October 2018 - comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-03jul18@icann.org

[Comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-03jul18] NIC Mexico | .MX - Comments on gTLD Subsecuent procedures
by José Ernesto Grimaldo Tijerina Oct. 30, 2018

Oct. 30, 2018

A quién corresponda, NIC México<http://www.nicmexico.mx/> es la organización encargada de la administración del nombre de dominio territorial (ccTLD<http://www.nicmexico.mx/es/NicMx.Historia>, country code Top Level Domain) .MX, el código de dos letras asignado a cada país según el ISO 3166<http://www.nicmexico.mx/jsf/static_content/external_redirect.jsf?url=http:/…>. Entre sus funciones están el proveer los servicios de información y registro para .MX así como la asignación de direcciones de IP y el mantenimiento de las bases de datos respectivas a cada recurso. A continuación presentamos la posición de NIC Mexico y .MX respecto al “Initial Report of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process Working Group” En referencia a las preguntas del Reporte Inicial: “2.7.1.e.2: If there are no technical obstacles to the use of 2-character strings at the top level consisting of one letter and one digit (or digits more generally), should the reservation of those strings be removed? Why or why not? Do you believe that any additional analysis is needed to ensure that these types of strings will not pose harm or risk to security and stability? Please explain.” NIC Mexico | .MX establece que: Las preguntas técnicas solicitadas por el Grupo de trabajo de la GNSO deben ser abordadas y respondidas por grupos técnicos relevantes como el SSAC. Que cadenas de dos caracteres, que constan de una letra y un dígito, o dos dígitos, inequívocamente no deberían permitirse en futuras rondas de aplicaciones de gTLD debido al conflicto con la política de asignación de ccTLD y los códigos ISO de dos caracteres (que son externos a la ICANN), así como los problemas homográficos discutidos anteriormente. Atentamente. NIC Mexico | .MX English ***** NIC México is the organization in charge of the administration of the territorial domain name (ccTLD, country code Top Level Domian) .MX, the two letters code assigned to each country following the ISO 3166. Among its functions are the provisioning of information and registration services for .MX as well as the IP addresses assignation and the respective maintenances of the data bases associated to each resource. Following, is .MX - NIC Mexico´s input with respect to the Initial Report of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process Working Group, which is chartered to evaluate what changes or additions need to be made to existing new gTLD policy recommendations and includes materials from the full Working Group and four sub-teams within the Working Group, Work Tracks 1-4. In reference to the Initial Report following questions: “2.7.1.e.2: If there are no technical obstacles to the use of 2-character strings at the top level consisting of one letter and one digit (or digits more generally), should the reservation of those strings be removed? Why or why not? Do you believe that any additional analysis is needed to ensure that these types of strings will not pose harm or risk to security and stability? Please explain.” NIC Mexico | .MX states that: The technical questions asked by the GNSO Working Group need to be addressed and answered by relevant technical bodies like the SSAC. That two character strings, consisting of one letter and one digit, or two digits, should unequivocally not ever be permitted in future gTLD application rounds because of the conflict with ccTLD allocation policy and ISO two-character codes (which are external to ICANN), as well as the homographic issues discussed above. Sincerely yours. NIC Mexico | .MX Este mensaje contiene información confidencial y se entiende dirigido y para uso exclusivo del destinatario. Si recibes este mensaje y no eres el destinatario por favor elimínalo, ya que difundir, revelar, copiar o tomar cualquier acción basada en el contenido está estrictamente prohibido. Network Information Center, S.A. de C.V., ubicado en Ave. Eugenio Garza Sada 427 L4-6 Col. Altavista, Monterrey, México, C.P. 64840 recaba tus datos personales necesarios para: la prestación, estudio, análisis y mejora del servicio, la realización de comunicaciones y notificaciones; la transferencia y publicación en los casos aplicables; el cumplimiento de la relación existente; así como para la prevención o denuncia en la comisión de ilícitos. Si eres colaborador o candidato a colaborador de NIC México, tus datos serán utilizados para: la creación y administración de tu perfil como profesionista; el otorgamiento de herramientas de trabajo; la realización de estudios; el otorgamiento de programas y beneficios para mejorar tu desarrollo profesional; la gestión y administración de servicios de pago y/o nómina; así como para contacto y/o notificaciones. Si participas en promociones o en estudios podrás dejar de participar. Para mayor información revisa el Aviso de Privacidad<http://www.nic.mx/es/NicMx.AvisosDePrivacidad>. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee please delete it, since the dissemination, distribuition, copy or taking any action in reliance on the contents is strictly prohibited. Network Information Center, S.A. de C.V., located on Av. Eugenio Garza Sada 427 L4-6, Col. Altavista, Monterrey, Mexico, CP 64840 collects your personal data which is necessary to: provide, research, analyze and improve the service; send communications and notices; transfer and publish your personal data when applicable; fulfill the existing relationship; prevent or inform in the commission of unlawful acts or events. If the data is processed in your quality of candidate or collaborator of NIC Mexico, the purpose of treatment is to: create and manage your profile as a professional; provide you with working tools; conduct studies; grant benefits and programs to enhance your professional development; manage and administrate payment services and/or payroll; as well as to contact you. If you participate in promotions or surveys you may stop or quit your participation at any time. For more information read the Privacy Note<http://www.nic.mx/es/NicMx.AvisosDePrivacidad>.

