ICANNWiki

Changes

Policy Development Process for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures (view source)

Revision as of 00:14, 9 February 2022

9,589 bytes added ,  2 years ago
→‎Final Report and Recommendations
Line 84: Line 84:     
Those opposed to the adoption of the recommendations in Topic 35 were opposed to the use of private auctions as a mechanism of resolving contention sets. They stated that ICANN should prohibit private auctions and that the protections proposed by the working group under Topic 35 were insufficient to prevent another round of "profiteering" off of failed applications for gTLD strings.<ref>[https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/155191129/AL-ALAC-ST-0121-01-00-EN.pdf ALAC Minority Statement, Final Report of the SUBPRO WG]</ref><ref>[https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/155191129/Minority%20Statement%20on%20Recommendation%2035.pdf Minority Statement of Alan Greenberg et al., Final Report of the SUBPRO WG]</ref>
 
Those opposed to the adoption of the recommendations in Topic 35 were opposed to the use of private auctions as a mechanism of resolving contention sets. They stated that ICANN should prohibit private auctions and that the protections proposed by the working group under Topic 35 were insufficient to prevent another round of "profiteering" off of failed applications for gTLD strings.<ref>[https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/155191129/AL-ALAC-ST-0121-01-00-EN.pdf ALAC Minority Statement, Final Report of the SUBPRO WG]</ref><ref>[https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/155191129/Minority%20Statement%20on%20Recommendation%2035.pdf Minority Statement of Alan Greenberg et al., Final Report of the SUBPRO WG]</ref>
 +
===Summary Table of Recommendations & Affirmations of Procedures===
 +
{| class="wikitable"
 +
|-
 +
! Topic
 +
! Status Quo
 +
! Recommendation
 +
|-
 +
| 1 - Continuing Subsequent Procedures
 +
| Systematized manner of applying for gTLDs; ongoing, orderly, timely, and predictable administration of application program; primary purposes of new gTLDs are to foster diversity, encourage competition, and enhance the utility of the DNS
 +
| Affirm and continue principles and purposes of  the program
 +
|-
 +
| 2 - Predictability
 +
| No mechanism to deal with changes in procedures after initiation of the first new gTLD round
 +
| Establish a Predictability Framework as described in Annex E to the Final Report; establish a Standing Predictability Implementation Review Team (SPIRT)
 +
|-
 +
| 3 - Applications Assessed in Rounds
 +
| Applications must initially be assessed in rounds until the scale of demand is clear
 +
| Affirm the commitment to rounds of applications; remove "until the scale of demand is clear;" create clear and transparent criteria for initiation of subsequent rounds
 +
|-
 +
| 4 - Different TLD Types
 +
| Application types were identified based on specific programmatic needs, and corresponding program elements associated with these types were developed to meet the needs established.
 +
| Affirm the separation of applications into types based on either the application type, the string type, or the applicant type; create different application types only when exceptional circumstances merit differentiation
 +
|-
 +
| 5 - Application Submission Limits
 +
| No limits on the number of applications in total and from any particular firm or entity
 +
| Affirm existing implementation
 +
|-
 +
| 6 - Registry Service Provider (RSP) Pre-evaluation
 +
| "[W]here a single RSP provided registry services for multiple TLD applications in the 2012 application round, the RSP was subject to duplicative evaluation and testing (in some cases hundreds of times)."
 +
| Allow for optional pre-evaluation program for Registry Service Providers
 +
|-
 +
| 7 - Metrics and Monitoring
 +
| No structured collection of data
 +
| Implementation team to determine relevant metrics and means of measuring them, in order to evaluate the effectiveness of the New gTLD program in meeting the goals of fostering diversity, encouraging competition, and enhancing the utility of the DNS; consider inputs/collaborate with [[First Competition, Consumer Trust, and Consumer Choice Review|the CCT1]] review team.
 +
|-
 +
| 8 - Conflicts of Interest
 +
| Insufficient provisions in place to effectively guard against conflict of interest among dispute resolution provider panelists, the Independent Objector, and application evaluators
 +
| Develop a transparent process to ensure that program decision makers are free of conflicts of interest
 +
|-
 +
| 9 - Registry Voluntary Commitments/Public Interest Commitments
 +
| Specification 11 PICs were implemented in 2012 during the launch of the application round; the mandatory PICs contained in Specification 11 were not actually codified in policy
 +
| Affirm and continue the mandatory PICs as implemented in 2012; allow exemptions/waivers for certain applicants (e.g. single registrant gTLDs); affirm and continue the NGPC policies for strings applicable to highly sensitive or regulated industries; maintain policy of allowing applicants to adopt Registry Voluntary Commitments (previously referred to as voluntary PICs)
 +
|-
 +
| 10 - Applicant Freedom of Expression
 +
| 2007 Final Report stated that the string evaluation process "must not infringe the applicant's freedom of expression rights;" but "strings must not infringe the legal rights of others"
 +
| Affirm and continue these principles.
 +
|-
 +
| 11 - Universal Acceptance
 +
| Universal Acceptance Initiative & Steering Group working toward awareness and implementation of standards for universal acceptance
 +
| Affirm and continue to emphasize the importance of UA; provide applicants with information on UA issues and risks for ASCII and IDN strings
 +
|-
 +
| 12 - Applicant Guidebook
 +
| Applicant Guidebook was the bible for applicants and decision makers
