*XYZ’s COMMENTS ON THE initial Report on the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process (Overarching Issues & Work Tracks 1-4)* XYZ was an active participant in the 2012 round and is now the registry operator of ten TLDs. With its significant experience in the space, XYZ offers the following comments on the Initial Report on the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process (Overarching Issues & Work Tracks 1-4). *--Overarching Issue 2.2.3 - Applications Assessed in Rounds--* XYZ agrees with The Working Group’s recommendation that the next introduction of new gTLDs shall be in the form of a “round.” Following such a round, XYZ is strongly against 2.2.3.d.4, 5 and 6, which each involve permanently opening up a first-come, first-served process of new gTLD applications. The future supply and demand for additional new gTLDs is currently too hard to predict and an indefinite opening up of the supply could potentially crash the whole market. Accordingly, XYZ recommends any of 2.2.3.d.1, 2, 3. *--Overarching Issue 2.2.5 - Application Submission Limits--* XYZ agrees with the Working Group that there are no effective, fair and/or feasible mechanisms to enforce such limits and therefore no limits should be imposed on either the number of applications in total or the number of applications from any particular entity. *--Overarching Issue 2.2.6 - Accreditation Programs (Registry Service Provider Pre-Approval)--* XYZ strongly supports pre-approval for RSPs and generally takes the position that ICANN should try to strike the appropriate balance between ensuring the necessary technical capability of RSPs and allowing for the entrance of new RSPs to bring competition and innovation to the space. Additionally, XYZ believes that existing RSPs without a history of significant technical problems should be grandfathered in to avoid redundant and unnecessary technical evaluations for the RSPs or the registries that use them. *--Overarching Issue 2.5.1 - Application Fees--* XYZ strongly believes that it against the mission and purpose of ICANN for ICANN to charge anything more than its anticipated total cost to administer the application process for the new rounds. Importantly, ICANN must take into consideration the future revenue that ICANN will take in from auctions and increased registration volumes when setting initial application pricing. To do otherwise, would be a deliberate misinterpretation of *Implementation Guideline B* designed to overcharge applications and unjustly enrich ICANN. If ICANN takes in more from application fees and auction income than it spent in administering the application process, all such money should be fairly returned to applications. Any other use of the money would be against ICANN’s mandate and unfair to applicants. *--Overarching Issue 2.5.4 – Applicant Support--* XYZ believes that if an applicant is unable to afford any reasonable application fees, then he applicant is likely to be unable to be able to afford to operate a TLD. Accordingly, XYZ recommends against the financial assistance component of the ASP. *--Overarching Issue 2.7.3 – Closed Generics--* XYZ is strongly against closed generics, which only help to create unfair monopolies on generic terms that will benefit only existing large industry players at the expense of all others. This is very much against the mission of bringing competition and choice to the space. Also, Closed Generics go against internationally recognized trademark principles which do not allow exclusive rights in generic names without acquired distinctiveness. ICANN should formalize GNSO policy, making it consistent with the existing base Registry Agreement that Closed Generics should not be allowed. *--Overarching Issue 2.7.8 – Name Collisions--* It’s widely known that in the previous round, Name Collisions were shamelessly used by certain industry powers as an irrational fear-mongering manipulation tactic to create uncertainty and doubt about the new gTLD program. ICANN should not fall for this trap again and should not rely on any technical resources, data, research or other information that come from or is funded by parties with vested financial interests in the topic. *--Overarching Issue 2.10.1 – Base Registry Agreement--* There must be a base RA in place at the beginning of the application process. Any of the hundreds of provisions in the RA could heavily impact the economic decisions made by applicants and they need certainty up front before investing millions of dollars. Given that the existing RA can be used as a starting point, the work involved should be relatively minimal. -- *Grant Carpenter* General Counsel, XYZ ------------------------------ Please NOTE: This electronic message, including any attachments, may include privileged, confidential and/or inside information. Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your system. Thank you.