New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process Working Group

New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process Working Group
Status:	Closed
Issue Areas:	New gTLDs
Date Established:	January 2016
Charter:	WG Charter
Workspace:	Community Wiki

The New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process Working Group (SubPro PDP WG) was a GNSO working group chartered in January 2016 to conduct the Policy Development Process for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures.

The working group reviewed experience from the New gTLD Program’s 2012 application round and developed over 300 affirmations, recommendations, and implementation guidance for future rounds of new gTLDs, documented in its Final Report.

Mandate and Charter

Following the 2012 round of the New gTLD Program, the GNSO Council created a Discussion Group to review lessons learned and identify issues for possible policy work. The Discussion Group's Final Issue Report was delivered in December 2015 and recommended a GNSO Policy Development Process to consider "subsequent procedures" for future new gTLD application opportunities.

In January 2016, the GNSO Council initiated the SubPro PDP and chartered the SubPro PDP Working Group to:

• review and, where appropriate, refine the policy principles from the GNSO's 2007 Final Report on the Introduction of New gTLDs; and
• develop policy recommendations for subsequent rounds of the New gTLD Program, informed by experience from the 2012 round.

For the history of the PDP itself, see: Policy Development Process for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures.

Membership

The working group was open to all interested participants, including representatives from GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, other ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees, and members of the broader Internet community.

The group operated under a structure of co-chairs, supported by ICANN Staff (Steve Chan and Julie Hedlund) and GNSO Council liaisons.

Structure and Work Tracks

Given the breadth of issues involved in subsequent rounds, the Working Group organized its work into sub-groups known as Work Tracks (WTs), each of which concentrated on a collection of questions and/or topics contained in the Working Group's Charter. Initially, four Work Tracks were created; a fifth, cross-community work track was later added to focus on geographic names.

• WT1 – Overall Process, Support, and Outreach
• WT2 – Legal, Regulatory, and Contractual Obligations
• WT3 – String Contention, Objections, and Disputes
• WT4 – IDNs, Technical, and Operational Issues
• WT5 – Geographic Names at the Top Level

Each of these Work Tracks had two Co-Leaders to guide the deliberations.

WT1

"Work Track 1 - Overall Process, Support, and Outreach" focused on questions about the overall design of application rounds and the support provided to applicants. Topics considered in this track included the structure and timing of application windows, communications and outreach, applicant support mechanisms, and the level and composition of application fees.

WT2

"Work Track 2 - Legal, Regulatory, and Contractual Obligations" examined issues with legal, regulatory, and contractual dimensions. Its scope included reserved names and categories of strings, the Base Registry Agreement and related specifications, registrant safeguards, and how concepts such as the "global public interest" were reflected in program policy and implementation.

WT3: String Contention, Objections, and Disputes

"Work Track 3 - String Contention, Objections, and Disputes" dealt with mechanisms for handling competing applications and third-party concerns about specific strings. It reviewed the processes for evaluating and resolving string contention sets, the objection grounds available in the 2012 round, and post-delegation procedures such as the Public Interest Commitment Dispute Resolution Procedure (PICDRP) and Registration Restrictions Dispute Resolution Procedure (RRDRP) that do not concern intellectual property rights.

WT4

"Work Track 4 - IDNs, Technical and Operational Issues" considered topics related to IDNs, as well as technical, operational, and financial evaluation of applicants. Among other issues, it looked at the use of Root Zone Label Generation Rules (RZ-LGR), security and stability considerations, and how to streamline evaluation where applicants use a pre-evaluated Registry Service Provider (RSP).

WT5

Work Track 5, established in early 2018 as a cross-community effort, focused on geographic names at the top level. It operated with co-leads from the ALAC, the GAC, the ccNSO and the GNSO, and reviewed the experience with geographic names in the 2012 round and the guidance in the Applicant Guidebook. WT5 produced a dedicated report on its conclusions, titled Final Report of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Work Track 5 on Geographic Names at the Top Level, which the SubPro Working Group annexed in full to its overall Final Report without amendment. As WT5 did not reach consensus on changes to the 2012 approach, it recommended aligning GNSO policy with the 2012 Applicant Guidebook while largely maintaining the existing provisions for subsequent procedures.

Interactions with Other Processes and Groups

The SubPro PDP WG operated in an environment where several related processes and reviews were underway. To avoid duplication and scope creep, the Working Group explicitly deferred certain issues to other groups:

• Intellectual property and Rights Protection Mechanisms: the WG avoided re-opening issues being considered by the PDP Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms in All gTLDs.

• ICANN accountability and structural issues: possible overlaps with the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability were handled by avoiding recommendations that would pre-empt or contradict that group’s work.

• Universal Acceptance and IDNs: the WG recognized the role of the Universal Acceptance Steering Group and other efforts on IDNs, and sought to remain consistent with their outputs rather than re-designing technical standards or acceptance practices.

Consensus Designations and Areas of Divergence

The SubPro PDP WG produced a large number of recommendations and implementation guidance items that achieved various levels of consensus, as documented in its Final Report.

Closed Generics

The Working Group was unable to reach consensus on policy for closed or "exclusive use" generic gTLDs. Participants diverged on whether and under what conditions such TLDs should be permitted in future rounds. The group therefore made no specific policy recommendation, and identified closed generics as an area for possible future work with participation from experts in competition law, public policy, and economics.

Resolution of Contention Sets and Private Auctions

Within Topic 35 (Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort / Private Resolution of Contention Sets), the Working Group could not achieve full consensus on certain recommendations related to the transparency and structuring of private contention set resolutions, including private auctions. Recommendations 35.2 and 35.4 received “Strong Support but Significant Opposition” and were ultimately not forwarded to the ICANN Board by the GNSO Council.

Those opposed to the adoption of the recommendations in Topic 35 generally objected to the use of private auctions as a mechanism for resolving contention sets. They argued that ICANN should prohibit private auctions altogether and that the transparency and reporting requirements proposed by the Working Group under Topic 35 were not sufficient to prevent a repeat of what they viewed as “profiteering” from failed applications in the 2012 round.

Final Report and Legacy

The Working Group submitted its Final Report to the GNSO Council on January 20, 2021. The Council approved the report and forwarded its "Final Outputs for ICANN Board Consideration" on February 2, 2021.

At ICANN 76, the ICANN Board adopted 98 of the Working Group’s recommendations and set in motion the implementation work for the next round of the New gTLD Program. For details on Board action, the Operational Design Phase, the Operational Design Assessment, and subsequent implementation planning, see Policy Development Process for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures.

Generic Top-level Domain

Generic Top-level Domain

Policy Development Process

Generic Names Supporting Organization. Develops and recommends to the Board substantive policies relating to generic top-level domains and other responsibilities set forth in the Bylaws (ICANN Bylaws).

Internationalized Domain Name

At-Large Advisory Committee. Considers and provides advice on the activities of ICANN related to the interests of individual Internet users (ICANN Bylaws). Not to be confused with the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group.

Governmental Advisory Committee. Considers and provides advice on the activities of ICANN as they relate to concerns of governments, particularly matters where there may be an interaction between ICANN's policies and various laws and international agreements or where they may affect public policy issues (ICANN Bylaws).

Country Code Names Supporting Organization. Develops and recommends to the Board global policies relating to country-code top-level domains (ICANN Bylaws).

Top-Level Domain