them in the areas provided by the At-Large or GNSO.  

    -Carlton Samuels

  2. Ariel Liang

    Comment from Holly Raiche

    ==

    Absolutely agree with Carlton. In the first round, it was so very clear that very few applicants outside of the developed world, in fact outside of the US, were a clear sign that the few measures ALAC managed to get had not worked and one of ALAC’s cries was for a review on why there were to few applicants for the developing world.  So find time (I will) to go through this to see what should be improved for the second round. 

    Holly

  3. Maureen Hilyard

    I also agree with Carlton.. and Holly. For example, in the Pacific we just don't have the knowledge, expertise or funds to make an application although it is not that we don't have the wish to be able to pursue or even look into the potential of something in this. For example, the idea of .pacific among several entities within the Pacific which could be used across our region is something that has been bandied around since the new gTLD process began.  I would suspect this lack of capacity,  as well as other important criteria, is the problem for many developing countries for whom the whole new gTLD process is a major divide.

  4. Holly Raiche

    And to add - on the list, many (including myself) believe there should be a moratorium until the any issues surrounding  the initial issue of new gTLDs have been addressed.  Tijani and Carlton particularly need to look at the application book, and funding etc to - once again - look at why there were so few successful applications outside of the US, and to a much lesser extent, Europe.  The whole issue of PICS needs to be rethought - how to put the requirements in from the start.  I note that compliance is listed as an issue in the discussion paper - an issue that has not yet been solved. And the issues surrounding consumer confidence, trust and competition need work - go back to what we originally listed as metrics - and look again at both what has been measured - and what has not been measured.  Finally, IDNs are listed as a subset of the new GTLS, so let's ask Edmon (and Lianna - ISOC Armenia - since they were behind the first country sponsored IDN) to see what issues need to be addressed.  That said, in the TLDCON (TLDs in the CIS counries and Russia, there was criticism on ICANN's role as well.  All of which says that there should be a moratorium until all of the issues are addressed.

  5. Glenn McKnight

    As  to the issue of a low application rate from  Developing  Nation participation as pointed out by Carlton,  I  would  suggest that  this  was  predictable  from  the start  due to the inherent flaws in the  design.   In  Ontario we have an intervenor/animator function in government to underwrite disadvantaged groups to provide feedback on legislation, since  it's recognized that special interest groups can dominate and push their own agendas.  Perhaps  with the special fund from the  proceeds of  the sale we can push for  such a function  to be implemented

  6. Thomas Lowenhaupt

    Let me first note that my focus is narrow, on the .nyc TLD and to a lesser extent other city/geo TLDs.

    With regard to .nyc, I don't see how a review is possible when the opportunity to appraise the operation of the TLD does not exist.

    1. There is no public engagement with the planning and operation of the .nyc TLD. There was for a time a .NYC Community Advisory Board, but it was abolished on December 31, 2014. Nothing has replaced it and residents are unable to fruitfully participate in the planning process. Opacity rules.
    2. There are no publicly available metrics for evaluating the operation of the .nyc TLD. So even if there was transparency, one would not have a basis for appraisal.
    3. Our organization has sought basic information on registrants - the zip codes of where they live - and been refused this basic information by city government. With the city not having any metrics we thought we should minimally know if registrants were broadly representative of the city population, or perhaps only from certain areas. The city's refusal to provide even this info has made it impossible to determine if there is equity in the allocation process.

    Under the circumstances I find it unfathomable that an evaluation process that includes the .nyc TLD is underway.

  7. Christopher Wilkinson

    Thank you for the draft ALAC statement which has been thoroughly researched and drafted.
    I would only wish to add two points regarding competition and consumer protection:

     

    1. The IAG-CCT has worked extensively on developing and collecting statistics ('metrics') on the economic performance of the new gTLDs. The first results have only just been published; they should be reviewed, analysed and included in the final Review Report.

      Also, the results of the first economic studies commissioned by ICANN on the advice of the IAG-CCT have only recently been published. (I have not had time to read them yet.)

      The Review Report should report on the results of these studies, for the sake of completeness and consistency.

    2. At first sight the draft Review Report is blithely over optimistic about the effects of the new GTLD programme on competition and consumer choice:

      (a) A successful TLD becomes a monopoly within the market for its domain names. (Domain names are not 'portable'.) Furthermore, consumer choice is limited to the initial choice of a domain name. This is why ICANN has a permanent responsibility to maintain Registrar Competition and consumer/user protection in the gTLD space, including both legacy and new TLDs.

      (b) A basic principle for creating a more competitive DNS market has been the separation between Registries and Registrars. This has been over-ridden for the time being by the unfortunate Board decision to remove the prohibition on cross-ownership thereby permitting reverse vertical integration, and the creation of new Registries by Registrars that own them. Thus Registries are no longer obliged to treat all accredited Registrars on a non-discriminatory basis.

      Several of the abuses that have already emerged among the new gTLDs can be attributed to this decision.

      In this context the draft Review Report recounts that:

      “ICANN retains the right to refer an application to a competition authority prior to entry into the registry agreement if it is determined that the registry-registrar cross-ownership arrangements might raise competition issues.”

      This is a monumental cop-out which should never have been entertained. Apart from the fact that there are very few competition authorities world-wide with jurisdiction and competence to address such question at the gTLD level, ICANN is the relevant competition authority.

      (It would be interesting to know how many times in the whole new gTLD programme, this clause has been invoked.)

      These issues of competition and consumer/user protection are not new and were foreseen.
      For my part, the document archived by ICANN under <pdfeyxusif4LO.pdf> addressed these issues some time ago, but was not taken into account by ICANN at the time.

    _______________

  8. Ariel Liang

    Kindly see attached Christopher Wilkinson's comments, sent on 2 October 10:45 UTC, in the PDF form. 

    pdfeyxusif4LO(1).pdf