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

[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

[Comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-03jul18] NABP comments on SubPro initial report
by dotPharmacy Registry Sept. 19, 2018

Sept. 19, 2018

Good afternoon, Please find the attached comments from the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy (NABP) in response to the initial report of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group. Thank you. Registry(a)safe.pharmacy<mailto:Registry@safe.pharmacy>

1 0

[Comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-03jul18] Initial Report Comments - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP
by Jamie Baxter Sept. 18, 2018

Sept. 18, 2018

1 0

[Comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-03jul18] Test -- Initial Report of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process Working Group
by Alexander Schubert Aug. 24, 2018

Aug. 24, 2018

Hi GNSO staff, This is just a TEST. Is this email received? I intend to comment on the Initial Report of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process Working Group later on. Thanks, Alexander.berlin

1 0

[Comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-03jul18] Substantive comments submitted by Working Group members via WG mailing list (April 2018 - June 2018)
by Emily Barabas Aug. 14, 2018

Aug. 14, 2018

Please find attached a submission to the public comment forum made on behalf of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group leadership team. The attached document is also available as a Google Document: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10FHISIEyFXWaRaL7GUfkeYUI-O1MzDFak4n… Between April and June 2018, the Working Group held meetings and mailing list discussions to: * Validate that the draft Initial Report accurately reflected deliberations * Ensure that the content of the draft Initial Report was clear * Identify any contributions that had been discussed in the Work Tracks but were not yet reflected in the draft Initial Report During this review period, the leadership team asked Working Group members to save any new, substantive contributions and submit them to the public comment forum so that this input could be further considered by the community and the Working Group. Several Working Group members raised new, substantive issues or positions on the mailing list during this period. In order to ensure that these comments are part of the public record and captured for further discussion, the leadership team is submitting these contributions to the public comment forum. Emily Barabas | Policy Manager ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: emily.barabas(a)icann.org | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976

1 0