3,197
edits
Changes
Policy Development Process for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures (view source)
Revision as of 18:57, 9 February 2022
, 2 years ago→Final Report and Recommendations
<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===
===Failure to Achieve Consensus===
====Closed Generics====
The Working Group was unable to come to agreement on the handling of closed (aka exclusive) generic TLDs. No such TLDs were delegated in the 2012 round, as the Working Group noted:
<blockquote>The Working Group notes that in the 2012 round of the New gTLD Program, a decision was made by the ICANN Board to [allow applicants to] either (a) “submit a change request to no longer be an exclusive generic TLD”, (b) “withdraw their application” or (c) “maintain their plan to operate an exclusive generic TLD,” which would operate to defer their application to the next round of the New gTLD Program, subject to rules developed for the next round, to allow time for the GNSO to develop policy advice concerning exclusive generic TLDs.” All applicants in 2012 chose either options (a) or (b). The result was that no exclusive generic gTLDs (also called “Closed Generic” gTLDs) were delegated in the first round.<br />
It was the expectation of the ICANN Board that the GNSO would “develop policy advice concerning exclusive generic TLDs.”144 Although the Working Group has had numerous discussions about this topic, and received extensive comments from the community, including members of the Governmental Advisory Committee, the Working Group was not able to agree on “policy advice concerning exclusive generic TLDs.”<ref name="subpro" /></blockquote>
====Resolution of Contention Sets====
Also 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 35.2 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 [[Auctions of Last Resort|auctions of last resort]] "must be conducted using the second-price auction method," and proposed additional procedures (including a period of time for competing applicants to resolve the contention set privately) for ICANN auctions.<ref name="subpro" />
* Recommendation 35.4 would have mandated that ICANN [[Auctions of Last Resort|auctions of last resort]] "must be conducted using the second-price auction method," and proposed additional procedures (including a period of time for competing applicants to resolve the contention set privately) for ICANN auctions.<ref name="subpro" />