New gTLD Subsequent Procedures

Should additional mechanisms be developed to support applicants from Developing Countries? (IG-N?)

Review why there was limited usage of the Applicant Support Program process

Did the measures intended to prevent gaming of the mechanism end up discouraging possible applicants?

Were processes changed after the final AGB was released?

Was there adequate outreach for the Applicant Support Program?

Was there an overall lack of outreach for the new gTLD program in Developing Countries?

Would a round dedicated to applicants from Developing Countries further participation from those regions?

What level of ownership does staff have over implementation guidelines?

Application Processing

Has scale of demand been made clear  that the concept of rounds be eschewed in favor of another mechanism? (R-13)

Does the concept of rounds have a direct affect on demand?

Are cycles rather than rounds a better way forward?

Were Financial and Technical criteria designed properly to allow applicants to demonstrate their capabilities while allowing evaluators to validate their capabilities? (R-7, R-8)

Did lack of clarity create increased need for clarifying questions (CQs)?

Lack of registry service provider figures

Were the Fin/Tech questions more focused on bureaucratic requirements rather than rooted in realities of running a registry?

Review Change Continued Operations Instrument (COI)

COI locked up a large sum of money for several years

It is difficult for applicants in developing countries to facilitate transactions with banks

Could insurance be an alternative?

COI requirements/documentation changed multiple times

Could COI documents provided by financial institutions be pre-approved?

Did the application process provide an adequate roadmap for applicants that encouraged the submission of applications? (IG-A)

Can the application process take advantage of economies of scale and accreditation programs?

Can an accreditation program for back-end operators be created? And if so, what efficiencies can gained from doing so?

Could using an accredited back-end operator and standard registry services remove need for completing Tech questions / review of Tech questions?

Can an accreditation program for escrow providers be created?

No application queuing methodology developed beforehand (IG D)

How can the the clarifying question process be improved?

The CQ process appeared to have been developed on the fly and changed as the program progressed

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

The CQ process needs strict rules as allowing certain changes may have a material affect on the review of an application, but also on related applications and processes (e.g., CPE, objections outcomes)

How can the program adhere to timelines and deadlines better? (P-1)

How can staff ensure implementation elements are released in a timely manner?

How can staff ensure that deadlines for applicants, objectors, and other related parties are met?

How can applicant management mechanisms be strengthened?

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

Providing home addresses of directors presets security and privacy concerns

How can payment processing be improved?

Issuing invoice in advance may facilitate making payments

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

How can systems used to support the New gTLD Program be made more robust and user friendly?

How can the TLD Application System (TAS) be improved?

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

Make less cumbersome and resource intensive, which can be challenging for slower Internet connections

How can all systems be made more robust, scalable, less buggy and error prone? (e,g, Digital Archery, TAS, Centralized Zone Data Service)?

How can the number of acronyms be reduced?

Should different application tracks for different TLD types (e.g., closed, open, community restricted, brand, single registrant/registry, closed generic, etc.) be considered? (Not Available)

Does the one-size-fits-all application and review process hamper innovation?

Things than can be considered include allowing for different app process, requirements, fees, contractual requirement etc.

Should closed (in the sense of 3rd party registrations available or not) TLDs be allowed, in particular for generics?

Should limits on the number of applications by one applicant/group be considered?

Should the application fee amounts be made variable based on the application track or other variable mechanism?

Should fees be reduced for identical applications?

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

Were criteria adequate to prevent strings from causing technical instability? (R-4)

Name Collisions

Should inform Certificate Authorities (CAs) and activate controlled interruption at Reveal Day

Simplify framework for explanation to customers

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

Did the base contract properly balance market certainty and flexibility to accommodate a rapidly changing market place? (IG-J)

Allow for Registry Agreement (RA) & Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) in multiple languages

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

Allow for a longer time to rollout TLD (IG-I)

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

Establish requirements for selling and maintaing premium-names

Are public interest commitments (PICs) sufficient to protect the interests of Internet users?

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

Does Article 7.7a of the registry agreement replicate the one size fits all issues present in other aspects of the RA and risk impacting certain types of parties inequitably?

Were the Reserved Names rules exhaustive and properly constructed? (R-5)

How can the rules around Geographic Names be improved?

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

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

Can the TLD rules be modified while supporting innovation, competition, as well as the security and stability of the DNS?

Allow special characters

Establish rules for all two-letter strings

Allow single letter TLDs

Did the implementation for IDNs not take into proper account the findings from the IDN WG?

