3,197
edits
Changes
Policy Development Process for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures (view source)
Revision as of 21:55, 18 June 2021
, 2 years ago→Final Report and Recommendations
The enforcement of [[Public Interest Commitments|Registry Voluntary Commitments]] was a subject of much discussion at [[ICANN 70]]. The SubPro Working Group's guidance on the subject largely maintains the status quo regarding the use of RVCs by applicants. The WG did recommend expanding the jurisdiction of the [[PICDRP]] to expressly incorporate Registry Voluntary Commitments. On page 49, in response to the ICANN Board's follow-up query regarding ICANN's Bylaws (which have changed since the 2012 round); the WG provided this explanation:
The enforcement of [[Public Interest Commitments|Registry Voluntary Commitments]] was a subject of much discussion at [[ICANN 70]]. The SubPro Working Group's guidance on the subject largely maintains the status quo regarding the use of RVCs by applicants. The WG did recommend expanding the jurisdiction of the [[PICDRP]] to expressly incorporate Registry Voluntary Commitments. On page 49, in response to the ICANN Board's follow-up query regarding ICANN's Bylaws (which have changed since the 2012 round); the WG provided this explanation:
<blockquote>To the extent that some registries will want to make voluntary commitments in response to public comments, Government Early Warnings, GAC Advice, etc., it is understood by the Working Group that having these commitments reflected in Registry Agreements even if they fall outside of ICANN’s core mission is consistent with the Bylaws where neither ICANN itself nor any third party under ICANN’s control is required to pass judgment on ‘content’. In such cases, it is understood that using an independent third party as an arbiter to determine whether there has been a violation of the commitment would be consistent with ICANN’s mission even if ICANN were ultimately required to rely on that third party decision to enforce a pre-arranged contractual remedy, which could include sanctions and/or termination of the Registry Agreement.<ref name="subpro" /></blockquote>
<blockquote>To the extent that some registries will want to make voluntary commitments in response to public comments, Government Early Warnings, GAC Advice, etc., it is understood by the Working Group that having these commitments reflected in Registry Agreements even if they fall outside of ICANN’s core mission is consistent with the Bylaws where neither ICANN itself nor any third party under ICANN’s control is required to pass judgment on ‘content’. In such cases, it is understood that using an independent third party as an arbiter to determine whether there has been a violation of the commitment would be consistent with ICANN’s mission even if ICANN were ultimately required to rely on that third party decision to enforce a pre-arranged contractual remedy, which could include sanctions and/or termination of the Registry Agreement.<ref name="subpro" /></blockquote>
===Failure to Achieve Consensus - Resolution of Contention Sets===
Notable among the outputs of the final report was a failure to achieve consensus on two issues within Topic 35 - Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort / Private Resolution of [[Contention Set]]s. Recommendations 35.2 and 35.4 received "Strong Support but Significant Opposition" designations. As a result, the Council approved the other recommendations but declined to submit the two contested recommendations to the board.
* Recommendation 35.2 would have subjected all private resolutions of contention sets (including private auctions) to the "Contention Resolution Transparency Requirements" contained in Recommendation 35.5. The requirements would obligate all parties of interest participating in a private resolution process to report their interest to ICANN within 72 hours of the resolution of the contention set.
* Recommendation 35.4 would have mandated that ICANN [[Auction of Last Resort|auctions of last resort]] "must be conducted using the second-price auction method."<ref name="subpro" />
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>
===Public Comment===
===Public Comment===