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

[Comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-03jul18] comments-gtld from China group
by Victor Zhang Sept. 26, 2018

Sept. 26, 2018

Dear Sir or madam , My comments are as follows , First, we understand that there are a few TLDs have been put in the forbidden list resulted from the early study on name collision. Before the new round of New gTLD program begins, we hope that ICANN can look for one or more third-party organizations to re-evaluate these strings and consult with the community for the availability of the strings as TLDs. We also think that the former applicants for these forbidden TLDs will have priority to apply. Second, we strongly recommend differentiating the application fees between ASCII and IDN TLDs, and lower the cost of IDN application. We also believe that ICANN should adjust the application procedures to make the local brand owners more easily to apply for the IDN TLDs of their brands. Best wishes, Victor Zhang from ming.Ltd Group ,Hangzhou, China

1 0

[Comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-03jul18] comments-gtld from China group
by Victor Zhang Sept. 26, 2018

Sept. 26, 2018

Dear Sir or madam , My comments are as follows , First, we understand that there are a few TLDs have been put in the forbidden list resulted from the early study on name collision. Before the new round of New gTLD program begins, we hope that ICANN can look for one or more third-party organizations to re-evaluate these strings and consult with the community for the availability of the strings as TLDs. We also think that the former applicants for these forbidden TLDs will have priority to apply. Second, we strongly recommend differentiating the application fees between ASCII and IDN TLDs, and lower the cost of IDN application. We also believe that ICANN should adjust the application procedures to make the local brand owners more easily to apply for the IDN TLDs of their brands. Victor Zhang from ming.Ltd Group ,Hangzhou, China

1 0

[Comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-03jul18] COMMENTS TO NEW GTLD SUBSEQUENT PROCEDURES INITIAL REPORT, WORKTRACK 1-4
by Malinen Mervi Sept. 25, 2018

Sept. 25, 2018

Dear Sirs, Please find attached FICORA´s opinion and comments to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Initial Report, Worktrack 1-4. Best, Mervi Malinen Legal Counsel Fi-domain names Finnish Communications Regulatory Authority (FICORA) Visiting address: Dynamicum, Erik Palménin aukio 1, 00560 Helsinki Postal address: P.O. Box 313, 00561 HELSINKI Phone: +358 295 390 588

1 0

[Comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-03jul18] CENTR comments on gTLD subsequent procedures
by Polina Malaja Sept. 25, 2018

Sept. 25, 2018

Dear Steve Chan, On behalf of the Council of European National Top-Level Domain Registries (CENTR), I would like to submit the comment on the Initial Report on the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process (Overarching Issues & Work Tracks 1-4). Please find our comments in the attached document. Kind regards, Polina Malaja [cid:image002.png@01D454B3.04E60690] Polina Malaja Policy Advisor CENTR - Belliardstraat 20, 1040 Brussels, Belgium tel +32 2 627 55 50 – direct +32 2 627 55 54 – mobile +32 498049900 www.centr.org<http://www.centr.org> – Twitter<https://twitter.com/CENTRnews> – Facebook<https://www.facebook.com/centrnews> – LinkedIn<https://www.linkedin.com/company/centr> – Skype: live:polina.malaja

1 0

[Comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-03jul18] APTLD Statement on Country and Territory Designations as Top-Level Domains
by Leonid Todorov Sept. 25, 2018

Sept. 25, 2018

Dear Sirs- please find herewith APTLD's comment on the matter. Thank you, Leonid Leonid Todorov GM l.todorov(a)aptld.org Skype: leonid.todorov Mob/WhatsApp: +7 963 623 4307 www.aptld.org APTLD on Twitter: https://twitter.com/aptldnews APTLD on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/aptld/

1 0

[Comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-03jul18] Two character alphanumeric
by Roberto Gaetano Sept. 25, 2018

Sept. 25, 2018

Hi all. I would like to comment on the proposal to remove the limitation about two character strings. The text reads: 2.7.1.c.3: The Work Track is also considering a proposal to remove the reservation of two-character strings at the top level that consist of one ASCII letter and one number (e.g., .O2 or .3M), but acknowledges that technical considerations may need to be taken into account on whether to lift the reservation requirements for those strings. In addition, some have expressed concern over two characters consisting of a number and an ASCII letter where the number closely resembles a letter (e.g., a “zero” looking like the letter “O” or the letter “L” in lowercase looking like the number “one”). Personally, I believe that besides the issue about confusing similarity there is a more fundamental problem. Two characters string are used for ccTLDs following inclusion in the ISO 3166-1 Alpha-2 list. While the list is clearly identified as “Alpha-2” I am not sure that, in case of a future shortage of combinations, ISO could not instruct ISO 3166-MA to use also two-characters alphanumeric strings. We have seen that already with IATA and the airline codes, initially limited to two characters alphabetic strings, but later extended to two characters alphanumeric. I personally believe that, considering that we have billions of possibilities with alphanumeric character strings of length >2 we are unnecessarily taking collision risks for little benefit. May I also remind that ICANN has already in the previous round ignored collision warnings and had to take emergency action afterwards. I hope that we have learned from the experience. Should ICANN decide do disregard the warning and proceed anyway, it should at least protect itself asking ISO for a commitment not to use mixed alphanumeric 2-character strings in the future as part of the ISO-3166 code system. This comment applies also as answer to the related question quoted below: Q 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. Best regards, Roberto

1 0

[Comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-03jul18] Comments on Initial Report on the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process (Overarching Issues & Work Tracks 1-4)
by Jerry Sen Sept. 25, 2018

Sept. 25, 2018

We make following comments on the New gTLD Subsequent PDP Initial Report: We agree that there shall be future opportunities to apply for New gTLDs. To be fair, future applications shall be organized under the similar framework as the 2012 round. Applications representing communities should be given special consideration, but a clearer standard/definition is needed on what kind of community is worth of such special consideration. The definition of community in the Applicant Guidebook was deficient and shall be optimized. There is no evidence showing that brand TLDs have negative effects on the DNS. Brand TLDs shall still be a part in the future round. Although it is better to establish an independent category for brand TLDs. When receiving objections, applicants shall get enough time to make a response. In case that the email notice could not reach the applicant, ICANN shall confirm with the primary contact by other means (telephone, fax, etc.) before the deadline. ICANN shall also publish all supplemental rules as well as all criteria for the filing of, response to, and evaluation of each objection. Furthermore, it is essential to create appeal mechanisms for the applicants to challenge outcomes related to evaluation and objection. By Jerry Sen from Dot Trademark TLD Holding Company Limited Jerry Sen International BD Manager Internet DotTrademark Organisation Limited TEL: (+86) 13521738308 / (+86) 10 5627 9712 ADD: Rm 1502,Building 7, No. 9 Shouti South Road, Haidian District, Beijing, China WEB: http://注册管理机构.商标 http://trademarkdomain.com

1 0

[Comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-03jul18] KJ Domain Registry's comments
by Gihan Dias Sept. 22, 2018

Sept. 22, 2018

1 0

[Comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-03jul18] KJ Domain Registry's comments
by Gihan Dias Sept. 22, 2018

Sept. 22, 2018

1 0

[Comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-03jul18] Comment to: Initial Report on the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process (Overarching Issues & Work Tracks 1-4)
by Hilde Margrethe Thunem Sept. 20, 2018

Sept. 20, 2018

Attached is the comment from UNINETT Norid AS (the registry for the Norwegian ccTLD). Kind regards, Hilde Thunem Managing Director UNINETT Norid AS www.norid.no phone +47 73 55 73 55

1 0