Did the New gTLD Program have adequate Program Governance? (Not Applicable)

Lack of redress options

Spurious activities aimed at community applicants

Supporters were contacted, misled

Subsequent round applicants will find it harder to gain support

Is the nondiscriminatory treatment as it applies to registries (see Section 3 of ICANN ByLaws) integrated into the program appropriately?

Is ICANN's conflict of interest framework effective and is it enforced appropriately?

Accountability mechanisms were abused

A quick-look process may help fend off abuse

Ombudsman processes and timelines need to be formalized

Can the New gTLD Program better account for Registrars?

Should the registrar to registry relationship become more standardized and regulated?(Not Applicable)

Establish response time requirements for registrar to registry accreditation requests

Create an unified accreditation process similar to something like the Automated Registrar Onboarding System (AROS)

Standardize RRA agreements

Clarify the requirement of non-discriminatory access to registry services

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

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

Ry requirements to disclose all promotional programs offered to registrars

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

Was overall approach for Execution/Implementation of the GNSO Recommendations consistent with the intent of the policy?

How can staff ensure that processes, policies, and procedures be finalized and not change after launch?

Things that changed include vertical integration, Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) 2013 requirement, Name Collision

Public Interest Commitments (PICs) introduced in 2013, right before objections filing deadline and receipt of GAC advice

GAC Advice has the power to change to the program after launch

Is the Applicant Guidebook (AGB) the right implementation of the GNSO recommendations?

Is the AGB too cumbersome and should it it be constrained to processes and procedures, referencing other docs where necessary?

Does the AGB capture the intent of the original GNSO recommendations?

Was the AGB overly long, confusing, duplicative, and poorly indexed, possibly making the application process more difficult and confusing than necessary?

Should there be different parts the an AGB, focused on applicants, back end providers, historical information, etc.?

How can Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) Advice be better integrated into the program?

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

Changed processes and procedures after program launch

Could have mandated verification of registrants in highly regulated industries

Subject to unpredictable timelines, process

How can additional participation in the implementation and execution phases of the program be encouraged from the community (e.g., ALAC)?

Were strings effectively prevented from being confusingly similar to an existing top-level domain or a Reserved Name? (R-2)

Were string contention mechanisms effective in resolving contention? (IG-F, IG-G)

Were the mechanisms to address community-based applications within contention sets consistent with the Implementation Guidelines? (IG-F, IG-G)

How can the Community Priority Evaluation (CPE) be improved?

Is CPE susceptible to gaming?

Is the panel rendering consistent outcomes?

How can the issue of CPE rules and/or guidelines for evaluators being developed after publication of the AGB be prevented?

Was the concern of gaming gamed such that the rules may have eliminated legitimate community-based applicants?

Was the overall approach related to communities contrary to the recommendations?

Can string similarity resolution methods be improved or substituted for new mechanisms?

Should applicants be allowed to change their string?

Perhaps provide an alternate string, either at application submission or at a later date once string contention is determined?

Is auction the right mechanism of last resort?

Should ICANN provide for formal position on private auction versus ICANN auctions?

How can delays in the deployment of string contention mechanisms be avoided?

Rules for indirect contention long delayed

Delays in auction process

Were string contention results consistent and effective in preventing consumer confusion?

How should the issue of plurals in the DNS be handled?

Plurals are causing user confusion

Is string confusion less impactful based on the usage of the strings (e.g., two private use TLDs)?

Misc

What is the impact of vertical integration on the marketplace? (R-19)

Review effectiveness of Rights Protections Mechanisms

Were objections processing and outcomes consistent with the GNSO Recommendations? (R-2, R-3, R-5, R-20)

Prohibitively high fees from International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) led to high costs and lack of public interest objections

Registrants and Independent Objector (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

Measure effectiveness of Rights Protections Mechanisms (RPMs) exclusive to new TLDs

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

Were legal rights effectively protected by program protections at the 2nd-level?(Not Available)

Review operations and effectiveness of Trademark Clearing House (TMCH) in preventing infringement (Not Available)

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 Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (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

Removal of mandatory pre-registration TMCH notices to registrants

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

Were there adequate measures to prevent rights holders from feeling obligated to register their names defensively in new gTLDs?

Block lists - The Domains Protected Marks List (DPML) has demonstrated what can be done.  There should be consideration of whether a formalized 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. (Not Available)

Were Intellectual Property (IP) concerns addressed appropriately?(Not Available)

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

How can the Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) be improved? (Not Available)

Should the URS be expanded beyond suspending the domain?

Transfer domain name to TM owner?

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

Is there a lack of balance between complainant and registrant?

Complainant one year ban for two abusive complaints, possible permanent ban thereafter without appeal process

Complainant cannot correct administrative errors

Limited financial risk to registrant