- comments-subsequent-procedures-22mar17@icann.org

[Comments-subsequent-procedures-22mar17] NCSG comment
by Rafik Dammak May 28, 2017

May 28, 2017

Hi, I am submitting this comment (attached) on behalf of NCSG as NCSG Policy Committee Chair. Thanks. Best Regards, Rafik

1 0

[Comments-subsequent-procedures-22mar17] Valideus comments Sub Pro CC2
by Ashley Roberts May 26, 2017

May 26, 2017

1 0

[Comments-subsequent-procedures-22mar17] BRG Comments for CC2 on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process
by Martin Sutton May 26, 2017

May 26, 2017

Please find attached the comments from the BRG (re-submitted) in response to the CC2 on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process. Kind regards, Martin Martin Sutton Executive Director Brand Registry Group martin(a)brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>

1 0

[Comments-subsequent-procedures-22mar17] Ratification Pending: ALAC Statement on the GNSO Community Comment 2 (CC2) on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process
by ICANN At-Large Staff May 23, 2017

May 23, 2017

Dear All, Kindly find attached the ALAC Statement on the GNSO Community Comment 2 (CC2) on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process. In the interest of time, the ALAC Chair requested that the Statement be transmitted to the ICANN public comment process, copying the ICANN Staff member responsible for this topic, with a note that the Statement is pending ALAC ratification. Once ratified, this Statement will be resubmitted incorporating updated ratification information in the introduction section. ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> 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-subsequent-procedures-22mar17] RySG comments on CC2 on Subsequent Procedures
by Paul Diaz May 23, 2017

May 23, 2017

On behalf of the RySG, please find our comments attached. Best, P Paul Diaz Chairman, Registries Stakeholder Group Mobile:+1 703.973.1667 | Skype: pdiaz(a)pir.org

1 0

[Comments-subsequent-procedures-22mar17] Subsequent Procedures PDP CC2 Response
by Mark Carvell May 23, 2017

May 23, 2017

Mark Carvell, United Kingdom Representative on ICANN’s Governmental Advisory Committee, submits the following responses to the CC2 questionnaire. Application fees Q 1.4.1 The same break even and cost neutral principle should be applied to any subsequent new gTLD process, i.e. the process to expand further the domain name system should not be driven by the aim of generating additional revenues for the ICANN community. Q 1.4.2 and 1.4.3 There was no clearly understood or predictable market expectation of the volume of take up for the current round with the result that the volume of fees received far exceeded the basis used for determining the US$185k fee level. This level was considered appropriate for recovering the historical costs of preparing for the round and secondly setting a bar to deter frivolous and wholly inadequately prepared and under-resourced applications. For a future process, the historical costs will be lower in view of the experience and established and fully developed mechanisms from the first fully open round. The fee can as a consequence be considerably lower - perhaps by 50% while still maintaining a bar sufficient to ensure that all applications received are coherent and worth dedicating resources fro evaluation and processing. Q 1.6.1 The principal problem that would arise from a continuous process is that all applications would be treated on a first come first serve basis that would put some applicants for the same strong at a serious disadvantage in comparison with wholly commercialised applicants with ready access to finance and human resources to develop a proposal quickly to gain first advantage. The process for resolving string contention by comparative evaluation and application prioritisation eligibility for example in the case of community-based applications, would not be practicable with an ongoing process, unlike in the case of a defined window for an application round. The three months window provided for the current round with adequate notice appears to have worked well. Q 1.7.1 and 1.7.2 The prioritisation draw of the current round appeared to work well. If a round mechanism is not adopted next time, it should nonetheless be possible to inaugurate the next process with a prioritisation draw or similar mechanism. With more effective communication of the opportunity and building on current experience of successful IDNs, prioritisation of IDNs should help to increase the number of IDNs to a level of take-up exceeding the very disappointing low percentage level of the currne round. This should be a key objective of the next process to expand the global domain name system. Q 1.9 The expansion in the number of national and regional multi-stakeholder Internet Governance Fora (IGFs) provide valuable outreach opportunities and close-to-market hub modalities for promoting the next new gTLD application process or round to stakeholder communities worldwide including least developed economies and small island developing states for whom the global digital economy increasingly provides unprecedented opportunity for economic and social growth. ICANN has an increased opportunity to contribute to sustainable development goals through expansion of the domain names system. Q 3.3 The poor performance and management of the CPE process and related mechanisms was a major failure in the current round. The independent experts commissioned by the Council ofEurope analysed the issues and experience of applicants and has made a coherent and though set of recommendations to correct these mistakes so that communities wishing to express themselves and assemble freely through a gTLD will be able in a future process to apply with confidence and in the knowledge that they are supported by the ICANN stockholder community. Q 4.3.3 The PDP WG should review the desirability of a continuous and rigorous vetting process for applicants during the prolonged period of application, evaluation and delegation when ownership and lead persons for the application may change, with the aim of avoiding any possible risk of criminality gaining a foothold in the domain name system/ Mark Carvell Head, Global Internet Policy Department for Culture, Media and Sport United Kingdom Government 22 May 2017

1 1

[Comments-subsequent-procedures-22mar17] Google Registry Comment - nTLD Community Comment 2
by Stephanie Duchesneau May 22, 2017

May 22, 2017

To Whom It May Concern, Please find attached the comments by Google Registry in response to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group's second community consultation. Best, Stephanie -- Stephanie Duchesneau | Domains Policy and Compliance | sd(a)google.com | 202-642-2325

1 0

[Comments-subsequent-procedures-22mar17] RrSG comment - GNSO CC2 on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process
by Zoe Bonython May 22, 2017

May 22, 2017

Hello, On behalf of the Registrar Stakeholder Group, I would like to submit the attached comment on the 'GNSO Community Comment 2 on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process’. Kind regards, Zoe Bonython RrSG Secretariat

1 0

[Comments-subsequent-procedures-22mar17] Afilias comments re: nTLD PPDP
by Melinda Clem May 22, 2017

May 22, 2017

Afilias respectfully submits the attached in reply to GNSO Community Comment 2 (CC2) on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process.

1 0

[Comments-subsequent-procedures-22mar17] comments to "the Community Comment 2 (CC2) questionnaire developed by the GNSO's Policy Development Process Working Group that is evaluating what changes or additions need to be made to existing new gTLD policy recommendations."
by John Poole May 22, 2017

May 22, 2017

Attached in pdf format are my comments to *"the Community Comment 2 (CC2) questionnaire developed by the GNSO's Policy Development Process Working Group that is evaluating what changes or additions need to be made to existing new gTLD policy recommendations."* Submitted by, John Poole, domain names registrant and editor, DomainMondo.com

1 0