1 0

[Comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-03jul18] Cut off text - IPC comment on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG Initial Report
by Chantelle Doerksen Oct. 12, 2018

Oct. 12, 2018

Dear Staff, The IPC respectfully submits the following text (below) to accommodate the previously submitted comment (attached for quick reference), as it was cut off from our initial comment. This ensures the IPC’s complete text is “on the record.” 2.7.1: Reserved Names (WT2) Question 2.7.1.e.1: The base Registry Agreement allows registry operators to voluntarily reserve (and activate) up to 100 strings at the second level which the registry deems necessary for the operation or the promotion of the TLD. Should this number of names be increased or decreased? Please explain. Are there any circumstances in which exceptions to limits should be approved? Please explain. 2.7.1: Reserved Names (WT2) Question 2.7.1.e.3: In addition to the reservation of up to 100 domains at the second level, registry operators were allowed to reserve an unlimited amount of second level domain names and release those names at their discretion provided that they released those names through ICANN-accredited registrars. 2.8.1: Objections (WT3) Question 2.8.1.d.1: GAC Advice must include clearly articulated rationale, including the national or international law upon which it is based. Thank you! Kind regards, Chantelle

1 0

[Comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-03jul18] GAC Comments on Initial Report
by Tom Dale Oct. 8, 2018

Oct. 8, 2018

Please find attached comments from the GAC on the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Initial Report. Apologies for these comments being submitted after the posted deadline. Tom Dale ACIG GAC Secretariat ACIG – Australian Continuous Improvement Group evaluate :: improve : innovate Cell: +61 418 207 376 tom(a)acig.com.au<mailto:tom@acig.com.au> www.acig.com.au<http://www.acig.com.au> ACIG is an independent consulting firm engaged to provide secretariat services to ICANN’s Governmental Advisory Committee

1 0

[Comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-03jul18] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP (Overarching Issues & Work Tracks 1-4) -
by IN Registry Oct. 4, 2018