 +
| Affirm and continue the use of the AGB; provide AGB in all six UN languages; publish final version in English at least 4 months prior to opening of an application round
 +
|-
 +
| 13 - Communications
 +
| 2007 Final Report emphasized the need for ICANN to frequently communicate with applicants and the community; establish mechanisms through which communications could occur in languages other than English
 +
| Affirm these recommendations; general "do better" recommendations
 +
|-
 +
| 14 - Systems
 +
| Systems for applicant interactions were put in place during the 2012 implementation
 +
| "Recommendations and implementation guidance aimed at improving usability and user experience seek to minimize unnecessary logistical barriers to completing the application process. The Working Group further emphasizes security and stability to ensure that trust with potential applicants is maintained and users have a high-level of confidence that data is being handled safely and appropriately."
 +
|-
 +
| 15 - Application Fees
 +
| One base fee for all applications
 +
| Affirm the single base fee concept; propose a "technical evaluation" fee for applicants that are not using a pre-evaluated RSP; program should assess fees on a cost-recovery basis, and consider refunds or credits if fees are over-collected
 +
|-
 +
| 16 - Applications Submission Period
 +
| 3 month application window
 +
| Recommend an application period of no less than 12 weeks and no more than 15 weeks
 +
|-
 +
| 17 - Applicant Support
 +
| Fee reductions for approved applicants
 +
| Recommend the continuation and expansion of fee reduction offerings; improve outreach, awareness-raising, application evaluation; and program evaluation elements; create a separate Implementation Team for Applicant Support issues and recommendations
 +
|-
 +
| 18 - Terms & Conditons
 +
| 2012 Terms & Conditions
 +
| Revise Section 3 of the 2012 Terms & Conditions to state that the rationale for rejecting an application must stem from a provision of the Applicant Guidebook; reasons that include confidential information from the applicant will not be published (or will be redacted); Include a covenant not to sue (Section 6 of the 2012 T&C) only if the appeals/challenge mechanisms recommended in Topic 32 are implemented; refund application fees in the event of substantial changes to AGB, or determination that an applied-for string creates a risk of name collisions
 +
|-
 +
| 19 - Application Queueing
 +
| Random draw for application processing
 +
| Affirm and continue the use of a "prioritization draw"
 +
|-
 +
| 20 - Application Change Requests
 +
| High-level, criteria-based change request process
 +
| Affirm and maintain a high-level, criteria-based change request process; provide guidance on change requests likely to be approved or denied; identify change requests that would require a re-evaluation of some or all of the aspects of the application; document the types of changes that would require an operational comment period (with examples of such changes); allow changes based on business combinations or joint ventures which resolve string contention sets; allow .brand TLD applications to change the applied-for string to avoid string contention sets (under certain parameters)
 +
|-
 +
| 21 - Reserved Names
 +
| 2007 Final Report & 2012 round implemented various procedures and policies regarding reserved strings
 +
| Affirm and continue a system of reserving words that may not be applied for; Work Track 5 worked on the subject of Geographic Names at the Top Level (Annex J of the Final Report)
 +
|-
 +
| 22 - Registrant Protections
 +
| Technical, operational, and financial continuity protections were established, including [[EBERO]]
 +
| Affirm and maintain protections; provide TLDs that are exempt from the [[Registry Agreement]] Code of Conduct (such as .brand TLDs) with an exemption to the Continued Operations Instrument requirement contained within the registrant protective provisions
 +
|-
 +
| 23 - Closed Generics (aka Exclusive Generics)
 +
| No closed generics were delegated in the 2012 round
 +
| No agreement on the appropriate policy measures for closed gTLDs. "The Working Group believes that if this issue were to be considered in future policy work, it should also involve experts in the areas of competition law, public policy, and economics. In addition, it should be performed by those in the community that are not associated with any past, present, or expectations of future work in connection with new gTLD applications or objections to new gTLD applications. Absent such independence, any future work is unlikely to result in an outcome any different than the one achieved in this Working Group."
 +
|-
 +
| 24 - String Similarity Evaluations
 +
| 2012 AGB: "'similar' means 'strings so similar that they create a probability of user confusion ifmore than one of the strings is delegated into the root zone.' Established criteria for visual similarity.
 +
| Affirm and continue the baseline standard & visual criteria from 2012; increase clarity on the evaluation of similarity of singular/plural versions of strings, which led to some unpredictability and confusion in 2012; set a deadline for string confusion objections
 +
|-
 +
| 25 - [[Internationalized Domain Names]]
 +
| Allowed IDN applications and required consistency with root zone label generation rules
 +
| Affirm and continue the processing of IDN applications and the use of RZ-LGR; consider the use of single-character TLDs in cases where the character is an ideogram or ideograph; allow IDN variant TLDs for existing or applied-for strings only if the strings are applied for / operated by the same registry.
 +
|}
    
===Public Comment===
 
===Public Comment===
JP
Bureaucrats, Check users, lookupuser, Administrators, translator
3,197

edits

Retrieved from "https://icannwiki.org/Special:MobileDiff/1342513"