New gTLD Subsequent Procedures

Supporting underserved regions

Limited usage of Applicant Support process

Excessive gaming protections and late developing rules reduced few JAS applications

Made up new processes after final AGB (need examples)

Application Processing

Open ended application process (i.e., remove rounds)

Lack of registry service provider figures

Fin/Tech questions were not detailed enough

Creates increased need for CQs

Create accreditation program for back-end operators

Applicant using an accredited back-end operator and standard registry services would omit tech responses

Create accreditation program for escrow providers

Fin/Tech questions were not rooted in realities of running a registry, more focused on bureaucratic requirements

Systems

TAS was buggy and error prone

Notifications of field length reached, see uploaded docs, multiple account users, reuse application data, search and replace ability

Digital Archery robustness and scalability issues

CZDS robustness and scalability issues

Application Evaluation

One size fits all application and review process hampers innovation

CQ process was developed on the fly

May have affected CPE and objections outcomes

Spurious activities aimed at community applicants

Supporters were contacted, misled

Subsequent round applicants will find it harder to gain support

Financials

Variable application fee amounts based on...

Change COI so that it does not lock up a large sum of money for several years

COI requirements changed multiple times

Pre-approve COI documents provided by financial institutions

Consider whether insurance could be an alternative

In certain jurisdictions, a signed agreement is needed to wire funds internationally

Examination of fees

Reduction of fees for identical applications

Lower and higher fees depending on circumstances

Consider issuing invoice in advance to facilitate making payments

Name Collisions

Standards developed for Non-existing domains (NxD) and name collisions

Should inform CAs and activate controlled interruption at Reveal Day

Review "highly regulated TLDs" and how they should be handled

Simplify framework for explanation to customers

Contracting/Delegation

Allow for RA & RRA in multiple languages

Clarify rules to prevent potential abuse of Spec 13 by generic TLDs

Allow for a longer time to rollout TLD

Review of when recurring fees are due to ICANN, such as after in root zone and available to mkt

Allowance of closed TLDs, in particular for generics

Differentiate between closed and open TLDs, in the sense of 3rd party registrations available or not

Establish requirements for selling and maintaing premium-names

Premium Pricing - Rules are insufficiently clear and thus open to interpretation and abuse.  Greater certainty required on what is permissible around the designation of names as premium, where they are trademarked terms, and on limits as to numbers

TLD Rules

Geographic Names 

Documentation requirements (i.e., Informed Consent)

Better established geographic names restrictions (AMAZON, PATAGONIA)

Full country names should be allowable since no other outlet currently, GAC shouldn't speak for the countries

Only allow trademarked names in next round

Geographic indicators for certain products (e.g., wine, cheese) and determine whether standard should apply to 2nd level registrations

Review TLD rules

Allow special characters

Establish rules for all two-letter strings

Allow single letter TLDs

Lack of redress options

No queuing methodology developed beforehand

Limiting Round to Certain Parties

Trademarked TLDs

Different application tracks for different TLD types (e.g., closed, open, community restricted, brand, single registrant/registry)

Allow for different app process, requirements, fees, contractual requirement etc.

Create communication platform where applicants can communicate with 3rd part stakeholders (e.g., GAC)

Inconsistent customer communications (timing, content)

Background checks - officers of publicly traded corps already reviewed to degree greater than ICANN does

Improve change request process, e.g. allow applicants to make requested changes directly, ICANN review

Consider limits on number of applications by one applicant/group

Registrar Concerns

Unified accreditation process (similar to AROS?)

Response time requirements for Rys to accreditation requests

Requirement for provision of RAA in English non-binding reference copy  

Sunrise notice requirement expanded to availability of complete accreditation documentation and agreements at the time of the sunrise notice to allow timely accreditation

Ry requirements to disclose all promotional programs offered to registrars

Removal of mandatory pre-registration TMCH notices to registrants

Standardization of RRA agreements

More transparency in contracting (NDAs, RRA, side letters, etc.)