Oct. 4, 2018

Dear Sir / Madam, The public comment on New gTLD Subsequent Procedure PDP is appended below for your kind perusal and consideration please:Public Comments The Government of India submits the following comments on the Initial Report on the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process (Overarching Issues & Work Tracks 1 – 4):-  On Different TLD Types Developing explicit TLD categories should be seriously considered as it can help simplify the process for applicants by creating diverse categories that provide structure, hence allowing for a smoother application process. Additionally, different application processes or requirements can be developed for different categories, and instead of the current single fee model, a cost-based fee structure suitable to each TLD category can be developed so as to allow for better representation for local communities and developing countries.   On Applicant Support The cost of a new gTLD extends beyond just the application fee to the cost of the application process as well as running a new gTLD. Most applicants in the 2012 round had no clear sense of the real costs involved in applying for or running a new gTLD which acted as a deterrent to many. Interested applicants should be provided with a general estimation of fees and cost that would be required by the whole procedure before filing of the gTLD application. The suggestion to include a “middle applicant” comprising of struggling regions that are further along in their development compared to underserved or underdeveloped regions is one that has great merit. It would provide developing economies with more opportunities in the DNS space while bearing in mind that their economic and developmental realities and priorities are different from both developed and underserved regions. A suggested approach in which the ASP can be extended to benefit the “middle applicants” is by reducing the application fee of $185,000 USD, but not to the extent of the reductions availed by the underserved regions, so as to encourage them to cross the threshold in the domain name space. Further, there can be special outreach programmes tailored towards “middle applicants” which would focus more on how the new gTLDs may practically benefit them as against the more awareness-centric outreach programmes for underdeveloped economies and underserved regions. The PDP’s suggestion of extending the ASP to areas other than financial support such as inclusion of mentorship on the management, operational and technical aspects of running a registry and employment of a multifaceted approach based on pre-application support is meaningful and efficient. It can be further extended to include aid in filing objections, support in post-delegation operations, and transfer of capacity building skills in various key areas required for running a registry. This will help make the ASP more comprehensive and result in applicants being provided assistance in every step of the application procedure. The ASP can also set up a support system to guide new applicants through the application procedure and deal with all the questions and queries of the applicants about navigating the application process as it can be a daunting task for a first-time applicant. The success of the ASP can be measured by its use i.e. out of the applicants that considered applying for a new gTLD, how many completed the application process. This metric will also take into account the extension of support for applicants beyond the financial aspect.    On Applicant Guidebook The Applicant Guidebook, in its current form, is verbose and lacks clarity. Applicants not particularly familiar with ICANN have faced difficulties in navigating the application procedure partly due to the complicated nature of the Applicant Guidebook. It is a massive document that should be made more user-friendly and requires simplification so that a larger number of community members can access, comprehend and apply the information contained therein with greater ease. Therefore, India supports the initial report’s recommendations under section 2.4.1.c.2 that seek to enhance accessibility for ease of understanding especially for non-native English speakers and those that are less familiar with the ICANN environment,   On Application Fees The Applicant Support Program (2012) provided a very limited number of qualifying applicants with the opportunity to pay a reduced evaluation fee of USD $47,000 instead of the full fee of USD $185,000. The application fee pegged at USD $185,000 is unreasonably high and must be revised to make it more affordable for applicants from developing as well as underdeveloped economies of the world.   On Reserved Names The working group is considering a proposal to remove the reservation of 2-character strings at the top level consisting of one letter and one number. In reference to this proposal, India would like to reiterate its position that 2-character strings at the top level consisting of one letter and one number should remain reserved. The release of such strings can lead to visual confusion and conflict with existing ccTLDs as certain strings can look deceptively similar; for example .IN and .1N. Hence, India maintains that 2-character strings at the top level consisting of one letter and one digit should remain reserved. Further, India would like to reiterate that we have always objected to the release 2-Character Country Codes at the Second Level and have communicated our reservations to the ICANN Board in the past as such release can give rise to consumer confusion along with the possibility of misuse by mala fide registrants.   On Objections (GAC Early Warning System) Comments The GAC early warning system is a useful mechanism for commencing a discussion between a concerned government and an applicant on particular public policy issues or concerns. It leads to constructive dialogue that can help applicants better understand the concerns of governments and help governments better understand how that applicant plans to operate the proposed gTLD. It also ensures that public policy or related concerns could be addressed prior to delegation of the gTLD. The GAC early warning system is an essential aspect of any upcoming gTLD rounds.   On Internationalized Domain Names India is a country of great linguistic diversity and to encourage its non-English speaking population to connect to the internet, places a great amount of significance on IDNs. As a result, India’s ccTLD is available in 15 Indian languages. India would like to propose that ICANN lower the application fee for a string in multiple IDN scripts, particularly where simultaneous IDNs are required in countries of great linguistic diversity.Regards,Systems Analyst - .IN Registry (NIXI)Tel. +91 11 48202000/2011 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [NIXI is on Social-Media too. Kindly follow us at: Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/nixiindia & Twitter: @inregistry ] This e-mail is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies and the original message. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email is strictly prohibited and appropriate legal action will be taken. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

[Comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-03jul18] Ratified: Initial Report on the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process (Overarching Issues & Work Tracks 1-4)
by ICANN At-Large Staff Oct. 3, 2018

Oct. 3, 2018

Dear All, Please find the ratified ALAC statement on the Initial Report on the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process (Overarching Issues & Work Tracks 1-4)<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=88573813>. Content of the statement remains unchanged. Ratification information has been included on the cover page. Kind Regards, ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community Website: atlarge.icann.org<https://atlarge.icann.org/> Facebook: facebook.com/icann<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge>atlarge<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> Twitter: @<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>ICANNAtLarge<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>

1 0

[Comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-03jul18] SSAC Response to the new gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process Working Group Initial Report
by Andrew McConachie Oct. 2, 2018

Oct. 2, 2018

Dear All, On behalf of the ICANN Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC), please find attached SAC103: SSAC Response to the new gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process Working Group Initial Report. Sincerely, Andrew McConachie ICANN Policy staff supporting the SSAC

1 0