Thanks, Jeff. We’ll factor this in together with the other feedback received during yesterday’s IRT meeting as we further update the AGB language which we hope to share with the IRT shortly.

On implementation guidance 18.5, as explained, we are of the view that there are reasons that now exist, that were not in place when the implementation guidance was originally developed, to not exactly do as worded, but as also noted, this does not take away the ability for the Board to make a different determination in those cases where a gTLD is applied for but later not approved because of risk of name collision.

Best regards,

Marika

From: Jeff Neuman via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org>
Reply-To: Jeff Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com>
Date: Wednesday, 5 February 2025 at 05:27
To: "subpro-irt@icann.org" <subpro-irt@icann.org>
Subject: [SubPro-IRT] Refunds for Changes to Program and because of Name Collisions

All,

I spent some time reviewing the SubPro Final Report and the recommendation on refunds and I wanted to draw your attention to the following because it differs from what was discussed earlier today (or yesterday for some of you) when we were discussing that topic.

Recommendation 18.4 states (pg 84):  "Applicants must be allowed some type of refund if they decide to withdraw an application because substantive changes are made to the Applicant Guidebook or program processes and such changes have, or are reasonably likely to have, a material impact on applicants.117"

FN 117 states:  "This refund would differ from the normal refund schedule."

Implementation Guidance 18.5 states:  If the risk of name collisions will be determined after applications are submitted, ICANN should provide a full refund to applicants in cases where a new gTLD is applied for but later is not approved because of risk of name collision.

However, the proposal today from ICANN was that the normal refund schedule would apply in both situations.

Looking further to the Rationale:   In connection with recommendations under Topic 2: Predictability, the Working Group agreed that there should be a clear and consistent framework for handling changes in the New gTLD Program, including changes to the Applicant Guidebook. The Working Group recommends that an applicant must be eligible for some type of refund if they decide to withdraw an application because substantive changes are made to the Applicant Guidebook or program processes and such changes have, or are reasonably likely to have, a material impact on applicants. The Working Group expects that the Implementation Review Team will conduct further work regarding the details of this refund. The Working Group also provided implementation guidance regarding recourse for cases where an applicant applies for a string and that application is later disqualified because of risk of name collision. (page 85 of 400)

ON Name Collision (18.5):  Understood that this is "Implementation Guidance", but Implementation Guidance means that it was "strongly recommended with a strong presumption that it will be implemented" although it recognizes that reasons may exist to not do exactly as it is worded.  But ICANN must "make all efforts to achieve the purpose behind the recommended action as expressed in the rationale."

Can we please have a further discussion on this topic?

Sincerely,

Jeff