Execution/Implementation

Establish process and policy and do not change after launch

Things that changed include vertical integration, RAA 2013 requirement

PICs introduced in 2013, right before objections filing deadline and receipt of GAC advice

Name Collision

Lack of adherence to timelines and deadlines

AGB is too cumbersome, should be contained to processes and procedures, referencing other docs where necessary

At large structures participate in formation of application

Accountability mechanisms were abused

A quick-look process may help fend of abuse

Ombudsman processes need to be formalized

Failure to foster competition, consumer choice, and consumer trust

Plurals are causing user confusion

Could have mandated verification of registrants in highly regulated industries

String Similarity 

Provide for a different resolution method besides auction

Provide for formal position on private auction versus ICANN auctions

CPE

Review of CPE to determine if it is susceptible to gaming

Lack of consistency from panel

CPE rules/guidelines for evaluators were developed after publication go AGB

Inconsistent outcomes from CPE reviews

Review issue of plurals

Establish rules for indirect contention

Delays in auction process

Consider allowing applicants to provide alternate string

Misc

Review of vertical integration and its marketplace impact 

Rights Protections Mechanisms

Objections

Prohibitively high fees from ICC led to high costs and lack of public interest objections

Registrants and IO did not have standing under string confusion objections

Review roll, functions, and powers of Independent Objector (IO)

Consider alternative IO to minimize risk

Review the objection grounds, and the conditions for qualification: expectation gap can be closed

Lack of objection consolidation rules led to inconsistent outcomes

Inconsistent outcomes from objections

Inconsistent release of decisions

Consider having single body for oversight over providers

Need appeal mechanism to address clearly inconsistent decisions

Measure effectiveness of RPMs exclusive to new TLDs

Review operations and effectiveness of TMCH in preventing infringement

Customer confusion caused by pre-registration claims notice requirement

Abuse of TMCH protection mechanism for generic reservation

Introduced in Aug 2013, still some unresolved issues

Initially developed without registry/registrar input

Can the value of the TMCH registration be extended, e.g. use as proof of ownership rights for a UDRP

Since a TMCH recordal is a pre-requisite for qualifying as a dotBrand for Spec 13 there should be no requirement to also file a TM certificate

Issues around decision not to allow TM Claims for confusingly similar strings and “mark plus”, where the “plus” is a descriptive term

Consider making the TM Claims service a genuinely protective mechanism by giving the TM owner advance notice of registration with a mechanism for objection

Rules are insufficiently clear and thus open to interpretation and abuse to circumvent the sunrise.  Consideration needed as to whether there should be limits on the number of reserved names, prohibitions against reserving TMCH terms, and/or all subsequently-released names being offered on a sunrise.

Consider level of fees, in particular for dotBrand registries who do not run a Sunrise

Block lists - The DPML has demonstrated what can be done.  There should be consideration of whether a formalised version of this could form part of any future application round, or whether applicants who voluntarily adopt such a mechanism are awarded additional evaluation points.

GAC Advice

Was supposed to be against individual applications, not classes of applications

Subject to unpredictable timelines, process

IP concerns

Review of differing trademark standards in different jurisdictions and prone to gaming

Clarify the RPM requirements beyond the current “trademarks” and “general public” (ie, other legitimate rights, specially for community-specific TLDs).

Limit mixed (graphics+text) trademarks to Claims, but not Sunrise

Measure the scale of actual harm to IP interests

URS Issues

Complainant cannot correct administrative errors - lack of balance between complainant and registrant

Consider whether appropriate to dispense with full assessment on merits if the registrant defaults, since de novo review is available

Lack of ability to transfer domain name to TM owner

Lack of balance between complainant and registrant

Lack of balance on abuse of process - complainant one year ban for two abusive complaints, possible permanent ban thereafter without appeal process

Lack of balance due to limited financial risk to registrant

No opportunity for complainant to correct administrative errors